An Interpretation of the English Bible
GALATIANS, ROMANS
by B. H. CARROLL
Late President of Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas
Edited by
J. B. Cranfill
Grand Rapids, Michigan
New and complete edition
Copyright 1948, Broadman
Press
Reprinted by Baker Book
House
with permission of
Broadman Press
ISBN: 0-8010-2344-0
First Printing, September
1973
PHOTOLITHOPRINTED BY GUSHING
-MALLOY, INC
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN, UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA
Galatians
II Paul's Visit to Jerusalem (1:18
to 2:21)
III Justification of a Sinner Before
God (3:1-14)
IV Justification of a Sinner Before
God (Cont.) (3:15-22)
V Induction into Christ (3:23 to
4:20)
VI The Two Covenants (4:21 to 5:12)
Romans
VIII The Book
of Romans, Introduction
X The Universal Necessity of
Salvation (1:18-32)
XI The Universal Necessity of
Salvation (Cont.) (2:1-16)
XII The Universal Necessity of
Salvation (2:17 to 4:25)
XIII The Gospel Plan of Salvation
(5:1-21)
XIV The Seminal Idea of Salvation
(5:12-21)
XV Salvation in Us (6:1 to 8:39)
XVI Salvation in Us (Continued) (6:1 to
8:39)
XVII The Final Work of Salvation in Us
(6:1 to 8:39)
XVIII The Harmony of the Problem of Jewish
Unbelief
with the Plan of Salvation
(9:1 to 10:21)
XX The Doctrine of Salvation by Grace
Applied to Practical Life (12:1 to 16:27)
Philippians
XXII The Book of Philippians, Introduction
XXIII The Analysis and Exposition (1:1-30)
XXIV God's Providence in Paul's Life (1:2
to 2:5)
XXV The Deity of Christ (2:5-11)
XXVI Paul's Libation and the Christian's
Growth in Grace (2:12 to 3:14)
XXVII The Ministry of Tears and Paul's Recipe
for Happiness (3:15 to 4:23)
Galatians 1:1-17.
The letter to the Galatians is one of the second group of Paul's letters. The
first group consists of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and this group, mainly on the
great controversy with Judaizing Christians, consists of 1 and 2 Corinthians,
Galatians, and Romans.
On the letter to the Galatians we have abundant, good and accessible
literature. The best book is by Lightfoot, and every preacher ought to have it
in his library. I also commend Luther on Galatians. Galatians was the
storehouse of Luther from which he drew the weapon of the Reformation. In short
homilies he commented on this letter. His comments make a book of considerable
size. Luther's Commentary on Galatians is very valuable in
showing the crucial point at issue between the Protestants and the Romanists in
the time of the Reformation. Its German style makes heavy reading to an
Anglo-Saxon. John Wesley said it surprised him more than any other book of
fame. Perhaps a large part of his surprise grew out of the fact that he and
Luther were opposed on the doctrines of grace. The third book which I commend
is Dr. Malcolm McGregor's Divine Authority of Paul's Writings. He
uses the letter to the Galatiana more than any other part of the Scriptures.
This letter was evidently written A. D. 57 or possibly 56. It was written from
Corinth or from Macedonia, with a strong probability in favor of Corinth. The
letter to the Galatians bears the relation to the letter to the Romans that 2
Peter does to Jude, and that Colossians does to the Ephesians. The chief topic in
Galatians and Romans is largely the same. It is as if the letter to the
Galatians were a fiery, offhand sermon, and after the storm of combat had
passed away the preacher had quietly and calmly prepared a masterly treatise on
the same subject, Romans being the great treatise and Galatians the offhand
discussion.
The occasion of the writing of the letter is very much the same as that of 2
Corinthians: Paul had been challenged as an apostle and his gospel assailed by
the emissaries from. Jerusalem. There are shades of difference between the
issue at Corinth on this subject and the issue in the churches of Galatia and
the church at Rome. But the most pronounced form of Judaistic teaching as
contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ is the form that he combats in this
letter. He got word that these churches had apostatized from what he considered
the gospel, and had gone over root and branch to the Judaizers.
Here arises an Important question which in modern times has developed
considerable controversy. Does the New Testament use the word
"Galatia" in its ethnological sense or in its political sense? If it
means Galatia as a place where the Galatians proper lived, there is very little
reference in Acts to Paul's preaching there. If it means the Roman province, including
Galatia proper and certain sections of Phrygia and Lycaonia, then the churches
in Galatia were the churches at Lystra, Derbe, and Antioch of Pisidia. We have
a full account in Acts of the establishment of these churches. Dr. Ramsay, a
very brilliant modern writer, has written a book to show that when Paul uses
the term, "Galatia," he uses it in the sense of the Roman province
inhabited by the Galatians. About 25 B.C. Asia Minor fell under the power of
Rome, which, disregarding the old-time ethnological boundaries relating to
nations, established provinces for purposes of government, sometimes including
three or four of these nations. Ramsay makes a remarkably strong argument which
has never been satisfactorily answered. But he leaves unanswered some strong
internal evidences on the other side. For example: (1) It is hard to harmonize
the contents of this letter with the account in Acts of the establishment of
the churches in Antioch of Pisidia, Lystra, and Derbe. (2) All the
characteristics of the people addressed in this letter fit better the Celtic
population of Galatia proper. Like other Celts, whether in Gaul, Wales, or
Ireland, their emotions were easily excited and as quickly subsided. (See
Conybeare and Howson's Life and Epistles of Paul on this point.) They were
intensely emotional, easily enthused, bubbling over like a mountain spring,
variable, and illogical. So we commend the research and scholarship of Dr.
Ramsay and respect his masterly argument, yet many, in view of the counter
arguments, deny that he has fully sustained the contention. While I myself am
charmed and delighted with his book, and sometimes carried away almost to the
point of agreement with him, yet, in spite of my prepossessions in his favor,
the pendulum swings back to the old position that Paul is writing to Galatians
proper, and not to a different people artificially enclosed in the Roman
province of Galatia. The silence in Acts concerning his establishing real
Galatian churches is no more than its silence concerning much of his work in
other places.
Now we come to a matter of history. How do we account for such a multitude of
Gauls colonized in Asia Minor? There are three words used to describe these
people: Celts, Gauls, and Galatians. The Galatians evidently came from the
territory that we now call France. Caesar tells us much of these Gauls a
restless people, bent on changes, migrating to broader fields. Earlier Roman
history tells us that a great wave of these people crossed the Alps, swept over
Italy, and under Brennus captured Rome itself. Later they passed into Greece
and Macedonia, and a strong band, managing to get shipping, crossed the
Bosporus into Asia Minor and settled a strip of country northwest of Tarsus
about 200 miles wide and of considerable length. They went even farther and
fought a great battle with the king of the Syrians, but were defeated. They
were unlike the Romans, the Phrygians, or the Greeks they were Gauls. An
Irishman is a Galatian quick, passionate, fickle. We have in this letter to deal
with a class of people unlike any other that the gospel has yet reached. It is
strange that Luther in his commentary makes these Galatians Teutons, or
Germans. The latter shows when Paul first preached to them how impressible they
were, subject to quick, deep emotion. It was easy to get a foothold among them,
and easy to lose it.
The occasion of Paul's preaching among them, as we learn from the letter itself
and other sources, was providential; that he was taken, when trying to get to
another point, with a great sickness that thorn in the flesh so that he was
unable to travel because of his almost total blindness and feebleness, and that
his preaching to them resulted in marvelous manifestations. The account
harmonizes with the marvels of the recent great revival in Wales or with what
has been called "the sanctified row" in a Methodist camp meeting.
Nowhere else in Paul's ministry was there such enthusiasm such demonstrations
in receiving his message. We learn in Acts of two visits that Paul made to
Galatia.
The genuineness of the book has never been questioned. Men who are ready to
deny the authenticity of other books of the Bible all agree that this is
genuinely Pauline. First and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans have never
been questioned. The letter seems to be divided into the following outline:
1. Introduction (1:1-5).
2. Historical narrative (1:6 to 2:1-21) in which he defends his gospel and
apostolic authority.
3. The doctrinal part of the epistle (3-4), relating to justification by faith
without works.
4. Chapters 5-6 are devoted to exhortations based on the doctrine.
Let us take up the introduction: "Paul, an apostle (not from men, neither
through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from
the dead)." Even in the introduction he strikes the keynote of the letter.
In that parenthesis of the first sentence he marches square up against the
opposition, the Judaizers having contended that he was neither one of the
twelve, nor commissioned by them. He concedes the fact, but turns it in his
favor. He is an apostle though not of men, not as Matthias, who was elected,
but he received his apostleship direct from the Lord. Usually Paul leads up to
his subject by gradual approaches, but here he abruptly leaps into the middle
of things. This letter is like dropping a coal of fire into a powder magazine.
"I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the
grace of Christ unto a different gospel; which is not another gospel: only
there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ."
At the outset he recognizes that this revolt did not originate with them. It
was superinduced, imported. Nor did he believe that it was merely human
opposition. It was a matter of amazement to him that people who had welcomed
him so lovingly, heard him so tenderly and obeyed him so joyously, should, in
such a short time, be switched off completely from the true gospel. All through
the letter we see that the wonder is in his mind, and he evidently attributes
it to some power more than human: "O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch
you, that you should turn a somersault in theology and doctrine so
quickly?"
He does not mince words: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, should
preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him
be anathema." There is but one gospel the gospel of grace through Jesus
Christ. Anything different is not gospel, though an angel brings it. It is to
be rejected, and the one who brings it should be counted as accursed from God.
Paul was a mild man, exceedingly courteous and patient, suffering a great many
personal indignities, but when one struck at the gospel he preached he was full
of indignation and fiery wrath, because he believed that gospel to be the only
hope of the lost world: "As we have said before, so say I now again, if
any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let
him be anathema."
The skeptic argues against the New Testament because so much of it is devoted
to issues local and transitory. But this is to misread and misinterpret human
history. The natural man is ever ready to prefer works to grace. If he cannot
have a salvation all of works, then he insists on a salvation partly of works
and partly of grace. He will at any time prefer rites and ceremonies to
spiritual things. In medieval time, the dark ages preceding and necessitating
the Reformation of the sixteenth century, all Europe under Roman Catholicism,
reverted to the old covenant with its priesthood, sacraments, types, burdensome
ritual and imposing customs and ceremonies, mixed up with compromises and
borrowings from heathendom around. Luther made this letter the banner of the
reformation for Central Europe, and we need it now as much as when Paul wrote
it or Luther used it. There are hundreds of pulpits today that do not preach
the gospel, and even some Baptists are aping Rome.
I am reminded of the interview I had with Sam Jones when he came to Waco. He
was sick and I called on him. The first thing he asked me was, "What do
you think of me? What do you think of my gospel?"
"I think," I said, "you are a thousand miles from the gospel. I
would suggest that when you get back to that big congregation you preach a
gospel sermon for variety, just to show what a different thing it is from what
you are preaching. You are preaching pretty good morality. Not only are you not
preaching the gospel, but you are creating a false impression on the public
mind, that heeding what you preach they will be saved."
He burst out laughing and said, "I like you. You come to hear me when I
get well and I will preach a gospel sermon."
He did preach a really great gospel sermon on the blood of Jesus Christ. But he
stopped at that. In his next sermon he was picking his teeth before the
audience and said: "Look here, the thing to do is to join the church and
then get religion. Join the church whether you have any more religion than a
horse." Those were his exact words.
I turned to Dr. King, a Presbyterian, and said, "I think we just as well
leave."
"Yes," he said, "I think so."
And I did not go back any more.
Paul felt just that way that the salvation of men was a matter too important to
be trifled with, and there was only one thing that could save men and that was
the gospel of Jesus Christ; that the church and ordinances were for the saved,
not for the unsaved; that the gospel of Christ is a distinct thing from the
moral or ceremonial law of Moses; that the preacher should preach the gospel of
salvation, grace, and freedom, and then go back to the weak and beggarly
elements of the types was to Paul a matter of amazement.
He tells us how he got his gospel: For I make known to you, brethren, as
touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man."
In other words, "I did not educate myself into this gospel and did not get
my conception of it from any man on earth, but by direct revelation Jesus
Christ made known to me what the gospel is." Some men now get their
conceptions from reading Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Paul did not; they were
not then written. Some men get their conceptions from hearing others who had
heard Christ. But the gospel facts were communicated directly to Paul, and that
is why I insist on saying, "Five gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and
Paul" and Paul's gospel is the most comprehensive of all. Note the
beginning and the end of each gospel: Mark commences with Christ's public ministry
and stops at Christ's resurrection. Matthew commences at Abraham and stops with
the resurrection. Luke commences with Adam and stops with Paul in the city of
Rome. John commences in eternity before the world was and stops with the
revelation of paradise regained. Paul commences where John does in eternity and
goes beyond him to the turning over of the kingdom to the Father. Paul shows in
Corinthians how he received his knowledge of the Lord's Supper and his gospel:
"For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the
Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had
given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do
in remembrance of me. In like manner also he took the cup, after supper,
saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood; this do, as often as ye drink
it, in remembrance of me" (1 Cor. 11:23-25). "I make known unto you,
brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein
also ye stand, by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I
preached unto you, except ye believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first
of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to
the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the
third day according to the scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:1-4). As bearing upon
the history of Paul, and as bearing upon the nature of the gospel that he
preached, the letter to the Galatians contains some historical facts of incalculable
importance that can be found nowhere else.
He proceeds in the rest of chapter I to recite what had been his attitude
before his conversion; that he persecuted the church; that he had advanced
beyond others in the Jewish religion, and was exceedingly zealous in the
traditions of the fathers. In other words, these Galatians were going back
where Paul was before he was converted. He adds that his being an apostle and
in the ministry was not an afterthought with God, as some people teach. He
scouts any such idea. He said, "God set me apart from my mother's
womb." He was born about the time Christ was born. The mission of Paul was
as clear to omniscience as the mission of Christ. To him all great things root
back in eternity in the divine purpose, in election, in predestination, in
foreordination. He could not conceive of God as being surprised by some new set
of events that had accidentally come to the front, necessitating a new
adjustment to fit these unexpected events. "And called me through his grace,
to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles."
Notice the connection of the thought: "I was set apart from my mother's
womb. When I got to be a man he revealed his Son to me, that is, in my
conversion, and called me to preach to certain people."
He combats one of their objections that his information was secondhand:
"Straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood; neither went I up to
Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me; but I went away into Arabia;
and again I returned into Damascus." There is a seeming conflict between
Luke's "Straightway he preached in Damascus" (Acts 9:20), and Paul's
"Straightway" (Gal. 1:16). He did commence to preach in Damascus, but
he did not confer with anyone, nor go up to Jerusalem to know if the men there
would approve of what had been done, but he says, "I went away into
Arabia," that is, he went to Mount Sinai, and there, on the scene of the
giving of the law, which these Jews are trying to persuade the Galatians is the
way of salvation, he received his gospel and studied out the great problems of
the meaning of the Sinaitic covenant and its contrast with the new covenant
which he discusses in this letter in a way that we find nowhere else in the
Bible.
The Galatian churches were going back to Mount Sinai to be circumcised, to keep
the whole law as a way of life, to put themselves in bondage to a yoke that
their fathers were not able to bear going back to a covenant that gendered
bondage and ended in death. He is compelled to say, "I went away into
Arabia." In other words, "God sent me there before he sent me to
preach, that I should understand the difference between the law and the gospel;
that I should, on the scene of the giving of the law, comprehend the purposes
of that law."
QUESTIONS
1. What books constitute the
first group of Paul's letters, and what books the second?
2. What three books on
Galatians commended?
3. What the date of his
letter?
4. Where written?
5. What relation does this
letter bear to the letter to the Romana? Give examples of such relation.
6. What wag the occasion of
this letter?
7. Where was Galatia, what
do we know from Acts about its people, and what churches were in Galatia?
8. What is Dr. Ramsay's
contention, and what your reply?
9. Who were the Galatians,
and what their characteristics?
10. Give an account of their
migration into Asia Minor.
11. What was the occasion of
Paul's preaching to them, and what the results?
12. Locate in Acts the
account of two visits that Paul made to Galatia.
13. What of the genuineness
of the book?
14. Give a brief outline of
the book.
15. What charge against him
may be inferred from his introduction, and how does he reply to it?
16. How did Paul regard his
gospel?
17. What is the doctrinal
importance of this letter, and what the author's illustration?
18. What is the fifth
gospel, and how does it compare with the other four as to their beginning and
end?
19. What was Paul's attitude
before his conversion, and what great doctrine does he make the basis of his
conversion and call into the ministry?
20. How does Paul answer
their charge that his gospel was second band?
21. Where in Acts may we
insert the history in Galatians 1:16-17?
22. Why did Paul go into
Arabia before he commenced to preach, how long there, and what the bearing of
these facts on Christianity? (See author's sermon on, "But I Went into
Arabia.")
PAUL'S VISIT TO JERUSALEM
Galatians 1:18 to 2:21.
This discussion commences at Galatians 1:18 and extends through chapter 2,
completing the historical part of the letter. It is evident that there is a
relation between Paul's visit to Jerusalem, the headquarters of the apostles,
and his independent authority as an apostle and his special gospel. There is a
special value of this letter to the Galatians in that it gives definite
information concerning matters more briefly and more generally given in Acts, which
certainly saves us from erroneous inferences that would necessarily be deduced
from the account in Acts alone. This is most evident in the history of Paul's
visits to Jerusalem after his conversion, and the intervals between the visits.
Five of these visits are recorded in Acts, as follows: First visit Acts
9:26-30; 22:17-21; second visit Acts 11:27-30; 12:25; third visit Acts
15:1-30; fourth visit Acts 18:22 (this one we would not know if we did not
look closely at the Greek); fifth visit Acts 21:15 to 23:25.
These are the five visits, so far as Acts records them, of Paul to Jerusalem
after his conversion. I raise two additional questions: (1) What visits had he
made to Jerusalem before his conversion? And (2) did he ever visit Jerusalem after
the history in Acts closes? The answer to which is that while he lived at
Tarsus he received his theological education at Jerusalem; that was doubtless
his first visit, at least it is the first of which we have any account. But as
he did not know Christ personally, he evidently was not in Jerusalem during the
lifetime of Christ; therefore he must have gone back to Tarsus. But we do find
him again in Jerusalem a rabbi of the Cilician synagogue, an opponent of
Stephen, and a member of the Sanhedrin, and the object of his second visit was
to become a member of the Sanhedrin, but that is all before his conversion.
After the history in the book of Acts closes we have no means of knowing that
Paul ever visited Jerusalem. Indeed, we have only scraps of information
concerning what he did after the first imprisonment at Rome. We gather some
information from the letters to Timothy and Titus. Whether that included
another visit to Jerusalem we do not know.
What is the relation of his visit to Jerusalem to his special and independent
gospel and his independent apostolic authority? The Roman Catholics teach that
Peter was the first pope, and that all authority was derived from Peter;
therefore if their position be correct, Paul must have derived his authority
from Peter. This letter to the Galatians grinds to fine powder the whole Roman
Catholic theory of the pope, and hence it was one of the books of the New
Testament that was so tremendously read in the Reformation.
Of the first and third of these visits to Jerusalem, recorded by Luke in Acts,
we find parallel accounts in this letter to the Galatians. There was no
occasion in this letter to refer to the second visit to Jerusalem, for at that
time he simply went up to carry some alms to Jerusalem, and had no opportunity
to have any conversation with the apostles. The persecution was raging; James
was killed and Peter was in prison, and as soon as Peter got out he left; so,
that visit to Jerusalem is not germane to our discussion, but the third visit
is. The fourth and fifth visits to Jerusalem cannot touch this letter because
they took place after this letter was written; so that the thing that we are to
study 'in this chapter is the bearing of these two visits upon Paul's
independent, apostolic authority and his independent gospel, viz.: The first
visit, as recorded in Acts 9 and the parallel account in Galatians 1, and the
third visit, as recorded in Acts 15 and paralleled by Galatians 2.
We may best get at the additional and more definite information in this letter
by comparing the two accounts thus: First, by reading Acts 9:17-19, then
Galatians 1:15-17, then Acts 9:20-25, then Galatians 1:18 (except last clause),
then Acts 9:26-27, then Galatians 1:18 (last clause) to 20, then Acts 9:28-29
(except last clause), then Acts 22:17-21, then Acts 9:29 (last clause) to 31,
and then Galatians 1:21-24. (For an arrangement of these passages in parallel
columns see "An Interpretation of the English Bible," Acts, chap.
18.)
The following are the new and more definite particulars that we gather from
inserting the Galatian passage that way: First, we learn from Galatians the
time interval, three years, between his conversion and his first visit to
Jerusalem. That three years after he was converted had passed before he ever saw
Jerusalem or any of the twelve apostles. Second, we learn what he did in this
interval of three years and what he did not: (1) That his call to the
apostleship was not only directly from the Lord himself, but his acceptance of
it and obedience to it was instant, without conferring with flesh and blood.
His call was not at Jerusalem but at Damascus, not through Peter, but through
Christ directly; Christ did not tell him to go to Peter, but the Holy Spirit
selected the special man, Ananias, and sent him to him. (2) That, as his call
to the apostleship was not dependent on the ratification of the twelve, he was
set apart from his mother's womb. (3) That his apostolic call had its emphasis
in a different direction from the emphasis of the call of the twelve apostles,
their mission being to preach to the Jews primarily, and his being to preach
primarily to the Gentiles. (4) That instead of having been instructed in the
gospel by the original twelve, he went, not to Jerusalem, but to Arabia to
receive his gospel from the Lord himself by direct revelation. (5) That instead
of waiting to act on his call to preach until the twelve refused it or
authorized it, he commenced his preaching at Damascus and not at Jerusalem. (6)
That he had been exercising his apostolic call and receiving revelations and
preaching for three years before he was ever seen by any of the original
twelve. (7) That when he did go to Jerusalem he saw only one of the apostles
Peter but he saw James, the brother of our Lord, who was not an apostle. So
we must infer that at the time of his visit the other eleven apostles were out
on the field. He saw but one, and he was there only fifteen days, and while
there that fifteen days Jesus, in a vision in the Temple, peremptorily ordered
him to leave them, to go to the Gentile work. See how these points are brought
out and urged by the Judaizing Christians, inasmuch as he was not one of the
twelve, and not commissioned by the twelve, therefore he was not a true
apostle. He is explaining all this in his defense. (8) That for nine years
after leaving Jerusalem, while he was preaching and establishing churches in
Syria and Cilicia, they did not see his face. It was during this Cilician
period that he received the revelation recorded in 2 Corinthians 12. So that
not a shred of his authority as an apostle, not a word of his gospel, is
derived from the original twelve or from any other man. Galatians says nothing
about the fact, but I will interpolate, that from Antioch he and Barnabas went
to the heathen on their first missionary tour, not under Jerusalem direction,
but under specific and direct authority of the Holy Spirit.
The object of Paul's second visit to Jerusalem, after he had finished his
Cilician tour, was simply to carry alms to the poor saints in Jerusalem,
because of a revelation of a famine through a prophet. There could have been no
conversation with the apostles from the fact that the persecution by Herod was
raging, in which James was killed, and when Peter got out of prison he
immediately left. There is another matter stated in Acts, though Galatians does
not refer to it. We find in Acts 13-14 that when he did go out as a foreign
missionary he did not go under any authority conferred by the twelve apostles,
but that he and Barnabas were sent out particularly by the Holy Spirit, and
that this first missionary tour that we find recorded was under special, direct
orders from God and not from man.
In order to get at the account of his third visit to Jerusalem we have to
carefully read nearly all of Acts 15 and every bit of Galatians 2. The object
of this visit was (1) to find out how these Judaizing Christians were
supported, (2) to carry out this divine injunction. (He says in the letter to
the Galatians that when he made those three visits to Jerusalem he did not go
because he was summoned, but by special revelation, showing that he was still
under divine guidance.) (3) To show that the initiative was not taken by the
Jerusalem church, but by the church at Antioch. Certain Judaizing Christians had
a gospel similar to that of those who had come to Antioch and taught that they
could not be saved without becoming Jews that they would have to be
circumcised or faith would not save them at all. Paul and Barnabas squarely met
them, but inasmuch as the disturbance had come on the ground of comity, they
carried the question to the church where it originated. Just as one would do if
he were the pastor of the Broadway Church in Fort Worth, and some of the people
of Dallas were to come and raise a row in the church a row that involved his
ministerial authority then he ought to refer this to those Dallas people,
saying, "Do you send these men here, or do they come by your
authority?" So we see that in that third visit to Jerusalem he went with a
definite object in view, not in order that he might be made an apostle, but in
order to settle a great question of salvation, and that very question was being
agitated in the Galatian church then, that is, the necessity of being a Jew in
order to be saved.
Galatians says that Paul went to that meeting to take a test case, and the test
case was Titus. Titus was converted, had been baptized and received into the
church, and he determined to take Titus up there and say, "Now do you
demand that Titus shall be circumcised in order to be saved?" Then he went
up as he said, by revelation, to have the matter settled forever as to whether
he was an apostle to the Gentiles or not. So we learn in Galatians that when he
got there and sprung that question upon Titus, though Titus was not
circumcised, they lost the case. Then we learn from Galatians that before the
church met in conference Paul had met the elders and the pastor of the church,
James, and sprung this question on them, "Do you acknowledge that this
authority that I have to go to the heathen is from God, just as your authority
to go to the circumcision is from God?" And he said that they conceded and
gave him the right hand of fellowship, he and Barnabas only. This is a very
important matter that we learn from chapter 2, but that isn't all that we
learn. He says that from them he received nothing; that they conceded that he
was not behind them in anything; that the pillars of the church at Jerusalem
the apostles and the pastor acknowledged that they conferred nothing on him,
and that he was their equal. He did not get his gospel from them, but this is
not the cream of the case. He adds something that we do not find anywhere else.
The Holy Spirit and the apostles and the church at Jerusalem united in the
decision, embodied it in writing upon all of these points, and sent it to the
churches where these questions were likely to come up.
We come now to a most startling fact. After this happened Peter made a visit to
Antioch, and when he first got there he did as he did in the case of Cornelius
took a meal with the Gentiles. Here come some people from Jerusalem, and
while they admit that a man did not have to become a Jew to be a Christian, yet
they contend that they must not violate the old law about eating with the Gentiles.
We learn from Galatians that it shook Peter, and we have already learned that
Peter was easily shaken, and that it shook Barnabas also. In this new question
we learn that Paul alone stood up and contended to Peter's face and rebuked
him. What a position for a pope! He told him that he was tearing down what he
had already established; that what God at Joppa had shown him that he had
cleansed, man should not call unclean. But Peter was dissimulating and holding
back because certain of these Judaizing teachers from Jerusalem came up there
and 'insisted that this business must stop.
What would have been the effect if Paul had not taken the stand he did?
Christianity would have been a mere sect; it would have lost its individuality;
its wings would have been clipped; it could neither fly nor soar; it could only
crawl, and it would have perished at Jerusalem but for that fight that Paul
made. What would we think if the "upper tens" of our church would
say, "I am willing to welcome these poor people to the church, but don't
expect me to go to see them. We can't do that"? I have always contended
that but for Paul's going away into Arabia and receiving his gospel direct from
the Lord Jesus Christ, instead of having it handed down to him by somebody
else, and the stand that he took when this great controversy threatened to rend
Christianity of that day in its struggling childhood, we Gentiles would have
had no gospel, and what the Jews would have had would not have been worth
anything. It was a question of life and death. The very essence of the gospel
was involved. It was as if they proposed to take the keystone out of the arch,
or the foundation from under the building.
There are some incidental questions on chapters 1-2 that we had better look at
a little. Paul said that when he went to Jerusalem that first time, he saw
James, our Lord's brother. Here come up some theories. The extreme theory held
by the Catholic Church, the middle theory held by the Church of England, and
the other theory held by Baptist, viz.: What is meant by calling these the
Lord's brothers and sisters? The Catholics say that they were only his cousins;
that Mary never bore but one child; that she was born a virgin, so she remained
a virgin, and they claim that her body was taken up to heaven as was the body
of Elijah "the Assumption of the Virgin" and that she was
immaculately conceived, as Christ was conceived. That is what they call the
doctrine of "the Immaculate Conception." The second theory is that
they were children of Joseph by a former marriage. But there is not a hint of
such a marriage in the Bible. The third theory is that they were children of
Joseph and Mary, the mother of our Lord. People, who, for sentimental reasons,
believe that Mary had not a lot of children after Christ, who believe that they
were not Mary's children, evolve that thing out of their own consciousness. The
fact is that James and Jude who wrote books of the New Testament, and some
sisters were actually half brothers and sisters of our Lord, and the children
of Joseph and Mary. They were half brothers of Jesus because they had the same
mother, but their father was not his; God was his father.
Another thing Paul says is that those churches in Judea from whom it was
alleged that he derived his authority and his gospel, did not even know his
name, but they held him in respect and glorified God in him. I took that as my
text when I was appointed to preach the annual sermon before the American
Baptist Publication Society in Chicago "They Glorified God in Paul"
showing that the workman is known by his works. They said there was a mighty
revolution in this Saul of Tarsus; that somebody did it, and glory to the one
that did 'it. Somebody made him the mightiest power as an evangelical force
that earth has ever known. Who did it? God. So they glorified God in Paul, and
brethren will glorify God in us as our lives are pure and as our work is
faithful, but if we live in sin as any other sinner, and if we preach something
that God did not give us to preach, if conviction and conversion do not follow
our ministry, if our preaching does not stir up others, then I am sure that
people will never attempt to glorify God in us. They will find nothing to
glorify.
QUESTIONS
1. What the special historical
value of this letter to the Galatians?
2. In what particular is
this most evident?
3. How many and what visits
of Paul to Jerusalem recorded in Acts, and what the scripture for each?
4. What visits had he made
to Jerusalem before his conversion, and what the proof?
5. Did Paul ever visit
Jerusalem after history in book of Acts closes?
6. What is the relation of
his visits to Jerusalem to his special and independent gospel and his
independent apostolic authority?
7. To which of these visits
recorded in Acts do we find parallel accounts in Galatians, and why are not the
other visits to Jerusalem referred to in Galatians?
8. Where in Acts are the
sections corresponding to the two visits to Jerusalem recorded in Galatians?
9. How may we best get at
the additional and more definite information in this letter?
10. What are these new and
more definite particulars that we gather from inserting the Galatian passages
in the Acts passages?
11. What was the object of
Paul's second visit to Jerusalem, and what opportunity did this visit afford
for conversation with the twelve apostles, and why?
12. What matter stated in
Acts brought in here by the author?
13. What the object of
Paul's third visit to Jerusalem, what the case at Antioch, and what two
important matters were settled authoritatively on this visit?
14. What social questions
sprang up at Antioch soon after this, what its history, how settled, and what
if Paul had not taken the stand that he did?
15. What the bearing of
Paul's independent gospel and apostleship, together with Galatians 1:12 to 2:14
on the alleged primacy and supremacy of Peter?
16. What the three theories
of our Lord's relation to James, and which is the true one?
17. What did Paul here say
of the churches in Judea, and how may the people glorify God in the preacher?
JUSTIFICATION OF A SINNER BEFORE GOD
Galatians 3:1-14.
We commence this chapter with a great question, not how shall a man as
originally created in righteousness, knowledge, and true holiness be justified
before God, but how shall a fallen, depraved, sinful, and condemned man be made
just before God? This is the great question that Paul discusses. While this
question is treated fragmentarily in many passages of both the Old and New
Testaments, it is discussed elaborately and logically in only two books
Galatians and Romans the latter speedily following the former. So far as
Galatians is concerned, the argument is confined to chapters 3-5, and as the
argument is continuous without a break, it is a pity to have it broken up into
chapter divisions. These discussions will disregard the chapter divisions and
follow the one line of thought straight through, classifying and numbering the
several points as they are logically developed in the progress of the argument.
So far in this book, i.e., in chapters 1-2, we have considered the author of
the letter in his apostolic call and qualifications, and his independent gospel
received by direct revelation. But now we turn to his discussion of the great
question as stated above. The intent of the argument is to convict the
Galatians of their folly and sin in leaving the gospel they had received and
relapsing into Judaism, if Jews, or turning to Judaism for salvation, if
Gentiles. However, in making his argument, Paul employs many striking
antitheses, or contrasts. A mere glance through the three chapters enables one
to note the more important of these striking antitheses, and as the power of
the argument lies most in his way of putting these contrasts, we should
carefully consider each one as it comes up in the progress of the discussion
proper or the exhortation based thereon. These antitheses are as follows:
1. The works of the law versus the hearing of faith.
2. The Spirit, or its fruit, versus the flesh, or its fruits. In chapter 5,
putting things in contrast, he says, "The works of the flesh are manifest,
. . . But the fruit of the Spirit is love." He tells what they are, Just
as if he had put two trees before us. A tree is to be known by its fruits. One
tree bears blasphemy, lust, hatred, malice, and strife. This is the tree of the
flesh, and is a bad tree because its fruits are bad. The other tree bears joy,
love, peace, etc. I say his favorite method in this letter is to argue by
antitheses, putting one thing over against another. To form an antithesis is to
take two theses and show how they are diametrically opposite.
"Antithesis" is one thesis against another thesis. The first one, as
we have said, 'is the works of the law versus the hearing of faith. The second
is the Spirit, or its fruit, versus the flesh, or its fruit. The third is the
curse of the law versus the redemption of Christ. The fourth is the law versus
the promises. Salvation does not come by law; it comes from the Spirit. The
fifth is the covenant with Abraham versus the law covenant with Moses. If in
any place in the world these covenants are held up in contrast, we find it in
this letter. He says the covenant with Abraham was 430 years before the law,
and that it was a covenant that God made and ratified. It could not be
disannulled by the covenant made for another purpose 430 years later. Sixth, this
antithesis, which appears more evident in the Greek, is The child (pais) led
by a slave, and under tutors versus the son (huios) come to freedom and
inheritance. Or to put it in another form, the bondage of tutelage versus the
freedom of the adoption of sons after one comes into his inheritance. Seventh,
Mount Sinai versus Jerusalem, the allegory of the slave woman who is a mere
concubine, and bears children unto bondage. The slave woman bearing children
unto bondage versus the free woman or lawful wife bearing children unto
freedom, is this antithesis. Eighth, born after the flesh versus born after the
Spirit. Paul says that he that was born after the flesh was Ishmael; that Isaac
was the one that was born supernaturally, or according to promise. Ninth, the
circumcision of the flesh versus regeneration, or circumcision of the heart.
(For the expansion of this thought see Romans 2:28-29.) Tenth, the Jew, or one
nation circumcising males only, versus the fact that in Christ there is neither
Jew nor Gentile, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female; all are
baptized unto Christ. The woman is initiated, we may say, through baptism as
well as the man, but the woman was counted but little under the Mosaic
covenant, as there only the male children received the sign of the covenant. So
we see that the force of this argument lies in the way of putting these
contrasts. We do well to study these antitheses.
Since this section deals with such a great subject and is so greatly discussed,
we will take it verse by verse. The first point that he makes is that it was
not only folly in them before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth
crucified, i.e., for a man that had believed in the crucified Christ in order
to salvation, to turn away from salvation by faith to the works of the law, but
it was folly superinduced by some evil superhuman means: "Oh, foolish
Galatians [there is the folly], who hath bewitched you?" That is,
"you are not acting honestly; you could not be guilty of such folly as this
if there was not exercising on you some evil influence that impelled you to go
wrong." The thought would have been the same if he had said, O, foolish
Galatians, who did bewitch you, to turn you away from Christ to the Mosaic
law?" It was the hallucination of the devil, no matter who the human
instrument was. There was a Jew from Jerusalem that did it.
His next argument is that the Spirit that they received when they were
converted came by the hearing of faith, and not by the works of the law. See
how he says it: "His only would I learn from you: received ye the Spirit
by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" This is an appeal to
their past experience, as if to say, "Let us go back to the time you were
converted, and you received the Spirit, the witness of the Spirit, or the
Spirit shining into your hearts to lead you to the knowledge of Jesus Christ.
This is the greatest thing. The question is, Did that come to you by conformity
to the Mosaic law, or did you hear the preaching of Christ crucified and believe?
Did it come by faith?" This is a pretty searching question, going back to
their conversion.
Notice the next point, "Are you so foolish? Having begun. in the Spirit,
are ye now perfected in the flesh?" In other words, "How did your
religious life start? It started in the Spirit. Now do you want to perfect what
was started in the Spirit by going back to the flesh?" Just as the hearing
of faith stands opposite to the law, so the work of the Spirit stands opposite
to the works of the flesh. If we start in one principle, perfection comes by
following up that principle. The teaching is that he who hath begun a good work
in us, will perfect it unto the day of Jesus Christ. The next point is,
"Did ye suffer so many things in vain, if it be indeed in vain?" In
other words, "It is for the consideration of righteousness through faith
that ye were persecuted, and because you, by the hearing of faith, received
Jesus as your Saviour, and the Spirit as your guide, you had to suffer a great
many things. If you turn to another system, then the value of that suffering is
all passed away." Here is a nice little question of interpretation,
"Did ye suffer so many things in vain? If it be indeed in vain." What
does it mean by saying, "If it be indeed in vain"? There are two
interpretations, one of which assumes that they started right which he had hope
to believe; then the suffering that characterized that start would not be in
vain; though they might temporarily be turned aside, they would come back. But
there is another interpretation which is probably the right one, viz.: this
suffering that they received would not be in vain from a Christian standpoint.
If they were not Christians it would have meant something worse than in vain,
i.e., even if indeed it was just in vain it would bring to them a disaster
greater than the sufferings that they first experienced. I never saw a book in
my life where more care should be taken in the interpretation of the words.
In verse 5 he thus presents another view of the point about their receiving the
Spirit by the hearing of faith: "He therefore that supplieth to you the
Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law or
by the hearing of faith?" In other words, "It is God that ministered
the Spirit to you, and it is God that worked the miracles among you."
Having looked at that subjectively) let us look at it again. "You received
the Spirit certainly by the hearing of faith. When he ministered it, did he
minister it on the condition that you would keep the law of Moses, or was it on
the condition of faith?" Christ said in one place that he could not do
many mighty works because they lacked faith in the miracle-working power. So
that God who ministered to them spoke on the condition of faith, and they received
the Spirit by the hearing of faith. God ministered the Spirit to them on the
condition that they believe in the miracle-working power for such a purpose.
We come now to a new point that extends down to the end of verse 17. In verses
6-7 he presents a new argument the parallel between Abraham's faith and the
Christian faith. Abraham believed on God and it was imputed unto him for
righteousness. Genesis 15 shows when Abraham was converted. It is the first
place in which the Incarnate Word presented himself to Abraham in a vision, and
it is said he believed in Jehovah and he reckoned, or imputed it to him for
righteousness. This is the first time we find the phrase "imputed
righteousness." He imputed Christ's righteousness to him through faith. Abraham
believed in Jehovah; Jehovah imputed or reckoned it unto him for righteousness.
Now Paul's argument is this: Who is the father of the whole Jewish people?
Abraham. How did Abraham become just before God? How was he justified? He was
reckoned righteous. Righteousness was imputed to him; he was not righteous
through his works, but he became just before God through faith in another. What
conclusion does he draw from that? "Know therefore that they that are of
faith, the same are sons of Abraham." These Jews whom these Judaizing
teachers attempted to turn to the law as a means of salvation are the children
of Abraham by faith. They are not his children according to the flesh, but the
true children of Abraham are those who have faith in God. Abraham had faith;
those are his children who have faith. As he says, "Know therefore that
they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham," just as he argues
that he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, but who is one inwardly.
We now come to one of the strongest testimonies to the inspiration of the
Bible. "The scripture, foreseeing" there the scripture is
personified, as having the prophetic gift. The scripture foresaw that God would
justify the Gentiles by faith and preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham. The
scripture saw that in the ages to come the whole world would become the
children of Abraham and preached the gospel to him. In what expression did it
preach it? Where it says, "In thee shall all the nations be blessed."
The blessings could not come to all the nations as children of Abraham by
lineal descent, so they are to be children by faith in Jesus Christ. We
understand that when Abraham came out of Ur of the Chaldees God said to
Abraham, "In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." If
that interpretation of the scriptures is right, then this follows, presented in
the next verse: "So then they that are of faith are blessed with the
faithful Abraham." "In thee shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed." What was the blessing? Justification. They are to be justified
before God. That is what the scripture foresaw and therefore anyone may receive
the blessing of justification and become the child of Abraham.
In verse 10 he brings up a new witness for his argument the testimony of the
law itself: "You want to go back and seek salvation from the law but what
does the law say? As many as are under the law are under the curse, for it is
written [written in the law] cursed is every one who continueth not in all
things that are written in the book of the law to do them." If they should
go back to the law system of salvation he tells them to listen to what the law
says: "If you ever make a break, if you turn to the right hand or to the
left hand, if you violate the law in any single instance, you are cursed."
In verse 11 he makes still another argument and we must distinguish between
these arguments: "Now that no man is justified by the law before God, is
evident; for, the righteous shall live by faith." This is from Habakkuk
2:4. That is the testimony of the prophet. The prophet comes in now to support
his general line of argument. The law says, "You shall continue to live by
continually living in perfect obedience." Habakkuk 2:4 says, "The
just man [the man who hath justification] continues to live by faith." He
starts by faith and keeps on by faith. This brings us to a general question.
This passage in Habakkuk is quoted three times by Paul in the passage here,
in Romans 1:17, and also in Hebrews 10:38. In how many senses did Paul use that
passage, "The just shall live by faith"? For instance, it means in
one place that . the just by faith shall live, in another place that the
justified shall continue to live by faith, and then when we examine that brief
passage in Hebrews we see how the inspired apostle keeps getting meanings out
of a passage of Scripture. It is like drawing many buckets out of a well, and
still the well is not exhausted. He goes on to say that this prophet distinctly
gays that the just shall live by faith. Then he says, "But you know what
the law says." We have to put what the law says over against the "by
faith." We know that the law is not by faith, but it is by perfect
obedience "He that doeth these things." Moses described the
righteousness of the law, saying that they that do these things shall live by
them, and then he says, "But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh
on this wise." Thus he presents it in contrast.
Verse 13 says: "You seek to go back to the law, but when you go back you
are under the curse, for Christ redeemed us from under the curse of the law.
When you turn from Christ to Judaism you turn from redemption to the curse
itself." Redemption means to buy back, and that is why Christ died for us.
He redeemed us from the curse of the law. Now, he says, "having become a
curse for us," that is, he became the vicarious expiation (vicarious means
in place of another) ; Christ became a curse for us, as it is written,
"Cursed is every man that hangeth on a tree." What was the object of
Christ's redeeming us from the curse of the law? He says in verse 14 that upon
the Gentiles might come the blessings of Christ that we might receive the
promise of grace through faith. I commend "The Bible Commentary" and
Lightfoot's commentary, which as a rule are safe commentaries. "The Bible
Commentary" is safer than the "Cambridge Bible," and ten
thousand times safer than the "Expositor's Bible." I also recommend
Luther's Commentary on Galatians.
QUESTIONS
1. Where may we find an
elaborate discussion of how a fallen, depraved, sinful, and condemned man can
be made just before God?
2. What is the intent of the
argument thus made in Galatians?
3. How is this argument set
forth?
4. Give the ten antitheses
of this argument.
5. What folly does Paul charge
the Galatians with committing. Who was responsible for it primarily, and who
secondarily?
6. What the argument based
upon their experience?
7. What is the principle of
attaining perfection, and the argument based thereon?
8. Give the argument based
on their past sufferings, and interpret the expression, If it be indeed in
vain.
9. Give the argument based
on their reception of the miraculous gift of the Spirit.
10. What the argument based
on the parallel between Abraham's faith and the Christians faith?
11. What the testimony of
the law itself on this point?
12. What the Prophet's
testimony on this point?
13. Give Paul's three
applications of Habakkuk 2-4.
14. What the argument based
upon the fact that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, and what the
object of our redemption?
15. What books commended?
JUSTIFICATION OF A SINNER BEFORE GOD
(CONTINUED)
Galatians 3:15-22.
This discussion commences at Galatians 3:15, thus: "Brethren, I speak
after the manner of men: though it be but a man's covenant, yet when it hath
been confirmed, no one maketh it void, or addeth thereto."
There. is no reference to that in either the Sinaitic covenant or the grace
covenant. Man's law concerning a covenant between men requires that the
agreement be kept according to its terms, whether verbal or written. Nothing
not expressed can be added or substituted. A mental reservation on the part of either
of the makers of the covenant, nor any afterthought on the part of either can
be considered in human law. So long as the covenant is tentative, i.e., under
consideration, terms of agreement may be modified, but when it is consummated
and ratified it must stand on the terms expressed. This applies not only to all
trades between individuals but to all treaties between nations. Even in human
judgment Paul means to say that the character of man or nation stands impeached
when a ratified covenant is broken. Disgrace attaches to the covenant breaker.
See in Paul's terrible arraignment of the heathen the odious place and company
of "covenant breakers" (Rom. 1:29). Here he is showing the immorality
of the heathen life in that they have refused to have God in their knowledge.
God gave them up, "Being filled with all unrighteousness) wickedness,
covetousness, maliciousness ; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity;
whisperers, backbiters, hateful to God, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil
things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers."
If we notice the place that covenant breakers occupy in that, and also notice
the company in which they are placed, we get a conception of how even human law
judges a man that breaks a covenant. The brand of infamy burned on the covenant
breaker derives its odium, not merely from the fact that all social order
depends upon the keeping of faith according to compact, but from the fact that
ratification involves an appeal to God as witness to the compact made in his
name and under oath expressed or implied. See Hebrews 6:16, and compare the
covenant between Abraham and Abimelech (Gen. 21:22-32). There is a covenant
between two men. After clearly staling the terms of the covenant, sacrifices
are offered, and the oath to God is taken that they will keep that covenant.
Then turning to Genesis 31:44-53, we read the covenant between Jacob and Laban,
his father-in-law. There again is an oath and a memorial called Mizpah:
"God shall witness between thee and me as to how we keep this
covenant." The brand of infamy burned on the covenant breaker derives its
significance from the customs among nations of regarding a compact of that kind
as being made under witness of God and under oath to God. It is in this light
that we understand the famous scripture describing the citizen of Zion, in
Psalm 15: "Lord who shall ascend unto thy holy hill? He that hath clean
hands and a pure heart and that sweareth to his own hurt and that changeth
not," that is, a man makes a trade with his fellow man and afterward finds
put that the trade is very disadvantageous to him; he must not take it back; he
swore to his own hurt but he didn't change; he stood up to his word, that is,
having made the compact he sticks to it, no matter how disadvantageous to him,
and in this light we understand the reproach cast upon the Carthaginians by the
Romans in the proverb, "Punic faith," because, as they alleged, the
Carthaginians violated solemn treaties ratified by oath and sacrificed to the
gods. I am explaining in giving this illustration what Paul means by saying,
"I speak after the manner of men." Luther, in his comment on this
verse, is mistaken in limiting the meaning of the diatheke (covenant) to
man's last will and testament. In only two verses in the New Testament is diatheke
to be rendered a ''last will and testament," viz.: Hebrews 9:16-17, where
the author finds a resemblance on one point between a covenant' which becomes
binding when ratified by the blood of the sacrifice and a will which becomes
binding on the death of the testator.
But Paul's argument here is from the lesser to the greater. If man's law will
not permit the annulment of a covenant ratified between men by any subsequent
emergency or after thought, how much more God's promise to Abraham (Gen.
12:1-13) concerning all nations could not be annulled by the Sinaitic law
covenant with one nation.
The force of the argument is overwhelming as Paul develops it:
1. The Sinaitic covenant was 43o years after the solemn promise of God
concerning all nations.
2. The "seed" of the promise in Abraham's case is one; he says,
"of seed" not seeds; not many as in the law covenant; there the seed
of Abraham with which that covenant was made is plural, about 3,000,000 of them
standing there. A covenant of one kind made with the multitude cannot annul a
promise which is given to one person.
3. The promise carried a blessing through the one seed, Christ, to all nations,
whereas the law covenant, while it was with the fleshly seed of Abraham
lineal descendants (plural), a great multitude concerned one nation only.
4. The first was by promise and not by law; hence a vast. difference in the
terms or conditions of inheritance. An inheritance by .promise cannot be an
inheritance by law, and vice versa. It will be noticed that this section says
in the next place that this promise to Abraham was confirmed before of God.
When was it confirmed and how was it confirmed? It was confirmed when Abraham
offered up Isaac as set forth in Genesis 22. It was given before, but it was
confirmed then and it was confirmed by an oath. Men confirm what they say by an
oath. Witnesses go into court concerning a pending murder trial, and every man
and woman of them has to swear to the evidence given. Men confirm their
testimony by an oath. In the letter to the Hebrews the author says "For
when God made promise to Abraham, since he could swear by none greater, he
sware by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I
will multiply thee. And thus, having patiently endured, he obtained the
promise. For men swear by the greater; and in every dispute of theirs the oath
is final for confirmation. Wherein God, being minded to show more abundantly
unto the heirs of .the promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed with
an oath; that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to
lie, we may have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold
of the hope set before us: which we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both
sure and steadfast and entering into that which is within the veil; whither as
a forerunner Jesus entered for us, having become a high priest forever after
the order of Melchizedek." Or, as Paul expressed it in Romans 4: "For
this cause it is of faith, that it may be according to grace; to the end that
the promise may be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law,
but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us
all." Mark the reason that the promise might be sure to all seed. The law
covenant could not make things sure, it could not in its time, for it had to be
repeated every day, every week, every month, every year and so over and over
again. It could not be made sure, because if they kept the law one day, or one
year, or one hundred years and then violated it in one particular the next
year, they were out; it could not be sure. But the inheritance by promise is
absolutely sure, because it is based on a promise.
Now, I will give an explanation of the last clause of verse 17 of this chapter
and of verses 18-20, of which no commentary known to me has ever given a
satisfactory explanation. I might cite many different explanations. In verse 17
Paul distinguishes between the grace covenant confirmed of God and announced to
Abraham and the promise of that covenant given to Abraham, and argues' that the
law covenant given 430 years later for quite another purpose and to different
persons could not disannul that promise. In the verses following, up to verse
20, he is not contrasting the grace covenant with the law covenant but the
promise of the grace covenant with the law covenant. Just here come the words
hard to be understood: "Now a mediator is not a mediator of one; but God
is one." How are these words to be construed relevantly with the argument?
I am able to see but one way. The law was given through a mediator because
there were two distinct parties between whom Moses should be the
"go-between" or mediator. But in the case of the promise there was only
.one party. God. who of grace freely promises. Hence, there is no need of a
mediator in the case of a promise. "God is one," not two. God
promises of himself. In the law covenant there were two, God and the people.
His point is just this, that the law covenant had two parties to it, and these
parties being at variance, a mediator, Moses, was employed to bring them into
agreement. In Order to have the mediator there must be two parties, but in a
promise, there is only one and that is God, no mediator, but a promise. An
inheritance by promise cannot be inheritance by law, and vice versa.
5.The nature of the inheritance was different. The object of the promise was to
secure spiritual blessings and a heavenly country; the object of the law was to
secure earthly blessings and an earthly Canaan.
6. In a naked promise of pure grace there is no mediator because there 'is only
one, not two, and he, of pure grace in himself, not from obligation of a compact
with nations, promises a blessing to all nations, but as there were two in the
law covenant there was a necessity for the mediator, Moses, the
"go-between" of the two parties. It is impossible to interpret
intelligently the last clause of verse 17 and verses 18-20, if we ignore the
fact that Paul in these particular passages is contrasting, not covenant with
covenant, but promise with covenant. He does indeed in this last clause of
verse 17 and throughout verses 18-20, contrast promise with covenant in order
to show how inheritance comes. There is no mediator in a promise, because there
is only one party, God, who of pure grace in himself, promises, and not of a
compact obligation. At Sinai were distinctly two parties; God, the party of the
first part, proposes a covenant to the Jewish nation, the party of the second
part, through a mediator, Moses. But when he promised that in Abraham's seed,
singular number, meaning Christ, all the families of nations, nations of the
earth, should be blessed, God, who is only one, was indeed present, but the
nations, thousands of them yet unborn, were not present. Hence there was no
compact between God and the nations, and hence no mediator was necessary. The
nations assumed no obligation. A promise relates to the future, and this
promise was not given on any assumed condition hereafter to be performed by
them. The blessing of the promise was not in them nor conditioned on what they
would be in meeting compact terms. It was in Christ, and on the condition of
what he would do. In saying that there is no mediator in a promise to men given
freely by one party alone, it is not said that there is no grace covenant whose
benefits Christ mediates to men. That covenant does have parties to it. But man
is not one of the parties, for in a strict sense it was not made with Abraham,
but only the promise of its blessings given to him. The parties to the grace
covenant were the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and it was made in eternity
before the world was, and each of these parties had stipulations to perform in
behalf of men who were to receive the blessings of the covenant, the Father to
give his only begotten Son to become the sinner's substitute in death and
judgment, and then to give him a spiritual seed, the Son to do the Father's
will in an assumed nature, in obedience unto death on the cross, and the Spirit
to apply the vicarious sacrifice of the Son and to regenerate and sanctify
those to whom the application is made. And from this eternal covenant, arise in
eternity election and predestination, calling, justification, and regeneration
on earth, and glorification in eternity after the Lord's final advent. I say
this covenant was not made with Abraham, but the promise of its blessings was
made to him; made to him, however, in his one promised seed, even Christ. The
law covenant was temporary; it was only, as the text says, to last until the
promised seed comes; it was transitory. The law covenant, because inferior, was
given through the disposition of angels. It was subsidiary. I use the word,
"subsidiary." I will show what I mean. Our text says that the law
covenant, 430 years after the promise, was superadded. What is meant by
"superadded"? It was added to something that went before. What is it
that went before? The grace covenant and the promise of the grace covenant. The
law covenant did not come in to annul what preceded it, but it came in to be
subsidiary to what preceded.
We come now to one of the greatest questions in the Bible, and Paul raises it
squarely, "What then is the law?" Or as King James Version reads,
"Wherefore then serveth the law?" If the law does not annul the grace
covenant or its promise, what is it for? A man is a theologian who can answer
that question scripturally. Here I give some scriptures to study and which must
be interpreted before one can answer the question, "What then is the
law?" I answer first negatively. Our text says it was not given as a law
by which life could come. If we think a moment we see why; these people were
sinners, already under condemnation. How could any attempt on their part to
keep the law in the future bring them life? Suppose the sinner should say,
"I want to obtain life from the law," and the law should put on its
spectacles and say "Were you born holy, or did you start right?" That
question knocks him out at the start. If there was not anything else he is
gone. In Romans we see how Paul elaborates this. Our case was settled before we
were born. Suppose we waive this question of starting right, can we perfectly
keep this law? Let us assume that we say, "Yes." Now, what part of
our life is absolutely perfect? If we are guilty of one point, we are guilty of
all. If we should obey the law perfectly thirty years and then fail on one
point we are gone. "What then is the law?" or "Why the
law?" It certainly was not intended to confer life. And it was not
intended to bring us the Holy Spirit, for I have already proved in the
beginning of the chapter that the Spirit was received by the hearing of faith
Take the great blessing forgiveness of sins and justification was the law
intended as the way of justification? It was not intended as a way of life; it
was not intended to justify, for "By the works of the law shall no flesh
in thy sight be justified." What then is the law? Here are the scriptures
to be read: Galatians 3-4; Romans 7:1-14; 5:20; 3:31; 4:15; 2 Corinthians
3:6-9. When one can expound these scriptures he can answer the question,
"What then is the law, or why: the law?" What purpose does it serve?
Paul says it was superadded to the grace covenant and subsidiary to the
promise. Why was it added? Because of transgressions. But what the import of
this reason?
The object of the law is not to prevent in, but to discover sin, t is a
standard of right living, but it is not a way of life.
A man is a sinner and does not seem to know it. In order to serve a certain
purpose of the grace covenant, the law must be superadded. Let us hold this
standard right up before the man's life, and whenever the life does not conform
he is shown to be lawless. What is the purpose? To discover sin. I am sure we
cannot set the man into the grace covenant, who has not discovered sin. Again
the law was given to provoke to sin, to make sin abound, to provoke it to a
development of all its potentiality, that sin may be seen as exceedingly
sinful. So that the standard of the law not merely discovers sin, but by
provocation develops it to its utmost expression. Sin must be made to appear
exceedingly sinful. If we want to find what is in a boy, let us pass a law that
he should not stand on top of a pole on one foot, and we shall see the boys
climbing that pole and doing that very thing. It shows the lawless spirit that
is in a child, even now. We thus see how law is subsidiary to the grace
covenant, because one must realize sinfulness before we can bring him in touch
with the promise of grace. Again, it is the object of the law to condemn and
not to justify. Justification is the opposite of condemnation. If a man doesn't
feel that he is condemned, why should he seek to be justified? A great many
people are quite sure that they are not under condemnation and therefore they
do not need to be justified by the hearing of faith. What else? The law was
added for wrath, to reveal the penalty of the sin. The law was added to gender
bondage and death, to make a man see that he is a slave and doomed to death.
The subsidiary nature of the law appears again in this expression of the
context: "The law is a pedagogue unto Christ." What is a pedagogue?
Let us get back to the etymology of the word. The Greek word pedagogue
originally did not mean a schoolmaster, but meant the slave that carried the
little boy to the school that the teacher might teach him. The law does not
teach a man the way of life, but it is the pedagogue the slave in whose
charge he puts his little son before that son is grown, and the duty of that
slave is to accompany that little boy to school. Why? If there were not
somebody along the little boy might play truant and go fishing or hunting. This
slave's business was not to teach; it was to take him to the school where the
teacher was to teach him. Now, says Paul, the law was intended to be our
pedagogue to Christ. So -we4 see the point and force of the
"superadded." The law is subsidiary; it does no saving itself, but it
brings the sinner to one who can do something for him. An old preacher said,
"When I find a perfectly hardened sinner that thinks he can stand on own
record I take him to Mount Sinai and turn him over to it, smoking and thundering
and let the hell-scare get him and when that hell-scare gets him he will look
out for relief. He will know that he is a sinner." The law is a pedagogue
I unto Christ. An old Presbyterian preacher once said that he I sent Moses
after a sinner, and by the time Moses knocked him down a time or two he would
be ready to take the Saviour.
QUESTIONS
1. Expound Galatians 3:15,
"though it be but a man's covenant showing (1) The requirements of a
man's covenant. (2) The extent of their application. (3) The disgrace attached
to a covenant breaker. (4) From what the brand of infamy on a covenant breaker
derives its odium. (5) Old Testament examples of covenants so regarded. (6) The
reproach cast upon the Carthaginians. (7) Luther's mistake. (8) The nature
Paul's argument in this verse.
2. Give the force of Paul's
argument under the following heads; (1) The difference of time. (2) The
"seed" of the promise. (3) The "all nations" versus one
nation. (4) The condition of inheritance. (5) The promise confirmed when? (6)
The purpose of the promise. (7) The nature of the inheritance. (8) The mediator
of the covenant versus no mediator of the promise, expounding particularly
verses 17-20.
3. In saying that there is
no mediator in a promise to man given freely by one party alone, what is not
said?
4. Who is the mediator of
the grace covenant, who its parties, when made, and what the stipulations? From
this covenant what great doctrines arise, (1) in eternity, (2) in time, (3) in
eternity after the Lord's advent?
5. What, then, Abraham's
relation to it?
6. What the argument based
upon the fact that the law covenant was given by the disposition of angels?
7. How long was the law
covenant to last?
8. Wherefore, then, the law,
under following heads: (1) What scriptures to be studied here? (2) Meaning of
"superadded" added to what? (3) Why added? (4) How does law (a)
discover sin, (b) provoke to sin, (c) condemn sin, (d) gender to bondage and
death, (e) reveal wrath or penalty?
9. How is the law a pedagogue
unto Christ?
INDUCTION INTO CHRIST
Galatians 3:23 to 4:20.
While in the last discussion we anticipated somewhat by dipping a little into
Galatians 4, I commence this chapter at 3:23: "But before faith came, we
were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards
be revealed." The part of that verse that needs explanation is the word
"faith." Faith is used in the following senses:
1. The act. or exercise, of believing in Christ. That is not what is meant by
the word here, because the Old Testament people, looking through the types,
believed in Christ and had witness borne to their faith, as we learn from
Hebrews II. Therefore the error was radical when a Baptist preacher said that
there was no faith in Christ until after Christ came and died, and no
forgiveness of sins. And not only did I hear a Baptist preacher say that, but I
heard a Campbellite preacher misapply it in the same way, saying there could be
no remission of sins until Christ actually died, and then the sins of the Old
Testament saints were remitted. But sins were remitted in Old Testament times
on God's acceptance of what the Surety would do at the proper time. We must not
confound expiation and remission. I will give a financial illustration. Paul
writes to Philemon: "If Onesimus oweth thee aught, put that to mine
account." The very moment that Philemon charged it to Paul he could no
longer hold it against Onesimus. It was remitted to Onesimus. The surety was
held, and not the original contractor of the debt. It stood remitted against
Onesimus, since it was put to Paul's account. The debt was not actually paid to
the creditor. Only the personal responsibility for the debt was changed. It was
paid whenever Paul should pay it later. Just so God was in the world in Old
Testament times not reckoning, or charging, or imputing their sins to them, but
was charging them to Christ and reckoning them to Christ, and so sins were
remitted just as freely in the Old Testament times as in the New Testament
times, but the actual expiation was not made until Christ died. I quote from
the "Philadelphia Confession of Faith" the following:
Art. VIII, Sec. 6: "Although the price of redemption was not actually paid
by Christ until after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy and benefit
thereof was communicated to the elect in all ages successively from the
beginning of the world...
Again Art. XI, Sec. 6: "The justification, of believers under the Old
Testament, was in all these respects, one and the same with the justification
of believers under the New Testament." And what is more authoritative than
any confession of faith is the testimony of God's Word in Romans 4:7 and 2
Corinthians 5:19. Nevertheless one should either subscribe to the confession of
his denomination on vital points or quit the denomination.
2. Faith sometimes means the body or system, of gospel truths, usually preceded
by the article "the." But evidently that cannot be the meaning here.
In what sense then is "faith" used in Galatians 3:23? Here is the
reading which supplies the modifying words: "But before the object of
faith came we were kept in ward under the law." The object of faith is
Christ, the antitype. The simple meaning of the whole section is, that an Old
Testament believer, though his sins were remitted and he was justified, must
yet observe the law of types until Christ came. Just as in chapter 4 it says,
"But I say that so long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from
a bondservant, though he is Lord of all; but is under guardians and stewards
until the day appointed of the father." Being shut up under the law meant
that the Old Testament saint, though his sins were remitted by faith in the
antitype, yet had to keep on fulfilling the requirements of the law as to
feasts and ceremonies and the observance of days. He was in the position of an
heir but had not yet ob- gained his majority, but had to keep up the type until
the antitype came. We need to get that meaning clear in our mind, because in
the New Testament an argument is based on it. We have Moses who had real faith,
and David and Enoch and Elijah, who had real faith, but they kept up the
ceremonial law. The form was symbolic in the Mosaic law, and in the law
preceding Moses. Why do we not now do as did the early people? Because the
object of faith came, and the heirs of faith are now out from under the law. We
are not. under stewards and governors as the Old Testament people were.
I now explain the next verse: "So that the law has become our tutor to
bring us unto Christ." The Greek word is compound, pais, "a
child." and agogos, "a conductor." Agogos is from the verb
agein, to lead, or conduct. To complete the analogy we have only to refer to the
heathen custom of entrusting the care of a child in his nonage, to a slave.
This. slave was not necessarily the teacher, in the modern sense of pedagogue,
but would lead the child to the school where the real teacher would instruct
him. So the law, a slave, leads to Christ, the great teacher. In this sense the
law evidently was not to annul the previous covenant of grace, but was added to
it in a subsidiary or helpful sense. But now that the object of faith is come,
we are no longer under the tutor. In many places Paul thus argues against any
lapsing into Judaism. It was going back to the rudiments, the weak and beggarly
elements of an obsolete dispensation. The whole book of Hebrews is written on
that subject.
So a man who observes the seventh day instead of the first day proclaims that
he is still in the Old Testament.
We come now to a thought not discussed before, verse 26: "For ye are all
sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." The Jews, as Jews, were not
sons by faith, but sons by lineal, fleshly descent. "For as many of you as
were baptized into Christ did put on Christ." What is the force of
"baptized into Christ"?
I had a Campbellite brother say to me, "You Baptists have no method of
induction into Christ."
"What is your method?" I asked.
"We baptize into Christ," he said.
"How will you reply," I asked, "to the Roman Catholic when he
says you Campbellites have no method of inducting Christ into you? You ask them
how they induct Christ into men and they answer, 'By eating the flesh and drinking
the blood of Jesus Christ in the mass.' "
I reply to both, for the Catholic has better ground than the Campbellite that
each ordinance is a symbolic, pictorial induction. Baptism does not really put
us into Christ. On the contrary, says Paul, "By faith we enter into this
grace wherein we stand." Eating the bread and drinking the wine does not
really put Christ into us, for by the Spirit Christ is put into us, or
"formed in us the hope of glory." (See also 2 Corinthians 3:18; 4:6.)
Baptism does not really put us into Christ; it is only figurative of it. Paul
says, "By faith we are all children of God." By faith, and not by
baptism, so that the form of being baptized into Christ is not the reality of
putting us into Christ. In baptism we put on Christ, as an enlisted soldier
puts on the uniform which is the external emblem, or symbol, of his enlistment.
The next verse calls for some explanation. "There can be neither Jew nor
Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for
ye all are one man in Christ Jesus." What are the distinctions between the
two covenants? Under the Mosaic covenant a Jew only belonging to the nation by
fleshly descent was in the covenant. But in the new covenant it is neither Jew
nor Greek. There is no distinction of nationality. That is the first point.
They all come in just alike, as the animals went into Noah's ark through one
door. There was just one door; the eagle had to swoop down and go in the same
door that the snail crawled through.
The second point of distinction is not national, but in Christ there is no
distinction between a slave and his master. Abraham's slaves were circumcised
because they belonged to him. But in the new covenant the slaves of a believer
are not baptized because they belong to him. Neither the relation of children
nor slaves put them in the covenant and entitles them to the ordinances.
Earthly relations do not count at all in the new covenant. Here the individual
alone counts. The child of a preacher must himself repent and believe and must
be baptized for himself. The preacher's wife must repent and believe and be
baptized for herself. She must take no religious step because of her relation
to her husband, such as joining "his church" to be with him or in order
to "commune with him." This passage means even more than that. In the
old covenant only the males received the token of the covenant. In the new
covenant there is no distinction as to ordinances between male and female. The
woman is baptized as well as the man. If one was a slave of a Jew, the law
required that the slave should be circumcised, becoming a member of the
covenant through circumcision. Under the new covenant, it is clearly said that
there is neither bond nor free that a slave does not come in because he is a
slave belonging to some one in the covenant, but comes in on his own personal
faith in Christ, just as any other sinner comes in.
I repeat that the next point of difference in that verse is one of sex. Under
the Jewish covenant only the male received the token of the covenant. The
woman's position in the Mosaic covenant was a very subordinate one, but in the
new covenant the woman receives the ordinance of the covenant just the same as
the man. She is a human being and comes in by her own personal faith in Christ,
and is received by baptism just the same as if she were a man. So we see that
makes a very important distinction in the two covenants.
Verse 29 needs just a word of explanation: "And if ye are Christ's, then
are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise," whether a heathen, a
Jew, a Scythian, Bohemian, a man, or a woman. If one gets into Christ by faith
then he belongs to Abrahams seed not his fleshly see, but his spiritual
seed, as Paul says, "He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, but he is a Jew
who is one inwardly." The real circumcision is not the circumcision of the
flesh, but of the heart. He is repeating what I have explained before:
"But I say that so long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from
a bondservant though he is lord of all; but is under guardians and stewards
until the day appointed of the father." So the Old Testament saints as
children were held in bondage under the rudiments of the world, that is, bound
to observe those ceremonial laws of sacrifice and the entire sabbatic cycle.
"But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a
woman, born under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law,
that we might receive the adoption of sons." We are not children of God by
ordinary generation. We are children of God by regeneration. When born
naturally I was not in the kingdom, not in the church, not in anything
religious, yet some denominations teach that the church consists of believers
and their children. We don't get in because we are the sons of some member that
is in, or the slave, or the wife of somebody that is in we do not get in that
way. We come in by adoption. What is adoption? Adoption is that process of law
by which one, not naturally a member of the family, is legally made a member
and an heir of the family. Naturally we do not belong to God's family. We could
not call God Father.
Now comes a point more precious than any I have presented, 4:6: "And
because ye are sons [by adoption, by regeneration], God sent forth the Spirit
of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father."
I remember as distinctly as I can remember anything that ever came in my
experience, the day, the place, and the hour when in my heart I could say for
the first time, to God, "Father"; when the realization of God's
fatherhood and when the filial feeling toward God came into my soul. That was
when I accepted Christ.
There was nothing in the old covenant that gave one that individual assurance,
that inward witness. It could not, as it came by natural descent, but here is a
very precious thing in the new covenant that to all those who by faith enter
into this covenant, there is given a witness: "God's Spirit witnesseth
with our spirit that we are the children of God." The filial feeling comes
to us. The first time I preached on that subject I used this illustration: If I
were to go to spend a night with one of the neighbors and, not knowing his
children personally, would see the children come in from school, I could tell
by watching them which ones were the children of that home and which were the
neighbor's children, without asking any questions. The real child of the house
has perfect freedom. There is no form nor stilts. The little girls just run
right up to their mamma and say, "Give me this," or "give me
that," but the neighbor's child is more ceremonious in making requests and
taking familiar liberties, because there is no filial feeling. An orphan
received into a home, after having been legally adopted, will at first be shy
and distant. Only when by long usage the child begins to exercise the filial
feeling does he feel that be belongs there. When in such case that filial
feeling begins to appear in the child there is something that somewhat answers
to the Spirit's witness to our spirits that we are children of God and may say,
"Father."
As a sinner I thought of God often, that is, his holiness, his justness and his
omnipotence, and the thought was more terrifying than pleasant, but as a
Christian there is nothing sweeter in the heart than when I think of God as
Father. It is the sweetest thought I ever had "our Father." He is
no longer dreadful to me nor distant, but the filial feeling in my heart toward
God gives me a freedom of approach to him. I count that one of the most
precious blessings of the new covenant.
To continue: "So that thou art no longer a bondservant, but a son; and if
a son, then an heir through God. Howbeit at that time, not knowing God, ye were
in bondage to them that by nature are no gods [ye were 'idolaters]: but now
that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how turn ye back
again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage
over again?" We can understand how a slave should want to step out of
bondage into the privileges of sonship and heirship, but it is more difficult
to understand that a son and heir should desire to go back to the position of
bondage.
I heard a Baptist preacher once say that repentance is "to know God."
I told him that it was much more important for God to know us than for us to
know God; that our title to heaven did not consist of our being sure that we
knew God, but in being sure that God knew us; that many in the last day would
say, "Lord, Lord, open unto us; we have prophesied in thy name," but
he will say, "You claim to know me, but I never knew you."
A passage in Paul's letter to Timothy is much in point just here. The apostle
is describing how some who once claimed to know God had made shipwreck of the
faith. He rebukes the idea of our standing in God's sight by what we know, or
claim, by describing the seal of a true Christian. This seal bears a double
inscription. Un one side the inscription reads: "The Lord knoweth them
that are his," and on the other side the inscription reads: "Let every
one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from iniquity." This gives two
real tests of one's profession: (1) Does the Lord know him to be a Christian,
as Jesus says, "I know my sheep"? (2) Does he bear fruit? Does he
depart from iniquity? In other words, does the sheep follow the Shepherd? The
passage is 2 Timothy 2:19 where he rebukes the errorists, who had overthrown
the faith of some, by saying, "Howbeit the firm foundation of God
standeth, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his," and,
"Let every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from
unrighteousness." What a theme that is for a sermon!
We may be mistaken in thinking we are Christians, but he doesn't make any
mistakes. Spurgeon says, "Our title to salvation does not depend on our
hold on Christ, but on his hold on us." We may shake loose our hold on
Christ, but Christ doesn't turn us loose. Peter turned loose and thought he was
gone, but Christ did not turn loose, so Peter was not gone. That is why he
changes that expression, "Rather to be known of God."
I was attending a meeting in Burleson County conducted by our Methodist friends
(and they do hold some mighty good meetings), and a great many penitents went
forward.
"Come into the altar and help those laboring souls," a brother said.
So I went and sat down by a man that was crying and groaning, and I said,
"My brother, what are you crying about?" He says,
"Well, I have been converted a dozen times and I always fall, and now I
have fallen again." I said,
"Perhaps you are mistaken on one or the other of these points."
"No, sir; I know I am not mistaken; I know I was converted and now I have
lost it."
"Then what are you crying about?" I asked. "Tears are quite
useless in such a case."
"What do you mean?" he asked.
"On your statement," I replied, your case is hopeless according to
this scripture: 'For as touching those that were once enlightened and tasted of
the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the
good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away it is
impossible to renew them again unto repentance.'
"My friend," I added, "You see why this is so. I can neither
help you nor comfort you in any way until you can give up one or the other of
your positive assertions. You are making your fallible knowledge of two vital
points the standard. What have I or any other preacher to present to you? If I
present Christ as the only name whereby one can be saved, you say you have
tried him and he failed. If I present faith as the only means of laying hold on
Christ, you say you have tried that and it failed. If I present the Holy Spirit
as the only one who can apply Christ's blood and regenerate and sanctify you,
you say you have tried him on all these points and he failed. I am sure I have
nothing more to offer you. The only three-ply rope that can lift you to heaven
you say has been broken in all its strands in your case; so there is nothing
left for you but to get ready for hell."
He quit crying at once and said, "Maybe I was mistaken on one of those
points."
"Just so," I replied, "and the sooner you can determine on which
one the sooner I can direct you what to do. If on the first point, then seek a
salvation you never had, just as any other sinner. If on the second point only,
then seek healing as a backslider."
Verse 10: "Ye observe days, and months, and seasons) and years." That
is an unmistakable reference to the sabbatical days of the Old Testament
economy their seventh day sabbath, their lunar sabbath, their annual sabbaths
and their jubilee sabbath, which means that one so doing prefers the Old
Testament economy to that of the New Testament. Compare his strong teaching on
this point in his letter to the Colossians (Col. 2:20-23).
Verse 11: "I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor
upon you in vain." Here he questions not himself, nor what he preached,
but fears that their profession was empty and vain. For if they had truly
accepted Christ, why should they leave the substance for the shadow, thus
practically saying that Christ had not come yet?
In verse 15 we note a question: "Where then is that gratulation of
yourselves?" (American Standard). "Where then the blessedness ye
spake of?" (Common Version). The point of the question is this: They
counted themselves as so great beneficiaries of Paul in the first meeting that
he to them was an angel from heaven, and their gratitude so great they were
ready to pluck out their own eyes to give to him; it was marvelous that all
this had so rapidly passed away, and a contrary attitude assumed toward him. It
called for an adequate explanation which must be sought on supernatural grounds
or the intervention of bewitching power. Mere fickleness of mind on their part,
since he hadn't changed, could not explain. Let the reader compare the
prophet's address to Ephraim and Judah (Hos. 6:4), and point out the expression
in the famous hymn, "Oh, for a closer walk with God," based on the
common version rendering of this verse.
We note another piercing question in verse 16: "Am I become your enemy, by
telling you the truth?"
Many years ago I read an account of two visits of Henry Clay to Lexington,
Kentucky. He was very popular in Kentucky. On one occasion the whole town
turned out to welcome him. Houses were covered with banners, bands were playing
"Behold the Conquering Hero Comes." Later he made a second visit to
that town and they greeted him with rotten eggs.
What had changed them? Clay had not changed. A very beautiful incident occurred
on that last visit. Among the crowd that was against him on the last visit was
an old mountaineer, a hunter, with his long Kentucky rifle in his hand, who
came up and said, "Mr. Clay, it breaks my heart to tell you. I have been
standing by you all my life, but that last vote of yours in Congress has turned
me, and I have to go back on you." Clay looked at him and reached out and
took hold of his gun saying, "Is this a good old Kentucky rifle?"
"Yes, sir; never a better." "Has it never happened when you were
out hunting because there was no meat 'in the house, that you saw a big buck in
easy range, and lo! your gun snapped?" "Yes, sir; it has
happened." "What did you do throw away the gun, or pick the flint
and try it again?" The old hunter said, "I see the point; I'll pick
the flint and try you again."
In verse 17 Paul lays bare the motive of the authors of this sudden change:
"They zealously seek you in no good way; nay, they desire to shut you out,
that ye may seek them." Their object was to shut out their credulous
victims from Paul that they might be sought as teachers themselves.
We come to two verses that need a little explanation: "My little children,
of whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you" then he
stops and never does finish the sentence. There is a dash there showing that
his own mind is in doubt as to whether they were false professors or
backsliders. "But I could wish to be present with you now, and to change
my tone; for I am perplexed about you." He did not know just how to treat
them whether to present a personal Christ to them as to those never having
had any real faith, or whether to try to bring them back as backsliders. He
could not tell what was in their hearts. He could not read them. "I am
perplexed." "If I just knew your real state, I would know how to talk
to you; if, like God, I could know whether you are Christians or not I would
know what to say to you." So all preachers in their experience have that
perplexity of mind when dealing with some people.
QUESTIONS
1. What is the meaning of
"faith" in Galatians 3:23?
2. Give several meanings of
the word "faith."
3. Illustrate a
misinterpretation of faith in this verse.
4. Give the financial
illustration of how Old Testament saints were justified.
5. Why did they keep up the
ceremonial law, and why do we not keep it?
6. Explain the law as a
pedagogue unto Christ.
7. What is the force of
"baptized into Christ"? Give the position of the Campbellites,
Catholics, and Baptists on this point.
8. What are the distinctions
between the two covenants (1) As to nationality? (2) As to slaves and their
masters? (3) As to sex?
9. What is adoption, and
upon what is this legal process based?
10. How is the fatherhood of
God realized? Give the author's illustration.
11. What is the result? (See
4:&-7.)
12. What is the difference
between knowing God and being known of God, which the more important, and why?
13. What inscriptions on the
Christian's seal?
14. What is the reference in
4:10, "Ye observe days, months, etc.," and what Paul's teaching on
this in Colossians 2:20-23?
15. Contrast their present
attitude toward Paul with their former attitude, and illustrate.
16. Compare the prophet's
address to Ephraim and Judah, and point out the expression in "Oh, for a
closer walk with God," based on the common version rendering of 4:15.
17. What the motive of the
authors of this sudden change?
18. What doubt is indicated
by the dash in verse 19, and what the perplexity indicated by it?
THE TWO COVENANTS Galatians 4:21 to 5:12.
This discussion commences at Galatians 4:21, and we note first the distinct
paragraphs in what remains in this letter. From verse 21, where we commence, to
5:1 is a distinct paragraph. That chapter division is very unfortunate. Chapter
5 should commence at verse 2. The next paragraph is from verses 2-6. There the
most of the argument of the book ends, though he takes up an argument after
that. The next paragraph is 5:7-12. The next paragraph is 5:13-26. The next
paragraph is 6:1-10. Then we have the closing paragraph. It would be well if,
instead of chapters and verses, the book had been divided on the paragraph plan
as I have suggested, and as we would find if we were studying it in the Greek.
I call attention to some textual matters: Galatians 4:31 and 5:1 ought to be
really just one verse, and it is an exceedingly difficult matter, according to
the manuscripts, to tell just how that verse should stand as to its parts. The
oldest manuscripts are followed in the American Standard Revision. Lightfoot
insists that we should read those two verses this way: "Wherefore,
brethren, we are not children of a handmaid [or bond woman] but of a freewoman
in the liberty with which Christ has made us free; therefore stand and be not
entangled again in the yoke of bondage." That is the way Lightfoot would
read it. It is just a question of the manuscript about the position of the
words. The Revised Standard Version follows the best manuscripts, making it
read just as we have it here, only it is not all one verse: "Wherefore,
brethren, we are not children of a handmaid but of the freewoman. For freedom did
Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke
of bondage." I would call attention to a great many others of that kind if
we were studying the Greek. In the Standard Revision 4:25 reads: "Now this
Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is: for
she is in bondage with her children." Some manuscripts make that read:
"Sinai is a mountain in Arabia." I don't agree with those manuscripts
at all. Everybody knows that Sinai is a mountain in Arabia, and the Revised
Version follows the best texts in that.
We will now take up the exposition of 4:21: "Tell me, ye that desire to be
under the law, do you not hear the law?" I call attention to the fact that
what the law here says does not occur in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, or
Deuteronomy, but it occurs in Genesis, and the point about it is this, that the
New Testament as well as the Old Testament, calls the history in the Pentateuch
law, as well as the legislation itself. The history is the background of the statutes
the whole of it. History and legislation is called the law. If we get that
clear in our minds it will save us from the mistakes of the radical critics.
Whether it be history in Genesis or legislation on Mount Sinai, it is called
the law.
Verse 22: "It is written that Abraham had two sons." He says the law
(which is in Genesis) tells us that there was one by a handmaid and one by a
freewoman. The next verse shows us the distinction between the births of those
children. The son of the handmaid 'is born after the flesh a perfectly
natural birth. The son of the freewoman is born through promise. The birth of
Isaac was just as supernatural as any miracle can be. There were no powers of
nature in either Abraham or Sarah to bring about the birth of Isaac. It was
supernatural. Now that is what the scripture says. Paul expounds that scripture
in order to show that the Old Testament history is itself prophetic that it
has more than a literal, historical sense. It has that, but it has more. He says,
"Which things contain an allegory." That part of the history of
Genesis, besides its literal meaning, contains an allegory. Here the radical
critics object to what they say is a strained interpretation that Paul puts
upon plain history, and they say that he gets his allegory from Philo, an
Alexandrian Jew, or he follows the rabbis in allegorizing the history of the
Jewish people. Did Paul get the idea of the allegorical significance in that
history from Philo the Jew, or from the rabbis, and if from neither, where did
he get it? It is true that Philo did allegorize, but his allegories and Paul's
are poles apart as we see if we put them down and read them together as I have
done many times. In the second place, Paul did not get the idea from what the
rabbis had said, but he got it from the Old Testament, and particularly, from
the book of Isaiah. The book of Isaiah consists of two parts. Chapters 1-39
relate to one thing, and the rest of it relates to spiritual Israel, and it is
called the Old Testament Book of Comfort. And whenever Isaiah from chapter 40
on, speaks of Israel, he is referring to spiritual Israel. For instance, in
chapter 51 he refers to Abraham and Sarah, and then in chapter 54 he uses the
language that Paul cites here in the context, showing that Sarah occupied a
representative and allegorical position in his mind, and the quotation is
specified here: "Sing, 0 barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth
into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more
are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife."
That is Isaiah's use of it in which he is addressing Sarah as representing the
motherhood of spiritual Israel, and she that hath been barren is called
desolate; because no children have been born to her, she is called more
desolate than Hagar. So Paul gets his theory from the inspired people; he
simply follows the history when he says, "that scripture contains an
allegory."
Let us now see what the allegory contained. These women are two covenants. As,
in the dream of Pharaoh, the seven lean kine are seven years of famine. Pharaoh
uses the verb, "are" in the sense of "represent," is., the
seven lean kine represent seven years of famine. And, as where our Saviour
says, "this is my body," that is, "this unleavened bread
represents my body." He is showing what the allegory represents that
those two women represent two covenants one from Mount Sinai bearing children
into bondage which is Hagar. The Hagar woman represents, allegorically, the
Mount Sinai covenant. He goes on to say in the next verse that Hagar, that is,
this allegorical Hagar that he is speaking about, is Mount Sinai in Arabia and
answereth to the Jerusalem that now is and is in bondage with her children.
Sarah represents the Jerusalem, not the Jerusalem that now is, but the
Jerusalem which is above that is our mother. We, the children of the freewoman,
represent the Jerusalem which is above. It is necessary to make clear the
meaning of Jerusalem above as contradistinct from the Jerusalem on earth. In
Hebrews, 12:18ff., distinguishing between the two covenants the two regimes,
this language is used: "For ye are not come unto a mount that might be
touched, and that burned with fire, and into blackness, and darkness, and
tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they
that heard entreated that no word more should be spoken unto them; . . . and so
fearful was the appearance, that Moses said, "I exceedingly fear and
quake." In other words, "Ye Christians are not under the Mount Sinai
regime, but ye are come unto Mount Zion, . . . the heavenly Jerusalem."
That is the Jerusalem above, or in the place of "heavenly" we may use
"spiritual." We are not come to the literal mountain in Arabia, nor
are we come to the literal Jerusalem situated over yonder in the Holy Land, but
to the spiritual Jerusalem. How many of our hymns are written with that ideal
In Revelation that thought is elaborated about the spiritual Israel, the
spiritual city, Revelation 3:12: "He that overcometh I will make him a
pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out hence DO more, etc.,"
and in the closing part of Revelation, "I saw the New Jerusalem come down
out of heaven." In view of this, I point out the folly of the crusades,
preached by Peter the Hermit and encouraged by subsequent popes. The object of
the crusades was to rescue the Holy Jerusalem from infidels that Jerusalem
which has lost 'its value. They were to rescue the empty tomb of Jesus. The
crusades did an immense amount of good, but there never wag a more profound
piece of folly than to think it was necessary to rescue the city under the
curse of God, with an empty tomb in it, as a religious duty.
We will go on with our allegory: "For it was written." Here he quotes
that passage in Isaiah 54, and here is his conclusion from the allegory in
verse 28: "Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise"
i.e., supernaturally born, regenerated "but as then he that was born
after the flesh [Ishmael] persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, so
also it is now." The literal Jerusalem and the Judaizing spirit will
persecute the spiritual Israel. Just as Ishmael did, so will the Jews do now.
Verse 30: "Howbeit what saith the scripture?" Notice then that the
scripture is again personified. The words, ta hiera grammata refer to
the whole collection of scriptures; every one of those scriptures is
God-inspired. So Paul takes a part of the history in Genesis and says,
"The scripture saith."
I am giving this to show the folly of the people who say, "The book
contains the word of God, but not all of it is the word of God." Well,
what did the scripture say? "Cast out the handmaid and her son: for the
son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman."
Sarah used these words to Abraham: "This bond-slave child should not
inherit with my child; cast her out and her son." It grieved Abraham until
God spoke to him and endorsed what Sarah said, God having in mind not only what
was best for them at that time, but having in mind the allegorical meaning of
those two women.
Here is an important matter: The ablest debater that I ever read after was the
great Presbyterian, N. L. Rice, and here let the reader note just what Rice
said about the covenant and how the covenant puts the infants in the church. A
certain man was once quoting Rice to me on that and he said, "The Old
Testament put the children in with the parents; and now if it put them in, how
are you going to put them out?" I said, "Here is the passage, 'Cast
out the bondwoman and her son.' " That casts the covenant out and infant
membership. It is true that the children come in the new covenant; it is true
that we baptize every child in the new covenant, but he is a regenerated child
a spiritual child and nobody in the world can answer that. And yet I never
heard a pedobaptist make an argument that he did not bring in the relation that
the children bore to the old covenant, viz.: that they were in the covenant.
That is their first and, indeed, their only respectable argument.
A certain Baptist wrote a book with this title: Baptists the only Pedo
baptists, i.e., the Baptists are the only denomination that really baptize
children. They baptize every spiritual child if he is only converted, and if
his spiritual childhood is only an hour old. The Baptists baptize him, and
others don't do that; they baptize the goats those that are not children. He
makes a very fine argument, and if we just understand him, he is hitting the
nail on the head. The Baptists don't baptize anything but children, but they
belong to spiritual Israel, and they often baptize them the very day they are
new born. They don't wait eight days.
Let us now consider those joined verses of chapters 4-5: "Wherefore,
brethren, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the freewoman. For freedom
did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a
yoke of bondage." Where does Christ himself discuss that just as Paul
does? It is very important to see that Christ and Paul are in agreement in that
very matter. John 8:31: "Jesus therefore said to those Jews that had
believed him, if ye abide in my word, then are ye truly-my disciples; and ye
shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered unto
him, We are Abraham's seed, and have never yet been in bondage to any man: how
sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say
unto you, Every one that committeth sin is the bondservant of sin. And the
bondservant abideth not in the house forever; the Son abideth forever. If
therefore the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye
are Abraham's seed [that Is, the fleshly seed]; yet ye seek to kill me, because
my word hath not free course in you." Verse 39: "They answered and
said unto him, Our father is Abraham. Jesus sayeth unto them, If ye were
Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill
me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I heard from God; this did not
Abraham. Ye do the works of your father. They said unto him, We were not born
of fornication; we have one Father, even God." Verse 44: "Ye are of
your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to
do." Paul says, "For freedom did Christ set us free." I am showing
that Christ taught precisely on the line that Paul did here in this letter to
the Galatians.
I now commence chapter 5 at verse 2. This paragraph consists of the following
thoughts (in verses 2-6 he discusses circumcision): First, he says, "If
you insist on circumcision Christ will profit you nothing. Second, if you
insist on being circumcised, then you are a debtor to do the whole law. Third,
if you insist on being circumcised and being a Jew in order to salvation, then
you are severed from Christ; you are fallen away from grace."
A man once said to me, "Does the Bible teach falling from grace?" I
said, "Yes." "Well," he says, "I thought you didn't
believe in apostasy." I said, "I don't; we mean by apostasy, (1) that
a man has to be regenerated and (2), that this regenerated man is finally lost.
This falling from grace here does not mean that; it simply means that a man who
will turn from salvation by grace to being a Jew in order to be saved, that
that man is fallen from grace. The Bible does not teach that he severs himself
from Christ."
The next thought presented here is that "Christians through the Spirit by
faith wait for the hope of righteousness." What is the hope of
righteousness for which the Christian waits? He is speaking of the doctrine of
justification by faith, and that doctrine by faith had a certain hope in it.
And what is the hope? The hope includes everything that is involved in the
final coming of the Lord to give the crowning glories to those that are
justified by faith; it has a hope that refers to the future. That hope is, If
my name is written in the Lamb's book of life, it not only stands secure, but
it will bring everything else that it has promised, as "whom he justified,
them he also glorified."
The next thought is, that "in Christ neither circumcision nor
uncircumcision availeth anything." We don't get into Christ because we are
circumcised, and we don't get into Christ because we are not circumcised. We
get in on an entirely different term, as the next thought shows, "faith
working by love." The Roman Catholics teach certain doctrines based on
this verse, "Faith worketh by love," that is, they say that
"worketh" should be translated "wrought." Therefore, the
Catholics have a doctrine that they call fides caritate formosa, "Faith
made by love," that is their special doctrine based on that verse. But the
verb is not in the passive voice. It isn't "being worked;" it is the
doing, the working. And this leads me to another observation that when Paul
talks about faith working by love he bridges an apparent chasm between him and
James. James, in his letter, says that the faith that is apart from energy, or
work, is dead. Paul says that the faith that justifies is the faith with
energy; it works by love. As that passage bridges the apparent chasm, there is
no discrepancy between Paul and James. Practically the argument closes here,
but he brings up some argument later.
The next paragraph is verses 7-12: "Ye were running well; who hindered
you?" Let us consider that as it is in the Greek' the idea is that of a
foot race. The foot race is along a prescribed or prepared track. Here is a man
running on that prepared track, and suddenly he comes to a place where the
track is all broken up. The word "hindered" means a broken-up track.
"You were running well? Who broke up the track? He who started you would
not break up the track ahead of you; if that track is broken up, the enemy did
it." The next thought in this paragraph is that they seemed to have said
that if they had gone astray it was a small matter, and he is answering that
when he said "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." "You
think the wedge 'is little, but that wedge will split the whole log. It is a
vital and fundamental thing."
The next thought is the distinction which Paul makes between the Galatians and
the one that side tracked them. He says, "Now, brethren, I am confident
that you will come to my way of thinking about this. I don't think that about
the one that is misleading you." There he mentions him in the singular for
the first time. "Whoever broke up that road will have to bear his penalty
and will have to pay the penalty of what he has done."
The next thought is that he seems to reply again to an accusation that they had
made saying, "Why does he object to our views of circumcision? I am told
that he circumcised Timothy and preached circumcision himself." He answers
that: "If indeed I preach circumcision as you are preaching it, i.e., if I
am on a line with them, why am I persecuted?" Then he said, "If I
presented it to you as they do I would take away the stumbling block of the
cross and there would be no issue between me and these men who are misleading
you." "The Jews find the cross a stumbling block," says Paul in
his letter to the Corinthians. He says here, "I would that they that
unsettle you would even go beyond circumcision." What does he mean by
that? The thought is this: "You are insisting upon the physical mutilation
of the body; now why not go to the whole length like the idolaters that were
among you?" They mutilated themselves, cut their bodies with knives.
"If you are going to insist on this use of the knife, why not take it to
that extreme?"
QUESTIONS
1. What does the law of 4:21
say, where is it found, and what bearing has this on the meaning of the word
"law," as used in the Old and New Testaments?
2. Explain the allegory in
4:21 to 5:1 from these standpoints: (1) Where did Paul get the idea of this
allegory, and what the evidence? (2) Ishmael and Isaac. (3) Hagar and Sarah.
(4) Jerusalem that now is and the Jerusalem above. (5) Show the parallel in the
two covenants. (6) Give the distinctions as expressed in Hebrews. (7) What the
folly of the crusades? (8) What the attitude of the children of the flesh
toward the children of the Spirit? (9) What argument is sometimes made for
infant church-membership, and what the answer? (10) Then who the children of
the handmaid and who the children of the free woman?
3. What the exhortation
based upon this allegory, and where does Christ discuss this same idea?
4. What four things does
Paul show are the result of their insistence on being circumcised? Explain
particularly the last clause of 5:4.
5. What is the hope of
righteousness for which the Christian waits?
6. Expound "but faith working
through love." What the Catholic interpretation of it, and how does the
true interpretation bridge the apparent chasm between Paul and James?
7. Explain verse 7: "Ye
were running well; who hindered you, etc.?"
8. What is the force of
"a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump"?
9. What distinction does
Paul make between the Galatians and the one who side tracked them?
10. What accusation does
Paul seem to reply to in 5:11, what the stumbling block of the cross, and what
does he mean by "beyond circumcision" in verse 12?
SPECIAL WARNINGS AND TEACHINGS
Galatians 5:13 to 6:18.
This discussion commences with Galatians 5:13. Throughout the rest of this chapter
there are warnings against false conclusions from the doctrines of
justification by faith apart from works. The first warning is that our liberty
is not to be construed or used as a license to do any kind of evil. The liberty
referred to is freedom from the law, which does not mean freedom from the law
as a standard, but it is freedom from the law as a way of life. This same
subject comes up again for discussion in the letter to the Romans where Paul
avows that he has liberty to eat meat offered to idols since these idols are no
gods to him; that personally it would not hurt him, but he said that we would
refrain from it if it was harmful to other people.
One of the most infamous propositions ever made was that made by a Baptist preacher
who said that when a man and a woman were engaged they could commit a sin for
which they would not be held responsible. This is exactly what Paul warns
against: "Ye were called for freedom; only use not your freedom for an
occasion to the flesh." The Arminians and Romanists unite in denying the
doctrine of salvation by grace through faith and not of works, because they say
it is demoralizing in its tendencies; that a man will draw false conclusions
from it; that he will use the liberty wherewith Christ made him free as a
license to do evil. Just at this point Paul raises his first warning cry in the
letter to the Romans. He puts it in the form of an answer to a supposititious
question. He had affirmed that grace abounded above sin, then the questioner
says, "Shall we sin the more that grace may abound still more? And in
reply to that he said, "God forbid," or as he very strongly presented
it in the letter to Titus (2:12; 3:4-8).
I once heard an Antinomian (that means, anti, "against," noma,
"the law" against the law) preach. He was one who believed that a
Christian is free from all law that is he is not even under the law to
Christ. I had to follow him that afternoon. He took as a text Titus 3:4-7:
"But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man,
appeared, not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but
according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and
renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus
Christ our Saviour; that, being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs
according to the hope of eternal life." His theme was the grace of God
that bringeth salvation. That afternoon I took my text from Titus 2:11-12:
"For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men,
instructing us, to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we
should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world." He
presented the grace of God, but he presented a conclusion that the grace of God
does not teach. I showed that that very grace of God that he commended so
highly taught that right here in this present evil world we should live soberly
and righteously and godly. He stopped at verse 7, and I read on a little:
"Faithful is the saying, and concerning these things I desire that thou
affirm confidently, to the end that they who have believed God may be careful
to maintain good works." So I preceded his text with Titus 2:11ff., and
followed it with the next verse and caught him between the upper and nether
millstones and ground him to powder. Finding that he was irreformable, I never
did rest satisfied until that Baptist preacher was out of the ministry.
I would not make the impression for one moment that we are not saved by grace
through faith and that not of ourselves; it is the gift of God, and our works
must not be associated with grace in order to our justification in God's sight
but I would teach that this doctrine of salvation by faith has this end in
view, that the justified man should perform good works; that we are created
unto good works. So those are the first warnings. I might select another
scripture: "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation." There was
an old man that he derived through Adam. In Christ there was a new man. Having
shown that by the creative power of God's Spirit, we pass from the old man to
the new man, he immediately adds, "put on therefore the new man in
righteousness and holiness." It is easy to see as a conclusion from this
salvation by grace, that we should render loving service to each other. We are
children of God by faith. What then? Shall we fight? Shall we devour each
other, or shall we render to each other the service of love? Those Galatian
churches were as much noted for fighting each other as the Irishmen at a wake
are said to be a regular "Kilkenny cat" fight. Paul says that that
is a false deduction from the doctrine he had been teaching. While on that
point he used this expression, "The whole law is fulfilled in one word,
even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." What is meant
there by "fulfilled"? Does it mean that if I love my neighbor that I
have obeyed the commandment, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
thy heart"? If it doesn't mean that, what does it mean? The whole law is
filled up, filled full in this, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself" that is, this is the last part of the summary that Moses gives.
The first part is, "Love the Lord thy God, etc.," that is, we fill it
full if we love our neighbor as ourselves. It is the commonest thing to hear
people that want to evade duty to God say that religion consists of being
honest, paying our debts, etc. But that is not the sense of this
"fulfill." It completes, fills full the other half of it that had
been filled before. For instance, if it takes four pecks to make a bushel, the
fourth peck fills the measure, if the other three have been put in. There is a
remarkable passage misinterpreted by Alexander Campbell, viz.: 1 Timothy 1:5
(King James Version): "But the end of the commandment is love out of a
pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfeigned." What is meant by
"the end of the commandment"? When we say the end we are not denying
that there is a beginning. The end of a commandment is love out of a pure
heart, out of a good conscience, out of faith unfeigned. There we get the other
element that shows the idea of filling up, filling full. The love that the
outsider talks about is unknown in the Bible. Here it is a love that springs
from faith; faith brings a good conscience and that good conscience leads to a
pure heart and a pure heart leads to love. So the end of the commandment is
love out of a pure heart, out of a good conscience, out of faith unfeigned.
The third warning that he gives is that being justified by faith our walk must
be in the Spirit not in the flesh. We are not justified by faith if we walk
after what is fleshly and not the spiritual, and if we have drawn from the
doctrine of justification by faith any such conclusion as that, then we have
misinterpreted the doctrine.
He presents two kinds of fruit, as follows: "Walk in the Spirit but not in
the flesh." What is it to walk in the Spirit? "The fruit of the
Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness) goodness, faithfulness, meekness,
self-control; against such there is no law." What is the fruit of the
flesh? "The works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication,
uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies,
wraiths, factions, divisions, parties, envies, drunkenness, revels, and such
like." And to cap the climax he says that the man that does these things
shall never enter the kingdom of heaven. He is saying to them, "You must
not make the mistake that by mere intellectual perception of doc trial truth
you have therefore exercised the faith of the gospel."
We may put it down as settled that no religion is worth a cent that does not
make a man better than he was before; a son a better son, a father a better
father, a mother a better mother, a daughter a better daughter.
If it doesn't produce good fruits, John the Baptist tells us that "every
tree that bringeth forth not good fruit shall be hewn down and cast into the
fire."
We now come to chapter 6, which is divided into two paragraphs. The first
paragraph is verses 1-10, and presents a case of discipline, or a case where
the man, though a Christian, has committed an offense: "Brethren, even if
a man be overtaken in any trespass, ye who are spiritual, restore such a one in
a spirit of gentleness; looking to thyself, lest thou also be tempted." We
must not draw the conclusion that because Paul said just before, "I
forewarn you that they that practice these things shall not inherit the kingdom
of God," he means that to step aside once is fatal. As proof that he
doesn't mean that, he supposes a case of a man that has been overtaken by a
fault.
I was at a church conference once and three cases were presented, all of which
claimed to be cases "overtaken in a fault." They asked my opinion and
I said, "Brethren, there is such a thing as being overtaken by a fault,
and there is such a thing as a man overtaking a fault; when he sees it plainly
and follows it until he overtakes it then he is not overtaken in a fault. One
of your cases is a case of 'overtaken by a fault,' another case the fellow
overtakes the fault, and your third case is a mixture. It reminds me of a
McClelland saddle. We don't know when we see it whether we are meeting it or
overtaking it. It is the same in the rear as in the front."
The second thing is to harmonize verse 2 with verse 5: "Bear ye one
another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ . . . For each man shall
bear his own burden." Is there any contradiction in the meaning? One case
is evidently different in the meaning from the other case. What is the
difference in the meaning?
The third point that he presents is this verse 6: "But let him that is
taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things."
Or I will put it in plainer language: "Let the church member who is
spiritually instructed contribute in money or kindness, to the one that
instructs him." There are some people who are so afraid of being
misunderstood that what they preach will be assigned to a motive that they do
not have, they leave it out of their preaching.
I heard a man say once, "I just simply can't preach on the money question;
I will be misunderstood. If the brethren want to help me they can do it; if
they don't want to help me, then it can go." Paul was Just as sensitive a
man as we are, and he knew that they that preached the gospel should live of
the gospel. One of the principal things that the Galatians were trying to do
was to stop this collection. He says, "See that ye abound in that grace as
well as those other graces." I have seen Christians that could shout,
"Fly abroad, thou mighty gospel," and when the contribution box was
passed around they shut their eyes for fear they would see the wings with which
it is to fly.
A man is sent with a message for God and the responsibility on him is not to
vary one jot or tittle on that message. He ought to be able, as Paul said he
was, to be free from the blood of all men because he had not shunned to declare
the whole counsel of God.
They accused him of manipulating a big collection; while he did not do it
himself, they said he did it through Titus. He knew these questions would arise
because those who are evil-minded do suspect. They would suspect the Lord or
the angels from heaven.
We cannot evade being suspected of evil. We are to take pains to live right,
and so live that we may appear to live right, but that will not exempt us from
being criticized.
I have oftentimes wondered at the goodness of this man, that he could say upon
that subject what he did concerning the crowd that hated him, even the church
at Ephesus. See 1 Timothy 6:17: "Charge them that are rich in this present
world, that they be not high-minded nor have their hope set on the uncertainty
of riches, but on God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy." And he
charges them, "that they be ready to distribute, that they be willing to
contribute." It took pluck to preach that to these people, for they were
high-minded, because they were rich, but he was to present that to them as if
putting them on their oath: O rich man, in the name of Christ, I put you on
your oath before God, be not high-minded but rich in good works as well as in
money. Be ready to distribute as well as to make the money." Plucky man!
The next thought is in verses 7-8: "Be not deceived." A point upon
which we might be deceived is what follows that doctrine. "Be not
deceived; God is not mocked." He is not fooled. "For whatsoever a man
soweth that shall he also reap." We can't reverse the natural law, and we
can't reverse the spiritual law. In both the spiritual and the natural realm
there is a crop between the sowing and the harvest. If we sow weeds we cannot
look for a barley crop. The crop is going to be according to the seed that we
put in the ground, and let us not be deceived; we can't fool God. He applies
that: "He that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap
corruption; he that soweth unto the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap eternal
life." The harvest is going to correspond with what we sow.
He advances to another thought of incalculable importance. We are justified by
faith, and in view of that justification by the grace of God which teaches us
not only to live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world, but
also to do well, he exhorts; "Be not weary in well doing, for in due
season we shall reap if we faint not."
I remember once preaching from that text on an important occasion. We had just
had a great meeting; hundreds of people had sturdily commenced to do right from
a motive of love to God. Then they began to drop off; they got tired. "Let
us not weary in well doing."
It is that great persistence that wins, notwithstanding that it is an uphill
path; notwithstanding that we have wind and tide against us. Anybody can float
down stream, a dead fish can do that, but it takes a live fish to go up stream.
"Let us not be weary in well doing." He gives the reasons: first, we
shall reap; second, we shall reap in due season. We may not reap tomorrow, or
next week or next year, but at the appointed season (and every seed has its
season), in due season we shall reap.
Having expounded that section I associate it with 1 Corinthians 15:58:
"Wherefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always
abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not
vain in the Lord." Then with that I put the psalm which says, "They
that sow in tears shall reap in joy. He that goeth forth and weepeth bearing
precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves
with him." I comment on that passage in Psalms. First, there is activity;
the people go forth; we must venture out. Second, they went bearing precious
seed; we must go out with the word of God, which is the seed "he that
goeth forth bearing precious seed and weeping." We must go in earnest.
Some people think tears are unmanly, and some tears are, but not all.
"Jesus wept." Did Christ o'er sinner weep, And shall our cheeks be dry? It was one of the most glorious testimonies of Henry
of Navarre by Macaulay: He looked upon the foeman and his glance was stern and high; He looked
upon his comrades and a tear was in his eye.
That is his exhortation against weariness in well-doing, because the labor is
not in vain. We may fail in other things, but if we take the gospel, if we take
it earnestly, if we sow in tears, the heavens may fall, but our harvest will
come without a shadow of a doubt. "Doubtless he shall return, bringing his
sheaves with him." It is that harvest home, when the laborer comes bringing
his sheaves with him, to which the mind of the preacher should be often turned.
Paul says to the Thessalonians, "Ye are my crown of rejoicing in the time
of Jesus Christ" "bringing his sheaves with him," not coming
up to heaven empty-handed. Coming up he says, "Lord, this man in yonder
world I led to thee; Lord, this broken heart I healed; Lord, this orphan I
comforted, bringing his sheaves with him." His association with him of
every rightful tear that is shed, every good deed that he has accomplished, is
one of the most precious things in connection with the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Then he says, "As we have opportunity, let us work that which is good
toward all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of the
faith." "As we have opportunity." Opportunity! Dr. Richard
Fuller, in a great sermon before the Southern Baptist Convention, gave a
picture of opportunity as with swift wing, no bird of the air flying so fast,
passing by and never coming back. "Wherefore as we have opportunity"
means that we must be wide-awake.
We come now to the last paragraph, and what is the meaning of it? "See
with how large letters I write unto you with mine own hand." The King
James version says, "You see how large a letter I have written, etc."
Galatians isn't a big letter, but what Paul says is, "See with how large
letters I write you with mine own hand."
I have been very much amused in contrasting the views of Farrar and Lightfoot.
Generally, Lightfoot is much better than Farrar, but Farrar gets the best of
him on the meaning of that passage. Lightfoot says the meaning is "I am
writing to you about weighty matters, and I wrote you a great big letter."
He had to force that into it. It isn't there. Paul's acute eye trouble is
evident from a previous expression. He says, "You would have taken your
eyes and given them to me, if you could." He was writing with his own
hand, and a man that is nearly blind has to make big sprawling letters, and
there is a touching thought in it. "Do you remember why I have to write
with large letters? Don't you remember when I was groping in my blindness, and
your sympathy was so tender you would have given me your eyes? Now you see with
what large letters I am writing." I think Farrar's explanation much more
reasonable. Quickly Paul takes up his argument! He would take up an argument in
the midst of his "amen" if he thought of something that he should
have said that he had not said. He is giving a contrast between himself and
these that insist on being circumcised. He says, (1) that they do this to avoid
Jewish persecution, (2) that they do it that they may glory in the flesh, and
(3) that they don't do it from love of the law, for they know that they don't
keep the law; that circumcision obligates one to keep the whole law.
Then he represents his glory in contrast with theirs: "But far be it from
me to glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the
world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the world. For neither is
circumcision anything nor uncircumcision." Then he adds, that they should
so walk according to this canon (canon means rule) and as they should walk by
this rule, circumcision or uncircumcision would avail nothing, but a new
creature, everything.
"Henceforth [that is, having presented this attack on me in 2 Corinthians,
and in Galatians, and having made this reply 1 let no man trouble me," as
if to say, "I don't want to go into this matter any more." "Now
why ought not ye trouble me?" "Because," he says, "I bear branded
on my body the marks of Jesus." In other words, "I am covered all
over with scars; the Roman lictors have smitten me with rods; the Jews have
scourged me and left me for dead; once I fought with wild beasts in the arena,
and I count these marks of Jesus as Christ's brand of ownership." It is a
very beautiful thought.
QUESTIONS
1. What warning does Paul
give against false conclusions from the doctrine of justification by faith?
2. What is antinomianism?
3. Give several scriptures
which disprove it.
4. What is meant by
"fulfilled" in "The law is fulfilled in 'Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself "?
5. Explain "end of the
commandment" in "The end of the commandment is love."
6. Contrast the fruits of
the flesh and the fruits of the Spirit.
7. Explain "overtaken
in a fault."
8. Harmonize "Bear ye
one another's burdens" and "Each man shall bear his own burden."
9. What the teaching here on
ministerial support?
10. Give the law of sowing
and reaping.
11. Take Galatians 6:9; 1 Corinthians
15:58; Psalm 126:5-6 and give a brief outline of an evangelistic address.
12. What is opportunity?
Illustrate it.
13. What is the meaning of
"large letters" in 6:11?
14. Give three reasons for
circumcision on the part of those who were troubling the Galatians.
15. Contrast Paul's glory
with theirs.
16. What the meaning of
"henceforth let no man trouble me"?
THE BOOK OF ROMANS INTRODUCTION
The prophet Daniel gives a forecast of the rise of five consecutive, great
world empires: Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, and the kingdom of God as set
up by our Lord. He shows how the people of Israel came in touch with each
empire in turn. In this discussion we need to trace out, in historical order,
the salient points of contact between Israel and Rome, Daniel's fourth world
empire. The first notable contact was when the Jews were resisting the
aggressions of the Seleucids who, with Antioch in Syria as a capital and the
head of one of the four divisions of Alexander's Greek Empire, and who in
contending with the Ptolemys of Egypt, another division of the Greek Empire,
conceived it necessary to occupy the intervening Holy Land. Their aggression
culminated in the attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to destroy the Jewish
religion. The apocryphal book of Maccabees and Josephus give a vivid history of
this conflict. It was in this struggle between these parts of the divided Greek
Empire that Rome, rapidly rising to supreme power, intervened and became a
staunch friend to the Jews, crushed between the two. The Romans for a long time
were faithful to all treaty obligations toward the Jews, but as the Jews
developed internal parties among themselves, one or the other, from time to
time, would appeal to Rome. In this way Rome became the umpire of Jewish
contentions, and finally the master. The whole Herodian dynasty were dependents
of Rome.
About 70 B.C. Pompey came into power and in 63 B.C. captured Jerusalem and led
away to Rome multitudes of Jewish captives who, though enslaved were usually
kindly treated, and many of them who were set free became Roman citizens.
Probably in this way Paul's father became a Roman citizen, so that Paul himself
was a citizen free-born. In the development of the history, a vast number of
Jews were settled in Rome, having a special Jewish quarter in the city beyond
the Tiber. The Roman classics abound with references to the Jews at Rome:
Tacitus, Suetonius, Martial, Juvenal, Horace, Persius, Cicero, and others. It
is a notable fact that 8,000 Jews at Rome protested against Archelaus being
allowed to have all the dominion of his father Herod. This led to a division of
Herod's kingdom into four parts; hence the name tetrarch, the ruler of a fourth
part, to which we have references in the life of our Lord. The Jewish
restlessness and turbulence led finally to the appointment of procurators, one
of whom was Pilate. Moreover, the points of Jewish contact "with Rome
multiplied as they also came in contact with the rising fifth world empire, the
spiritual kingdom of our Lord, and culminated A.D. 70 in the destruction of
Jerusalem and the Temple by Titus, and the wider dispersion of the Jewish
people among the nations.
Our next historical question is, How was Christianity established in the city
of Rome? Doubtless many Jews from Rome attended the annual feasts in the time
of our Lord and became, to some extent, acquainted with the issue between our
Lord's kingdom and the ruling part of Jerusalem. It is certain that, among the
great number of Jews gathered together from various nations, Roman Jews and
proselytes heard Peter's great sermon on the day of Pentecost, some of whom
doubtless were converted on that day. Through these converts on their return
the gospel may have been carried to Rome. It is much more probable that
Stephen's ministry may have sent converts to Rome, particularly after the
dispersion following Saul's persecution. We, at least, note in the salutation
of this letter certain kindred of Paul who were in Christ before him. This very
fact may account for the bitterness and madness of Paul's persecution of the
church, since under Stephen's mighty power a breach had been made into his
family circle. The kindred, we know, were in Rome at the time this letter was
written. Then Paul's acquaintance and friendship with Aquila and Priscilla
banished from Rome by Claudius would increase his knowledge of the personnel of
Roman Christians. Moreover, his great meetings held in Syria, Cilicia, Asia,
Macedonia, and Achaia necessarily brought many Romans, both Jews and Gentiles,
under the influence of his ministry. Hence we note in this letter salutations
to his converts in Asia. The travel and traffic to and from Rome along the
lines of the great Roman roads, extending to the boundaries of the empire,
would continually enlarge Paul's knowledge of the Christians at Rome, whether
Jews or Gentiles. In this natural way we account for the intimate personal
salutations at the close of this letter.
There was no one central church at Rome. They had no common meeting place, but
there were several churches meeting in private houses. At least three, we may
gather from this letter, particularly the one in the house of Aquila and
Priscilla. Hence the letter is not addressed to the church at Rome, but to all
the faithful in Rome. In accounting for the establishing of Christianity here
we must not lose sight of the labors of Christian women, whom he calls fellow
workers, so manifest in the salutation.
It is a lying tradition that makes Peter the founder of Christianity at Rome
and the first bishop of the church there.
As we see from this letter there was no central church and there was only a
possibility of Peter's indirect influence through his Pentecostal sermon.
Stephen's influence in this direction is more to be credited than Peter's, and
Paul's much more than both of them. Aquila and Priscilla should have the credit
of establishing the first church there, and the noble Christian women saluted
by Paul share the honors with all of them. The Romanists indeed contend that
Peter went to Rome immediately after the events recorded in Acts 12:1-18, and
remained twenty years. But this contention contradicts the scriptures, for we
find him soon thereafter at the council, Acts 15, and still further afterwards
at Antioch, Galatians 2:11, and it may be inferred from 1 Corinthians 9:5 that
Peter was at that time traveling as an apostle to the circumcision. And so as
late as his first letter we find him in Babylon where were many Jews. That he
was not at Rome when Paul wrote this letter is evident from the absence of any
salutation to him among so many; nor there when Paul arrived more than two
years later as a prisoner. There is no reference to him as being in Rome in the
letters of either the first or last imprisonment there of Paul.
It has also been contended that the household churches cited by Paul in this
letter were only worshiping and not organized bodies, but this is contrary to
the meaning of the word "church," and also to the uniform apostolic
method of ordaining elders in every congregation and otherwise fitting them up
for housekeeping. They were not like cowmen on the range marking, branding, and
letting loose. Indeed, there is only one passage in the New Testament that at
all connects Peter personally with Rome, and that one only by a more than
questionable interpretation, and, moreover, written long after this letter,
viz.: 1 Peter 5:13. The contention is that by "She that is in
Babylon" Peter means heathen Rome, mystical Babylon, a style followed by
John in Revelation. But John writes a confessedly mystical book; not of this
kind is Peter's first letter. Moreover, John's mystical Babylon is not heathen
Rome, but the apostate Christian church the woman in purple and scarlet. If
Peter had been at Rome when Paul wrote this letter, why was he not saluted by
Paul, as well as so many inferior ones? If he were there when Paul arrived as a
prisoner, the silence of Acts is unaccountable. If he were there when Paul wrote
the third group of letters during his first imprisonment, the silence of
Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians. and Hebrews is marvelous. If
Peter was in Rome during Paul's second imprisonment the silence of 2 Timothy is
marvelous. Another argument against Peter's using Babylon in the sense of Rome,
is that in his second letter, presumably from the same place, he quotes Paul's
letter to the Romans using the phrase, "hath written unto you." If
living at Rome he could not have been writing to Rome and quoting what Paul had
written to them. The author does believe that the traditional evidence is
sufficient to prove Peter's martyrdom at Rome, but it is mixed with so much
incredible and evidently manufactured matter manufactured for a later purpose
that the real evidence is discounted by its bad company. At any rate,
Christianity was established in the city of Rome before this letter was
written, though certainly not by the present personal ministry of any apostle.
Let the rank and file of the scattered disciples "who went everywhere
preaching the word" have their lawful credit here, as at Antioch and many
other places. The claim that Peter was the first bishop at Rome is in every way
absurd and unscriptural. The apostles never exercised the office of bishop, or
pastor, of a particular church, not even at Jerusalem. Their office was general
as contradistinguished from the local office of bishop, or pastor.
We next consider the author, date, and place of the letter. Paul's authorship
has never been seriously questioned by the scholarship of Christendom. The
letter avows it in the beginning, and every internal evidence and all its
relations to Galatians and Corinthians support it. The date is largely
determined by its relation to Corinthians and Galatians. In 2 Corinthians and
Galatians he replies to a challenge of his apostolic authority with the
internal evidence overwhelmingly in favor of Galatians following Corinthians.
In Galatians and Romans he discusses justification by faith, with the internal
evidence overwhelmingly in favor of Romans following Galatians, Romans being
developed from Galatians. As Ephesians, the more general discussion, follows
Colossians, so Galatians, being an offhand, fiery, impulsive letter, is
followed by Romans a calm, deliberative enlargement. The parallels between
the two letters are very striking and abundant. The reader may find in
Lightfoot on Galatians, or in the "Cambridge Bible", a fair statement
of these remarkable parallels. So, we may say that Paul wrote this letter from
the house of Gaius at Corinth about A.D. 58. Dr. Robertson's argument for this
date in his "Student's Chronological New Testament is very fine.
Lightfoots arguments from internal evidence on the relative order of
Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans is extraordinarily strong.
The occasion is evident from the letter itself. He is the guest of Gaius in the
city of Corinth. He has concluded his labors in those parts, and is about to
make his final visit to Jerusalem, carrying the alms for the poor saints there
which he has gathered in the great collection in Macedonia, Achaia, and Asia
Minor. After this Jerusalem visit he purposes a tour into Spain via Rome. To
prepare the way for this forthcoming visit to Rome, he writes this letter,
having an opportunity of sending it by Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at
Cenchrea, the eastern Corinthian seaport.
But the purpose of the letter goes far beyond the occasion. The attack on his
apostolic authority, and the very heart of his gospel by the Judaizing Christians
whom he has been resisting locally and in a somewhat offhand manner in his
letters to the Corinthians and Galatians, he now realizes to be not only more
than a local matter, more than a personal attack on his authority, but an
incorrigible, far-reaching, fundamental assault on the whole plan of salvation
by grace. Impulsive, offhand, and local replies do not meet the exigencies of
the situation. There must be a calm, dispassionate, and elaborate exposition of
the whole plan of salvation sufficient for every emergency and for all time to
come. Such a discussion would likely accomplish the greater good and attain the
wider circulation if addressed to the saints at the imperial capital, from
which as a center radiated influences to all the circumference of the world.
Moreover, this very discussion, forwarded at once to Rome, might anticipate and
forestall the Judaizing tendency steadily moving westward from Jerusalem. Hence
there is nothing local in his argument. The concluding part, with its personal
salutations, might well be left out of copies sent abroad, as we actually find
to be the case in some later manuscripts. Hence, while it is a letter, it is
much more than a letter it is a doctrinal treatise, a veritable body of
systematic theology. While Ephesians, developed from the more local letter to
the Colossians, is of the nature of a general circular, and in this respect
somewhat resembling this letter, and while Hebrews bears resemblance in that it
is an elaborate discussion of the two covenants, yet addressed to Christian
Jews only, this letter is unlike anything else in the New Testament.
It is the most fundamental, vital, logical, profound, and systematic discussion
of the whole plan of salvation in all the literature of the world. It touches all
men; it is universal in its application; it roots, not only in man's creation
and fall, but also in the timeless purposes and decrees of God before the world
was, and fruits in the eternity after this world's purgation.
It considers man as man and not as Jew. or Greek. It considers law, not as
expressed in statute on Mount Sinai, but as antedating it and inherent in the
divine purpose when man was created in the image of God. It considers sin, not
in ceremonial defilement nor as an overt act, but as lawlessness of spirit and
nature. It considers condemnation, not as personal to an individual offender
because of many overt acts, but as a race result from one offense of the one
head of "the race. Consequently, it considers justification, the opposite
of condemnation, not as an impossible acquittal of a fallen sinner on account
of his many acts of righteousness but as resting on one act of righteousness
through the Second Head of the race. It considers, not an impossible morality
coming from a corrupt and depraved nature, but a morality arising from
regeneration, sanctification, resurrection, and glorification. It considers,
not the divine government and providence as here and there looking in on
particular men, in special times and given localities, but as an
all-comprehensive sweep from eternity to eternity reaching with microscopial
minuteness every detail of the nature of man, and universal in its control of
all forces, and all subsidiary to the original divine purpose. The God of this
letter is God indeed not a partial, local deity, not blind chance, not cold,
inexorable fate, but a purposeful, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent,
infinitely holy, and infinitely loving God.
The integrity of the book has been questioned as follows:
1. Some have thought that the book should close, as they say, with the argument
at 14:23, but chapter 15 carries on the thought of chapter 14.
2. Others have thought more plausibly that it should close at 15:33, with the
benediction there. They think chapter 16, with its numerous salutations, should
close the letter to the Ephesians where Paul had more personal knowledge. But
that letter is a circular letter and designedly leaves out local references.
Indeed, it would fit better to be called the letter to the Laodiceans.
3. These contentions are somewhat supported by the fact that later manuscript
copies omit the concluding sections. But the oldest and best authorities give
us the book as it is, and there are natural grounds, or reasons, for the
omission of the conclusion in later copies. On the very highest external
authority we may take the whole book as it stands. And we have already
accounted for Paul's large acquaintance in Rome.
I must not close this introductory chapter without calling attention to the
connection between the Old Testament and New Testament as shown by the great
number of Old Testament quotations in the book. There are more than three score
of these quotations in this book, covering an unusually wide range of books.
Genesis is quoted five times; Exodus, four; Leviticus, twice; Deuteronomy,
five; I Kings, twice; Psalms, fifteen; Proverbs, twice; Isaiah, nineteen;
Ezekiel, once; Hosea, twice; Joel, once; Nahum, once; Habakkuk, once; Malachi,
once; and there are others more indirectly used.
It is also notable that Paul sometimes quotes from the Hebrew, at other times
from the Septuagint, and sometimes follows the spiritual impulse in giving the
true sense in his own words.
We now come to the subject of analysis, better illustrated in this book than in
any other Bible book. A noted writer has said, "Analysis presents the
classification of correlated truth." Professor Agassiz says,
"Thorough classification is but an interpretation of the thoughts of the
Creator." Dr. H. Harvey says, "The Bible should be studied
analytically. A cursory reading of the Scriptures does not interpret them; they
must be carefully analyzed if one would penetrate into their full
meaning." Dr. Francis Wayland says, "(1) We must have a knowledge of
the several parts of which it is composed. But this alone gives a very
imperfect conception. (2) We must also understand how these parts are put
together. This will greatly increase knowledge; but it will still be imperfect.
(3) It is necessary, therefore, that we should have a conception of the
relation which the several parts sustain to each other, that is, of the effect
which every part was designed to produce upon every other part. When we have
arrived at this idea, and have combined it with the other ideas just mentioned,
then, and not till then, is knowledge complete. It is manifest that this last
notion that of the relation which the parts sustain to each other is
frequently of more importance than either of the others." Dr. Shedd says,
"All truth is logical. It is logically connected and related, and that
mind is methodical which detects this relation and connection, as it were, by
instinct. Now, a methodizing mind is one which by discipline and practice has
reached that degree of philosophic culture in which these systematizing laws
work spontaneously, by their own exceeding lawfulness and instinctively
develop, in a systematic and consecutive manner, the whole truth of a
subject."
Bearing these reflections in mind, I submit for consideration four analyses of
the letter to the Romans, three of them here, and my own later. The first is by
Albert Arnold Bennet, of the Baptist Theological Seminary of Japan, and is by
all odds the best in many respects. In his book we have three parallel columns,
the right hand column containing the Greek text according to Westcott and Hort,
the middle column the revised translation verse by verse, and the first column
the analysis itself in detail, carried entirely through the book. It is the
most remarkable specimen of analysis I have ever known. I am very proud that a
Baptist is the author of it. Who would expect such a thing from a Baptist
Theological Seminary in Japan?
(Albert Arnold Bennet, Baptist Theological Seminary, Japan.)
I. The Gospel plan of salvation by Faith (1-8).
1. The importance of the gospel shown by the moral condition of man, both Jew
and Gentile (1-2).
2. The gospel plan of justification by faith (3-5).
3. The gospel plan of the sanctification and glorification of those justified
by faith (6-8).
II. The problem of Israel's unbelief (a
reconciliation of the gospel plan of salvation set forth in 1-8, with the
seeming rejection of God'8 chosen people, 9-11.)
1. Israel's unbelief and God's severity (9-10).
2. Israel's unbelief and God's goodness (II).
III. Faith applied; or, the duties of those who have
been saved by faith (12-16).
1. (Of broadest application) Duties, individual or common, belonging to every
Christian, strong or weak (12-13).
2. (Of more limited application) Duties largely relative; especially duties of
the strong on account of the weak, 14-15.
3. (Of narrowest application) Greetings, and directions about fellowship,
mainly designed for the original readers only, (but suggestive, by inference,
of application on a broader scale), 16.
The next outline is by Dr. A. T. Robertson:
Introduction (1:1-17).
1. The Doctrine of a righteousness from God
(1:18-11:36).
(a) Its necessity (1:18-3:20).
(b) Its nature (3:21 4:25).
(c) Its results(5:l 11:36).
(1) It makes possible peace and joy (5:1-11).
(2) It is analogous to the relation of Adam to the race, 5:12-21.
(3) It should lead to greater holiness (6-8).
(4) It throws light on the salvation of Jew and Gentile (9:11).
2. General and special exhortations growing out of a
righteousness from God, 12:1 to 15:13.
3. Personal matters (15:14 to 16:23).
The closing doxology (16-25-27).
The third
analysis is by my lamented and scholarly colleague. Dr. John S. Tanner:
Introduction 1:1-17
1) 1:1-7, Salutation.
(1) l:la, Author's name and character.
(2) l:lb, 6, His mission (apostleship).
a. l:lb. Source (divinely called).
b. 1:2-4, Nature: Gospel.
a) 1:2, Fulfillment of prophecy.
b) 1:3f, Concerning Christ.
c. 1:5a, Agency of Appointment (Christ)
d. l:5bf, Sphere: To all Gentiles, including Romans
(3) 1:7, Salutation proper.
2) 1:8-15, Paul's deep personal interest in the Roman Christians
(1) 1:8, Thanksgiving for their faith.
(2) 1:9-15, His desire to visit them.
a. 1:9f. Had prayer to this end.
b. l:11f, Motive of the visit
c. 1:13, Had often purposed to come
d. l:14f. The desire prompted by his obligation to all classes
3) l:16f. Theme of the letter: The gospel the power of God unto salvation
universally available through righteousness of faith
I. 1:18 8:39, The plan of salvation.
1. 1:18 4:25, Method of justification.
1) 1:18 3:20, Not by works of law (legalism) because guilt and condemnation
are universal
(1) 1:18-32, Case of the Gentiles.
a. 1:18, The wrath of God abides upon them; because
b. 1:19-23, They refused the light given them
a) 1:19f. They had a revelation of God in nature and conscience
b) 1:21-23, But they consciously turned from him to idolatry
c. 1:24-32, The result was to plunge them into the depths of guilt
(a) 1:24-28, God withdrew his beneficent restraints
(b) 1:29-32, Their depravity was deepened
(2) 2:1 3:19, Case of the Jews
a. 2:1-16, Argument stated: God'8 judgment will be on the basis of moral
conduct
(a) 2:1-5, Folly of arrogant confidence ill special divine favor.
(b) 2:6-11, Judgment will have reference to moral conduct in view of the amount
of light possessed
(c) 2:12-16, It is obedience, not to the letter, but to the spirit of the Jaw
that is availing.
b. 2:17 3:8, Objections answered:
(a) 2:17-24. First objection: Being possessors and teachers of the law is
assurance of their acceptance. Ans. Additional sin in teaching what they do
not practice.
(b) 2:25-29. Second objection: Circumcision is availing. Ans. Efficient
circumcision is not of the flesh but of the heart.
(c) 3:lf. Third objection: Then the Jew has no advantage. Ana. They have much
advantage, particularly that they are the recipients of divine revelation.
(d) 3:3f. Fourth objection: For a Jew to be lost would annul the promises, Ans.
Not so.
(e) 3:5-8. Fifth objection: Unjust in God to punish sin that displays his
righteousness. Ans. This is absurd.
c. 3:9-19. Conclusion: Jew as well as Gentile is hopelessly lost.
(a) 3:9a. The Jew has no advantage in the matter of justification; because
(b) 3:9b, 18, Both alike are under sin
(c) 3:19, Purpose of the law is to convict of sin
(3) 3:20, Therefore, legalism as a method of justification is a failure.
2) 3:21 4:25, It is by grace through a righteousness of faith, available
alike to Jews and Gentiles
(1) 3:21-26, This method stated and described
a. 3:21-24, Its character
(a) 3:21a, Apart from law
(b) 3:21b, A righteousness of God
(c) 3:21c. Witnessed by the Old Testament scriptures
(d) 3:220, Through faith in Christ
(e) 3:22b. Universal
(a) 3:226, Available to all
(b) 3:23, Needed by all
(f) 3:24, Distinctly gratuitous
b. 3:25f, Its basis: Propitiatory sacrifice of Christ
(a) 3:25n, A Propitiation provided by God
(b) 3:25bf, For the reconciliation of God's righteousness and the sinner's
justification
(2) 3:27 4:25, Its bearing upon Jewish conduct and faith
a. 3:27-30, Upon their conduct
(a) 3:27f, Condemns their pride
(b) 3:29f, Condemns their exclusiveness
b. 3:31 4:25, Upon their faith
(a) 3:31, Does not subvert but confirms the Old Testament law
(b) 4:1-25, Is not contradicted, but confirmed by the case of Abraham
(a) 4:1-8, Abraham was justified by faith and not by works
aa. 4:1-3, The scriptures so declare
bb. 4:4f, This excludes a condition of works.
cc. 4:6-8, Confirmed by the observation of David
(b) 4:9-12, Circumcision not a condition; for Abraham justified before"
circumcision
(c) 4:13-22, The promise to Abraham was conditioned on faith, not law
aa. 4:13, Statement of fact
bb. 4:14-17, A legal condition would annul the promise
cc. 4:18-22, The historical facts of the faith of Abraham
(d) 4:22-25, The method in Abraham's case equally applicable to all who believe
on Christ
2. 5:1 to 8:39, The completion of salvation (sanctification), as based upon
this method of justification
(1) 5:1-21, The method of justification promises the completion of the divine
work of salvation
(1) 5:1-5, That it is by faith
a. 5:lf, Having received such a gift, we should realize our blessed state and
be confident of the consummation
b. 5:3-5, We should embrace gladly God's trying means of discipline.
(2) .5:6-11, Christ's sacrifice for us as rebels insures the completion of his
work of salvation in us as his children.
(3) 5:12-21, The same is further assured by the superiority of the redemption
in Christ over the loss in Adam
a. 5:12-17, (First parallel and contrast) Christ's work more extensive;
efficient for the multiplied sins and sinners
b. 5:18-21, (Second parallel and contrast) Christ's work more intensive;
overcomes both Adam's sin and the sin of the individual developed through
disobedience to the law
2) 6:1-23, This method of justification encourages not am but its abandonment
(1) 6:lfa, Proposition stated
(2) 6:2b-13, The change of personal relations involves a life of righteousness
with Christ and a death to sin
a. 6:2b-6, This is set forth in baptism
b. 6:7-13, As Christ's death and resurrection were once for all, so should be
the believer's death to sin and resurrection to righteousness.
(3) 6:14-20, That the believer has exchanged sin for grace as a master which
forbids that sin should longer dominate him.
(4) 6:21-23, The mutual antipathy of sin and grace are evident from their opposite
results, viz.: Death and eternal life
3) 7:1-25, The law a failure as an agency of sanctification.
(1) 7:1-6, The believer's objection to the law has been annulled by death, and
he has entered into another companionship, viz.: A fruitful one with Christ.
(2) 7:7-23, The law, though righteous in itself, is unable to produce good
works.
a. 7:7-13, In the unbeliever its effect is to manifest and aggravate the
presence and character of sin.
b. 7:14-23, In the believer likewise, it aggravates, but does not overcome sin.
(3) 7:24f, Conclusion: Efficacy only in a personal relation to Christ.
(4) 8:1-27, The believer's sanctification is accomplished by the guiding and
transforming work of the Holy Spirit.
(1) 8:1-8, He implants a disposition to holiness that freely attains in life
and conduct what was impracticable as obedience to law.
(2) 8:9-11, The resurrection of Christ is a guaranty of the renovation and
resurrection of those in whom the Spirit dwells.
(3) 8:12-17, The Spirit bears personal witness to the believer of the latter's
sonship to God and joint inheritance with Christ.
(4) 8:18-27, The Spirit also prompts and guides to hopeful longing and
righteous supplication for the consummation.
(5) 8:28-30, Believers are the elect of God, PREDESTINED to be called,
justified, SANCTIFIED and GLORIFIED.
(6) 8:31-39, Triumphant peroration on the blessedness of the believer.
II. 9:1 15:13, PRACTICAL BEARING OF THESE
FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS UPON CHOICE, LIFE AND CONDUCT.
1. 9:1 11:35, The apostasy and rejection of the Jews.
1) 9:1-5, Paul's intense grief over the fact.
(2) 9:6 10-21, Moral responsibility for the fact.
(1) 9:6-29, God not culpable.
a. 9:6-13, His promise not broken.
(a) 9:6-8, The promise not given to all the natural seed of Abraham.
(b) 9:9-13, God's plan of discrimination exemplified in the cases of Isaac and
Jacob.
b. 9:14-24, It could not transcend his absolute sovereign right.
(a) 9:14-18, Scripture proof that God's acts are sovereign.
(b) 9:19-24, His right unimpeachable.
c. 9:25-29, That only a. fraction will be saved, is according to prophecy.
(2) 9:30 10:21, The Jews themselves are to blame, for their rejection was
caused by their self-righteous unbelief.
a. 9:30 10:3, Their zeal for righteousness has been misdirected.
b. 10:4-13, The true way, viz., belief in Christ upon testimony of the preached
gospel, much simpler than the one they employed.
c. 10:14-21, Israel has heard and refused.
(a) 10:14f. Importance of preaching admitted.
(b) 10:16. Israel did not believe.
(c) 10:17f, Having heard the gospel.
(d) 10:19-21, And having been warned in prophecy of their apostasy.
(3) 11-1-32, Limitations of the fact.
(1) 11:1-10. It is only partial.
a. 11:lfa. The salvation of Paul himself proves it.
b. 11:2b-4. The doctrine of a remnant exemplified in the experience of Elijah.
c. 11 :5-10, God makes sure of a few by election of grace.
(2) 11:11-32, It in only temporary and conditional.
a. 11:11-24, Israel will surely be redrafted upon his native stump.
b. 11:25-32, His lopping off is only a part of the divine plan of universal
mercy.
(3) 11:33-35. Exclamation over the supreme wisdom and knowledge of God.
2. 12:1 15:13, Reflections and exhortations on Christian conduct.
1) 12:1 13:14, On the general conduct proper for a Christian.
(1) 12: 1f, As a child of God.
(2) 12:3-21, As a member of the church.
(3) 13:1-7, As a citizen.
(4) 13:8-10, As a member of society.
(5) 13:11-14, As one who expects the judgment.
2) 14:1 15:13, Special directions concerning non-essentials of faith.
(1) 14:l-13a, One no right to interfere with another.
(2) 14:13b 15:13, Obligation to self-restraint for the sake of others on basis
of love and edification.
CONCLUSION: 15:14-16:27.
(1) 15:14-16, Paul's apology to the Roman Christiana for his letter to them.
(2) 15:17-22, Explanation of his past course.
(3) 15:23-29, His plan of future operations.
(4) 15:30-33, His request for their prayers.
(5) 16: If, Commendation of Phoebe.
(6) 16:3-24, Salutations.
(7) 16:25-27, Benediction.
Having these three analyses before us, and all of them good, it may seem
immodest to submit my own. But there are to my mind overwhelming reasons
arising from defects in the others, particularly on chapters 3-8ωthe most vital
in the book. But my own analysis will appear in the body of the discussion.
QUESTIONS
1. Of what group of great
letters is this a climax?
2. What prophet forecast the
succession of five world empires, what the name of each, what the Jewish touch
with each, especially what the salient points of Jewish contact with the Romans
in historic order, and who the most important Jewish writer of this history?
3. How may we account for
the multitude of Jews in the city of Rome, what position did they occupy there,
and what Roman classical authors refer to them?
4. How was Christianity
established in Rome, and what the credit due, respectively, to Peter, Stephen,
Paul, Aquila, and Priscilla, and the women mentioned?
5. What the proof from the
letter itself of at least a remote connection between the Jerusalem apostles
and the planting of Christianity in Rome?
6. What the proof from the
letter that Paul's converts were not the only factors in planting Christianity
there?
7. How may we account for
Paul's extensive personal acquaintance with Christians there?
8. To whom was this letter
written, why not addressed to the church at Rome, and what is a better way to
express it?
9. What the evidence that
there were many Christiana in Rome at this time?
10. Were these Christians
there Jews or Gentiles, or both? If both, which mainly?
11. Who was the amanuensis?
12. What the scriptural
evidence pro and con for the Romanist contention that Peter went to Rome and
remained there twenty years just after the incidents of Acts 12:1-18, and what
the answer to the Romanist interpretation of 1 Peter 5:13?
13. How was it impossible for
Peter to have been the first bishop of the church at Rome?
14. Is the traditional
evidence credible that Peter was martyred at Rome, and if so, how is it yet
discounted?
15. If there was not one
central church at Rome, what evidence that the several worshiping congregations
were organized bodies with officers?
16. Who the author of this
letter, and what the proof from the letter itself?
17. What the date of this
letter and how obtained, and where was it written?
18. What circumstances
conditioned the writing of this letter as expressed in the relation of this
letter to 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians?
19. What the internal proof
of the relation of Romans to Galatians?
20. What the occasion of
this letter?
21. What the purpose of this
letter?
22. What is the nature of
this letter?
23. What other books of the
Bible may be classified with it as a discussion, or treatise, on a great theme?
24. How is it unlike
anything else in the New Testament?
25. What questions have been
raised as to the integrity of the book?
26. How does this letter
emphasize the connection between the Old Testament and the gospel of the New
Testament?
27. What the importance of
an analysis? Quote the sayings of Professor Agassiz, Dr. Harvey, Dr. Wayland,
and Dr. Shedd on this subject.
28. What analyses were
commended by the author?
29. Which analysis is the
most remarkable in literature, and what its excellencies?
30. In what two respects
does Dr. Robertson's outline excel?
31. In Dr. Robertson's
outline what is the great theme of the letter?
32. In Bennet's outline what
the theme?
33. In Tanner's outline what
the theme?
34. Are these three themes
practically the same?
PAUL'S SALUTATION, THANKSGIVING AND PRAYER
Romans 1:1-17.
The theme of this letter is found in Paul's own words: "For I am not
ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one
that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is
revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But
the righteous shall live by faith." This theme condensed is, The Gospel
Plan of Salvation. But someone asks, "Why not 'Righteousness of God' the
theme?" Because this righteousness is only the means to the great end
"salvation."
THE SALUTATION
(1:1-7)
We gather from the salutation the following things:
(1) The writer: "Paul." (2) Those addressed: "To all that are in
Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints," i.e., Christians. (3) The
salutation itself: "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the
Lord Jesus Christ." The writer is particularly described, (1) In his
status, as a "servant of Jesus Christ." (2) In his office, as
"called to be an apostle." (3) In his ordination, as "Separated
unto the gospel of God." (4) In the direct object of his work, as
"Unto obedience of faith among all nations," including the Romans
themselves: "Among whom are ye also." (5) In the ultimate reason for
his work, as "For his name's sake."
His "gospel of God" is described, (1) As "promised afore through
his prophets." (2) As recorded "in the holy scriptures." (3)
"As concerning his Son."
That Son is described thus: (1) According to the flesh, the Son of David. (2)
According to Spirit of Holiness, declared to be the Son of God with power by
the resurrection from the dead. (3) As our "Messiah and Lord." (4) As
the author of grace and apostleship.
THE THANKSGIVING
(1:8)
The ground of thanksgiving is thus expressed: "That your faith is
proclaimed throughout the whole world."
This universal proclamation of the faith of the Roman Christians may be
accounted for as follows: Rome was the world's capital and center of
governmental unity. To and from it, over the great military roads and ship
lines, were constant tides of travel and traffic, so that a whisper there
reached the boundaries of the empire. To Paul, at least, working along these
roads or sailing over these sea courses there came continual news of the progress
of the gospel there. There were his kindred, his converts, his acquaintances
from many lands, with whom he had constant communication.
THE PRAYER AND
ITS REASON (1:9-15)
This prayer is thus expressed: "If by any means now at length I may be prospered
by the will of God to come unto you." It is described, (1) As sincere:
"God is my witness." (2) As unceasing: "How unceasingly I make
mention of you, etc."
The reasons for this prayer are, (1) To impart some spiritual gift looking to
their establishment. (2) For mutual comfort in each other's faith. (3) That he
might have some fruit in them as in other Gentiles. (4) Because he was a debtor
to both Greeks and Barbarians, wise and foolish. (5) Because he was ready to
preach at Rome as well as elsewhere. (6) He had been hindered in his purposes
to visit them hitherto (see also 15:22). (7) He was not ashamed of the gospel
in any crowd.
The following conclusions may be drawn from this prayer: (1) That he counted
Rome in the sphere allotted to him. (2) That on account of its central and
political position as the world's metropolis, its strategical importance as a
radiating mission base surpassed all, others. (3) That the archenemy of the
gospel understood this importance as well as Paul, and so far had barred him
out of the field. Hence the necessity of this prayer. Twice in this letter he
refers to this hindering of his purpose to come to them (1:13; 15:22) and in 1
Thessalonians 2:18 we find that Satan is the hinderer. (4) We learn from Acts
23:11 that it was the Lord's will for him to visit Rome according to this
prayer, which says, "By the will of God." Thus we see Satan and his
emissaries opposing Paul's approach to Rome, while Paul was longing and praying
to get there. God's will overruling Satan's will in answer to the prayer. And
he prayed "if by any means," leaving that also to God, and we learn
that he went in bonds (Acts 27:1; 28:20). (5) This prayer with its reasons
opens the way to a statement of the great theme of the letter.
Let us now analyze the theme of the letter (1:16-17). This theme involves the
answer to these questions: What is the gospel, to whom addressed and on what
terms, what its power, what the salvation unto which it leads, how is it a
power to this end, what the righteousness revealed, what the meaning of
"from faith unto faith," and what the varied uses of the quotation
from Habakkuk? The gospel is the whole story of Christ's mediatorial work as
prophet, sacrifice, priest, king, leader and judge, addressed to the whole human
race, whatever the nationality, sex, or social condition, on the terms of
simple faith in Jesus as he is offered in the gospel, the power of which is God
himself, i.e., God the Holy Spirit. The salvation unto which it leads consists
generally in (1) What it does for us. (2) What it does in us. (3) What it leads
us unto.
We find in this letter that Paul uses salvation in the sense of justification.
Man is saved when he is justified; but in another part of the letter we hear
him talking about a salvation that is to be revealed at the last day, and we
hear Peter talking about that too. Then we, in this letter, also hear him
speaking of salvation in its symbols in its figures. When we get to Romans 6
we have salvation in baptism and in the Lord's Supper not actual salvation,
but salvation pictorially presented. Then in this letter we hear him tell about
the redemption of the soul, the buying back of the soul; then we hear him tell
about the redemption of the earth on which man lives. So salvation is a big
thing. Let us now define it. Salvation is the final, complete, and everlasting
deliverance of the sinner's entire soul and body from the guilt of sin, from
the defilement of sin, from the dominion of sin, from the bondage of Satan, and
the deliverance of mans' habitat this old world from the curse upon it.
Note now what it is unto. It is unto something as well as from something. We
have seen what it delivers from. Now it is a deliverance unto what? Unto an
everlasting inheritance prepared in heaven. It can't mean less than that. We
can't say it is all of salvation for the soul to be justified when the body is
not saved; we can't say the body is saved until it is raised from the dead and
glorified. And we can't say that we are saved unto our inheritance until we get
to it. I will state in another form what salvation is. Salvation, in its legal
aspects, is expressed by three words: First, justification. (Justification is
the declaration of a competent court that one tried before it is acquitted.)
The second legal term is redemption. (Redemption is the buying back of what had
been sold.) The third term is adoption. That is a legal term also. We are not
naturally children of God, and we get into the family of God by adoption. He
adopts us into his family. Adoption is that legal process by which one, not
naturally a member of the family, becomes legally so. Now I say that salvation,
so far as legal aspects go, is expressed by these three words justification,
redemption, and adoption. Paul discusses every one of them in this letter. When
I am justified before God, that delivers me from the wrath to come. I said that
it was a deliverance from the guilt of sin. Justification does that it
delivers us from the guilt of sin.
Let us look at salvation as done in us. What are the terms? Those terms are
regeneration and sanctification. What is regeneration? Regeneration is giving a
holy disposition to the mind. The carnal mind is enmity against God, not
subject to his law, neither could be made subject to his law. Man in his
natural state hates God, hates truth, hates light. It is not sufficient that a
man be redeemed from the curse of the law, or the wrath of the law, and be
acquitted. It is necessary that he have a mind in harmony with God. That occurs
in us; God begins a good work in us, and continues it to the day of Jesus
Christ. And that good work in us is expressed by regeneration and
sanctification. Regeneration gives us a holy disposition, but the remnants of
the flesh are still with us. Then sanctification commences and more and more
conforms us to the image of Jesus Christ, as we go on from strength to
strength, from glory to glory, from faith to faith. That is what it does in us.
The legal part is accomplished fully right here on earth. The very minute we
believe, that day we are justified; that day we are redeemed; that day we are
adopted. The salvation in us, referring to the soul, is consummated just as
soon as the soul gets through its discipline and is freed from the body. On the
other side we see the spirits of the just made perfect. That is the end of the
salvation as far as the soul is concerned. But salvation takes hold of the
other parts of the man his body that lies mouldering in the ground. God
provided in the garden of Eden for the immortality of the body. When sin
expelled the man and he had no longer access to that tree, his body, of course,
began to die. .Salvation must save that body. That comes in the resurrection
which he discusses in this letter. In the resurrection these things all take
place: First, the body is made alive, quickened. Second, it is raised. Third,
it is glorified. And glorification means what? What these words say, "It
is sown in weakness; it is raised in strength; it is sown in dishonor; it is
raised in honor; it is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption; it is
sown a mortal body; it is raised an immortal body." It is sown a physical
body; it is raised a spiritual body. It is sown in the image of the first Adam;
it is raised in the image of the Second Adam. That is the entire man, isn't it?
I said it was the complete and everlasting deliverance of the entire man, soul,
and body. Then fourth, we must bring those two saved parts together. So Christ
brings the spirits with him. He raises the dead, and the spirits go back into
the old house, now renovated and glorified.
We have not yet come to the end. That is what is done for us, and what is done
in us, but it isn't the deliverance unto that inheritance that is reserved in
heaven, that the heart of man never conceived of the precious things that God
has in reservation for those that love him. That is Paul's idea of salvation as
it is presented in this letter, and never less than that.
There are a great many people that say, "I am saved from death."
"How do you know you are saved?" I ask. "Well, I believe in
Jesus Christ and am justified." "That is very good as far as it goes,
but when Jesus laid hands on you didn't it mean more than redemption,
justification, and adoption? Didn't he do anything inside of you?" So the
salvation goes on in sanctification.
The King James version reads in verse 4: "Declared to be the Son of God
with power according to the spirit of holiness." Does that mean Christ's
personal spirit of holiness or does it refer to the Holy Spirit? In other
words, is it referring to the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit in quickening
Christ's body, or does it mean that Christ rose from his inherent personal
spirit of holiness? If we answer this correctly, we also answer one of the most
difficult other passages in the Bible, to wit: 1 Peter 3, last clause of verse
18 and through verse 19: "Being put to death in the flesh, but made alive
in the spirit; in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in
prison." We have the same question in that passage. It is easy to see how
the Revised Standard answers the question in both cases. But I say, "Does
the Revised Standard rightly interpret either?" Precisely the same
question recurs in 1 Timothy 3:'6, where the Standard Revision follows its
usual interpretation. Is it right in any of them? I think not.
QUESTIONS
1. What the theme of this
letter in Paul's own words?
2. What the condensed theme?
3. Why is not "The
righteousness of God" the theme?
4. What do we gather from
the salutation?
5. How is the writer
particularly described?
6. How is his "gospel
of God" described?
7. How is the Son described?
8. What the ground of
thanksgiving?
9. How may we account for
the universal proclamation "of the faith of the Roman Christians?
10. What Paul's prayer here?
11. How. is it described?
12. Why this prayer?
13. What the conclusions
from this prayer?
14. Analyze the theme of
this letter (1:16-17).
15. What then is the gospel?
16. To whom addressed?
17. On what terms?
18. What the power of this
gospel?
19. Of what does the
salvation unto which it leads consist?
20. Define this salvation,
and explain fully each of the aspects of salvation, defining also the terms
used.
21. What the interpretation
of 1:4, and what the parallel between it and 1 Peter 3:18-19 and 1 Timothy
3:16?
THE UNIVERSAL NECESSITY OF SALVATION
Romans 1:18-32.
Having considered in the latter part of the preceding chapter the meaning of salvation,
we now follow the apostle's argument in showing
The argument applies to the whole human race, to man as man, both Jew and
Gentile. In this discussion we have the case of the Gentiles. They are guilty of
ungodliness. They are unlike God in their nature. Originally man was made in
Gods' image and likeness:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and
over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that
creepeth upon the earth. And God created man in his own image, in the image of
God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them: and
God said unto them. Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and
subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of
the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God
said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, . . . to you it shall
be for food: and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens,
and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have
given every green herb for food: and it was so. And God saw everything that he
made, and, behold it was very good. And there was evening, and there was
morning, the sixth day. Genesis 1:26-31.
This original state of man shows his likeness, his dominion, and his
commission. This image and likeness being lost through sin, they are out of
harmony with the Creator.
They are guilty of unrighteousness. Their deeds are evil, proceeding from an
evil nature. Their sin of deeds consists of both omission and commission. They
have not only failed by way of omission to exercise their dominion and execute
their commission, but they have actively done contrary to both. The wrath of
God has been revealed from heaven against both their sin of nature and deed.
This wrath is the assessed penalty of violated law. Here we need to understand
the law. What is law? In its last analysis law is the intent, or purpose, of
the Creator in bringing a being into existence. That intent is set forth in the
passage cited (Gen. 1:26-31). This law inheres in the very constitution of our
being, and hence as a principle antedates any particular formal statute.
Indeed, all statutes are but expressions of antecedent, inherent,
constitutional law, as the multitude of statutes are but expressions of the law
principles in the constitution of nations and states.
Or, varying the definition, we may say that all law arises from and inheres in
relations. Where there is no relation there is no obligation, as the relation
of parent and child measures the reciprocal obligations binding parent and
child. So the relation between husband and wife, citizen and the state, the
creature and the Creator, the redeemed and the redeemer. With each new relation
there arises a new obligation measured by the relation. Law, then, inheres in
the intent of the Creator, and is antecedent to all statutes and independent of
them, except only their fountain, or source. When he brings a being into
existence, the law of that being inheres in the Creator, and in the relations
of that being. This is law in its last analysis as set forth by the apostle,
but in this very context (2:12) and many times elsewhere, he speaks of law, as
that given on Mount Sinai to the Jew, which will be noticed more particularly
later.
Sin therefore is lawlessness, or any lack of conformity with law, whether in
nature or in omission or commission of deed. An omission of duty and commission
of sin are but symptoms or expressions of a sinful nature. As our Lord said:
"But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the
heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts,
murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings" (Matt.
15:18-19). As he again said: "By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men
gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth
forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree
cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good
fruit" (Matt. 7:16-18). "Either make the tree good, and its fruit good;
or make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt; for the tree is known by its
fruit" (Matt. 12:33). That preacher therefore had no adequate conception
of sin who defined it as, "The wilful transgression of a known law."
The greatest of all sin is a sin of nature. It is not dependent in obligation
on our knowledge. Paul says, "Though I know nothing against myself, I am
not thereby justified." Both natural and spiritual laws bind and have
penalty notwithstanding our ignorance. The ignorance itself is sin, or may be a
result of sin. And transgression is only one overt act of sin. It is equally
sin to fall short of law or go beyond it, or to deflect from it. Righteousness
is exact conformity with law. With this conception of law, and of sin, the
apostle speaks of its penalty, the wrath of God a wrath that is antecedent to
its revelation. And yet this wrath is revealed. So now we consider
THE REVELATION
OF WRATH
God has not left them ignorant of sin's penalty. The knowledge of God, and
their relation to him, is manifest both in them and to them. There are two
books of this revelation the book of nature in them and the book of nature
outside of them. He has planted knowledge in them. "The spirit of man is
the lamp of Jehovah, searching all his innermost parts" (Prov. 20:27). As
the natural eye is the lamp of the body, so the spirit is Jehovah's lamp.
"If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is the
darkness!" (Matt. 6:2223). Or the apostle, in the context, further
describes the revelation in us: "For when Gentiles that have not the law
do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto
themselves; in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts,
their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another
accusing or else excusing them." Man, therefore, by the very constitution
of his being, has a knowledge of God, law, sin, and penalty. Therefore by
nature he is a worshiping being. When through sin the light in him is darkened
he may and does worship false gods, yet everywhere he is a worshiper. This
internal light is not a faint spark, but a great light. With every man in the
world there is an internal sense of right and wrong. Men may differ among
themselves as to what particular thing is right or wrong, but all have the
sense of right and wrong. They are keenly alive to their rights and keenly
sensitive to their wrongs. But there can be no right and wrong without some law
to prescribe the right and proscribe the wrong. And there can be no law without
a lawmaker. And there can be no law without penal sanctions, otherwise it would
be no more than advice. And there can be no penalty without a judgment to
declare it and a power to execute it. But every man knows that even and exact
justice is not meted out in this world that many times the innocent suffer
and the guilty triumph. Therefore the conclusion comes like a conqueror, that
there must be
A JUDGMENT TO
COME AND A WRATH TO COME
There never was a man who has not at some time, under a keen sense of wrong
done him, appealed to this future judgment and invoked upon the wrongdoer the
wrath to come. It is this knowledge or consciousness of future judgment and
wrath that makes death frightful to the evildoer. And it is this consciousness
of amenability to God's future infallible Judgment and inexorable wrath that
restrains crime more than the dread of all human law and judgment. So it is
demonstrated that there is in us a revelation of wrath against sin.
But the apostle argues a revelation of wrath outside of us and in the broad
book of Nature. He says, "For the invisible things of him since the
creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that
are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without
excuse" (1:20). His deity and his everlasting power are "clearly
seen" in the universe which is the work of his hands. To the same effect
speaks the psalmist: The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament showeth his
handiwork, Day unto day uttereth speech, And night unto night showeth
knowledge. There is no speech nor language; Their voice is not heard. Their
line is gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world.
In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming
out of his chamber, And rejoiceth as a strong man to run his course. His going
forth is from the end of the heavens, And his circuit unto the ends of it; And
there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
Psalm 19:1-6.
And this apostle to the Athenians: The God that made the world and all things therein,
he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
neither is he served by men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he
himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and he made of one
every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined
their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation that they should
seek God, if haply they might feel after him and find him, though he is not far
from each one of us; for in him we live, and move, and have our being; as
certain even of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Being
then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto
gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man. The times of
ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth men that they should
all everywhere repent: inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he will
judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained; whereof he
hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Acts 17:24-31.
Yea, not only Nature, but providence in Nature, as was said to Noah:
"While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and
summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease" (Gen. 8:22). And
reaffirmed by this apostle: "And yet he left not himself without witness,
in that he did good and gave you from heaven rains and fruitful seasons,
filling your hearts with food and gladness" (Acts 14:17). Thus all nature
in us or external to us, and God's marvelous providence proclaim the knowledge
of him. Tom Paine, the deist, admitted all this, and expressed his admiration
for Addison's paraphrase of Psalm 19: The spacious firmament on high, With all the blue
ethereal sky, And spangled heav'ns (a shining frame), Their great Original
proclaim: The unwearied sun, from day to day, Doth his Creator's power display,
And publishes to every land The work of an Almighty hand. Soon as the evening
shades prevail, The moon takes up the wondrous tale, And nightly to the
list'ning earth Repeats the story of her birth: While all the stars that round
her burn, And all the planets, in their turn, Confirm the tidings as they roll,
And spread the truth from pole to pole. What though in solemn silence all Move
round the dark terrestrial ball; What though no real voice nor sound Amid their
radiant orbs be found; In reason's ear they all rejoice, And utter forth a
glorious voice, Forever singing as they shine, The hand that made us is divine.
The stoic philosopher might magnify inexorable and pitiless fate, the epicurean
philosopher, or his descendants, the modern evolutionists, might glorify chance
in attributing this great universe and its people to "the fortuitous
concourse of atoms," thereby proclaiming themselves brother to the fool
that said in his heart, "no God." They need to read the lesson of
Nebuchadnezzar, to whom God announced this sentence: "Let his heart be
changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him; and let seven
times pass over him. . . . The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon
Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his
body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hair was grown like eagles'
feathers, and his nails like birds' claws." Daniel 4:16, 33.
The evolutionist indeed classifies himself with beasts by acknowledging a brute
ancestry.
This revelation was sufficient to leave them without excuse because when they
thus knew him as God they were guilty of these sins:
1. They glorified him not as God
2. Neither were thankful
3. Became vain in their reasonings
4. Darkened their senseless hearts
5. Professing to be wise, they became fools
6. Become idolaters, changing the glory of the incorruptible God for the
likeness of an image of corruptible man, birds, beasts, and creeping things.
This brought on them judicial blindness.
God gave them up to the reign of their passions. Both women and men became
shameless. As they refused to retain the knowledge, God being put out, with
what were they filled? And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them
up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled
with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of
envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, hateful to
God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to
parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection,
unmerciful. Romans 1:28-31.
"Who, knowing the
ordinance of God, that they that practice such things are worthy of death, not
only do the same, but also consent with them that practice them. Romans 1:32.
QUESTIONS
1. How does the argument for
the universal necessity of salvation apply to the whole human race?
2. What the four arguments
applied to the Gentiles?
3. What is ungodliness?
4. What is unrighteousness?
5. What the consequent wrath
of God?
6. What is law?
7. What its relation to
formal statutes?
8. From what does all law
arise?
9. What the principal
relations from which all law arises?
10. What other use of the
term "law" in this letter?
11. What then is sin?
12. What its penalty?
13. How is the wrath of God
revealed?
14. What must follow the
fact of right and wrong?
15. When and why a judgment
of wrath?
16. What Paul's argument for
a revelation of wrath from the book of nature, and what the logical conclusion
with reference to the position of the Stoic and Epicurean, or the modern
evolutionist?
17. Why were the Gentiles
left without excuse, and of what sins were they guilty?
18. What the consequences?
19. Since they refused to
retain, the knowledge of God, with what were they filled?
20. What the result?
THE UNIVERSAL NECESSITY OF SALVATION
(CONTINUED)
Romans 2:1-16.
We have in the previous chapters shown: 1. The great theme of the letter to be
(1:16-17) God's plan of salvation, and we have analyzed and defined the terms
of the compound proposition which embodies it.
2. We have found that this plan contains a revelation of God's righteousness as
the only ground of salvation.
3. We then in the last chapter commenced to study the necessity for this
salvation as found in a revelation of God's wrath, which stands over against
the revelation of his righteousness.
4. We found in part just how this revelation of wrath is made both in us and
out of us, to wit: (a) In the very constitution of our being, "The spirit
of a man being the lamp of the Lord." (b) In the operation of the
conscience, either accusing or excusing, (c) In the order of the material
universe which discloses the deity and power of the Creator. (d) In God's
continual government of the universe by his providence evident in the recurring
seasons, (e) In the appeal of all men to God's judgment for unrighted wrongs
and the invocation of his wrath upon the wrongdoer, (f) In the social order of
men established everywhere, whatever the form of government, through which men
define and punish wrong. (g) In the worship of all men everywhere in which by
sacrifice in some form they seek to placate the offended deity and appease his
wrath, (h) In their very idolatries, by which they seek to lower the deity to
their own level and even beneath their level, and in their veiling their
pollutions under the cover of worship, they yet bear testimony to deity and
their amenability to his judgment, (i) In that their lives showed that nature's
light, whether external, internal, or providential, has no power to regenerate
or sanctify, and no power to propitiate or justify. It could alarm and condemn,
but could not save. It was sufficient, but not efficient. Hence the necessity
of a plan that would have the power unto salvation.
Here I want to insert the contrast between the light of nature and the light of
the gospel, both of them being very brilliant, but one of them sufficient and
the other efficient. In Psalm 19, which has already been quoted in part, we
have this language: The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament showeth his
handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, And night unto night showeth
knowledge. There is no speech nor language; Their voice is not heard. Their
line is gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the
world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom
coming out of his chamber, And rejoiceth as a strong man to run his course. His
going forth is from the end of the heavens, And his circuit unto the ends of
it; And there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
This is an abundance of light, and a sufficiency of light, but notice the
contrast: The
law of Jehovah is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of Jehovah is sure, making wise
the simple (Nature's light cannot help the fool). The precepts of Jehovah are
right, rejoicing the heart: The commandment of Jehovah is pure, enlightening
the eyes. The fear of Jehovah is clean, enduring forever: The ordinances of
Jehovah are true, and righteous all together. More to be desired are they than
gold, yea, than much fine gold ; Sweeter also than honey and the droppings of
the honeycomb. Moreover, by them is thy servant warned.
Here it is the design of the psalmist to put in contrast the light of nature
and the light of God's word. In one of them the knowledge is sufficient, in the
other the light is both sufficient and efficient. As bearing upon the
sufficiency of that light I wish to cite the comment of an old Puritan
preacher, who says:
Now the preaching of the heavens is wonderful in three respects: (1) As
preaching all the night and all the day without intermission (v. 2). One day
telleth another, and one night certifieth another. (2) As preaching in every
kind of language (v. 3). There is neither speech nor language, but their voices
are heard among them. (3) As preaching in every part of the world, and in every
parish of every part and in every place of every parish (v. 4). Their sound is
gone into all lands, and their words unto the end of the world. They be
diligent pastors, as preaching at all times; learned pastors, as preaching in all
tongues; and catholic pastors, as preaching in all towns.
Let us compare the words of this old Puritan with what Paul says in this very
letter to the Romans: In chapter 10 he quotes it and we see how he uses it,
showing that if man was not a sinner he could learn in nature the way to
nature's God. He says, "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord
shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?
And how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they
hear without the preacher? and how shall they preach, except they be sent? even
as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of
good things. But they did not all hearken to the glad tidings." Then he
quotes Isaiah and also this very psalm: But I say. Did they not hear? Yea, verily, Their
sound went out into all the earth, And their words unto the ends of the world.
The last verse of chapter I affirms that there was sufficient knowledge so that
God's ordinance made such deeds as were enumerated worthy of death, and yet it
declares that they themselves wilfully disobeyed and consented to disobedience
in others. I ask the reader to note particularly that it is very far from the
apostle's thought to belittle the light of nature. He boldly avows its
sufficiency, but in that it lacks efficiency there is necessity for another
light which is "the power of God unto salvation."
Our present discussion continues the argument on that necessity as follows: Having
this light, sinners are "inexcusable" because they, as individuals
and as society, pass judgment on others, not excusing them, therein condemning
themselves in all wrongdoing. He starts out with the declaration (2:1) that
whenever the individual man passes judgment on a fellow man for alleged
wrongdoing, and whenever organized society passes judgment on a member of
society, that proves that they are inexcusable if they do wrong, since by their
judgment they have established the principle of judgment. And in verse 2 he
advances to a new thought: "And we know that the judgment of God is
according to the truth against them that practice such things." What is
that judgment of God that we know so confidently? How do we know it? What is
the knowledge? The knowledge there is the knowledge that comes from nature. His
argument demands that from the light of nature in us and outside of us we know
that God's judgment on such things as are enumerated in chapter I is according
to truth that the things there enumerated are wrong, and that when God
punishes them the punishment is just.
In verse 3 he asks this question: "Reckonest thou this, O man, who judgest
them that practice such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the
judgment of God?" On what kind of reasoning shall a man who lives entirely
apart from the Bible, and yet does claim light enough to pass judgment on the
wrongdoer, escape the judgment of God? If the wrong is done to him by organized
society, whether tribe or clan or nation or republic or a limited monarchy, no
matter what the government is, that government holds some things to be wrong
and assesses punishment worthy of death. "Now," he says, "do you
suppose that you will escape the judgment of God? You certainly cannot."
We have no hope from such light as is in nature, because in nature every
violation of law receives a just recompense of reward every one, whether we
know the law of nature or not. If a man puts his hand into the fire it will
burn him. If he takes poison it will kill him. Confining our judgment to the
law of nature, any hope that we may indulge and with which we may solace
ourselves is foolish, since we cannot escape the judgment of God.
He advances in the argument: "Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness
and forbearance and longsuffering?" The thought there is that God doesn't
punish every week that in the moral government of the world a long time
sometimes elapses between the commission of a crime and its exposure, and in
multitudes of cases exact justice is never rendered in this world. Paul asks
that question because of God's method of delay in his final punishment. What is
the reason of the delay? He says that it is from "the riches of his
goodness and forbearance and longsuffering." God is good; God is patient;
God bears a long time before he strikes. "Now are you going to despise
that?" As the apostle says, "Not knowing that the goodness of God was
designed to lead thee to repentance." There you get at the real reason of
God's delay in punishing in his moral government. There was no delay in the
case of Adam. When he sinned God made the inquisition. He called him to his bar
at once. Since that time why doesn't he do that? Because that very day grace
intervened, and man was put upon a grace probation, and the gospel was preached
that day in that the Seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head. And
the throne of grace was set up that day. On the east side of the garden dwelt
God with the cherubim to keep open the way to the tree of life. This delay comes
from his goodness, his forbearance, and his longsuffering. And the reason for
that goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering was to give the man, though
guilty and worthy of instant death, the opportunity to repent) not through
anything in him, but through grace. What Paul there says, Peter affirms. In 2
Peter 3 he answers the question, What construction shall be put upon the long
delay of God in punishing men? What is meant by it? He says, "The Lord is
not slack concerning his promise [that is, that he will come and judge the
world] as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to youward, not
wishing that any should perish, but that 'all should come to repentance."
That is his motive. The apostle asks a question: "Is it because you see that
God doesn't strike the very minute that the sin is committed, is it because you
despise that goodness and that forbearance, that delay, or is it ignorance of
the motive of that delay that his goodness in that respect shall lead you to
repentance is that the reason?" We are told in the Old Testament,
"Because sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, therefore
the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil" (Eccl.
8:11). They despise the goodness, and they ignore the motive of the delay.
He then in verse 5 makes this statement: "But after thy hardness and
impenitent heart treasurest up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath."
"Thou dost treasure up wrath." The wrath of God is cumulative. If God
waits to punish and a man despises his waiting and ignores his motive, then he
has added to the cause of wrath, i.e., the wrath accumulates.
It is more important that we as preachers should understand this reason of
God's delay, which is the idea of cumulative wrath, than to know anything else
in the Bible except the very heart of the gospel itself.
I will illustrate that thought so that it may be clear. One Puritan preacher
said that man's despising of the delay of God's punishment of sin reminded him
of a foolish fellow that comes into an inn because he can buy things on credit,
and ignores the fact that behind the door the innkeeper is scoring up,
charging, charging, charging, for the pay day that will come. Another preacher
has illustrated it this way: A man comes to a tiger's den when the old tiger is
away and picks up a little cub and marches off with it, perfectly serene and
unconscious that stealthy feet are following him, and at a turn in the road,
with a scream that frightens him, the tiger springs upon him and rends him.
Another preacher has used this illustration: A house had been built below a
huge rock dam in a river, and a family had lived there for some time in
security, and as day after day passed their sense of security became more
confirmed and more formidable, and they were wilfully ignoring the fact that up
above the stream was rising, that the water was increasing, that it was
accumulating in volume and accelerating in speed, massing up, and after a while
in one moment the dam split and the overwhelming water destroyed the hapless
family.
Peter presents the same thought in the passage that I cited, but I did not
conclude. In this he presents that cumulative thought: "But the day of the
Lord will come as a thief [that is, they will not be looking for it] ; in which
the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, . . . and the earth and the
works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing that these things are thus,
all to be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy living
and godliness?" The day is deferred, but God is not slack as men count
slackness. With him one thousand years is as one day, and one day is as one
thousand years, but the day will come, and when it comes it will be as a thief
in the night.
Take another illustration: God explained to Abraham how his descendants could
not immediately take their territory. He says, "The measure of their
iniquity is not yet full." Once in preaching on that I drew on a piece of
canvas two vessels of equal size, one of them, the vessel of opportunity and
the other the vessel of iniquity. As the vessel of opportunity empties, the
other one fills up. As the opportunity grows less the iniquity measure grows
larger. Whenever the vessel of opportunity is empty and the vessel of iniquity
is full, God strikes.
Another preacher has used this illustration: A man buys a long rope and stakes
out his horse. The horse prances around and grazes about as if he were a free
horse, but other horses come by that are not staked, and he tries to go off
with them, but he can only go to the end of his tether, and that rope measures
the diameter of the circle in which he can graze. As he keeps running about,
the rope winds round the stake, and every time he goes round, the rope gets
shorter, and after a while his head is right up to the stake.
But the most forceful illustration of this thought is a sermon of Jonathan
Edwards in New England. He took this text: "Their feet shall slide in due
time." His discussion runs as follows: "They are rejoicing that they
have sometimes kept their foot-hold when they walked over slippery ground and
over ice. They have a vain confidence that they can stand, but in due time
their feet will slide. The sinner's feet did not slip from under him last week,
when he committed a sin. He was terribly frightened that first day, and the
next day he was less frightened, and by the third day still less, until finally
he forgot it, but in due time his feet will slip; God has appointed the
time." He is really, as Jonathan Edwards pictured, walking on an incline plane
as slick as glass, and when the right time comes it isn't necessary to push him
his feet will slip themselves, and at the other end of that plane are the
depths of hell.
Hence judgment is, that in order for law to restrain crime there must be a
certain punishment. As long as the transgressor in civil or criminal matters
can think of escaping punishment or devising some expedient by which he shall
not be punished, it has no restraining power over him, but when it is
absolutely certain that whether it be soon or late every evil deed shall
receive a just recompense of reward whenever he gets that conviction on his
mind, that restrains him. When God makes inquisition of faults he remembers,
and when he holds up the light of revelation to the sinner's heart, he will
make the man remember. When this light bores into his very soul, he will see
the slime of every foul thought, every beastly act, every vile sin. God will
make him remember.
We come now to a thought concerning this wrath that we must not forget, viz.:
that this revelation of God's wrath is not immediate. It is a wrath to come.
There are temporary judgments on man and on nations, and there are
chastisements of God's people here on earth, but when we talk about the wrath
of this text, it is the wrath of a certain, inexorable, definite day. It is the
day of wrath. Hence Paul at Athens, while explaining how God has delayed to
punish these heathen, and that God has overlooked the times of ignorance, i.e.,
passed over them temporarily, but now he calls upon all men to repent, because
he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by
that man whom he has ordained. And isn't it strange that when the Bible so many
times speaks of that awful day in the future speaks of it as a set day, and
connects it indissolubly with the second advent of Jesus Christ, that men will
talk about the advent of Christ being imminent, liable to come at any time?
It is not liable to come at any time. It can come but at one time, and that
time is not a sliding scale. It is an appointed day, and as at his first coming
he could not come till the fulness of time, so his second advent, as Paul says,
cannot be until all these other things take place.
Not to make a mistake about that day, let us see what Paul further says about
it. In 1 Corinthians 3 he says that this day will be revealed in fire, and that
that revelation of fire will try every man's work, saint and sinner, and in 2
Thessalonians he expressly declares as follows: Which is a. manifest token of the righteous
judgment of God.... if so be that it is a righteous thing with God to
recompense affliction to them. that afflict you, and to you that are afflicted
rest with us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven with the
angels of his power in flaming fire, rendering vengeance to them that know not
God, and to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus: who shall suffer
punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the
glory of his might, when he shall come to be glorified in his saints.
That shows that that day is to be revealed with fire, and the last book of the
Old Testament closes with the declaration:
For, behold, the day cometh, it burneth as a furnace; and all the proud, and
ail that work wickedness, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn
them up, saith Jehovah of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor
branch. But unto you that fear my name shall the sun of righteousness arise
with healing in its wings.
The next point about the judgment is that it will be universal on that day. It
is not broken up into a series, the righteous judged, and one thousand years
after that the wicked judged. Hence in Matthew 12:41 our Lord says, "The
men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation," one
saved and the other unsaved, and again in Matthew 25:31 he says, "When the
Son of man shall come in his glory, . . . then shall he sit upon the throne of
his glory." Then comes the separation. They are all there together, good and
bad, and hence in Revelation 20 John says, "I saw a great white throne and
he that sat on it and all the dead, great and small, are gathered before
him," and some are judged out of the book of life and saved; all not in
the book of life were cast into a lake of fire.
This day of wrath is here considered apart from the gospel, for he has not come
to the gospel yet. This day considered that way is according to works. In
chapter 3 he takes up the gospel, but here he is discussing the necessity for
the gospel: "Who will render to every man according to his works."
Let us look at each case: To them that by patience in welldoing seek for glory
and honor he will render eternal life. If any man, leaving the gospel out, can
show that he has been patient in well-doing, and that he has been seeking glory
and honor and incorruption, God will render to him eternal life. Here is the
other class: Unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey
unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish
(notice the words, "wrath," "indignation,"
"tribulation," and "anguish") upon all without respect to
race, the Jew first, also the Greek. But glory and honor and peace to every man
that worketh good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek, that the judgment
shall be without any respect of persons. That is the thought.
What is the extent of that judgment? Let our Lord speak. The extent is soul and
body: "Fear him that [after man is dead] hath power to destroy both soul
and body in hell," or as he presents it in Matthew 25: "These shall
go away into everlasting punishment." This is the duration of the
punishment. The extent is soul and body, the duration "unto everlasting
punishment." Or as he says in another place, "Where the worm dieth
not and the fire is not quenched." Or as he expresses it in yet another
place: "In hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw a great
gulf fixed, that no man could pass over." And his memory worked:
"Son, remember, remember, remember." It is without discrimination of
race. Both Jew and Gentile are included. It is also without respect of persons:
"For there is no respect of persons with God." This judgment is
according to the light that a man has. If he has not the law, he perishes
without the law. If he has the law of Moses, he perishes under the law of
Moses. The last thought is the most stupendous. I will barely state it. When
the day of wrath that nature tells about comes, it will be a day of wrath
according to the gospel. That shows why the delay, why the punishment does not
come at once. When he goes to judge, the judgment will be according to the
gospel in order to show the heinousness of despising this delay. Following the
motive of that delay, we come to the Judge: "according to my gospel, by
Jesus Christ." God has committed all judgment to him. In all this argument
he is laying the foundation for bringing in the plan of salvation. He is
showing that the light of nature in us, while sufficient, is not efficient
that it cannot save, it cannot regenerate, it cannot sanctify, it cannot
justify us.
Let us restate these thoughts with some additions. I first explained what the
wrath meant, and then the several ways in which it is revealed. We now come to
consider the part of the text which shows where, by whom, and for what this
wrath, in the sense of a penalty, is exacted. Our text says, "In the day
when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus
Christ." Let us look at that statement in all of its fulness. From the day
that the original penalty due to Adam's sin was suspended by the intervention
of the gospel of Jesus Christ under a probation of grace, all men, whether Jew
or Gentile, have been freed from the immediate execution of that divine wrath.
There have been earthly judgments on wicked men, and chastisements on Christian
men, but the full penalty of the wrath of God has never yet been visited upon
man. When a wicked man dies, he goes at once to hell, but if that were counted
full execution of the divine penalty that man would not have to leave hell to
come and stand before the judgment of God. And if a Christian when he dies goes
immediately to heaven, that is not to be considered the full salvation of that
man. The reason is that the body is not involved in either case. When this
wrath of God is visited upon man it is visited upon both soul and body. We need
to fix in our minds clearly the reason of a judgment day at the end of time,
instead of ten thousand judgment days all along through time. I have given the
first point. The second reason is that in the very nature of the suspension of
the penalty under a covenant of grace, space is given for repentance. Peter and
Paul both discuss that proposition, Paul here in the chapter where he says,
"Not knowing that the goodness of God was intended to lead thee to
repentance." Peter discusses it in his second letter where he says that we
must construe the longsuffering of God toward sinners to mean salvation. The
third reason is that neither a good man nor a bad man can thoroughly understand
until the judgment day the reasonableness of God's government and be
constrained, whether condemned or saved, to admit the righteousness of the
sentence pronounced.
No man will realize the exceeding sinfulness of sin, the exceeding richness of
God's forbearance, nor the fulness of God's grace in fixing the final decision
until that day.
We know now only in part) but then we shall know as we are known. The wicked,
as quick as a flash of lightning, will see the exceeding sinfulness of all
their past sins. In the case of every man before his conversion he realizes
that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can
know it? "I, the Lord." He is the only one. It is the easiest thing
in the world for a man, when he looks at his good qualities, to take a
telescope and look through the little end of it and see them more in number and
larger in bulk than they really are. But he reverses that telescope to look at
his faults, and sees them infinitesimally few and small, and by the same
strange power that he sees double in the first group, he sees his faults blend
and become fewer in number. He sees one star with the naked eye where there are
two, and just a splash in the Milky Way where there are ten thousand distinct
worlds. By a kind-of "hocus pocus" he takes up his little
handful of evil deeds and begins to apologize for them, and finally stands off
and says, with complacency, "Now, Lord, see my record. You can see how my
good preponderates over the evil." Right at that time comes the flashing
of the supernal light of infinite holiness upon the scales and presto! what a
change.
These good deeds that look so mountainous and multitudinous begin to diminish
in size and number and shrink and pulverize until they become like fine dust.
One breath of wrath blows them away like powder. On the other side that little
infinitesimal group of evil begins to multiply and magnify and swell and tower
and blacken until it is a great mountain range, peak after peak, oozing with
the putrid poison of that abominable thing which God hates sin.
So in a sense never before, will all then admit that by the deeds of the law no
man can be justified.
I am giving the reasons why that final light of judgment is postponed to the
last day of time. I want to add another reason.
No man is competent to take account of the evil of his deeds or the good of his
deeds until he sees the end of their influence. It is impossible for a man to
do anything that terminates in himself, but it will surely touch everybody
connected with him, father, mother, brother, sister, friend. Not only so, but
after it has cast its gloom over all the circle of those that are nearest to
him, by ties of consanguinity, there is that awful power of action and reaction
that carries it on till the judgment day.
If we drop a little pebble into a placid lake a stone no larger than the end
of the finger by the power of action and reaction the tiny ripples begin to
radiate until they strike the utmost shores of that lake. So time is the ocean
into which our deeds are dropped and the influence of our deeds in their
radiating wavelets in every direction never stops until it strikes the shores
of eternity. How then can any judgment inflicted now make that man see? Those
that are in hell today don't see it. Those in heaven today do not see it.
It will take the light of the judgment day to bring out the full realization,
and when that time comes there will be one instantaneous and universal dropping
upon the knees. Every knee shall bow, all together all the lost in hell and
all the saved in heaven, and every tongue shall confess.
When a man is just about to turn around under the "depart" of God's
final condemnation of soul and body and go into hell forever, before he goes he
will say, "Lord God, in my condemnation thou art just."
Judgment of man here upon this earth is based upon uncertain proof. How many
times the most notorious criminal is compelled to be acquitted simply from the
lack of legal evidence! There is moral conviction in the minds of the judge and
the jury that he is guilty, but the proof did not show it in a legal way. In
that day all evidence will be in hand, and the law construed and vindicated with
even and exact justice. There can be no suborning of testimony, no blindfolding
the eyes of the judge with a bribe, no reticence on the part of witnesses as to
what they saw or heard. The evidence will be complete, not only to God, but, as
I have said, to man. If ever any Christian allows himself to indulge in
feelings of pride and thinks that in the partnership between him and God his I
is a capital letter and God is spelled with a small g, it won't be that way up
there.
He will know that his salvation is not of works, but from its incipiency in
God's election to its consummation in the glorification of his body, that
athwart the whole long extended golden chain of salvation shall be written in
the ineffaceable letters of eternal fire, "SALVATION is OF GRACE,"
and across the whole dark descending stairway to eternal hell, over every step
of it, in letters of fire, "MAN'S DAMNATION is OF HIMSELF." God
wisheth not the death of any man. God does not arbitrarily send any man to
hell. The secrets of men! There never yet has been in human breast a heart that
did not hide some skeleton secret, not only secrets because he keeps them to
himself, but secrets that he is unconscious of through the dimness of his
knowledge and callousness of his heart.
A writer has said that in that day, in the flash of an eye, memory will go back
over all our past and bring up our sins, not in the glamour and rose color of
their commission, but in the beastliness and ghastliness and horribleness with
which God views them.
"In the day when God shall judge." That day is fixed. God has
appointed a day, says Paul, talking to the heathen idolaters, in which he will
judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ. It is strange that in view of the
clear statements that the judgment day is just as much fixed and unchangeable
as any past event, as to its time, and in view of the fact that it is
correlated with the resurrection of the just and the unjust and with the second
coming of Christ, that some men conceive that that day may be this evening or
tomorrow, like the premillennial view of the second advent. Just as sure as
Christ could not come at first until the fulness of time, and until all the
preparatory steps had been taken, just so sure the second advent will take
place only when all the predictions of coming events have been fulfilled. We
don't know the day, but it is fixed and unalterable, and its penalties
inexorable and without remedy.
Now comes another strange thought that judgment in the last day will be, says
Paul, "according to my gospel." The judgment of the heathen will be
according to this gospel, and it will be well for him, even if a lost soul,
that he be judged according to this gospel. There cannot be a case of a lost
man in which it should be better for him to be judged by somebody else than
Jesus. Here is a little baby that has never personally committed any sin. It
dies one hour from its birth without ever lisping its mother's name. It has
inherited sinfulness of nature. It died, in the sense of condemnation, when Adam
sinned. To put it as an extreme case, let us call it a heathen baby. Suppose he
was not judged by the gospel. He would be forever lost. But the gospel points
to another Head, Jesus Christ the Second Adam. The death of Jesus Christ avails
for the salvation of that one whose condemnation is only on account of Adam's
sin and only on account of inherited depravity. If it were not for the gospel
that child would perish throughout eternity, because the law could not save
him. All the heathen children who die before they reach the years of personal
accountability are saved. Take the adult heathen. Even if he be lost, it is
better for him that he be judged according to the gospel than merely according
to the law of nature. There is never any mercy in the law of nature. In the
light of grace, Paul, speaking of the heathen, says: "The times of this
ignorance God overlooks." In Christ he bears with the sins of the heathen
in a way that the law could not bear. Let a baby and a man stick their hands
into the fire. The fire burns the baby who is ignorant the worst because it is
most tender.
But when Jesus judges the heathen, he judges them more kindly, because they
lacked knowledge, and though the man be lost forever, there are degrees in
hell. Not every man who goes to hell will have the same extent of suffering. It
is not like running all the sentences into one mould so that they will all come
out alike, as candles, in length and thickness, but according to light and
opportunity Jesus will judge. The servant that knows not his master's will and
does it not, shall be punished with few stripes. If there is one principle of
the final judgment of Jesus Christ that is transcendently above any other
principle it is this principle, that the judgment will be rendered according to
the light, the privilege, the opportunity.
There will be discriminations made, based even on heredity. Say that some
little child inherited a greater thirst for liquor than another in the same
family. The sin of one who is consumed by this hereditary thirst will not be
held as heinous as another's who wilfully acquired it. Then the question of
environment enters into it. A little street Arab who was born in a dark alley
in a great city and never heard one word of love, never the subject of one act
of tenderness, never knew a mother except through her shame, never was in a
Sunday school, not only taught but forced to steal. It is impossible that God
would visit upon that thief the same degree of punishment that he would visit
upon the Sunday school superintendent, whose father and mother were pious, who
received a training in the Sunday school, held office in the Sunday school and
talked continually and taught holy things, if he should turn thief and
transgress God's holy law. His damnation would be deeper and darker than will
be the case of the other. Hear the words of Jesus, "It shall be more
endurable in the judgment for Sodom and Gomorrah than for these cities."
Why? Because these had great light; those little light. That is why it is a
benefit to a lost man to be judged by Jesus Christ. That is one of the sweetest
thoughts that ever creeps into my mind that Jesus shall be my judge. No
wonder David, when God put the alternative before him, "Would you rather
fall into the hands of your enemies or into the hands of the living God,"
said, "Lord God, let me fall into thy hands. Don't leave my chastisement
to be assessed by men." I never think of God's judgment except with
satisfaction. Even when I am thinking about things I have done that are wrong,
I am glad that God is to be the judge.
QUESTIONS
1. By way of review what
have we found: (1) As to the theme of this letter? (2) As to the ground of
salvation? (3) As to the necessity for this salvation? (4) As to how this
revelation of wrath is made in us and out of us?
2. Having this light, why
are sinners inexcusable? Explain, "And we know, etc.," (v. 2).
3. What is the force of
Paul's question (v. 3)7
4. What is God's method of
punishment (v. 4)?
5. What is the reason for
the delay?
6. What is meant by
cumulative wrath? Illustrate.
7. When is the "day of
wrath?" Give proof.
8. How is it to be revealed?
Give proof.
9. Give proof that the
judgment on that day will be universal.
10. According to what?
11. What in each case?
12. What the extent of
punishment?
13. What the duration? Give
proof.
14. Show that it will be
without discrimination of race.
15. Without respect of
persons.
16. What part does the light
a man has play?
17. Why a judgment at the
end of the world?
18. Give proof that the
judgment day is fixed.
19. How is the judgment to
be by the gospel of Jesus Christ? Illustrate.
20. What the transcendent
principle of the judgment?
21. What the effects of
heredity at the judgment?
THE UNIVERSAL NECESSITY OF SALVATION
(CONCLUDED)
Romans 2:17 to 4:25
I revert to Romans 2:6-9, referring to judgment: "Who will render to every
man according to his works: to them that by patience in well-doing seek glory
and honor and incorruption, eternal life: but unto them that are factious, and
obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation,
tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil." That
discussion of the judgment is the judgment of law without gospel consideration.
Otherwise it contradicts the whole plan of salvation set forth in the letter,
for it makes patient continuance in well-doing the basis of salvation.
Another point in chapter 2 is that under the law, being a Jew outwardly could
not save a man. The real Jew is one inwardly and has circumcision of the heart.
He must be regenerated, and the publication of the grace plan all along ran
side by side with that law plan, even in the Old Testament.
God never had but one plan of salvation from the beginning.
That leads to this question, If, being naturally a Jew and circumcised
according to the Jewish law, and keeping externally the ritual law did not save
him, as chapter 3 opens what advantage then hath the Jew? The answer to that
is that to the Jews were committed the oracles of God, and they had a better
chance of getting acquainted with the true plan of salvation. Then what if some
of these Jews were without faith? That does not destroy that advantage; they
had the privilege and some availed themselves of it. Does that not make the
grace of God of none effect? In other words, if God is glorified by the
condemnation of unbelievers, how then shall the man be held responsible? His
answer is, "God forbid," for if that were true how could God judge
the world? That supposition destroys the character of God in his judgment
capacity. If God were the author of sin and constrained men by an extraneous
power to sin, he could not be a judge. All who hold the Calvinistic
interpretation of grace must give fair weight to that statement. Whenever God
does judge a man, his judgment will be absolutely fair.
Once when a party of preachers were discussing election and predestination I
asked the question, "Do you believe in election and predestination?"
The answer was, "Yes." "Are you ever hindered by what you
believe about election in preaching a universal gospel? If you have any
embarrassment there it shows that you have in some way a wrong view of the
doctrine of election and predestination." A young preacher of my county
went to the wall on that thing. It made him practically quit preaching, because
he said that he had no gospel except for the sheep. I showed him how, in
emphasizing one truth according to his construction of that truth, he was
emphatically denying another truth of God. That brings up another question: If
the loss of the sinner accrues to the glory of God, why should he be judged as
a sinner? A supposition is made. Under that view would it not be well to say,
"Let us do evil that good may come?" There were some slanderous
reports that such was Paul's teaching. He utterly disavows such teaching or
that any fair construction of what he preached tended that way.
We come now to his conclusion of the necessity of the gospel plan of salvation.
He bases it upon the fact that under the law of nature, providence, and
conscience, under the law of Sinai, under any form of law, the whole world is
guilty. There
is none righteous, no, not one; There is none that understandeth. There is none
that seeketh after God; They have all turned aside, they are together become
unprofitable.
So apart from the gospel plan of salvation there is universal condemnation.
We come to his next conclusion (3:13-18) that man's depravity is total. Total
refers to all the parts, and not to degrees. He enumerates the parts to show
the totality. That doesn't mean that every man is as wicked in degree as he can
be, but that every part is so depraved that without the gospel plan of
salvation he cannot be saved: Their throat is an open sepulchre; With their tongues they have used
deceit; The poison of asps is under their lips; Whose mouth is full of cursing
and bitterness; Their feet are swift to shed blood; Destruction and misery are
in their ways; And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of
God before their eyes.
With mankind universally guilty, and every member totally depraved, we get
another conclusion that whatever things the law says, it says to those under
the law. No matter whether the law of conscience, the law of nature, or the
moral law of Moses, those under the law must be judged by the law. That being
so, he sums up his conclusion thus: "By the works of the law shall no
flesh be justified in his sight."
That brings us to consider the gospel plan of salvation (3:21 to 8:39) and
covers six points justification, redemption, adoption, regeneration,
sanctification, and glorification. For the present we will discuss that part
called justification. He commences by stating that while there is no
righteousness by the law, there is a righteousness apart from the law, and this
way of salvation apart from the law is witnessed by the law itself and by the
prophets, and that this righteousness is presented to both Jew and Gentile
without any distinction, and that always has been the way from the beginning of
the world to the present time. If God has seemed to discriminate in favor of
the Jews, he looked toward the Gentiles through the Jews, and if he now seems
partial to the Gentiles against the Jews, he is looking toward the restoration
of the Jews. This righteousness is presented to all men on the same terms
faith and this righteousness presented by faith is of grace. Man doesn't
merit it, either Jew or Gentile it is free.
It is the hardest thing in the world to convince a sinner that salvation comes
from no merit of his, and that faith is simply the hand that receives.
Throughout all the length of the great chain of salvation it is presented
without discrimination of race, color, sex, or previous condition of servitude.
We come now to the ground of it. That ground is redemption through Christ. To
redeem means to buy back. It implies that the one was sold and lost. It must be
a buying back, and it would not be of grace if we did the buying back. It is a
redemption through Jesus Christ. He is the Redeemer the one who buys back.
The meritorious ground consists in his expiation reaching us through his
mediation. He stands between the sinner and God and touches both. The first
part of his mediation is the payment of that purchase price. He could not, in
paying the purchase price, stand for God unless God set him forth as a
propitiation. He could not touch man unless he himself, in one sense, was a
man, and voluntarily took the position. The effectiveness of the propitiation
depends upon the faith of the one to receive Jesus. That covers all past sins.
When we accept Jesus we are acquitted forever, never again coming into
condemnation. I said that that "covers past sins." We must understand
this. Christ's death avails meritoriously once for all for all the sins of a
man, past, present, and future. But in the methods of grace there is a difference
in application between sins before justification and sins after justification.
The ground is one, before and after. But the Holy Spirit applies differently.
When we accept Jesus by faith as he is offered in the gospel, we at once and
forever enter into justification, redemption of soul, and adoption into God's
family, and are regenerated. We are no longer aliens and enemies, but children
and friends of God. God's grace therefore deals with us as .children. Our sins
thereafter are the sins of children. We reach forgiveness of them through the
intercessions of our High Priest and the pleadings of our Advocate. (See
Hebrews 9:25-26; 7:25; I John 2:1.) We may be conscious of complete peace when
justified (Rom. 5:1), but our consciences condemn us for sins after justification,
and peace comes for these offenses through confession, through faith, through
intercession, through the application of the same cleansing blood by the Holy
Spirit. So in us regeneration is once for all) but this good work commenced in
us is continued through sanctification with its continual application of the
merits of Christ's death. Therefore our theme says, "From faith to
faith." Not only justified by faith, but living by faith after
justification through every step of sanctification. We don't introduce any new
meritorious ground. That is sufficient for all, but it is applied differently.
Justification takes place in heaven. It is God that justifies. The ground of
the justification is the expiation of Christ. The means by which we receive the
justification is the Holy Spirit's part of regeneration which is called
cleansing. Regeneration consists of two elements, at least cleansing and
renewing. But the very moment that one believes in Christ the Holy Spirit
applies the blood of Christ to his heart and he is cleansed from the defilement
of sin. At the same time the Holy Spirit does another thing. He renews the
mind. He changes that carnal mind which is enmity toward God. Few preachers
ever explain thoroughly that passage in Ezekiel: "Then will I sprinkle
clean water upon you and you shall be clean. I will take away your stony heart
and give you a heart of flesh." There is the cleansing and the renewing.
Jesus says, "Born of water and Spirit." There are no articles in the
Greek. It is one birth. In Titus we find the same idea: He saved us "by
the washing of regeneration," the first idea' and "the renewing of
the Holy Spirit," the second idea.
This method of justification enables God to remain just in justifying a guilty
man. If we could not find a plan by which God's justice would remain, then we
could find no plan of justification. How do we understand that to be done upon
this principle of substitution? J. M. Pendleton in his discussion of this
subject based upon a passage in the letter to .Philemon, explains it. Paul
says, "If thou hast aught against Onesimus, put it on my account."
Now Philemon can be just in the remission of the debt of Onesimus, because he
has provided for the payment of that debt through Paul; so Christ promised to come
and pay our debt and the payment is reckoned to the man that accepts Christ,
thus showing how remission of sins in the case of Old Testament saints precedes
the actual payment, or expiation, by Christ. God charged Abraham's debts to
Christ, and Christ promised to pay them when he should come into the world.
Abraham was acquitted right then. So far as God was concerned, the debt was not
expiated until Christ actually came and died. In our case, expiation precedes
the faith in it. He expiated my sins on the cross before I was born. There came
a time when the plan of salvation by that expiation was presented to me, and I
received it, and then remission took place.
This plan of salvation by faith not only justifies God, but absolutely excludes
any boasting upon the part of the man. If the man had paid the debt himself he
could claim to be the cause of this justification. But since he did not
contribute one iota to the payment of the debt, there is no possible ground for
him to boast. This plan brings out God's impartial relation both to Jew and
Gentile, since both are admitted upon equal terms.
We come to an objection that has been raised. If God acquits the man without
his having paid the penalty of the law, does not that make the law void? His
answer is an emphatic denial. It not only does not make the law void, but it
establishes the law. How? The law is honored in that the Substitute obeys it
and dies in suffering its penalties. Further by the fact that this plan takes
this man saved by grace and gives him, through regeneration, a mind to obey the
law, though it may be done imperfectly, and then through sanctification enables
him to obey the law perfectly. It fulfils all of its penal sanctions through
the one who redeems and through the Holy Spirit's work in the one that is
redeemed. When I get to heaven I will be a perfect keeper of the law in mind
and in act. We can easily see the distinction between a mere pardon of human
courts, which is really contrary to law, and a pardon which magnifies and makes
the law honorable. It was on this line that I once preached a sermon on the
relation of faith to morals, showing that the only way on earth to practice
morality is through the gospel of Christ. So we see that God can be just and
the justifier of the ungodly.
Salvation that comes up to the point of justification will, ''through the same
plan, be continued on to the judgment day. In his argument to prove that God's
plan of salvation has always been the same) Paul illustrates it by the two most
striking Old Testament cases that would appeal to the Jewish mind, one of which
is the case of Abraham's conversion which is recorded in Genesis 15. Up to that
time Abraham was not a saved man, though he was a called man and had some
general belief in God. At that time he was justified, and he was justified by
faith, and righteousness was imputed to him; it was not his own. That was
before he was circumcised, and it deprived him of all merit, and made him the
father of all who could come after him in the spiritual line. He proves this by
the promise to Abraham and his seed, and shows that that seed refers, not to
his carnal descendants, but to the spiritual descendant, Jesus Christ. Then he
goes on to show that as Isaac, through whom the descent flowed, was born, not
in a natural manner, but after a supernatural manner, so we are born after a
supernatural manner. He then takes up the further idea that that was the only
way in the world to make the promises sure to all the seed.
Take the thief on the cross. He had no time to get down and reform his life. He
was a dying sinner, and some plan of salvation must be devised which would be
as quick as lightning in its operation. Suppose a man is on a plank in the deep
and about to be washed away into the watery depths. He cannot go back and
correct the evils that he has done and justify himself by restitution. If
salvation is to be sure to him, it must work in a minute. That is a great
characteristic of it. David was their favorite king. His songs constituted
their ritual in the Temple of worship. He testifies precisely the same thing:
"Blessed is the man whose sin is covered," that is, through
propitiation. Blessed is the man to whom God imputeth no transgression. He
takes these two witnesses and establishes his case. He shows that the results
of justification are present peace, joy, and glory, thus commencing,
"Being therefore justified by faith, let us have peace with God."
QUESTIONS
1. What Judgment is referred
to in Romans 2:6, and what the proof?
2. Who was the real Jew?
3. What advantage had the
Jew?
4. Did all Jews avail
themselves of this advantage?
5. Does that not make the
grace of God of none effect, and why?
6. Does the doctrine of
election hinder the preaching of a universal gospel, and why?
7. If the loss of the sinner
accrues to the glory of God, why should he be judged as a sinner?
8. What is Paul's conclusion
as to the necessity of the gospel plan of salvation, and upon what does he base
it?
9. What Paul's conclusion as
to man's depravity, what is the meaning of total depravity, and how is it set
forth in this passage?
10. What his conclusion as
to the law?
11. What then his summary of
the whole matter?
12. What the theme of Romans
3:21 to 8:39, and what six phases of the subject are thus treated?
13. Is there a righteousness
by the law, what the relation of the law to righteousness, and to whom is this
righteousness offered?
14. How do you explain God's
partiality toward the Jews first and then toward the Gentiles?
15. What the terms of this
righteousness, and what its source?
16. What is this phase of
salvation called, and what is the ground of it?
17. What is redemption, and
what does it imply?
18. What the meritorious
ground of our justification, and upon what does the effectiveness of it depend?
19. What the difference in
the application to sins before justification and to sins after justification?
20. What is justification,
where does it take place, what accompanies it in the sinner, how, what its
elements and how illustrated in both the Old and the New Testaments?
21. How does this method of
justification by faith enable God to remain just and at the same time justify a
guilty man?
22. What J. M. Pendleton's
illustration of this principle?
23. What bearing hag this on
the case of Old Testament saints?
24. How does this plan of
salvation exclude boasting?
25. What objection is raised
to this method of justification, and what the answer to it?
26. How is the law honored in
this method of justification?
27. What the distinction
between a mere pardon of human courts and this method of pardon?
28. How does Paul prove that
the plan of salvation has always been the same?
29. How does Paul show that
that was the only way to make the promises sure to all the seed?
30. What the testimony of
David on this point, and what its special force in this case?
THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION
Romans 5:1-21.
The first paragraph (1-11) of chapter 5 is but an elaboration, or conclusion,
of the line of argument in chapters 3-4. There are two leading thoughts in this
paragraph: (1) God's method of induction into the grace of salvation. (2) the
happy estate of the justified.
METHOD OF
INDUCTION
This method is expressed thus: "Being therefore justified by faith . . .
through our Lord Jesus Christ; through whom also we have had our access by
faith into this grace wherein we stand." A vital question is here answered
"How do we get into Christ, in whom are all the blessings of salvation,
each in its order?" The corresponding doctrine to our getting into Christ
is getting Christ into us to complete the union with him as expressed by
himself: "I in you . . . and you in me" (John 15:4). The names of
these two doctrines are
1. Justification through faith, or we into Christ.
2. Regeneration through faith, or Christ into us.
Elsewhere the doctrine of "Christ into us" through regeneration is
presented thus: "Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle
of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the
living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart" (2
Corinthians 3:3). "For God who commanded the light to shine out of
darkness hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the
glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (4:6). "To whom God would
make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles,
which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Col. 1:27).
The proof that the method of this induction id also by faith is given by
Christ. When Nicodemus asked as to the method of regeneration Christ answered,
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the
Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal
life" (John 3:14-15). "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ
is begotten of God: and whosoever loveth him that begat loveth him also that is
begotten of him" (I John 5:1). "But as many as received him, to them
gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his
name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh', nor of the
will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13). "For ye are all the children
of God, by faith in Jesus Christ" (Gal. 3:26).
But the Campbellites' method of induction into Christ is by baptism, based on
Galatians 3:27; the Romanist method of induction of Christ into us is through
eating the Lord's Supper, based by them on the words: "Take, eat, this is
my body. . . . Drink, this is my blood," and on a misapplication of John
6:53: "Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life
in yourselves." We may name this double heresy, salvation by ordinances,
i.e., salvation by water and material bread. The truth of these misapplied
scriptures is that there is a double method of induction, viz.: We into Christ
by faith and Christ into us by faith, symbolized in the ordinances of baptism
and the Lord's Supper.
THE HAPPY ESTATE
OF THE JUSTIFICATION
The difference between the common and the revised versions of Romans 5:1 is a
difference in the Greek of the length of one letter in one word only, i.e.,
between a short o (omikron) and a long o (omega), and if the text be
Echomen, the rendering of the common version is right: "We have peace
with God." If it be Echomen, the Revision is right: "Let us
have peace with God." The best MSS. (Alexandrian, Vatican, and Siniatic)
have the long o (Omega.)
The value of the distinction is this: The common version would express the
truth, if limited to God's sight. The justified truly have peace legally in
God's eyes as soon as justified. But the danger comes in extending the meaning
to our realization; we subjectively realize the peace. There is a time
difference between a fact and our cognition of that fact; as, when looking at a
man half a mile off on a prairie firing a gun, the explosion precedes our
perception by sight of the smoke, or of the sound by the ear. The chickens of a
mover whose legs have been tied during the day, do not realize that they are
free as soon as they are untied. The sensation of being tied lingers until the
circulation is restored.
So one may be justified in fact sometime before he realizes the peace to which
justification entitles, as the experience of many Christians shows. It is God's
purpose that we should realize it, and the sooner the better. To affirm that
our subjective perception of an external act is necessarily simultaneous with
the act is to limit the existence of things to our knowledge of things. So we
may express the difference between the texts of the version by saying that one
is an affirmation: "We have peace," while the other is an
exhortation: "Let us have peace," i.e, justification now entitles to
peace, but we need to lay hold of it. The fallacy of the affirmation consists
of confounding justification, which is God's act, with subjective peace, which
is our experience. Objective peace, legal peace, necessarily accompanies
justification, but it may not be subjective. The battle of New Orleans was
fought after the treaty of peace was signed, because Sir Edward Packenham and
General Jackson did not know it.
I will name in order all the elements of the happy estate of the justified:
1. Peace with God.
2. Joy in hope of the glory of God.
3. Joy in tribulation, because of the series of fruits which follows.
4. The gift of the Holy Spirit.
5. The love of God shed abroad in our hearts, by that given Spirit.
6. The assurance that the justified shall be saved from the wrath to come,
because:
(1) If reconciled, when enemies, much more will he continue salvation to
friends.
(2) If reconciled through his death much more will he alive deliver us from
future wrath.
7. Joy in God the Father, through whose Son we receive the reconciliation.
THE SEMINAL IDEA
OF SALVATION (5:12-21)
By a new line of argument the apostle conveys assurance of salvation to the
justified, an argument based on our seminal relations to the two Adams. This
great doctrine is expressed thus: "Therefore, as through one man sin
entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men,
for that all sinned" (5:12). "So then as through one trespass the
judgment came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of
righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life. For as
through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through
the obedience of the one shall many be made righteous" (5:18-19). If we
combine the several thoughts into one great text we have this: By one offense
of one man condemnation came upon all men. So by one act of righteousness of
one man, justification unto eternal life comes upon all men who by one exercise
of faith lay hold on him who wrought the one act of righteousness.
This text startlingly offends and confounds the reasonings of the carnal mind
which says, 1.
One may not be justly condemned for the offense of somebody else, but only for
his own offense, nor justified by the righteousness of somebody else, but by
his own righteousness. 2. Condemnation must come for all offenses, not just
one, and justification must be based on all acts of righteousness, not just
one. 3. To base a man's condemnation or justification on the act of another
destroys personal responsibility. 4. The doctrine of imputing one man's guilt
to a substitute tends to demoralization, in that the real sinner will sin the
more, not being personally amenable to penalty. 5. The doctrine of pardoning a
guilty man because another is righteous turns loose a criminal on society. 6.
The whole of it violates that ancient law of the Bible itself: "Thou shalt
justify the innocent and condemn the guilty."
If the gospel plan of salvation, fairly interpreted, does destroy personal
responsibility, does tend to demoralize society, does encourage to sin the
more, does turn criminals loose on society, does not tend to make its subject
personally better, it is then the doctrine of the devil and should be hated and
resisted by all who respect justice and deprecate iniquity. But the seminal
idea of condemnation and justification grows out of relations to two respective
heads, and it results from varieties in creation, thus:
(1) God created a definite number of angels) just so many at the start, never
any more or less, a company, not a family, incapable of propagation, being
sexless, without ancestry or posterity, without brother or sister or other ties
of consanguinity, each complete in himself, and hence no angel could be
condemned or justified for another's act. The act of every angel terminates in
himself. Therefore there can be no salvation for a sinning angel. And hence our
Saviour "took not on him the nature of angels."
(2) But God also created a different order of beings, at the start just one
man, having potentially in himself an entire race a countless multitude to be
developed from him. And in propagating the race he transmitted his own nature,
and through heredity his children inherited that nature. No act of any human
being arises altogether from himself or can possibly terminate in himself. In
considering heredity Oliver Wendell Holmes has said, "Man is an omnibus in
which all his ancestors ride." Moreover, man was created to be a social
being, from which fact arises the necessity of human government whether in
legislative, judicial, or executive power. The mind can conceive of only one
human being whose act would terminate in himself, and under the following
conditions alone: He must be without ancestry, without capacity of posterity,
without kindred in any degree, without relation to society, living alone on an
island surrounded by an ocean whose waves touched no other shore from which
society might come. How much more the head in whom potentially and legally was
the race could not do an act that would terminate in himself.
(3) The creature cannot deny God's sovereign right to create this variety of moral
beings, angels, and man.
(4) Nature does not exempt children from the penalty of heredity.
(5) Human law neither exempts children from legal responsibility of parents nor
acquits criminals because of hereditary predispositions.
The context bases the condemnation of all men on the ground that all sinned in
Adam, the head, and so having sinned in him they all died in him. The context,
"And so death passed unto all men" (even those who had not sinned
after the similitude of Adam's transgression) is the distinct proof of our
proposition. Only one person ever sinned the sin of Adam and that was Adam
himself, the head of the race. Now as proof that his posterity sinned in him,
death passed upon all of his posterity who had not sinned after the similitude
of his sin, that is, they sinned, not as the head of a race, but from depravity
an inherited depravity. Adam didn't have that inherited depravity. God made
him. upright. Whenever I commit a sin I don't commit that sin from the
standpoint of Adam, but I commit it on account of an evil nature inherited from
Adam, and that sin is not after the similitude of Adam's transgression.
Moreover, if I commit a sin, the race is not held responsible for my sin,
because I am not the head of the race. The race does not stand or fall in me.
Thus there are two particulars in which sins which we commit are not after the
similitude of Adam's sin, and yet, says the apostle, with his inexorable logic,
"Though they don't sin after the similitude of Adam, yet death, the penalty
of sin, passed upon every one of them." The law was executed on every one
of them; they died. Sin condemns on the ground of the solidarity of the law,
the unity of the law. See James 2:10: "For whosoever shall keep the whole
law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all."
Human law in this respect conforms to divine law. If a man be law-abiding fifty
years and then commits one capital offense, his previous righteousness avails
him nothing. Nor does it avail that he was innocent of all other offenses. If a
man were before a court charged with murder he would derive no benefit by
proving that he had not committed adultery. If he were guilty on the one point,
his life is forfeited. That is on account of the solidarity of the law. Nor
does it avail a man anything in a human court that he was tempted from without.
So Adam vainly pleaded, "The woman tempted me and I did eat."
QUESTIONS
1. What part of chapter 2 is
but an elaboration, or conclusion, of the line of argument in chapters 3-4?
2. What the two leading
thoughts in this paragraph?
3. How is God's method of
induction expressed?
4. What vital question is
here answered?
5. What the corresponding
doctrine to our getting into Christ?
6. What the names of these
two doctrines?
7. How elsewhere is the
doctrine of "Christ into us" through regeneration presented?
8. What the proof that the
method of this induction is also by faith?
9. What the Campbellites'
method of induction into Christ, and on what scripture based?
10. What the Romanist method
of induction of Christ into us, and on what scripture based?
11. How may we name this
double heresy?
12. What the truth of these
misapplied scriptures?
13. What (he difference
between the common and the revised versions of Romans 5:1, and what the
translation in each case?
14. What the value of the
distinction? Illustrate.
15. What the fallacy of
affirming that subjective peace is simultaneous with justification? Illustrate.
16. What, in order, are the elements
of the happy estate of the justified?
17. By what new line of
argument in 5:12-21 does the apostle convey assurance of salvation to the
justified?
18. In what words is this
great doctrine expressed?
19. Combine the several
thoughts into one great text.
20. How does this text
startlingly offend and confound the reasonings of the carnal mind?
21. If the gospel plan of
salvation, fairly interpreted, does destroy personal responsibility, does tend
to demoralize society, does not tend to make its subjects personally better,
then what?
22. What the explanation of
the seminal idea of condemnation and justification growing out of the relations
to the two respective heads?
23. On what ground does the
context base the condemnation of all men?
24. What is the meaning of
the context, "and so death passed unto all men," etc.?
25. On what ground does sin
condemn, and what the proof?
26. How does human law in
this respect conform to divine law?
THE SEMINAL IDEA OF SALVATION
Romans 5:12-21.
The one offense committed by the first Adam was his violation of that test, or
prohibition, "Thou shalt not eat of the tree of death; thou shalt not
experimentally know the difference between good and evil." In other words,
he was an anti-prohibitionist. The law commenced with an absolute prohibition,
and it didn't avail Adam a thing to plead personal liberty. Race responsibility
rested on Adam alone. It could not possibly have rested on Eve, because she was
a descendant of Adam, just as much as we are. God created just one man, and in
that man was the whole human race, including Eve. Later he took a part of the
man and made a woman, and the meaning of the word "woman" is derived
from "man." When Adam saw her he said "Isshah," woman,
which literally means "derived from man'". As she got both her soul
and body from the man, being his descendant, it was impossible that the race
responsibility should rest on her.
If only Eve had sinned the race would not have perished. She would have
perished, but not the race. The race was in Adam. God could have derived
another woman from him like that one. He had the potentiality in him of all
women as well as all men. Some error has arisen from holding Eve responsible,
such as the error of pointing the finger at the woman and saying, "You did
it!" If we have ever committed this error, let us never do it any more.
The text says, "By one offense of one man" and not by one offense of
one woman. That Eve sinned there is no doubt; she was in the transgression. To
the contrary, history shows that God connects salvation with the woman, and not
damnation. He said, "The Seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's
head." There we have the promise of grace. And he could not have said the
seed of the man, for, if one be the seed of a man, he inherits the man's fallen
nature.
This fact has a mighty bearing on the Second Adam. When the Second Adam came,
the first and virtually essential proof was that a woman was his mother, but no
man was his father God was his father. If a man had been his father he would
himself have been under condemnation through a depraved nature. Mary could not
understand the announcement that she should become the mother of a Saviour who
would be the "Son of God," since she had not yet married, until the
angel exclaimed: "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of
the most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is
begotten shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). Hence whoever denies
our Lord's birth of a virgin and that he was sired by the most High denies the
whole plan of salvation and is both the boss liar of the world and antichrist.
The essential deity of our Lord and his incarnation constitute the bedrock of
salvation. It is the first, most vital, most fundamental truth. No man who
rejects it can be a Christian or should be received as a Christian for one
moment. See John 1:1, 14; 1 John 4:1-3; Philippians 2:6-8; 1 Timothy 3:16.
But this question comes up, "Did not Jesus derive his human nature,
through heredity, from his mother, or since she was a descendant of fallen
Adam, how could her Son escape a depraved nature?" This is a pertinent
question and a very old one. It so baffled Romanist theologians that they
invented and issued under papal infallibility the decree of "The
Immaculate Conception," meaning not only that Jesus was born sinless, but
that Mary herself was born sinless, which of course only pushes back the
difficulty one degree. Their invention was purely gratuitous. There is nothing
in the case to call for a sinless mother. Depravity resides in the soul. The
soul comes, not from the one who conceives, but from the one who begets. This
is the very essence of the teaching in the passage cited from Luke.. The
sinlessness of the nature of Jesus is expressly ascribed to the Sire: "The
Holy One who is begotten." And it is the very heart of Paul's entire
biological, or seminal, idea of salvation, i.e., life from a seed. The seed is
in the sire. The first Adam's seed is unholy; the Second Adam's seed is holy.
Hence the necessity of the Spirit birth. So is our Lord's teaching in John
3:3-6; 8:44; I John 3:9; the parable of the tares with its explanation in
Matthews 13:24-30, 3643; and especially 1 Peter 1:23: "Having been
begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible." The
propriety of salvation by the Second Adam lies in the fact that we were lost
through the first Adam. All the criticism against substitutionary, or vicarious,
salvation comes from a disregard of this truth.
Christ met all the law requirements as follows:
1. By holiness of nature starting holy
2. By obeying all its precepts
3. By fulfilling its types
4. By paying its penalty
The value of the first three items is that they qualified him to do the fourth.
If he had been either unholy in nature or defective in obedience he would have
been amenable to the penalty for himself. But holiness in his own nature and
his perfect obedience exempting him from penalty on his own account, he could
be the sinner's substitute in death and judgment: "Him who knew no sin,
God made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God
in him" (2 Cor. 5:21). "Ye were redeemed . . . with precious blood,
as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Pet. 1:18-19). If he
answered not to the types, he could not be the Messiah.
Christ's one act of righteousness, which is the sole ground of our
justification, is his vicarious death on the cross. No one ought to preach at
all having no gospel message if be does not comprehend this with absolute
definiteness. If we attribute our justification to Christ's holiness, or to his
perceptive obedience, or to his Sermon on the Mount, or to his miracles, or to
his kingly or priestly reign in heaven where he is now, or if we locate that
one act of righteousness anywhere in the world except in one place and in one
particular deed we ought not to preach.
The one act of righteousness the sole meritorious ground of justification
is our Lord's vicarious death on the cross, suffering the death penalty of
divine law against sin. This death was a real sacrifice and propitiation
Godward, so satisfying the law's penal sanctions in our behalf as to make it
just for God to justify the ungodly. Our Lord's incarnation, with all his work
antecedent to the cross, was but preparatory to it, and all his succeeding work
consequential. His exaltation to the throne in heaven, his priestly
intercession, and his coming judgment flowing from his "obedience unto the
death of the cross" (Phil. 2:8-9).
The particular proof of this one act of righteousness from both Testaments is
as follows:
1. Proof from the Old Testament:
(1) The establishment of the throne of grace, immediately after man's expulsion
from paradise, where God dwelt between the cherubim, east of the garden of
Eden, as a Schechinah, or Sword flame, to keep open the way to the tree of life
(Gen. 3:24) and was there acceptably approached only through the blood of an
innocent and substitutionary sacrifice (Gen. 4:3-5; cf Rev. 7:14; 22:14), which
mercy seat between the cherubim was to be approached through sacrificial blood,
just as described in that part of the Mosaic law prescribing the way of the sinner's
approach to God (Ex. 25:17-22).
(2) In the four most marvelous types:
(a) The Passover lamb whose blood availed when Jehovah saw it (Ex. 12:13, 23)
showing that the blood propitiated Godward. See 1 Corinthians 5:7.
(b) In the kid on the great day of atonement (Lev. 16) which shows that the
expiatory blood must be sprinkled on the mercy seat between the cherubim as the
basis of atonement.
(c) In the red heifer, burned without the camp, and whose ashes, liquefied with
water, became a portable means of purification, Numbers 19:2-6, 9, 17-18, with
Hebrews 9:13, representing that first and cleansing element of regeneration in
which the Holy Spirit applies Christ's blood. See Psalms 51:2, 7; Ezekiel
36:25; John 3:5 (born of water and Spirit); Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5.
(d) The brazen serpent, fused in fire and then elevated to be seen, which shows
that the expiatory passion, a fiery suffering, must be lifted up in preaching,
as the object of faith and means of healing, Numbers 21:9, explained in John
3:14-16; 12:32-33; Galatians3:l.
(3) In such striking passages as Isaiah 53:4-11. Compare the messianic prayer:
"Deliver my soul from the sword," Psalms 22:20, with the divine
response, "Awake, 0 sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man that is
my fellow, saith Jehovah," Zechariah 13:7, and hear the sufferer's outcry:
"My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Psalms 22:1 and Matthew
27:45-46. When these passages are compared with Isaiah 53:5-10, Romans 3:25, 2
Corinthians 5:21 and 1 Peter 2:24, it cannot be reasonably questioned that he
died under the sentence of God's law against sin, and that this death was
propitiatory toward God and vicarious toward man, and is the one act of
righteousness through which our justification comes.
2. Some of the New Testament passages, including several already given, are our
Lord's own words in instituting the Memorial Supper: "This is my body
given for you. . . . This cup is the New Covenant in my blood . . . even that
which is poured out for you . . . which is shed for many unto remission of
sins." We need to add only Romans 3:25; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 5:7; 1 Peter
1:18-19; 2:24; and Hebrews 10:4-14.
The combined text, "One exercise of faith," means that unlike
sanctification, justification is not progressive, but one instantaneous act;
God justifies, and our laying hold of it is a simple definite transaction. One
moment we are not justified; in the next moment we are justified. One look at
the brazen serpent brought healing. Zacchaeus went up the tree lost, and came
down saved. The dying thief at one moment was lost, and the next heard the
words: "Today shall thou be with me in paradise." At midnight the
lost jailer was trembling; just after that he was rejoicing believing in God
with all his house. There is no appreciable time element in the transition from
condemnation to justification.
Considering Christ as a gift, how long does it take to receive him? Considering
him as a promise, how long to trust? Considering Christ as the custodian of an
imperiled soul, how long to commit it to him? Considering the union between
Christ and the sinner as an espousal (2 Cor. 11:2) how long to say: "I
take him"?
As a marriage between man and woman is a definite transaction, consummated when
he says, "I take her to be my lawful wife," and when she says,
"I take him to be my lawful husband," so by one exercise of faith we
take Christ as our Lord. But as sanctification is progressive, we go on in that
from faith to faith. But justification through faith in a sub statute does not
tuna loose a criminal on society. If it be meant a criminal in deed, it is not
true, because to the last farthing the law claim has been met in the payment of
the surety. In other words, the law has been fully satisfied. If it be meant in
spirit, it is not true, for every justified man is regenerated. A new heart to
love God and man has been given, a holy disposition imparted, loving
righteousness and hating iniquity. A spirit of obedience, new and mighty
motives of gratitude and love are at work, and motive determines very largely
the moral quality of action. In other words, the justified man is also a new
creature.
It secures in the new creature the only basis of true morality. Morality is
conformity with moral law. Immorality is nonconformity with moral law. The
first and great commandment of moral law is supreme love toward God, and the
second is love to thy neighbor as thyself. ~No unregenerate man can make a step
in either direction any more than a bad tree can produce good fruit, for "the
carnal mind is enmity against God and not subject to his law, neither indeed
can be." The unregenerate is self-centered; the regenerate, Christ
centered. The justified man, being regenerate, will be necessarily a better man
personally and practically than he was before in every relation of life
better in the family, better in society and better in the state. A claim to
justification without improvement in these directions is necessarily a false
claim.
The writer in 2:17 has already introduced the word, "law," in a
special sense when discussing the case of the Jew as contradistinguished from
other nations. And this is the sense of his word, "law," when he
says, "For until the law sin was in the world." Law, to a Jew, meant
the Sinaitic law. But the apostle is proving that law did not originate at
Sinai, in any sense except for one nation, as was evident from sin and death
anterior to it. First, there was primal law inhering in God's intent in
creating moral beings, and in the very constitution of their being, and in all
their relations. And this law, even to Adam in innocence, found statutory
expression. in the law of labor, the law of marriage, and in the law of the
sabbath, as well as in the particular prohibition concerning the tree of death.
Immediately after Adam's fall and expulsion from paradise came the intervention
of the grace covenant, with its law of sacrifices, symbolically showing the way
of a sinner's approach to God through vicarious expiation. There were preachers
and prophets of grace before the flood, as well as the convicting and
regenerating spirit. All these expressions of law passed over the flood with
Noah, with several express additions to the statutory law both civil and
criminal. Death proved sin, and sin proved law, before we come to Sinai. Adam
was under law. Adam sinned and death reigned over him. Adam's descendants down
to Moses died. Therefore they had sinned, and therefore were under the law. But
their sin was not like Adam's in several parties ulars: (1) They did not sin as
the head of a race. (2) They did not sin from a standpoint of innocence and
holiness, but from an inherited depravity. (3) They sinned under a grace
covenant which Adam had not in paradise. This last particular is here
emphasized, where grace in justification is contrasted with the condemnation
through Adam's one offense.
If then the Sinaitic code did not originate law, what was its purpose?
"The law came in besides, that the trespass might abound." This
purpose of the law will be considered more elaborately later. Just here it is
sufficient to say that the Sinaitic code under three great departments, or
heads, is the most marvelous and elaborate expression of law known to history.
Its three heads or constituent elements, as we learn in the Old Testament, are
1. The decalogue, or moral law, or God and the normal man.
2. The law of the altar, or God and the sinner, or the sinner's symbolic way of
approach to God, including a place to find him, a means of propitiating him)
times to approach him, and an elaborate ritual of service.
3. The judgments, or God and the State, in every variety of municipal, civil,
and criminal law.
So broad, so deep, so high, so minute, so comprehensive is this code, so bright
is its light, that every trespass in thought, word, and deed is not only made
manifest, but is made to abound, in order that where sin abounded grace would
abound exceedingly.
QUESTIONS
1. What was the one offense
committed by the first Adam?
2. On whom did race
responsibility rest, Adam or Eve, or both; why?
3. If only Eve had sinned,
what would have been the result?
4. What error has since
arisen from holding Eve responsible?
5. What to the contrary does
history show?
6. What bearing has this
fact on the Second Adam?
7. How could Jesus, being
born of a depraved woman, escape a depraved nature?
8. What the propriety of
salvation by the Second Adam?
9. How did Christ meet all
the law requirements?
10. What the value of the first
three items?
11. What Christ's one act of
righteousness, which is the sole ground of our justification?
12. What particular proof of
this one act of righteousness from both Testaments?
13. What does the combined
text mean by "one exercise of faith"?
14. How is it that
justification through faith in a substitute does not turn loose a criminal on
society?
15. How then is it that it
does not demoralize?
16. Explain the parenthetic
statement in 5:13-17 and also 5:20-21.
17. If the Sinaitic code did
not originate the law, what was its purpose?
18. What the three
constituent elements of the Sinaitic law?
SALVATION IN US
Romans 6:1 to 8:39.
We have considered hitherto in this letter what salvation has done for us in
redemption, justification and adoption. We have now before us in 6:1-8:39 what
salvation does in us in regeneration and sanctification of our souls, and in
the resurrection and glorification of our bodies.
Two questions properly introduce this section. In 3:21 he says, "But now
apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed
by the law and the prophets." In view of this, in 6:1 he asks, "What
shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?" The
meaning is this: Does salvation by grace through faith in a debt-paying
substitute encourage to more sin, because the sinner does not himself pay the
penalty, and thus by more sin give greater scope to superabounding grace? Or,
does imputation of the penalty of sin in a substitute make void the law to the
sinner personally? Or does God's justification of the sinner, through faith,
instead of his personal obedience, turn loose a defiled criminal on society
eager to commit more crime because his future offenses, like his past offenses,
will be charged to the substitute? These are pertinent questions of practical
importance and if, indeed, this be the legitimate result of the gospel plan of
salvation, it is worthy of rejection by all who love justice.
While we have already considered this matter somewhat, let us restate a reply
embodying the substance of this section. The reply is in substance as follows:
Whom God justifies them he also regenerates and sanctifies in soul and raises
and glorifies in body. In the first element of regeneration the application
of the blood of Christ by the Holy Spirit the sinner is cleansed from the
defilement of sin. See Psalm 51:2,7; Ezekiel 36:25; Titus 3:5, first clause.
"The washing of regeneration," Ephesians 5:26; "born of
water," John 3:5, all of which is set forth in the type of the red heifer,
Hebrews 9:13, 14, an Old Testament teaching for ignorance of which Christ
condemned Nicodemus, John 3:10. See also Revelation 7:14 and 22:14, revised
version. So that the justified man is not turned loose a defiled criminal on
society.
In the second element of regeneration the justified sinner is delivered from
the love of sin by his renewed nature, Psalm 51:10; Ezekiel 36:26; John 3:3,
5-6, "born from above . . . born of the Spirit;" Titus 3:5, second
clause, "and renewing of the Holy Spirit." So that the regenerate man
has the spirit of obedience, Ezekiel 36:27; Tutus 2:11-14; 3:8. And while the
obedience of the regenerate is imperfect, yet through sanctification, when it
is consummated, the regenerate in soul is qualified to perfect obedience,
Philippians 1:6; 3:12-14; 2 Corinthians 3:17-18. And when the body is raised
and glorified then this justified sinner has become personally, in soul and
body, as holy and obedient as Jesus himself, I John 3:2; Psalm 17:15, all of
which is pictorially set forth in our baptism, Romans 6:4-5; Colossians 2:12.
So that faith not only does not make void the law to us personally, but is the
only way by which we shall be made able to keep the law personally, and not
only does not encourage to sin, but furnishes the only motives by which
practically we cease from sin.
The doctrine of baptism as bearing upon this point set forth in 6:1-11 is this:
A justified and regenerate man is commanded to be baptized. Baptism symbolizes
the burial of a dead man dead to his old life his cleansing from the sins
of the old life, and this resurrection to a new life. Christ died on the cross
for our sins once for all. Being dead he was buried, raised to a new life and
exalted to a royal and priestly throne. All this, in the beginning of his
public ministry, was prefigured in his own baptism. As he died for our sins,
paying the law penalty, so we in regeneration become dead to law claims because
we died to sin in his death. Being dead to the old life, we should be buried.
This is represented in our baptism: "Buried in baptism." But in
regeneration we are not only slain, but made alive, or quickened. The living
should not abide in the grave, therefore in our baptism there is also a symbol
of our resurrection. But regeneration not only slays and makes alive, but
cleanses, therefore in our baptism we are symbolically cleansed from sin, as
was said to Paul, "Arise, and be baptized and wash away thy sins." So
that not only both elements of regeneration, cleansing and renewal of soul are
set forth pictorially in our baptism, but also the coming resurrection and
glorification of our bodies.
In 6:7 we have this language: "For he that hath died is justified from
sin." That means that there are two ways in which one can satisfy the law
and meet all of its claims. He can either do it by perfectly obeying the law,
or he can do it by meeting the penalty of the law. Therefore it says, "He
that hath died is justified from sin." It is just like an ordinary debt.
If one pays the debt he is justified from the claim. If a man commits an
offense and the law decision is that he suffer the penalty of two years in the
penitentiary, and he serves the two years in the penitentiary, he is justified
in the eyes of the law. The law can't take him up and try him again. While the
disobedience of the law is not justified in obedience, he has paid the full
penalty. Now to make the application of that: Christ died for our sins; we died
in his death, just as we died in Adam and came under condemnation for it. Now
when we die with Christ, that death on the cross justifies us from sin. That is
what it means.
The next point is the argument from the meaning of the declaration that he that
is dead is justified from sin. That argument is presented in verses 12-13, and
the reason for it is given in verse 14. Let us look at those verses. If we be
dead to sin we should not let sin reign in our mortal body that we should obey
the lusts thereof. Neither present our members unto sin as instruments of
unrighteousness, but present ourselves unto God as alive from the dead, and our
members as instruments of righteousness unto God. The reason assigned is,
"For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under law, but
under grace." In other words, "It is true that you didn't pay that
law claim, but your substitute paid it, and that puts you from under the law of
condemnation. Now if you set out to pay, you set out to pay unto grace. The
spirit of obedience in you is not of fear, but of love to him that died for
you." That is what is called being under grace in a matter of obedience
and not under law.
What is the force of the question, "Shall we sin because we are not under
law, but under grace?" In other words, "Because my obedience is not a
condition of my salvation, shall I therefore sin?" That is the thought,
and his argument against that is this: "God forbid. Know ye not that to
whom ye present yourselves as servants unto obedience, his servants ye are whom
ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"
If a man presents himself unto grace as the principle of obedience, then it is
not a life and death matter, but it is a matter of love and gratitude. It is on
a different principle entirely. And in a very elaborate way he continues the
argument down to verse 23: "For the wages of sin is death; but the free
gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Let us now explain the contrast in 6:23 and give the argument. Here he
contrasts two things, (1) the wages. This is a matter of law wages. (2) Over
against that stands gift free gift. That is not a matter of wages. The wages
of sin is death that is the penalty but now the free gift is eternal life.
It is impossible to put his meaning any plainer than these words put it:
"Are you expecting to be saved on the ground of earning your salvation as
wages, or are you expecting to be saved through the free gift of God unto
eternal life?" That is the thought.
Let us see the force of the illustration in 7:2: "For the woman that hath
a husband is bound by law to the husband while he liveth; but if the husband
die, she is discharged from the law of the husband. So then if, while the
husband liveth, she be joined to another man, she shall be called an
adulteress; but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so that she is no
adulteress, though she be joined to another man." The force of that as an
illustration of the married life is: "What God hath joined together let
not man put asunder." The obligation of a wife to a husband, and their
fidelity to each other, is a matter of law growing out of the relation that
holds them together. So long as a husband lives and a wife lives, neither one
of them can be free to marry except in a certain case, and that exception is
discussed elsewhere. He is just discussing the general principles here. Now
apply that illustration: "The law holds you to absolute fidelity in obedience
just as the law holds the woman bound to her husband, and the husband to his
wife. If you died with Christ, you are dead to that law, and therefore you can
enter into another relation. You are espoused to Christ. The law that binds you
now is the law of that espousal to Christ, and that is the law of freedom; not
like the other, it is a matter of grace." That is the force of that
statement.
Then in 7:7, "Is the law sin?" That is an important question and he
answers it. Some things in connection with it have already been answered, and
in answering it particularly I will take the following position:
(1) The law is not sin. It is holy, it is just, it is good. What, then, is the
relation of the law to sin? He says here that it gives the knowledge of sin: "I
had not known sin except through the law." If people were living according
to different standards, every man being a judge in his own case, what A would
think to be right B would think to be wrong, and vice versa. People would think
conflicting things, and as long as a man held himself to be Judge of what was
right and what was wrong he would not feel that he was a sinner. 80 the real
standard, not a sliding scale, is put down among all the varying ideas of right
and wrong. What is the object? It is to reveal the lack of conformity to the
law: "I had not known sin, except through the law."
(2) The second reason is that it provokes to sin. He says, "Sin, finding
occasion, through the commandment beguiled me, and through it slew me." If
children were forbidden to climb telephone poles they would all desire to climb
them, and they would never think of it if they were not forbidden. So that law
was designed to show just what inherent nature will bring out. A snake is very
pretty at certain times, and one may think that the enmity between him and the
human race is hardly justifiable, but let him give a snake the opportunity to
develop just what is in him, and then he will have a different opinion. Who
would have supposed that it was in human nature to do the things done in the
French Revolution? Man is a good sort of creature; he would not impale a body
on a bayonet; he would not burn a woman at the stake; he would not put their
fingers in a thumbscrew; he would not put a man on the rack and torture him;
but nobody knows the evil that is in human nature until it has a chance to show
what is in it.
(3) The law brings all that out; hence, one object of the law is to make sin
appear to be sin, and to be exceeding sinful to make it seem what it is, and
not just a peccadillo, or a misdemeanor, but an exceedingly vile, ghastly, and
hateful thing.
(4) Then the object of the law is to work death: "Sin, taking occasion by
the law, beguiled and slew me." The death there referred to is the death
in one's own mind. It means conviction that one is lost that is the death he
is talking about. For he explains immediately, where he says, "I was alive
apart from the law once," that is, he felt like he was all right, but when
the commandment came he saw that he was a dead man under condemnation of
death. And that is one of the works of the Holy Spirit bringing about
conviction, making a man see that he is a sinner, .making him feel that he is a
sinner, that he is exceeding sinful.
And we may distrust any kind of preaching that is dry-eyed, that has no godly
sorrow, that has no repentance. If one thinks that he is a very little sinner,
then a very little Saviour is needed. We depreciate our Saviour just to the
extent that we extenuate our sin.
The next passage is also of real importance, (7:15-25). There is only one
important question on it: "Is the experience there related the experience
of a converted man, or of an unconverted man?" If one wants to see how men
dissent on it, let him read his commentaries.
Let us see some of the points: "That which I do I know not [the word
"know" is used in the sense of approve]; for not what I would, that
do I practice; but what I hate, that I do. But if what I would not, that I do,
I consent unto the law that it is good. So now it is no more I that do it, but
sin which dwelleth in me . . . For the good which I would I do not: but the
evil which I would not, that I practice. But if what I would not, that I do, it
is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me. I find then the law,
that, to me who would do good, evil is present. For I delight in the law of God
after the inward man." Now is that a saved or an unsaved man? Our
Methodist brethren tell us that that is the experience of an unsaved man; that
we don't get to conversion until we come to chapter 8. I say that there we
strike sanctification. The point is this: If the mind of the flesh the carnal
mind is enmity against God, if it is not subject to the law of God, and
neither indeed can be, then how can that mind, "delight in the law of God
in the inward man?" How can he approve that which is good? From verse 16
to the end of chapter 7 he discusses a certain imperfection attending the
regenerate state. The experience of every regenerate man will corroborate this:
"I know a certain thing is right. I am ashamed to say I didn't do it; I
know a certain thing is wrong, and I approve the law that makes it wrong, and I
am ashamed to say I have done that very thing." And if there is one thing
that disturbs the Christian and troubles him, it is to find a law in his
members warring against the law of his mind. That is expressed here:
"Wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me out of the body of this
death?" That expression of Paul's has been (and I think rightly) supposed
to refer to an ancient penalty inflicted on a man that had committed a certain
offense. He was chained to a dead body, and he had to carry that dead body with
him everywhere he went. He alive, that body dead, he would want a pure
atmosphere to inhale, and that body would be exhaling the stench of corruption.
It was a miserable condition: "Who will deliver me from this body of
death?"
One of the great French preachers preached on that subject before Louis XIV. We
find a reference to it in Strong's Systematic Theology. He was
talking about the two l's; "that which I approve I do not; that which I
would not do that I do." And the French preacher was pointing out the two
men in a man, and how they fought against each other, and the king interrupted
him in his sermon and said, "Ah, I know those two men." The preacher
pointed at him and said, "Sire, it is somewhat to know them, but, your
majesty, one or the other of them must die." It isn't enough just to know
them; one or the other of them is going ultimately to triumph. What is the
meaning of 8:4: "That the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us,
who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit"? Here is the
fulfilment in us. It is not imputed righteousness that is being discussed here;
that is justification. But it is the object of regeneration and sanctification
to make a personal righteousness. The object of regeneration and sanctification
is that in us the law might be fulfilled as well as for us in the death of
Christ. That is the meaning of the passage, and it is one of the profoundest
gratifications to me that my salvation does not stop at justification. I am
glad to think that the law has no claims on me, but I could not be happy, being
only justified and loving sin. I not only want to be delivered from sin but
from the love of sin in regeneration, and the dominion of sin in
sanctification.
The apostle describes the two minds in 8:5-8: "For they that are after the
flesh mind the things of the flesh." Here flesh does not mean the body.
The flesh does not mean the tissues and the blood. That would constitute only a
physical man. What he means by the flesh is the carnal mind. Now he is
discussing the two. He continues: "But they that are after the Spirit the
things of the Spirit." There are the two minds: "For the mind of the
flesh is death; but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace: because the mind
of the flesh is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be; they
that are in the flesh cannot please God." It is just like trying to wash
away the soul's sins in water.
We might take the sinner up and hold him under Niagara Falls and let it pour on
him for ten thousand years and we could never wash away the soul's sins. It was
impossible for the blood of bullocks to take away sin. It is impossible for the
water of baptism to take away sin. This carnal mind cannot be made into a
Christian. We can whitewash it, and there are many preachers that do that sort
of business. It may be outwardly beautiful, like a tomb, but inwardly it is
full of rottenness and dead men's bones.
QUESTIONS
1. What has been considered
in this letter hitherto?
2. What now before us in 6:1
to 8-39?
3. What two questions
properly introduce this section, and what their meaning?
4. What of the significance of
these questions?
5. What the reply to them
embodying the substance of this section?
6. What the doctrine of
baptism bearing upon this point set forth in 6:1-11?
7. What the meaning of 6:7:
"He that hath died is justified from sin"?
8. What the argument based
upon that statement?
9. What the force of the
question, "Shall we sin because we are not under law, but under
grace"?
10. What the contrast and
argument in 6:23?
11. What is the illustration
in 7:2, and what the force of it?
12. la the law sin? If not,
what its relation to sin?
13. Expound the passage,
7:15-25.
14. What is the meaning and
application of 8:4?
15. How does the apostle
describe the two minds, and what the teaching?
SALVATION IN US (CONTINUED)
Romans 6:1 to 8:39
In this chapter we continue the discussion of salvation in us, or regeneration,
sanctification, and glorification. Regeneration is a change of mind. The carnal
mind cannot be made into a Christian, hence there must be a change. Is the
change simply using the old mind, but modifying it, or is it a change like
this: A woman put her baby in the cradle at night and the next morning there
was another baby in the cradle which she called the changeling? That was not
any imitation of the baby that was in there before. Just so we waste our time
if we try to make a Christian out of the carnal mind. We can't do it. That is
why regeneration is called a creation, which is to make something out of nothing
not out of a material having already existed.
What Paul is expressing here is that we may take the fallen nature of man which
he has inherited from Adam and commence an educational process in the cradle,
and continue it up to the adult stage and get a very respectable church member,
but not a saved person.
Education has no creative power at all. He may be very proper in his behavior;
he may pay the preacher; he may go to Sunday school; he may do everything in
the world that will enable him to appear to be a Christian, and yet not be a
Christian. There must be a breaking up of the fallow ground. As Jesus said to
Nicodemus, "Except ye be born from above, ye cannot even see the kingdom
of heaven."
The conclusion reached by the apostle in this argument is in verse II: "If
the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he that
raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies
through his Spirit that dwelleth in you." Now the question, Who shall
deliver me from the body of this death, this evil mind this evil body? It comes
through Christ, but it is Christ working through the Spirit. It is the Holy
Spirit that made Christ's body alive; it is the Holy Spirit that will make our
bodies alive at the resurrection; it is the Holy Spirit that will glorify these
bodies and when they come out they will be spiritual bodies and not carnal
bodies.
There is a test presented in verse 14: "For as many as are led by the
Spirit of God, these are sons of God." Who are God's children? Those that
have the Spirit those that are led by the Spirit. We are regenerated by the
Spirit, and under the guidance of that Spirit we turn away from sin. If we fall
we try to fall toward heaven, and get up and try again. There is a sense of
wanting to get nearer and nearer to God. We want to know whether we are
Christians. Here is the test: We are led by the Spirit of God.
That brings us to the word "adoption." What is adoption?
Etymologically it is that legal process by which one, not a member of a family
naturally, is legally made a member of it and an heir. There are three kinds of
adoption which the apostle discusses in this letter:
1. National adoption, Romans 9:4: "My kinsman
according to the flesh who are Israelites, whose is the adoption." Many
times in the Old Testament Israel is called God's son, the nation as a nation
being his particular people.
2. The adoption of the soul of the justified man, Romans 8:15: "Ye
received the spirit of adoption."
3. The adoption of our bodies when they are redeemed from the grave and
glorified, Romans 8:23: "Waiting for our adoption, to wit, the redemption
of our body."
The fact of our adoption is certified to us in Romans 8:1516: "For ye
received not the spirit of bondage again unto fear; but ye received the spirit
of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit himself beareth witness
with our spirit, that we are children of God." That is a matter of our
subjective experience. As in the case of justification there must be a
difference of time between the fact of our justification and our realization of
its privileges, so there must be and indeed often is a difference in time
between the fact of our adoption and our realization in experience that we are
adopted. The cry, "Abba, Father," means that in our experience a
filial feeling toward God comes into the heart. Antecedent to this when we
thought of God he seemed to us to be distant and dreadful, but when through the
Holy Spirit given unto us came this conscious realization that God is a Father,
it drove out all fear.
We do not feel ourselves under bondage to law, but we have the sense in our
hearts of being God's children, and as a little child readily approaches a
parent in expectation of either help or comfort, we have this feeling toward
our heavenly Father. It is one of the sweetest experiences of the Christian
life. There is no distinction of meaning between the spirit of adoption and the
Spirit's bearing witness with our spirit that we are the children of God, or if
there is a distinction it is not appreciable in our consciousness, since it is
the Spirit that bestows that filial feeling.
As an illustration of this filial feeling in the heart I cite a story of the
west well-known to our boys. While two children, a little boy and his sister,
were playing, the boy was stolen by the Indians and reared among them until he
caught the spirit of an Indian and gloried in the Indian life. Finally he
became chief of the tribe. In a war between his tribe and the white people, he
was captured and it was discovered that he was not an Indian but a white man.
Finally the proof accumulated as to who were his parents, yet he refused to
acknowledge them. With the sullenness of a captured Indian he pined away for
the wigwams and the freedom of his Indian life. Every effort to make him
realize that he was a white man failed until his sister, then a grown woman,
brought the toys with which the two were playing when the boy was stolen. As he
looked at them his memory awakened and he stretched out his hands and claimed
them as his and said, "Where is my mother?" Now here in him was a
consciousness of filial feeling towards his parents from whom he had been so
long alienated. Analogous to this very impression is our experience that God is
our Father.
In a vivid way the apostle represents the earth, man's habitat, as entering
sympathetically into man's longing for his complete restoration to God's favor
through adoption, Romans 8:20-23: "For the creation was subjected to
vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it, in hope
that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption
into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the
whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only
so, but ourselves also, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we
ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for our adoption, to wit, the
redemption of our body," the meaning of which is that this earth was made
for man; to him was given dominion over it, but when he sinned the earth was
cursed. In the language of the scripture, "Cursed is the ground for thy
sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and
thistles shall it bring forth to thee; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat
bread." In Isaiah 55:12-13, we have this vivid imagery following
conversion: "The mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into
singing; and all of the trees of the field shall clap their hands. Instead of
the thorn shall come up the fir tree; and instead of the brier shall come up
the myrtle tree; and it shall be to Jehovah for a name, for an everlasting sign
that shall not be cut off." In other words, the joy that is in the heart
of the Christian constitutes a medium of rose color through which all creation
seems to him more beautiful than it was before. The birds sing sweeter, the
flowers exhale a sweeter perfume, the stars shine brighter, all of which is a
sign, or forecast, of the redemption of the earth from the curse when man's
redemption is complete. This curse as originally pronounced upon the earth was
not through any fault of creation, as our text says: "Subjected to vanity,
not of its own will, but by reason of him who had subjected it in hope."
And very impressive and vivid is the imagery that the groaning of the earth is
as travail, waiting to be redeemed from the defilement and scars and crimson
stains that have been put upon it through man's inhumanity to man on account of
sin.
Other scriptures very clearly show that this redemption of the earth
accompanies the redemption of man. As the earth was cleansed from defilement of
sin practiced by the antediluvians through the flood, so at the coming of our
Lord and the resurrection of our bodies it will be purged by fire. The language
of the apostle Peter upon this subject is very impressive: "For this they
wilfully forget that there were heavens from of old, and an earth compacted out
of water and amidst water, by the word of God; by which means the world that
then was, being overflowed with water, perished; but the heavens that now are
and the earth, by the same word have been stored up for fire, being reserved
against the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. . . . But the day
of the Lord will come as a thief: in the which the heavens shall pass away with
a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the
earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing that these
things are thus all to be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in
all holy living and godliness, looking for and earnestly desiring the coming of
the day of God, by reason of which the heavens being on fire shall be
dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? But according to his
promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth
righteousness" (2 Peter 3:5-7, 10-13). In John's apocalypse, referring to
the restitution of all things after the judgment, he says, "I saw a new
heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth are passed
away; and the sea is no more" (Rev. 21:1). This is the day of fire
referred to in Malachi 4:1-3: "For, behold, the day cometh, it burneth as
a furnace; and all the proud, and all that work wickedness, shall be stubble;
and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith Jehovah of hosts, that it
shall leave them neither root nor branch. But unto you that fear my name shall
the sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go
forth, and gambol as calves of the stall. And ye shall tread down the wicked;
for they shall be ashes under soles of your feet in the day that I make, saith
Jehovah of hosts." This is the day of fire which the apostle Paul says
shall try every man's work: "But if any man buildeth on the foundation
gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble; each man's work shall be made
manifest; for the day shall declare it, because it is revealed in fire; and the
fire itself shall prove each man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work
shall abide which he built thereon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's
work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved; yet
so as through fire" (1 Cor. 3:12-15).
In continuation of the theme of this section the apostle further shows the
power of the work of salvation in us through the Holy Spirit the Paraclete.
But the Greek word Paraclete needs to be defined. While our Lord was on the
earth he was the paraclete, to whom as the paraclete the disciples said,
"Lord, teach us to pray," and in many examples of his own praying and
in many special lessons on prayer he taught the disciples, and they were sad at
heart when at the last supper he announced his speedy going away from them, but
comforted them with the assurance that he would pray the Father to send them
another paraclete the Holy Spirit, who would teach them to pray acceptably.
Prayers not according to the will of God are not answered. We may ask for
things, being in doubt as to whether it is God's will that such things should
be granted, but the Holy Spirit is not in doubt. He knows what is according to
the will of God, and hence when he moves us intensely to offer prayers those
prayers will always be according to God's will, and so will be answered. Thus
while Jesus in heaven makes intercession for us before the mercy seat, the
other Paraclete the Holy Spirit here on earth makes intercession in us. We
are not to understand that the Holy Spirit directly prays for the Christian,
but his method of intercession is to prompt us to make the right intercession,
and it is in that way that he makes intercession for us. He teaches us how to
pray, and what to pray for. That is why great revivals of religion are in
connection with these spiritual prayers offered by God's people. Hence the
prophet says, "Thorns and briers shall come up on the land of my people
till the Spirit is poured out from on high."
The most vivid illustration of the thought is found in the prophecy Zechariah
in connection with an event yet in the future, to wit, the salvation of the
Jewish nation. The language is,
And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto me whom they
have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son,
and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in. bitterness for his
first-born. In that day shall there by a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the
mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Meggidon. And the land shall mourn,
every family apart; the family of the houses of David apart, and their wives
apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; the
family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of the
Shimeites apart, and their wives apart; all the families that remain, every
family apart, and their wives apart. In that day there shall be a fountain
opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and
for uncleanness. Zechariah 12:10 to 13:1.
It is on account of the Spirit's intercession in us that backsliders are ever
reclaimed. As we wander away from God we lose the spirit of prayer, and while
we go through with the forms of prayer we are conscious that our prayers do not
rise, do not take hold of the throne of God, but when the Spirit comes upon the
backslider then his hard heart is melted, the fountain of his tears is
unsealed, the spirit of grace and supplication comes upon him, and he is
conscious that he is taking hold of the throne of mercy in his prayers.
As an illustration, many Texans have experienced the hardships of a
long-continued drought, when the heavens seem to be brass and the earth seems
to be iron. When vegetation dies, when dust chokes the traveler on the
thoroughfare, and thirst consumes him, suddenly he comes to a well and in it is
an old-fashioned pump. He leaps down from his horse, rushes to the pump, but in
moving its handle he causes only a dry rattle. The reason is that through very
long disuse and heat the valves of the pump have shrunk and hence cannot make
suction to draw up the water. In such case water must be poured down the pump
until the valves are swollen, and then as the pump handle is worked, suction
draws the water as freely as at first. As that pouring the water from above
down the dry pump is to its efficacy in bringing water up, so is the Spirit's
intercession in us, causing us to pray successfully and according to the will
of God. In that way the two elements of the gospel plan of salvation cooperate
to the everlasting security of the believer. At the heaven end of the line
Jesus, the first Advocate, or Paraclete, makes intercession for us as High
Priest, pleading what his expiation has done for us, while the Holy Spirit, the
second Advocate, or Paraclete, works in us an intercession for us here on
earth. So that both ends of the line are secure in heaven above and on earth
beneath. No backslider has ever been able to work himself into the true spirit
of prayerfulness any more than a dry pump can be made to bring up water by
working the handle. Whenever he does pray prevailingly, it is when the Spirit
works in him the grace of supplication.
QUESTIONS
1. What is regeneration?
negatively and positively?
2. What the real import of
what Paul says about it?
3. What the conclusion
reached by Paul in. this argument?
4. What is the test
presented in 8:147
5. What is adoption?
6. What the three kinds of
adoption which the apostle discusses in this letter?
7. How is the fact of our
adoption certified to us?
8. What is the meaning of
the soul's cry, "Abba, Father"?
9. Is there any distinction
between the spirit of adoption and the Spirit's bearing witness with our spirit
that we are the children of God? If so, what?
10. Illustrate the filial
feeling that comes to us when we are saved.
11. In what vivid way does
Paul represent the earth, man's habitat, as entering sympathetically into man's
longing for his complete restoration to God's favor through adoption?
12. What other scriptures
very clearly show this redemption of the earth accompanying the redemption of
man?
13. In continuation of the
theme of this section, how does the apostle further show the power of the work
of salvation in us?
14. Expound and illustrate
this passage.
THE FINAL WORK OF SALVATION IN US
Romans 6:1 to 8:39
The final work of salvation in us is expressed in Romans 8:23 the redemption of
our body concerning which he adds: "For in hope were we saved: but hope
that is seen is not hope: for who hopeth for that which he seeth? But if we
hope for that which we see not, then do we with patience wait for it." The
body is an essential part of the normal man, who was made dual in nature, and
even in paradise God had provided for the elimination of the mortality of man's
body, through the continued eating of the tree of life. But the immortality of
the body in sin would have been an unspeakable curse to man, and hence God, in
expelling man from the garden, said, "Lest he put forth his hand and take
of the tree of life and live forever." But when our souls are regenerated
the hope enters the heart that the body also will be saved, and we wait patiently
for that part of our salvation. While the meaning of a passage in Job is
somewhat disputable, the author believes that the common version is correct. It
expresses the idea of Job in these words: Oh, that my words wee now written) Oh, that they
were inscribed in a book I That with an iron pen and lead They were graven in
the rock forever! But as for me, I know that my redeemer liveth, And that he
shall stand in the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms
destroy this body, Yet in my flesh shall I see God. Whom I shall see for
myself, and mine eyes shall behold, And not another: though my reins be
consumed within me.
Job 19:23-27.
And the passage is akin to the expression in Psalm 17: "I will be
satisfied when I awake in thy likeness." This harmonizes with another very
striking passage in Job: For there is hope of a tree, If it be cut down, that it will sprout
again, And that the tender branch thereof will not cease. Though the root
thereof wax old ill the earth, And the stock thereof die in the ground; Yet
through the scent of water it will bud, And put forth boughs like a plant. But
a man dieth, and is laid low: Yea, mail giveth up the ghost, and where is he?
As the waters fail from the sea, And the river wasteth and drieth up; So man
lieth down and riseth not: Till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake,
Nor be roused out of their sleep. Oh, that thou wouldst hide me in Sheol, That
thou wouldst keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, That thou wouldst appoint
me a set time, and remember met If a man die, shall he live again? All the days
of my warfare would I wait, Till my release should come. Thou wouldst call, and
I would answer thee: Thou wouldst have a desire to the work of thy hands.
Job 14:7-15.
Here Job is deeply impressed with the hope of a tree cut down reviving. There
is a resurrection for it, but he Bays, "When a man dies, where is he [that
is, as to his soul] and if a man die shall he [as to his body] live
again?" Inasmuch as the body was the work of God's hands and originally
intended to be immortal, he expresses the hope that God would hide him in the
grave and appoint a set time to remember him there and then desire the work of
his hands and call him forth from his long sleep.
The fulness of the salvation in us is the regeneration of the soul, its
ultimate sanctification, and the resurrection and glorification of the body. It
has ever been impossible to satisfy the cravings of a human heart with the hope
of soul salvation only. It is ingrained in the very constitution of our being
that we long for the revivification of the body. A bird escaping from its shell
to fly with a new life in the air cares nothing for the cast-off shell. A
butterfly emerging from the chrysalis state cares nothing for the shell that is
left behind. But from the beginning of time, through this ingrained hope of
immortality for the body, man has cared for the body shell after the spirit has
escaped. It is evidenced in the care for the dead body characteristic of all
nations. It is evidenced in the names given to graveyards. They are called
cemeteries, that is, sleeping places. It is evident in the sculpture on the
tombstones and in the inscriptions thereon, all tending to show that man
desires an answer to the question, "If I die, shall I live again?"
And the thought being, not with reference to the continuity of existence in his
spiritual nature, but in his body. Hence the resurrection of the dead is made
in the Christian system, a pivotal doctrine, as we learn from the letter to the
Corinthians: that our faith is vain, our preaching is vain, we are yet in our
sins, our fathers have perished and God's apostles are false witnesses, if the
dead rise not. That is the conclusion of the doctrine of salvation in us. All
the rest of chapter 8 is devoted to a new theme.
THE EVERLASTING
SECURITY OF THOSE WHO ARE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH
The argument extends from verse 26 to the end of the chapter, and it is perhaps
the most remarkable paragraph in inspired literature. It should be memorized by
every Christian. Every thought in it has been the theme of consolatory and
encouraging preaching.
Let us now consider item by item this argument on the security of the believer:
1. He takes the latitudinal view, from top to bottom. Down here he finds a
Christian. Up yonder at the other end of the line is the Advocate. But there is
an Advocate here, too. And these Advocates, one here on earth in the depths,
and the other yonder in the heights of heaven, are going to see to it that that
Christian gets there all right through prayer and faith. If a Christian sins,
he must confess it and ask God to forgive him. Sometimes he has not the spirit
of prayer and does not feel like asking. But God provides an advocate, the Holy
Spirit, that puts into his heart the spirit of grace and supplication. And the
Holy Spirit not only shows him what to pray for, but how to pray. That makes
things secure at this end of the line. Up yonder the advocate in heaven, Jesus
Christ the righteous, takes these petitions that the Spirit inspired on earth
and goes before the Father, and pointing to the sufficiency of his shed blood
in his death on the cross, secures this salvation from depth to height.
2. The unbroken sweep of the providence of God: "To them that love God all
things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his
purpose."
With Christ on the mediatorial throne in heaven holding in his hand the scepter
of universal dominion, constraining everything beings in heaven above and on
the earth beneath and in hell below to work, not tangentially, but together
for good not evil to them that love God, in the sweep of this providence
all elements and forces of the material world and the spiritual world, are laid
under tribute fire, earth, air, storms and earthquakes, pestilences, good
angels and bad, the passions of men, the revolutions in human government all
are made, under the directing power of Jesus our King, to conspire to our good.
Fortune and misfortune, good report and evil report, sickness or health, life
or death, prosperity or adversity, it is all one the power of God is over
them all. Satan is not permitted to put even the weight of a little finger upon
the Christian to worry him except in the direction that God will permit, and
that will be overruled for his good.
3. This sweep of providential government under our mediatorial King accords
with a linked chain of correlative doctrines reaching from eternity before time
to eternity after time. The links of this chain are thus expressed in verses 29
30: "For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the
image of his Son, that he might be the first born among many brethren: and whom
he foreordained, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also
justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Before there
was any world, a covenant of grace and mercy was entered into between Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, the evidences of which covenant are abundant in the New
Testament, and the parts to be performed by each person of the God-head are
clearly expressed, viz.: The Father's grace and love in agreeing to send the
Son, his covenant obligation to give the Son a seed, his foreknowledge of this
seed, his predestination concerning this seed, his justification and adoption
of them here in time.
Then the Son's covenant was the obligation to assume human nature in his
incarnation, voluntarily renouncing the glory that he had with the Father
before the world was, and in this incarnation of humility to become obedient
unto the death of the cross. The consideration held out before him, as a hope
set before him, inducing him to endure the shame of the cross, and the reward
bestowed upon him because of that obedience, was his resurrection, his
glorification, his exaltation to the royal priestly throne and his investment
with the right of judgment. And then the Spirit's covenant-obligations were to
apply this work of redemption in calling, convicting, regenerating, sanctifying
and raising from the dead the seed promised to the Son, the whole of it showing
that the plan of salvation was not an afterthought; that the roots of it in
election and predestination are both in eternity before the world was, and the
fruits of it are in eternity after the judgment. The believer is asked to consider
this chain, test each link, shake it and hear it rattle, connected from
eternity to eternity.
Every one that God chose in Christ is drawn by the Spirit to Christ. Every one
predestinated is called by the Spirit in time, and justified in time, and will
be glorified when the Lord comes.
4. It is impossible for finite beings to say anything against the grounds of
this security, because "If God is for us, who can be against us?"
Because, "He that spared not his own Son, to deliver him up for us all, how
shall he not also with him freely give us all things?" Then the challenge
is sent to the universe to find anyone who can lay any charge against God's
elect who in heaven, who among the angels, good or bad, who on the earth? No
charge can be brought against a believer because it is God, the Supreme Judge,
who has justified him. Justification is the verdict, or declaration, of the
supreme court of heaven that in Christ the sinner is acquitted. This decision
is rendered once for all, is inexorable and irreversible. It is registered in
the book of life, and in the great judgment day that book will be the test book
on the throne of the judgment. Whatever may be brought out from all the books
that are opened, none of them are decisive and ultimate but one the book of
life and it is not a docket of cases to be tried on that day, but is a
register of judicial decisions already rendered; "and it shall come to
pass that whosoever is not found already written in that book shall be cast
into the lake of fire." Therefore the thrill excited in the heart by that
song which our congregations so often used to sing: When Thou my righteous Judge
shall come, To take thy ransomed people home Shall I among them stand? Shall I,
who sometimes am afraid to die Be found at thy right hand? 0, can I bear the
piercing thought, What if my name should be left out!
5. The ground of this salvation is what Christ does. Spurgeon calls 8:34 the
four pillars upon which rests the whole superstructure of salvation. They are:
(a) The death of Christ, (b) The resurrection of Christ, (c) The exaltation of
Christ to the kingly throne, (d) His intercession as our great High Priest.
These four doctrines are strictly correlative they fit into one another. The
soul of the Christian does not at the beginning realize the strength of his
salvation. Many a one has simply believed on Christ as a Saviour without ever
analyzing in his own mind, or separating from each other in thought, the
several things done by Christ in order to his salvation. But as he grows in
knowledge of these things, he grows in grace and assurance. It was some time
after my own soul was saved before I ever understood fully the power of
Christ's exaltation, or kingly throne, and still longer before I understood the
power of his intercession. I got to the comfort of this last thought one day in
reading a passage in Hebrews. "Wherefore also he is able to save to the
uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing be ever liveth to
make intercession for them" (Heb. 7:25). I had never before seen the
difference between salvation in justification and salvation to the uttermost.
In the same way we may not realize in our joy of regeneration the power of his
continuing that good work in us until the day of Jesus Christ, and the great
value of the Spirit's work in taking the things of Christ and showing them to
us. And as we learn each office of Christ, and just what he does in that
office, the greater our sense of security. He is prophet, sacrifice, king,
priest, leader, and judge.
6. The final argument underlying the security of the believer is presented in
verses 35-37, that none can separate us from the love of Christ after our union
is established with. him. The words here are, "Who shall separate us from
the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine,
or nakedness, or peril, or sword? In all these things we are more than
conquerors." The argument is in full accord with the statement of our
Lord, John 10:29: "My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than
all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand." It is
further expressed in another passage by the apostle when he says, "I know
him whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that he is able to guard that which
I have committed unto him against that day." And it is further expressed
in the seal of the Holy Spirit. We are sealed "unto the day of
redemption."
When I was a schoolboy I was wonderfully stirred by an eloquent sermon preached
by J. R. Graves in which he pointed out that fact that by faith we commit our
lives to Jesus; that life is hid with Christ in God; that life is sealed with
the impression of the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption, and then he
asked, "Who can pluck that life out of the hands of God?" drawing
this vivid picture: "If hell should open her yawning mouth and all of the
demons of the pit should issue forth like huge vampires darkening water and
land, could they break that seal of God? Could they soar to the heights of
heaven? Could they scale its battlements? Could they beat back the angels that
guard its walls? Could they penetrate into the presence of the Holy One on his
eternal throne, and reach out their demon-claws and pluck our life from the
bosom of God where it is hid with Christ in God?"
The pages of religious persecution are very bloody; rack, thumbscrews and fagot
have been employed. Confiscation of property, expatriation from country, and
bounding pursuit of the exile in foreign lands, exposedness to famine and
nakedness and sword and other perils, and yet never has this persecution been
able to effect a separation of the believer from his Lord. Roman emperors tried
it, Julian the apostate tried it, Ferdinand and Isabella, Charles V, their son,
and Philip II, his son, all tried it in their time. The inquisition held its
secret court; war, conflagration, and famine wrought their ruin, but the truth
prevailed.
All this illustrates the truth that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the
church. The Genevan, the German, the English State churches have tried, in
emulation of the Romanist union of church and state, to crush out the true
spirit" of Christianity. They have been able merely to scatter the fires,
to make them burn over a wider territory as it is expressed concerning the decree
to scatter the ashes of Wycliffe in the river.
Now upon these arguments, the two intercessors, the sweep of God's providence,
the link chain reaching from eternity to eternity, the impossibility of any being
laying a charge against one whom God has justified, the four pillars, the
inability of man or devil to separate from Christ upon these, the apostle
reaches this persuasion:
"For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities,
nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor
any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is
in Christ Jesus our Lord."
QUESTIONS
1. What the final work of
salvation in us?
2. What provision did God
first make for the immortality of man's body?
3. What defeated that plan,
and how is this immortality finally accomplished?
4. What Job's testimony to
this hope; What the interpretation of the passage?
5. How is this hope in man
evidenced in a singular way?
6. How does Paul elsewhere
make the resurrection a pivotal doctrine in the Christian system?
7. Name the six arguments
for the security of those who are justified by faith as taught in Romans 8.
8. Explain the argument
based on the two intercessors.
9. What the providential
argument, and what does it include?
10. What is the link chain
argument, and how many and what links in the chain?
11. In the covenant of grace,
what the parts to be performed by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
respectively?
12. What the nonchargeable
elect argument, and what the book of life cited in this connection?
13. Recite the stanza from
the old song given in this connection.
14. What the ground of this
salvation, and what the four-pillar argument?
15. Show how one may not
comprehend all this when first converted, and how he may afterwards get great
strength from it.
16. What the nonseparation
argument, what J. R. Graves', illustration of it, and how do the persecutions
inflicted upon God's people illustrate a great scripture truth?
17. In view of these
arguments, what Pauls persuasion?
THE HARMONY OF THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH
UNBELIEF WITH THE PLAN OF SALVATION Romans 9:1 to 10:21.
Paul's statement of the plan of salvation closes with chapter 8, so we now take
up the problem of Jewish unbelief, its effect on Paul, and the occasion and
extent of his concern: So far as this letter goes we find the discussion in
9:1-5, and in 10:1-2, but this concern is equally evident in Luke's history of
his labors, addresses and sermons in Acts, and in several other letters written
by Paul. One of the deepest passions of his soul was excited and stirred by
this problem of Jewish unbelief. The grounds of his concern are the following:
1. These people were his kindred according to the flesh.
2. It was his nation and country, and he had an intense patriotism.
3. They were God's adopted people.
4. They had all of the marvelous privileges of that adoption, and these
privileges are thus enumerated by him in chapter 9, first paragraph:
(1) "Whose is the adoption and the glory." This glory was the cloud,
symbolizing the Divine Presence.
(2) They had the covenants, the covenant of grace with Abraham in Genesis 12,
and the covenant of circumcision as expressed in Genesis 17.
(3) Then they had the giving of the law on Mount Sinai such a law as cannot
be paralleled in the later world. The circumstances under which it was given
were more imposing and impressive than the giving of any other code in the
annals of time. They had that.
(4) Then they had the promises the promise to Abraham, the promise to Isaac,
the promise to Jacob, the promise to the nation, the promise to Moses, and so
on. They had all the promises.
(5) Then they had the fathers, the patriarchs. It was an illustrious heritage.
No other nation had such a list of fathers Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the
twelve patriarchs, the great leaders all through their history.
(6) Then they had the services, that is, the imposing ritual of worship set
forth in the book of Exodus from chapter 38 to the end, and in all of the book
of Leviticus, and a great part of the book of Numbers. That service showed the
place to meet God, the time to meet God, the sacrificial .means of hearings
before God, the mediator through whom they could approach God. They had that
service. No other nation has ever had anything like it. All the churches of the
present time have not improved that ritual, including the Romans, the Greeks,
the Catholics, the Epicureans, and some Baptists who wear robes in the pulpit and
intone their services.
(7) The last and greatest of the privileges was, that of them came Christ
according to the flesh, the line running through Seth, Heber, Peleg, Abraham,
Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David, and on down until we come to Christ himself. They
had Christ according to the flesh. That was the ground and the occasion of his
interest. So the problem is, that Christ was rejected by his own people. More
than once an infidel has said to me, "If the proof and the merits of
Christ be so obvious, why is it that his own people did not take him?"
We now come to the extent of Paul's concern for this rejection of Christ. (1)
He says in chapter 10, which is a part of this section, "I bear my people
witness that they have a zeal toward God, but not according to knowledge. (2) I
sincerely desire the salvation of my people. (3) Their rejection of Christ
gives me continual sorrow and pain of heart. (4) Finally, I could wish myself
accursed from Christ for my brethren's sake." There is only one similar expression
in the history of men, and that is where Moses, when all Israel had sinned and
God said, "I will blot them out," stood in the breach and said,
"If thou wilt not forgive these people, blot my name out of thy
book." That disposition on the part of Moses and Paul not merely to suffer
temporal death but severance from Christ if it would save the nation,
approaches the feeling that was in the heart of the redeemer when he came to
die the spiritual death for the salvation of men. Two others had the experience
that is here illustrated, for instance, when Abraham offered up his only
begotten son, and passed through the anguish of a father's heart in giving up
his son. He is the only man in the world whose experience approximated the
experience of God the Father, when he gave up his only begotten Son. And Isaac,
in consenting to be so sacrificed, approximated the experience of the Son in
voluntarily coming at the Father's bidding to die for the world. Higher than
all the mountain peaks of time, stands these four names: Abraham, representing
the sacrifice of the Father; Isaac, representing the sacrifice of the Son;
Moses and Paul, representing the Spirit that prompted Jesus to be forsaken of
God in order to the salvation of men.
We come now to the key-sentence of these three chapters, in verse 6: "But
it is not as though the word of God hath come to naught." The object of
the plan of salvation as presented in chapter 8 has this objection against it:
Since the Jewish people did not believe it, how can we harmonize with that plan
the problem of the unbelief of the Jews themselves? He starts off to argue that
question by the affirmation that this Jewish rejection of Christ does not
militate against the plan of salvation as set forth. That is his proposition,
and the first argument that he makes is that all of Abraham's children all of
Abraham's lineal descendants were never included in that national adoption.
Abraham had two sons Isaac and Ishmael. Ishmael and his descendants, the
Ishmaelites, are not included. Keturah, Abraham's second wife, had a pretty
large family, and these Midianites, descendants of Keturah, were not included.
Then the next one after Abraham, Isaac, had two children, Jacob and Esau. Esau
and the Edomites descended from him, though lineal descendants, were not
included. He then presents a case of divine sovereignty concerning these two
children of Isaac. He says that the selection of the one to be the people of
God in the adopted sense and the rejection of the other, was not based upon any
work, and good to be done by the one or evil to be done by the other. It was
not according to the wish of the parents of those children. The selection was
made before the children were born before either one of them knew good from
evil. So that it was not of Isaac that willed Esau to be the heir, nor of Esau
that ran to get the venison in order that he might obtain the blessing of the
heir, nor of the plotting of Rebekah and Jacob. Their plotting did not have
anything to do with it. It was not of him that runneth, nor him that plotteth;
it was the act of divine sovereignty.
Whatever is meant by this adoption of a nation, it was not based upon any merit
in that nation, or in the particular individuals through whom this adoption
came. Jerusalem when it was first established was no better than any other
city; it was of God's sovereignty just as the raising up of Pharaoh. "For
this purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power."
Right on the reels of that comes the question from the objector, "Why doth
he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?" Paul is not disposed
to answer that question in this connection. We will find the answer before we
get through with these three chapters, but here he waives it aside with a
counter question: "Hath not the potter power over his clay to take one
part of the lump and make a beautiful vessel for the parlor, and to take
another part and make a very inferior vessel for the kitchen? And shall either
one of the vessels object to the potter?" He waives it for the time being
by merely denying the power of the Christian to intrude into the power of the
divine sovereignty. His purpose is to show that the word of God touching
salvation has not come to be ineffectual because the Jews rejected it.
That is the argument he is on now, and he then advances in it, and says,
"Not even all the lineal descendants of Abraham in the select line
according to the plan of salvation were to be saved; not all of them could see
these two covenants side by side; one was a national covenant, with its seal of
circumcision, and promising the earthly Canaan, and the other was the grace
covenant that looked to a spiritual seed." Or, as he puts it in another
place, "He is not a Jew (in the spiritual sense) who is just one outwardly,
but he is a Jew who is one inwardly. The circumcision is not the circumcision
of the flesh, but the circumcision of the heart regeneration." In the
exercise of the sovereign purpose of God, there is nothing that the finite man
can do concerning him. It is an ocean too deep for our line to fathom. We would
have to be infinite to understand it, but we do know that in all human history,
without any explanation to us, God's purpose is working. God bad a purpose in
having this continent discovered just when it was. He had a purpose in the
success of the American Revolution. He had a purpose in the redemption of Texas
in the battle of San Jacinto.
High above human thought, beyond the scope of human sight, of the human mind,
the Omnipotence and Omniscience is ruling, and his rule is supreme, and yet
nobody is taken by the hair and dragged into hell, and nobody is taken by the
hair and dragged into heaven, as he will show more particularly later.
Let us explain and give the application of the vessels of wrath and mercy. In
chapter 9 is a passage, from verse 22 to the end of the chapter, about the
vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy. Those that were vessels of wrath,
those who voluntarily stand against God, God patiently endured a long time, and
his forbearance signified that he was giving them opportunity for repentance.
Those vessels of mercy, they also had opportunity for salvation, whether they
were Jews or Greeks. He shows that God is no respecter of persona in selecting
the Jewish nation. But why did he select that nation? If he had selected the
Jewish nation, every one of them to be saved in heaven, and rejected every
other nation, then the objection would have been sustained, but it had a
different purpose. The election of the Jewish nation looked to the salvation of
the Jews and Gentiles that received the message of God, also the covenants, and
the coming of Christ from them according to the flesh. That election looked
through them to others and, so far as salvation in heaven is concerned, the
Jews that believed were saved, and so far as other nations were concerned he
quotes certain parts in Hosea and the Old Testament, the paragraph referring to
the ingathering of the Gentiles: "I will call them my people which were
not my people."
In objecting to God's selecting one nation and calling that nation "my
people" he says, "I will call them my people which were not my
people," and in a place where it is said, "They are not my people,
there shall they be called sons of the living God," if they believe on
Jesus Christ. He then quotes from Isaiah who distinguishes between the holy
stock of Israel and the natural stock of Israel as if he had said, "If the
number of Israel had been as abundant as the sands of the sea, it is only the
remnant that are saved" those that by faith accept Christ. We see he is
laying the predicate for that olive tree illustration that he will introduce
later in the discussion. Isaiah then goes on to say that if the grace of God
had not been revealed, and the Lord God of hosts had not left a seed, the whole
of them would have been as Sodom and Gomorrah. Nothing but divine grace saves
those that were saved not their ritual, not their law. He then reaches this
conclusion, "What shall we say then?" The Gentiles who followed not after
righteousness, that is, the Jewish way, attained to righteousness because they
sought it in a different way. The Jew following the law had not arrived at
righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but by works;
they stumbled at that stumbling stone.
Next he shows that the rejection of the Jews was not total, He commences
chapter 10 by slating that as far as he is personally concerned his heart's
desire and prayer for Israel is that they would be saved, and he is willing to
acknowledge that they had a zeal, but not the zeal of knowledge. They busied
themselves to establish their own plan of righteousness, and he puts it in such
a way that we can't mistake the law righteousness and leave the faith
righteousness as they did. We must not forget that the law says, "Do to
live," but faith says "Live to do." In other words, doing the
will of God comes out of having been made alive to God. Life must come first;
make the tree good, and then the fruit will be good. One of them makes doing
the means of life, and the other puts life as a means of doing. Then he shows
that while Moses had handed down this law and set before them its requirements
that if one would have kept its requirements in strict obedience he would have
been saved, but the law required him to start right in his nature and then to
continue to do everything that is contained in the law. He goes on to quote
from Moses. Paul quotes from the Hebrew and not from the Septuagint which runs
thus: "The righteousness which is of faith saith thus, Say not in thy
heart, Who shall ascend unto heaven (that is, to bring the Saviour down, or to
bring salvation down) or, Who shall descend from heaven (that is, to bring
Christ up from the grave.)" This is the Septuagint idea. The Hebrew idea
is not that a man tries to go to heaven as the ancient Titan tried to do by
piling Pela on Ossa to make a stairway. Nor that he tries to go directly into
the depths, down into the abyss, and wrench salvation from the depths. The
Hebrew represents him, not as going down, but as going across, saying that man
does not go to the other side of the sea to find salvation to bring it back.
Paul changes this a little and makes it correspond better than does Moses.
Instead of going across the sea, he has the man going down into the depths of
the sea, and he goes on, still quoting Moses, that the real salvation does not
come from afar. Paul puts this explanation on it, that it was the word that he
preached: "It is the word of faith which we preach."
The plan of salvation is not making tedious pilgrimages; it is not wearing a
hairy undershirt to irritate; it is not wearing bracelets that have thorns on
them, and to keep on doing penance; it is the word of faith.
Thus he says, "You may be sure that if from the heart you believe in Jesus
Christ, and if with your lips you make confession of that faith, you shall be
saved." It is not an intellectual faith it is heart faith. But a good
many people misunderstand the import of confession. It doesn't mean to confess
sins to your brother, nor to a priest, nor even to God that is not the
confession he is talking about, but it is a public confession of Christ as
Saviour. If we have not faith enough to confess the Christ that we say we
believe in, we have not faith enough to be saved. Confession implies that
whoever makes it must have a great deal of courage. In this time of peace it
doesn't cost much to confess Christ, and even now sometimes shame prevents
confession by young people. The young lady going into a city is told not to
join a church because that will deprive her of all social functions.
"Whoever shall be ashamed of me before this generation, of him shall I be
ashamed before my father and the holy angels. And whosoever shall deny me, him
will I deny." And if we are afraid or ashamed to come out in public, and
say, "I take Christ as my Saviour," then the Father will be ashamed
of us.
This law has no distinction as to nationality; there was only one door to
Noah's ark. The elephant went in at the same door as the snail, and the eagle
sweeped down through the same door that a little wren hopped in at. And there
is not a side door for a woman to go in. We all go to Christ through the same
door. While it is true that God called Israel out of Egypt, the same Bible says
that he called the Philistines out of Caphtor, and he is the Lord of all
nations, and the universality of the plan of salvation is expressed in
"Whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Then
comes up the question, How can any one call on God who has not believed in God,
and how can be believe in a God of whom he has never heard? How can he hear
unless somebody tells him unless there be a preacher and how can there be a
preacher except he be sent? The sending there means God sent. What a marvelous
theme for a missionary sermon!
Having stated that, he raises another question, "Have they not heard?
Didn't they have preachers?" Has not the word gone to them? From Genesis
we learn that the antediluvians had light enough to be saved, and Paul is here quoting
a psalm: "Their sound went out through all the earth." Jesus Christ
is the true light that lights every man that comes into the world. There has
been light enough if the people had been willing to walk in the light.
I once heard a Methodist preacher state to a congregation that the heathen that
did the best they could would be saved.
But he didn't produce any heathen who had done their best. And where is the man
that has done his best?
The plan by which men are to be saved is the plan to make the promise sure to
all. It is as quick as lightning in its application. It is a fine thing for a
man to quit his meanness; it is a fine thing for a man to do the best he can,
but certainly it is not the way of salvation; we don't secure salvation by that.
"With a nation void of understanding will I anger you." In other
words, "If you will have no God, you adopted people, I will provoke you to
jealousy by them that are no people," as Isaiah said, "I was found of
them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them. But to Israel he said,
I have stretched out my hands unto this disobedient and gainsaying
people." Their whole record is no matter who called, who was sent, who
preached, they rejected. Having shown them that God was not unjust in rejecting
them, and that he did not violate the gospel plan of salvation, Paul says,
"I am one of them; not all the Jews were lost; I am one of them."
Neither in its totality nor in its perpetuity were the Jews rejected. Elijah
supposed once that he stood by himself, and that he was the only one left. God
says, "I have preserved 7000 that have not bowed the knee to Baal."
Having shown from chapters 9-10 that the rejection of the Jews was not total,
we will show from chapter II that it was not perpetual.
QUESTIONS
1. What the problem of
Romans 9:1 to 11:36?
2. How did it affect Paul?
3. What the grounds of his
concern?
4. What the marvelous
privileges of the Jews' adoption?
5. What the infidel argument
on this point?
6. What the items which
indicate the extent of Paul's concern for his people?
7. What Paul's meaning here,
and what Old Testament examples of this experience and spirit?
8. What the key sentence of
chapters 9-11, and what its meaning?
9. What is Paul's first
argument on this point?
10. What the case of divine
sovereignty concerning Jacob and Esau?
11. How is this principle
illustrated in the selection of Jerusalem?
12. What illustration of
this point from the history of Pharaoh?
13. What question from the
objector here introduced, and how does Paul dispose of it?
14. What is Paul's purpose
in thus disposing of this question?
15. What advance did he then
make in his argument, and how does he illustrate it elsewhere?
16. What illustrations of
the sovereign purpose of God cited by the author?
17. What the explanation of
the vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy in Romans 9:22ff?
18. How does Paul show that
God was no respecter of persons in selecting the Jewish nation?
19. How does he prove this
from the prophets?
20. What the conclusion of
all this, then, as stated in the closing part of chapter 9?
21. What the argument of
chapter 10?
22. What concession, does he
make in favor of the Jews in. the first part of chapter 10, and what his
objection raised?
23. What the difference
between the law righteousness and the faith righteousness?
24. Why could not any one be
saved by the law righteousness?
25. What the difference in
the idea expressed in the Hebrew and that of the Septuagint?
26. What construction does
Paul put on it, and what the application?
27. What is the meaning of
the confession mentioned in this connection, and what its relation to
salvation?
28. How does Paul show here
that God makes no distinction between peoples of different nationalities, and
what the author's illustration?
29. What the great
missionary text in this connection?
30. What Paul's answer to
the question, "Have they not heard?" and what the necessity of
missionary operations?
31. With what reproof of the
Jewish people does Paul close chapter 10?
THE LIMITATIONS AND MERCIFUL PURPOSE OF
GOD'S REJECTION OF ISRAEL Romans 11:1-36.
Israel's rejection was neither total nor perpetual. The elect, or spiritual
Israel, were never cast off. From Abraham to Paul every Israelite who looked
through the types and by faith laid hold of the Antitype, was saved. In this
sense there were no lost tribes, but out of every tribe the elect, manifested
in the circumcision of the heart, not of the flesh, were saved. For example:
1. The apostle cites his own case. That he himself was an Israelite is
abundantly shown here, and even more particularly elsewhere, (Phil. 3:4-6; Acts
22:3-15) and yet he was saved after Israel according to the flesh was cast off
and the kingdom transferred to the Gentiles, as were all the Jews from
Pentecost to Paul. The number of elect Jews thus saved was always greater than
appeared to human sight, as evidenced in Elijah's time.
2. Elijah in his panic supposed himself to be alone, but Jehovah showed him
that through grace there were seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to
Baal.
3. So it continued to be in Paul's time; there was a remnant spared according
to grace.
But the apostle is careful to show that this elect remnant, never cast off,
every one of them, was saved by grace, and not one of them by the works of law.
Then he explains this finding of salvation by the elect Jews, and the casting
off of the non-elect Jews by the two essentially different methods of seeking
salvation. The elect sought it by faith and obtained it; the rest because they
persistently sought righteousness by works of the law, rejecting God's righteousness,
were judicially blinded as shown: (1) By the law itself (Deut. 29:4); (2) by
the prophets (Isa. 29:10); (3) by the Psalms (Psalm 69:22).
Having shown the casting off was never total, and why, he then shows that it
was not intended to be perpetual by proving the ultimate restoration of all
Israel as a nation, whenever it should turn to the grace method of salvation,
-the scriptural proof of which is as follows:
1. In the law itself, which denounces their casting off, is the promise of an expiation
through grace (Deut. 32:43).
2. In the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the temple it is suggested (I
Kings 8:46-53).
3. In the prophets it is clearly foretold, and all the method of it (Isa. 66:8;
Ezek. 36:22 to 37:28; Zech. 12:9 to 13:1). The element of mercy dominant in the
election of Israel as a nation is that they were chosen that through them all
the nations might be blessed. The element of mercy in their rejection is that
through their downfall life might come to other nations. The element of mercy
toward the Jews in the call of the Gentiles was that cast-off Israel might be
provoked to return to God. In saving Gentiles there was an aim at the salvation
of his cast-off people. This is proved in his argument thus: "By their fall
salvation is come to the Gentiles to provoke them to jealousy," and then
he magnified his own office as an apostle to the Gentiles to provoke the
jealousy of his own people in order that he might save some. He foresees a
wonderful effect on the Gentiles in the restoration of the Jews. It will be
even more beneficial than their downfall: "Now if their fall is the riches
of the world, and their loss the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their
fulness? . . . For if the casting away of them is the reconciling of the world,
what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the-dead?" (11:12, 15).
Then our concern, prayer, and labor for that great future event the
restoration of God's ancient people is a concern for other nations who never
will be thoroughly aroused until moved by redeemed Israel.
A passage from Peter shows the relation of the conversion of the Jews to our
Lord's final advent, and a declaration of our Lord shows the time of this
general salvation of the Jews. Peter says, "Repent ye therefore, and turn
again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of
refreshing from the presence of the Lord; and that he may send the Christ who
hath been appointed for you, even Jesus: whom the heavens must receive until
the times of restoration of all things, whereof God spoke by the mouth of his
holy prophets that have been from of old" (Acts 3:19-21). Our Lord says,
"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led captive
unto all the nations; and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles,
until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Luke 21:24). Then according
to Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah, the means and methods of this great
salvation of the Jews are as follows:
1. It will be preceded by a gathering together of Israel out of all nations.
2. Christ whom they pierced will be lifted up in Gentile preaching.
3. The Holy Spirit in convicting and converting power will be poured out on
them, whereby they shall mourn and pray and see the Lord as their Saviour.
4. The nation shall be born of God in a day. The apostle bases this marvelous
work of God upon the principle that "if the first fruit is holy, so is the
lump: and if the root is holy, so are the branches. . . . And this is my
covenant unto them, When I shall take away their sins . . . For the gifts and
the calling of God are not repented of" (11:16, 27, 29). Then follows his
illustration of the olive tree, the explanation of which is as follows:
1. Christ is the root.
2. The holy stock is the spiritual elect, Israel.
3. The branches broken off are the unbelieving Jews.
4. The branches grafted in are the believing Gentiles.
5. The principle is vital and spiritual connection with Christ, through faith,
without respect to Jew or Gentile.
6. The unbelieving children of Abraham are like branches merely tied on the
stock externally; there is no communication of the fatness of the sap into the
veins of the branches tied on externally.
7. So a Gentile tied on externally, without this vital connection, will be
broken off.
The divine purpose in shutting up both Gentile and Jew unto disobedience as
shown in the argument (3:9-20) is expressed thus: "For God hath shut up
all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all" (11:32). We will
conclude this discussion with an analysis of the doxology which is the climax
of his argument:
1. An exclamation of the profundity of the riches of both God's wisdom and
knowledge.
2. The incomprehensibility to the finite mind of his judgments and ways.
3. No finite being knew his mind or advised his actions.
4. No beneficiary of his goodness ever first gave to God as a meritorious
ground of the benefaction.
5. Because he is the source of all good, and the medium of salvation from its
initiation to its consummation, all the glory belongs to God.
QUESTIONS
1. What the limits of
Israel's rejection?
2. Wherein was it not total?
Illustrate.
3. What is the apostle careful
to show about this elect remnant never cast off?
4 How does he explain this
finding of salvation by the elect Jews, and the casting off of the non-elect
Jews?
5. How is the judicial
blindness of the non-elect Jews shown?
6. How does he next show
that the casting off was not intended to be perpetual?
7. What the scriptural proof
of this ultimate restoration of Israel?
8. What element of mercy was
dominant in the election of Israel as a nation?
9. What element of mercy in
their rejection?
10. What element of mercy
toward Jews in the call of the Gentiles? 11. How is this proved in his
argument?
12. What effect on the
Gentiles does Paul foresee in the restoration of the Jews?
13. What then our concern,
prayer, and labor for that great future event, the restoration of God's ancient
people?
14. Quote a passage from
Peter showing the relation of the conversion of the Jews to our Lord's final
advent.
15. Quote a passage from our
Lord showing the time of this general salvation of the Jews.
16. According to Isaiah,
Ezekiel, and Zechariah, what the means and methods of this great salvation of
the Jews?
17. Upon what principle does
the apostle base this marvelous work of God?
18. In the olive tree
illustration what the root, the holy stock, the branches broken off, the
branches grafted in, the principle, the condition of the unbelieving children
of Abraham, and what of the Gentile tied on externally?
19. What then the divine purpose
in shutting up both Gentile and Jew unto disobedience?
20. Give an analysis of the
doxology.
THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION BY GRACE APPLIED
TO PRACTICAL LIFE Romans 12:1 to 16:27.
The prevalent characteristic of all Paul's teachings concerning the gospel is
the unfailing observance of the order and relation of doctrine and morals. He
never "puts the cart before the horse," and never drives the horse
without the cart attached and following after. He was neither able to conceive
of morals not based on antecedent doctrine, nor to conceive of doctrine not
fruiting in holy living. He rigidly adhered to the Christ-idea, "First
make the tree good, and then the fruit will be good." His clear mind never
confounded cause and effect. To his logical and philosophical mind it was a
reversal of all natural and spiritual law to expect good trees as a result of
good fruit, but rather good fruit evidencing a good tree. So he conceived of
justification through faith, and regeneration through the Spirit as obligating
to holy living. If he fired up his doctrinal engine it was not to exhaust its
steam in whistling, but in sawing logs, or grinding grist, or drawing trains.
The modern cry, "Give us morals and away with dogma," would have been
to him a philosophical absurdity, just as the antinomian cry, "faith makes
void the law let us sin the more that grace may abound," was abhorrent
and blasphemous to him.
A justification of a sinner through grace that delivered from the guilt of sin
was unthinkable to him if unaccompanied by a regeneration that delivered from
the love of sin, and a sanctification that delivered from the dominion of sin.
He expected no good works from the dead, but insisted that those made alive
were created unto good works. His philosophy of salvation, in the order and
relation of doctrine and morals, is expressed thus in his letter to Titus:
"For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men instructing
us to the intent that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live
soberly and righteously and godly in this present world; looking for that
blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus
Christ, who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and
purify unto himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good
works." "But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love
toward man appeared, not by works done in righteousness, which we did
ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of
regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us
richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that, being justified by his grace,
we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Faithful is the
saying, and concerning these things I desire that thou affirm confidently, to
the end that they who have believed God may be careful to maintain good works.
These things are good and profitable unto men" (Titus 2:11-15; 3:4-8).
So in every letter there is first the doctrinal foundation, and then the
application to morals. But as in this letter we have the most complete and
systematic statement of the doctrines of grace as a foundation (9-11) so in
this, the following section (12-15), we have the moat elaborate superstructure
of morals.
The analysis and order of thought in this great section are
1. Salvation by grace through faith obligates the observance of all duties
toward God the Father on account of what he does for us in the gift of his Son,
in election, predestination, justification, and adoption (12:1).
2. It obligates the observance of all duties toward God the Holy Spirit for
what he does in us in regeneration and sanctification (12:2).
3. It obligates the observance of all duties toward the church, with its
diversity of gifts in unity of body (12:3-13).
4. It obligates the observance of all duties toward the individual neighbor in
the outside world (12:14-21).
5. It obligates the observance of all duties to the neighbors, organized as
society or state (13:1-13).
6. It obligates the observance of all duties arising from the Christian's
individual relation to Christ the Saviour (13: 14; 14:7-12).
7. It obligates the observance of all duties toward the individual brother in
Christ (14:1 to 15:7).
8. The last obligation holds regardless of the race distinctions, Jew and
Gentile (15:8-24), and includes the welcome of the apostle to the Gentiles,
prayer for the welcome and success of his service toward the Jewish Christians
in their need (15:25-29) and prayer for his deliverance from unbelieving Jews
(15:30-33).
As to the sum of these obligations
1. They cover the whole scope of morals, whether in the decalogue, as given to
the Jews, or the enlarged Christian code arising from grace.
2. They conform to relative proportions, making first and paramount morals
toward God, whether Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, not counting morals at all
which leave out God in either his unity of nature, or trinity of persons, and
making that second, subordinate and correlative which is morals toward men.
The duty toward God the Father, in view of what he has done for us in grace and
mercy, is to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, and acceptable to God
(12:1) and respect his prerogative (12:19) which is illustrated by Paul
elsewhere. He says, "I die daily," meaning that though alive his
members were on the rack of death all the time. He says, "I mortify my
members," and, "I keep my body under," i.e., he kept his
redeemed soul on top, dominating his body. He made his body as "Prometheus
bound" on the cold rock of Caucasus, vultures devouring his vitals every
day as they were renewed every night, a living death.
Our duty toward God, the Holy Spirit, in view of what he graciously does in us
is found in 12:2: Negatively Let not the regenerate soul be conformed with
the spirit and course of this evil world, whether in the lust of the eye or
pride of life. Positively Be transformed in continual sanctification in the
renewing of the mind. That is, working out the salvation which the Spirit works
in us, as he, having commenced a good work in us (regeneration) continues it
(through sanctification) until the day of Jesus Christ. Or, as this apostle says
elsewhere, Christ, having been formed in us the hope of glory, we are changed
into that image from glory to glory as by the Spirit of the Lord.
The duties toward the church are found in 12:3-13:
1. Not to think more highly of one's self in view of -the other members of the
church. Here are a lot of people in one church; now let not one member put
himself too high in view of the other members of that church.
2. To think only according to the proportion of faith given to him for the
performance of some duty. If I am going to put an estimate upon myself in the
relation to my church members, a standard or estimate should be, What is the
proportion of faith given to me? Say A has so much, C has so much, D has so
much, and E has least of all; then E ought not to think himself the biggest of
all. The standard of judgment is the proportion of faith given to each member.
3. He must respect the unity of the church as a body. In that illustration used
the church is compared to a body having many members. The hand must not say,
"I am everything," and the eye of the body must not say, "I am
everything," nor the ear, "I am everything," nor the foot,
"I am everything." In estimating we have to estimate the function of
each part, the proportion of power given to that part and it is always not as a
sole thing, but in its relation to every other part that is a duty that a
church member must perform. Sometimes a man easily forgets that he is just one
of many in the organism.
4. He must respect its diversity of gifts. That is one part of it that I comply
with. If there is anything that rejoices my heart, it is the diversity of gifts
that God puts in the church. I never saw a Christian in my life that could not
do some things better than anybody else in the world. I would feel meaner than
a dog if I didn't rejoice in the special gifts of any other member in the
church. What a pity it would be if we had just one kind of a mold, and
everybody was run through like tallow so as to make every candle alike. The
duty of the church is to respect the unity of the body, and its diversity of
gifts.
5. Each gift is to be exercised with its appropriate corresponding limitation.
The duties to the individual neighbor of the outside world, even though hostile
to us, are found in 12:14-21:
1. To bless him when he persecutes.
2. To be sympathetic toward him, rejoicing in his joy) and weeping in his
sorrow.
3. Several Christians should not be of different mind toward him. The
expression in the text is to be like-minded. What is the point of that? We are
dealing now with individuals outside. Here is A, a Christian; B, a Christian;
G, a Christian; and the outsider is watching. A makes one impression on his
mind, B makes a different one, and G makes still a different one. The influence
from these several Christians does not harmonize; it is not like-minded; but if
he says that A, B, G, all in different measures perhaps, be every one of the
same mind, then he sees that there is a unifying power in Christians. How often
do we hear it said, "If every Christian were like you, I would want to be
one, but look yonder at that deacon, or at that sister." We should be
like-minded to those outside so that every Christian that comes in may make a
similar impression for Christ's sake.
4. We should not, in dealing with him, respect big outsiders only, but
condescend to the lowly to men of low-estate. Some of them are very rich,
some of them are influential socially, some of them are what we call poor, country
folk. We should not be high-minded in our dealings with these sinners, but
condescend to men of low estate. Let them feel that we are willing to go and
help them.
5. We should not let our wisdom toward him be self-conceit, i.e., let it not
seem to him that way.
6. When he does evil to us, we should not repay in kind.
7. We should let him see that we are honest men. Ah me, how many outsiders are
repelled because all Christians do not provide things honest in the sight of
the outside world!
8. So far as it lieth in us we should be peaceable with him. That means that it
is absolutely impossible to be peaceable with a man that has no peace in him.
He wants to fuss anyhow, and goes around with a chip on his shoulder. He goes
around snarling and showing his teeth. There are some people that are not
peaceable, but so far as our life is concerned, we should be peaceable with
them.
9. We should not avenge on him wrongs done us by him. Vengeance belongs to God;
we should give place to Gods wrath.
10. We should feed him if hungry, and give him drink if thirsty.
11. We should not allow ourselves to be overcome of evil, but overcome evil
with good. We should not get off when we come in contact with evil people, but
just hang on and overcome evil with good.
The duties to the state are as follows:
1. Be subject to higher powers, and do not resist them, for (1) God ordained
them. (2) Makes them a terror to evil works. (3) God's minister for good. (4)
And for conscience sake we must respect the state.
2. Pay our taxes.
3. Whatever is due to each office: "Render honor to whom honor is
due."
4. Keep out of debt: "Owe no man anything but good will."
5. Keep the moral code: "Do not steal; do not commit adultery; do not
covet anything that is thy neighbor's, and thus love thy neighbor."
6. Avoid the world's excesses, revels, and such like.
The duties toward God the Son, in view of what he has done for us and in view
of our vital union with him, are set forth in 14:7-12:
1. Negatively: Live not unto self.
2. Positively: Live unto Jesus, respecting his prerogatives and servants.
Let us now look at the duties to individual Christians. We have considered the
Christians as a body. What are the duties to individual Christians? Romans 14:
I to 15:7 contains the duty to individual Christians. Let us enumerate these
duties somewhat:
1. Receive the weak in faith. We have a duty to every weak brother; receive
him, but not to doubtful disputations. If we must have our abstract, metaphysical,
hair-splitting distinctions, let us not spring them on the poor Christian that
is Just alive.
2. We should not judge him censoriously, instituting a comparison between us
and him; we should not say to him, "Just look at me."
3. We should not hurt him by doing things, though lawful to us, that will cause
him to stumble. The explanation there is in reference to a heathen custom. The
heathen offered sacrifices to their gods, and after the sacrifice they would
hang up the parts not consumed and sell as any other butchered meat. Could we
stand up like Paul and say, "It won't hurt me to eat that meat, but there
is a poor fellow just born into the kingdom, and he is weak in the faith. He
sees me eating this meat that has been offered in sacrifice to idols, and he
stumbles, therefore I will not eat meat"? He draws the conclusion that if
a big fellow can do that he can too, and he goes and worships the idols. The
strong) through the exercise of his liberty that he could have done without,
caused his fall into idolatry. That is what he meant when he wrote, "Do
not hurt him; do not cause him to stumble." He gives two reasons why we
must not cause him to stumble on account of a. little meat. He says, (a)
"Because the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but peace, and joy in
the Holy Spirit. (b) If we consider this weak brother, our consideration will
be acceptable to Christ, and approved of men, but if we trample on the poor
fellow that is weak in the faith, Christ won't approve of it, and men won't approve
of it."
4. Follow the things that make for peace. It is individual Christians that we
are talking about, and we come in contact with them where we have A, B, G, D,
and E, and the first thing we know a little root of bitterness springs up among
them and stirs up a disagreement. The point is that we should follow the things
that make for peace, just as far as we can, and sometimes that will take us a
good ways. He gives this illustration where he says, "If my eating meat
offered to idols causes my brother to stumble, then I am willing to take a
total abstinence pledge." Then he extends it: "Nor drink wine, nor do
anything whereby my brother is caused to stumble." There is meat other
than that which is offered to idols.
5. Bear his infirmities. One man said, "There is much of human nature in
the mule, but more of the mule in human nature." The best man I ever knew
had some infirmities, and I can see some of mine with my eyes shut, and I
believe better with them shut than with them open. We all have infirmities in
some direction or another,
6. We should seek to please him rather than to please ourselves. We are not to
sacrifice a principle, but if we can please him without sacrificing a
principle, rather than please ourselves, why not do it? Let us make him feel
good if we can. This is the duty to the individual Christian.
The duties of Christian Jews to Gentile neighbors are found in 15:8-24. There
they are all elaborated. Even in the Jew's Bible, all through its parts, it is
shown that God intended to save the Gentiles. The duty of Gentile Christians to
the Jews is found in 15:27, showing that there is a debt and that it ought to
be paid.
QUESTIONS
1. What the prevalent
characteristics of all Paul's teachings concerning the gospel? Illustrate.
2. What Paul's attitude
toward the modern cry, "Give us morals and away with dogma," and how
does he express his conviction on this subject elsewhere?
3. How is this thought
especially emphasized in this letter?
4. What the analysis and
order of thought in. this letter in chapters 12-15?
5. What may we say as to the
sum of these obligations?
6. What the duty toward God
the Father, in view of what he has done for us in grace and mercy?
7. What the meaning of
"living sacrifice"? Illustrate.
8. What our duty toward God
the Holy Spirit, in view of what he graciously does in us?
9. What our duties toward
the church?
10. What our duties to the
individual neighbor of the outside world, even though hostile to us?
11. What our duties to the
state?
12. What our duties toward
God the Son, in view of what he has done for us and in view of our vital union
with him?
13. What the duties to
individual Christians? 14. What the duties of Christian Jews to Gentile
neighbors?
SOME FRAGMENTS OF CHAPTERS 14-16
These scriptures have been covered generally in the discussion already. So in
this chapter it is our purpose only to gather up the fragments that nothing may
be lost. Then let us commence by expounding 14:9:
1. The revised version here is better than the common version.
2. The death of Christ was on the cross; the living after death is his
resurrection life in glory. (Compare Revelation 1:18.)
3. The end of Christ's dying and reviving is said to be that he might be Lord
of both the dead and the living, the dead meaning those sleeping in the grave
to be raised from the grave at his coming.
The latter clause of 14:14 does not make our thought of what is sin the
standard of sin, but God's law alone determines that. It means that when a man
violates his own conception of law he is in spirit a sinner, seeing that he
goes contrary to his standard.
The doctrine of 14:20-21 is that what is not sin per se may become sin under
certain conditions arising from our relations to others. For example:
1. Eating meat offered to idols is lawful per se, (Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 8:4).
2. But if it cause a weak brother to worship idols, then charity may justify a
total abstinence pledge, (14:21; 1 Cor. 8:13).
3. This thing lawful per se, but hurtful in its associations and effects on the
weak, may be also the object of church prohibition, the Holy Spirit concurring,
(Acts 15:29),
4. And a church refusing to enforce the prohibition becomes the object of
Christ's censure and may forfeit its office or lampstand (Rev. 2:14-16).
In this whole chapter (14), particularly in the paragraph, verses 22-23, (1)
what is the meaning of the word "faith," (2) does the closing paragraph
make all accountability dependent on subjective moral conviction, and (3) does
it teach that the virtues of unbelievers are sins?
1. Faith, in this chapter throughout, does not so much refer to the personal
acceptance of Christ as to the liberty in practice to which that acceptance
entitles. So that, "weak in faith," verse 1, does not imply that some
strongly accept Christ and others lightly. But the matter under discussion is,
What liberty in practice does faith allow with reference to certain specified
things, the lawfulness or expediency of which may be a matter of scruple in the
sensitive but uninformed conscience of some? One may have faith in Christ to
receive him though in his ignorance he may not go as far as another in the
conception of the liberty to which this faith entitles him as to what foods are
clean or unclean, what days are holy or common and as to partaking in feasts of
meats which have been offered to idols.
2. The "whatsoever" of verse 23 is neither absolute nor universal in
its application. It is limited, first, to the specified things or their kind;
and second, to believers, having no reference to outsiders making no profession
of faith.
3. Subjective moral conviction is not a fixed and ultimate standard of right
and wrong, which would be a mere sliding scale, but it is God's law; yet this
chapter, and particularly its closing paragraph, seems to indicate that the
willful violation of conscience contains within itself a seed of destruction as
has been intimated in 2:14-16.
4. If this whole chapter was not an elaboration of the duties of a Christian
toward his fellow Christian, both presumed to be members of one body, the
particular church, it might plausibly be made to appear that "faith"
in this chapter means belief of what is right and wrong. The theme of chapter
16 is the courteous recognition of the Christian merits and labors of all
workers for Christ, each in his own or her own sphere. The great lessons of
this chapter are
1. As we have in this letter the most complete and systematic statement of
Christian doctrine, and the most systematic and elaborate application of morals
based on the doctrine, so appropriately its conclusion is the most elaborate
and the most courteous recognition of the Christian merits and labors of all
classes of kingdom workers in their respective spheres.
2. With the letter to Philemon it is the highest known expression of delicate
and exquisite courtesy.
3. It is a revelation of the variety and value of woman's work in the apostolic
churches, and in all her fitting spheres of activity.
4. It is a revelation of the value of great and consecrated laymen in the work
of the kingdom.
5. It is a revelation of the fellowship of apostolic Christians and their
self-sacrificing devotion to each other.
6. It magnifies the graces of hospitality.
7. It magnifies the power of family religion whether of husband and wife,
brother and sister, more distant kindred, or master and servant.
8. It digs up by the roots a much later contention and heresy of one big
metropolitan church in a city, with a dominant bishop, exercising authority
over smaller churches and "inferior clergy" in that it clearly shows
that there was not in central Rome one big church, with a nascent pope, lording
it over suburban and village churches. There was no hero, no "church of
Rome," but several distinct churches in Rome whose individuality and
equality are distinctly recognized.
9. It shows the fellowship of churches, however remote from each other) and their
comity and co-operation in kingdom work.
10. It shows in a remarkable way how imperial Rome with its worldwide
authority, its military roads and shiplines, its traffic to and fro from center
to each point of the circumference of world territory and its amalgamation of
nations, was a providential preparation for the propagation of a universal
religion.
11. The case of Phoebe (16:1) in connection with hints here and elsewhere,
particularly 1 Timothy 3:11, sandwiched between verses 10 and 12, seems to
prove the office of deaconess in the apostolic churches, of the propriety and
apparent necessity of which there can be no question.
12. The various names of those saluted and saluting, about thirty-five in all,
indicating various nationalities, not only show that the middle wall of
partition between Jews and Gentiles is broken down in the churches, but that in
the kingdom "there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and
uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman, but Christ is all and in
all."
13. But the lesson seems greatest in its mercy and privileges conferred on
women and slaves.
14. The homiletic value, in pulpit themes suggested, from these various names,
labors and conditions, which Spurgeon seems to have recognized most of all preachers.
Let us now expound the entreaty in verses 17-18, containing the following
points:
1. We need to distinguish between those "causing the divisions" and
those "causing occasions of stumbling." The "divisions"
would most likely come from a bigoted and narrow Jew insisting on following
Moses in order to become a Christian, as in the churches of Galatia, Corinth,
and elsewhere, but those "causing occasions of stumbling" (as in
14:14-22) would likely be Gentiles insisting on the extreme of liberty in the
eating of meats offered to idols, and like things.
2. While both classes are in the church, and not outsiders, as many teach, yet
neither class possesses the spiritual mindedness and charity of a true
Christian, but under the cloak of religion they serve their own passions for
bigotry in one direction or license in another direction, utterly
misapprehending the spiritual character of the kingdom of God.
3. Both classes are to be avoided as enemies of the cross of Christ. Compare
Philippians 3:18; Galatians 5:19-23. In verse 20 there are three points:
1. There is an allusion to the promise in (Gen. 3:15) that the seed of the
woman shall bruise the serpent's head.
2. This was fulfilled by Christ's triumph on the cross over Satan (Col. 2:15).
3. And will be fulfilled in all Christ's seed at the final advent.
QUESTIONS
1. What three things noted
on Romans 14:9?
2. Does the latter clause of
14:14 make our thought of what is sin the standard of sin? If not, what does it
mean?
3. What the doctrine of
14:20-21? Give examples.
4. In the whole of chapter
14, particularly in verses 22-23, (1) What is the meaning of the word
"faith"? (2) Does the closing paragraph make all accountability dependent
on subjective moral conviction? (3) Does it teach that the actions of
unbelievers are sins?
5. What the great lessons of
chapter 16?
6. What preacher seems to
have most recognized the homiletic value of this chapter?
7. Expound the entreaty in
16:17-18.
8. What the three points of
16:20?
THE BOOK OF PHILIPPIANS INTRODUCTION
We come now to the third group of Paul's letters, i.e., the letters of his first
imprisonment at Rome. These letters, in chronological order, are Philippians,
Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians, and Hebrews.
It would be well at this point to name several books, most of which have already
been given, as general helps on the whole group: Conybeare & Howson's Life
and Epistles of Paul; Farrar's, Life and Letters of Paul;
Stalker's Life of Paul; Horae Paulinae; by Wm. Paley, Robertson's,
Syllabus of New Testament Study; St. Paul; by Adolphe Monod. Meyer's
translation, Malcolm McGregor, Divine Authority of Paul's Writings. The
author's sermon before the Southern Convention at Hot Springs, Arkansas, 1908,
on The Nature, Person and Offices of Our Lord and His Relations to the Father,
the Universe and the Church; Wilkinson's Epic of Saul, and Epic of Paul.
The special helps on this book are as follows:
For Exposition Lightfoot on Philippians (the best for exposition and
criticism; American Commentary; Pidge on Philippians; Cambridge
Bible; Moule on Philippians; Expositors' Bible; Rainey on Philippians;
Speakers' or Bible Commentary; Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, brief and
critical. For Homiletics as well as Exposition The Pulpit Commentary on
Philippians; Robert Hall's Expository Sermons on Philippians;
Johnston's, Expository Lectures.
For Devotion Hoyt's Gleams from the Prison of Paul.
For Geographical and Historical Setting Both Conybeare & Howson and
Farrar cited in the general helps for the group of letters, to which we may add
Ramsay on Paul the Traveler; and .Forbes, Footsteps of
Paul.
Expository, Practical and Devotional Matthew Henry, or better, The
Comprehensive Commentary, edited by Jenkins. REMARKS
1. The time order of Philippians given above has been questioned on plausible
grounds, by able scholars, but the author believes that the stronger arguments
support the order given.
2. The assignment of the authorship of Hebrews to Paul and its collocation
above have both been confidently challenged by able modern scholars, whose
arguments will receive most respectful consideration in the introductory
chapters to that book. The author will claim for his own views on both points
no more value than the weight of his reasons warrants. The importance of this
group of letters has never been questioned. In them is a distinct advance
1. In the amplification of the plan of salvation.
2. In clearness and volume of doctrine concerning the nature, person, and
offices of our Lord, in order to meet new heresies developed in the churches.
3. In the idea, purpose, and mission of the church.
4. In the relations of the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, and the
supersession of the Old by the New.
These very great advances in New Testament teaching invest these letters with a
value for all people of all time. Their importance appears also from the
relations of the group to other New Testament books before and after:
1. We find in Philippians 3 the connecting link with the controversies of the
preceding group of letters, and in 2:5-11 an introduction to Colossians and
Ephesians.
2. We find not only additions to the history of Paul which was abruptly closed
in Acts, and light on the prison life in Rome, but we see that the word of God
cannot be bound, nor the outgoings of a great Christian heart imprisoned.
3. We will be prepared to understand better all the succeeding letters of Paul,
with their hints of additional history.
4. We find that other New Testament authors, far remote from each other, are
constrained to write to the same people addressed by this group of letters)
mainly on the same lines of thought, and with a view to correcting the same
dangerous heresies. To one province of Asia Minor the eyes of Paul in Rome,
Peter in Babylon, John in Ephesus or an exile in Patmos, Jude in Jerusalem, are
all turned in deepest concern.
To become systematic theologians on the plan of salvation; to have full
conceptions of the nature, person, offices and relations of our Lord; to have a
rounded conception of the idea, purpose, and mission of the church; to know the
relations between the covenants, the abrogation of the one in order to its
supersession by the other, every way superior, we must master this group of
letters. We should lay hold on all available help and give honest, hard,
painstaking and prayerful study to the letters. There is no room here for the
idler. Mental and heart laziness should have no place here.
We should not only acquire the needful knowledge, paying whatever necessary
cost, but assimilate it in our lives that in wisdom we may apply it to life's
emergencies. It is not sufficient that we be good ministers, but able ministers
also, of our Lord. While it is the business of our Seminaries to give edge to
the ax and point to the sword, it is the student's business to turn the
grindstone. Nor will mere equipment serve the purpose. We must learn how to use
the sharpened tools to the best advantage. Not what we eat, but what we digest
becomes a part of ourselves.
As we take up each letter of the group these questions at least must be
answered: Who wrote it? When? From what place and under what conditions? To
whom addressed, and their condition? What the occasion? What the purpose? What
the matter? What the character and style? What its relation to other books?
What its place in the canon? What its contribution to the sum total of Bible
truth? What its great pulpit themes? What its influence on later times?
Moreover, the geographical and historical setting should be as familiar as our
front yard.
Let us now consider the first book of the group. The author of this letter,
beyond all reasonable question) is Paul. The letter avows it; the character,
style, circumstances and context demonstrate it; abundant historical evidence
establishes it. When, whence, and under what circumstances the letter was
written go together in this case. The date determines the place, and vice
versa, and the two determine the circumstances. Some, without due warrant, have
contended for Caesarea as the place, which would affect both date and
circumstances. The contention rests on such insufficient grounds that it is not
worth our while to waste time on it. The place was Rome. The circumstances are
those of the author's first imprisonment in the imperial city, as briefly set
forth by Luke in Acts 28: 14-31, and supplemented by allusions in all the
letters of the group. See particularly Philippians 1:12-25; 2:17; 4:10-18;
Philemon verses 1, 10, 22-23; Colossians 4:3, 18; Ephesians 3:1; Hebrews 13:3,
18-19, 23-24. The circumstances, in the main, were these:
1. Though a prisoner be was not closely confined, but allowed to live in his
own hired house, using it as a preaching house, and for the reception of his
many visitors as well as a center of wide correspondence.
2. The restraint on his movements consisted in his being chained to a soldier
of the Praetorian Guard, changed from time to time.
3. The chaining to so many of these soldiers in succession enabled him to
leaven the whole division of the emperor's guard with the gospel.
4. The fact of the restraint on his personal movements stirred up his friends
to preach the gospel more earnestly and effectually, and also gave opportunity
to his Jewish enemies in the Roman churches to greater activity in preaching.
5. The imprisonment, in checking his travels and limiting his personal
preaching, necessitated a resort to writing, which, as embodied in these
letters, bequeathed a legacy to all succeeding ages incomparably richer than
could have been derived from all his viva voce sermons, so his bonds tended to
the furtherance of the gospel. The word of God was not bound. Through these
letters and through the labors of his friends Luke, Timothy, Tychicus,
Epaphroditus, Epaphras, and many others he reached the heart of the world and
superintended the work of two continents.
6. The beastly and bloody Nero was the reigning Caesar, but not yet were his
hate and fury turned against the Christians. Paul had not yet been brought to
trial so long the law's delay but felt confident of acquittal, and was
assured in heart that he would again resume his missionary activities. This
hope of release finds expression in all the letters of this group. He held
himself ready, however, for life or death.
7. His support, in the meantime, was a serious question, as we have no passage
to show that he was permitted to work at his trade. Philippi, at least, sent
contributions to him, but we have no knowledge that any other church did, and
in his expression of thanks for this help, he lets us know how extreme was his
want at times (Phil. 4:11-13).
The exact date of the letter is not so clear, nor the order of place in the
group. It is evident that the letter was not written in the beginning of his
two years' imprisonment at Rome, but this is equally evident concerning the
other letters of the group. All of them belong to the second year, so that
there was time enough for all necessarily antecedent events in the case of any
of them. Within a year two or more trips either way could easily have been made
from Rome to Philippi, Colossae and Ephesus, and back again to Rome.
The letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians were all sent at one
time. The internal evidence is strong that Philippians preceded them, and that
Hebrews was the latest of all.
Philippians 3 (with 1:15) is a distinct echo of the great controversies in the
letters of the preceding group, particularly Galatians and Romans, and is both
the connecting link and surviving wave of that controversy. The issue in Hebrews
is quite distinct, ana relates to an utter break between Christianity and
Judaism a later development. Colossians and Ephesians contend against a
heresy unknown to Romans and Galatians.
Thus, while Philippians connects back with the preceding group, it is equally
evident that 2:6-11 on the nature, person, and office work of our Lord is a
fitting introduction to the enlarged discussion on the same point in Colossians
and Ephesians. The time order of the group given in the beginning of this
chapter is most philosophical and is better sustained by the evidence, The
date, therefore, is A.D. 62. The occasion of the letter is clear from the
context (2:25-30; 4:10-18):
1. The church at Philippi, having learned of Paul's arrival at Rome, his
imprisonment there and consequent privation, generously (and for the fourth
time since he established the church) made up a contribution in his behalf,
sending it by Epaphroditus, one of their elders.
2. Epaphroditus, stirred in heart by what he learned at Rome, entered the work
there so vigorously that he brought on an almost fatal sickness.
3. The concern of his home church for him in this illness, of which they had
heard, filled him with longing to return to them.
4. So when able to travel he is sent to bear this letter. To whom addressed?
The first verse tells us: "To all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at
Philippi, with the bishops and deacons. The history of the establishment of
this church is found in Acts 16, and is elaborately considered in the interpretation
of that book. Its subsequent history up to the writing of this letter may be
gathered from allusions in Acts 20:1-6, in the letters of the preceding group,
and in this letter. Something of this important history needs restatement here,
as it is not merely thrilling in interest and teeming with profitable lessons,
but because it is necessary to the proper interpretation of the letter itself:
1. Philippi was the first church established by Paul in Europe. Only the
churches in Rome, established by others, preceded it in Europe.
2. The marks of a special providence leading to its establishment are
exceptionally clear and convincing. It was not in Paul's mind to pass over into
Europe at this time, but quite otherwise. His mind turned to proconsular Asia,
but the Holy Spirit forbade him at this time (Acts 16:6), opening later, when
matters were riper, a great and effectual door in that province (Acts 19, and 1
Cor. 16:8-9). Barred from Asia, he attempted to go into Bithynia, but the
Spirit of Jesus suffered him not (Acts 16:7), and so he was led to Troas on the
Aegaean Sea, which separated Asia from Europe, and there, at his wits' end, a
vision directed him to Macedonia. The lessons of this providential guidance are
valuable for all time, to wit:
(a) Jesus selects the preacher's field of labor, as well as the preacher
himself.
(b) It is not his method to require the conversion of everybody in one field,
whether country or city, before carrying the gospel elsewhere, but to establish
here and there centers of radiating light.
(c) The Holy Spirit is the guide of both preacher and church, and his mind may
be assuredly gathered from inward monition, outward circumstances, and
Providence. Philippi was a Roman Colony, with Roman citizenship, Roman law and
magistrates, to which facts there is abundant incidental allusion in both the
history and the letter. At no other place of his labors, so far, were there
relatively so few Jews not even one synagogue. There was only a prayer
chapel, and here first does he meet pure Gentile persecution. All persecutions
of both our Lord and his church, so far, were either altogether Jewish or
instigated by Jews, and so will it be for years to follow, Ephesus being a
later exception, till Nero's fiery hate and Domitian's cold-blooded tyranny
make Gentile persecution the rule. Hence the Philippian church is unique in its
history until it drops out of history altogether, leaving scarcely a memorial
behind.
It surpassed all the other apostolic churches in liberality and in fidelity to
the simplicity of gospel doctrine, and these characteristics abide for all the
years it remains in historic light. So Ignatius found it on his way to Roman
martyrdom, and Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians could only imitate
this letter of Paul. It was in this church, followed by other churches among
the Greeks, that the Christian woman comes into a prominence hardly possible
where the Jewish element predominated, and the only rebuke in the letter, and
that a very gentle one, seeks the reconciliation of two prominent women.
The characteristics of the letter are:
1. Pre-eminently it is a letter of joy. "I rejoice ye rejoice,"
echoing the beatitude of our Lord, "Rejoice and be exceeding glad."
Moreover, it is joy in sorrow, affliction, and persecutions, as when the
writer, while with them "sang praises at midnight," notwithstanding
stripes, bonds, dungeons, and threatened death. Yet again, like the Sermon on
the Mount, it gives a sovereign specific for happiness (4:6-9) whatever the
outward circumstance.
2. It is interpenetrated with doctrines, not in formal statement as in
Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews, but in incidental allusion for practical ends.
To the author it is an amazing thing that commentators should characterize it as
the letter without doctrine. It goes far beyond Romans and Galatians in the
sweep of its doctrinal teaching. It will surprise any student who attempts to
make a list of its doctrines and compare them with the sum of. the doctrines in
other letters. The author surprised himself in that way, and after filling a
page of legal cap, one doctrine to the line, he gave up the job, for his list
would equal the sentences of the letter itself, and yet only four doctrines are
stated elaborately the doctrine of our Lord (2:6-11); the doctrine of
justification by faith (3:1-10); the doctrine of perfection in soul and body
(3: 11-14) ; the recipe for happiness (4:6-8).
3. Because of its abundant and correlative doctrines, all applied practically,
it has ever been a rich field for homiletics. It was this characteristic that
led Robert Hall (with others) to select that whole letter for a series of
expository sermons delighting himself and his audience. In preaching from
Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews one cannot escape topical discussion, so perfect
the system of truth, so closely connected and graded the argument, and so
single the climax. But from Philippians we may cull a hundred fine and distinct
themes for textual preaching, sometimes several in a single sentence. On this
account also it is easy to give an analysis of Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews,
but quite difficult to give a satisfactory analysis of Philippians.
It is evident from many allusions that this church kept in closer touch with
Paul than any other established by him. After leaving Ephesus Paul returned to
Macedonia (Acts 20:1; 2 Cor. 2:12-13; 8:5-6). Still later, on leaving Corinth
he returned to Philippi and there kept the passover (Acts 20:6). And it is
every way probable that once at least after his release at Rome he visited this
church. (See Phil 1 -24-25 and I Tim. 1:3.) On the other hand, this church
sent. contributions to him twice while at Thessalonica, once at least while at
Corinth (2 Cor. 11:9), then here at Rome.
On the authenticity of this letter there is no room for reasonable doubt. The
early historic testimony is abundant and clear. All the ancient versions
contain it. Early in the second century Ignatius and Polycarp quote it and
imitate it. Late in the second century Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus quote
it, and somewhat later Tertullian bears direct testimony to it. Apart from all
external evidence, the letter itself in spirit, style, and genius attests
itself.
But there is a proof in our day more satisfying to the individual soul than any
of these. That proof is experimental. Whoever reads the letter as God's word
and follows its direction finds in himself a verification; all its faith, joy,
hope, and love abide in him. The author has found by application of its
doctrines and promises to his own heart demonstrations that it is God's book.
Of the post apostolic history of this church only two notable incidents are
known, and both of these occurred but a few years after the death of John. The
one was the great reception given by the church to Ignatius, the prisoner, on
his way to martyrdom at Rome; the other was Polycarp's letter to the
Philippians in reply to their request. Both were notable events, deeply
impressing the hearts of the Philippians and long remembered. The letter of
Polycarp, John's disciple, we find, somewhat abridged in the "Cambridge
Bible." There are many quotations in it from our Lord and Paul. Apart from
the quotations we find allusions, more or less direct) to New Testament
writings in almost every sentence.
We may perhaps infer one important lesson from the silence of history
henceforward concerning this most faithful of the apostolic churches a lesson
embodied in the proverb: "Blessed is the land that has no history."
The point of the proverb lies in the fact that history is devoted mainly to
great changes, convulsions, revolutions, and crimes. The peaceful, happy life
has no records. That church or man becomes most notorious that does unusual
things and develops the most startling heresies. On this account the church
historian finds it easier to trace departures from gospel order and life than
conformity with them. The Roman apostasy leaves a broader and more sharply
defined historic trail than all the faithful churches put together. The harlot
is in the city clothed in purple and scarlet, while the true woman is nourished
in the wilderness (Rev. 12:6; 17:1-8).
QUESTIONS
1. Of what group of Paul's
letters is Philippians a part?
2. Name the letters in
chronological order.
3. What general helps on the
whole group?
4. What special helps on
this book commended?
5. What two special remarks
on this group?
6. What the importance of
the group in distinct advance on preceding parts of New Testament?
7. What the importance, in view
of the relations of these letters to both preceding and subsequent New
Testament books?
8. What the importance of
mastering this group of Paul's letters?
9. What is necessary in
acquiring knowledge? Illustrate.
10. What questions must be
answered relative to each book of this group?
11. Who the author, and what
the proof?
12. Where written, and what
the proof?
13. What the circumstances
of the writer, and what their effect or the spread of the gospel?
14. What can you say of the
date and the order in the group?
15. What the occasion?
16. To whom addressed?
17. Where do we find the
history of the establishment of this church and its development up to the
writing of this letter?
18. Restate the salient
points of this history.
19. What the valuable
lessons of the history?
20. What the peculiarities
of this city and church. (1) as to civil government, (2) as to Jewish
population, and (3) as to persecutions there?
21. Wherein did it surpass
other apostolic churches?
22. What the position of
women in this and other Greek churches?
23. What the great
characteristics of this letter?
24, Why is it more difficult
to give an analysis of Philippians than in Galatians and Romans?
25. Show from the history
how Paul and this church kept in better touch with each other than was the case
of most other churches.
26. What the evidence of the
authenticity of this letter?
27. What two notable events
only characterize the post apostolic history of this church?
28. What the historic value
of Polycarp's letter?
29. What important lesson
may be inferred from the silence of subsequent history concerning this church?
Illustrate by example.
THE ANALYSIS AND EXPOSITION
Philippians 1: 1-30.
1. The opening salutation (1:1-2). Note: "Bishops and deacons" and
the bearing on the doctrine of church officers, comparing 1 Timothy 3:1-13.
2. The thanksgiving (1:3-7). In this Thanksgiving, note: (a) What constitutes
"fellowship in the furtherance of the gospel," and how it makes the
helpers "partakers of the grace." (b) The meaning of "The day of
Jesus Christ." (c) The meaning of "The good work begun in us,"
and contrast with the work done for us. (d) God's perfecting the work begun in
us until that day, and compare 1 Thessalonians 5:23.
3. The prayer (1:8-11).
4. The account of his state in prison (1:12-30). In this account, note: (1) The
word of God is not bound. The chains on Paul are wings to his gospel, (a) Many
soldiers of the Praetorian Guard to whom, in turn, Paul was chained thus hear
and are saved, who never otherwise would have heard (4:22). (b) Each saved
soldier tells the news to his comrades. (c) His friends, who left the work to
Paul free, take up the work for Paul bound, (d) Some Judaizing Christians,
stirred by the opportunity of his bonds to press their view of the gospel,
preach through strife some truth of Christ. (2) The meaning of these
expressions: (1) "Set for the defense of the gospel." (2) "Christ
magnified by life or death." (3) "The supply of the Spirit of
Christ." (4) "To live is Christ to die is gain." (5) "The
strait betwixt two," (6) "I know that I shall abide" how?
5. Exhortation part 1 (1:27 to 2:4), Note the expressions: (1) "In
nothing affrighted by the adversaries." (2) The double "token"
in 1:28, comparing 2 Thessalonians 1:5. (3) "Granted to suffer."
6. The great example of our Lord, and the doctrines involved concerning his
deity, original glory, voluntary renunciation, humiliation, sacrifice,
exaltation and restoration to glory, 2:5-11. Note: (a) Meaning of "form of
God." (b) Meaning of "counted not equality with God a thing to be
grasped." (c) Meaning of "emptied himself."
7. Exhortation part II (2:12-18). Note: (1) The salvation in us compared with
the salvation out of us, or regeneration and sanctification over against
expiation and justification. (2) Concerning the internal salvation that we work
out what God works in, but concerning the external salvation we put on what
Christ worked out (3:12, 14). (3) "Lights in the world." (4)
"Holding forth the word of life." (5) "The libation on the
sacrifice" (v. 27).
8. Concerning Timothy (2:19-24).
9. Concerning Epaphroditus (2:25-30).
10. Exhortation concluded (2:1).
11. Concision of the flesh vs. circumcision of the spirit, or the enemies of
the cross of Christ (3:2, 18-19). See John 3:6-7; Galatians 4:22-31; 5:6-24;
Romans 7:5-15; Colossians 2:11-23.
12. The doctrine of justification, negatively and positively (3:4-9). 'Note:
"The excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord."
13. The doctrine of sanctification and how attained (3:1014; 2:12-13). Note:
(1) The meaning of "attain unto the resurrection from the dead." (2) The
meaning of "laying hold on all for which Christ laid hold on me." (3)
"Forgetting things behind and stretching forward to things before."
(4) The high calling (5) The goal. (6) The prize.
14. The doctrine of the glorification of the body (3:21). See I John 3:2 and 1
Corinthians 15:35-49, for the dead, and 1 Corinthians 15:50-54, for the living.
15. Citizenship in heaven as contrasted with the Philippian citizenship in Rome
(3:20) and compare Ephesians 2:19 as contrasted with citizenship in Jerusalem.
16. Paul's joy and crown (4:1). See 1 Thessalonians 2:1920.
17. Women to the front for strife or work (4:2-3).
18. The Yoke-fellow (4:3).
19. The book of life (4:3).
20. "Rejoice always rejoice" (4:4).
21. "The Lord is at hand." What does it mean? (4:4) and compare James
5:8-9.
22. The great recipe for happiness (4:6-9).
23. A great Christian sacrifice and its effect (4:10-18).
24. Benediction and closing salutation (4:20-23). Note: Caesar's household.
EXPOSITION
Address and opening salutation (1:1-2) Paul
associates Timothy with himself in addressing this letter, because Timothy,
having been associated with him in the establishment of the church, had their
welfare at heart, as they had good reason to know, and because he purposes to
send him as a forerunner of his own coming (2:19-23). There is here no
assertion of his apostolic claims, as in some other letters, because at
Philippi these had never been questioned, but he assumes for himself and
Timothy only the title of "bondservants of Jesus Christ." The letter
is addressed to all the saints in the city, and only inclusively to the
"bishops and deacons." It is significant that in no other letter are
the church officers included in the address. As the centuries pass church officers
grow in importance and the church declines. This text has always been regarded
as a proof that in apostolic churches there were only two officers bishop and
deacon particularly when reinforced by the stronger proof in 1 Timothy 3:1-13
where in the most formal way the qualifications of church officers are set
forth. We contort, therefore, in this address four doctrines of ecclesiology,
namely:
1. The particular church is more important than the officers, including them,
and retaining jurisdiction over them, and indeed capable of existence without
them.
2. While apostles, prophets, and evangelists are set in the church, for kingdom
purposes, the only officers charged with local duties in a particular church
are two.
3. There are no grades in the ministry notwithstanding the later innovations of
the Roman, Greek, and English hierarchies. Note: The reader should study
Lightfoot's argument on this point in his "Commentary on
Philippians."
4. There was here, as in other churches, a plurality of bishops the meaning of
which deserves special consideration. All of these doctrines are important, and
ecclesiastical history clearly shows how most harmful innovations gradually
destroyed the simplicity of the New Testament teaching on the church. Baptists
and Presbyterians unite in contesting the Romanist, Greek, English, and the
Methodist orders in the ministry, and then differ from each other on the
distinction between teaching and ruling elders. Just here the author would commend
to the reader the Doctrine of the Church, as set forth in his discussion of
"Distinctive Baptist Principles."
But briefly now note that in Acts 20:17, 28 "the elders of the
church" at Ephesus are also called "bishops." They are not
distinct offices or grades in the ministry. A preacher may be called a kerux,
"herald," on account of his business to proclaim the gospel. He may
be called presbuteros, "elder," to indicate his official
position in the church. He may be called episcopos, "bishop,"
to note his overseeing or ruling the work of the church. He may be called
pastor or shepherd, to denote his duties of leading, feeding and defending
the flock. He may be called "ambassador" (though this term more
particularly refers to apostles) to denote that he represents Christ, in
declaring the terms of reconciliation with God. It is certain that these terms
do not teach different orders in the ministry.
On the plurality of elders or bishops in a single church we may note these
passages: (1) In the Jerusalem church (Acts 11:30; 15:6, 22-23; 21:18). (2) In
the Ephesus church (Acts 20:17 and I Tim. 5:17, 19). (3) In the Philippian
church (Phil. 1:1). (4) In other churches (Acts 14:23). Several questions here
arise:
1. What is the office of elder? Is he a preacher? The answer is clear that he
is a preacher. The Presbyterians, relying on I Timothy 5:17, make a distinction
between "teaching elders" who are preachers and "ruling
elders" who constitute a "governing board" in every church. And
on the term, "elder" (Greek presbuteros), they base their
whole system of federal government. The passage in Timothy must be put to hard
service to warrant such vast conclusions. Paul has been discussing the
pensioning of certain aged widows whose services had been signal for the cause,
and then adds that elders who had been good bishops (rulers) should receive
double compensation, particularly if they had been equally serviceable in
teaching and preaching. In other words, he is discussing the duty of the church
to care for its superannuated workers, whether widows or preachers, according
to the value of their past public services. It is an undue straining of his
words to interpret two distinct classes of elders. We fairly meet all the
meaning of all the passages when we say that wherever a church was organized,
all who had the recognized call to preach were ordained, whether one or a
score. Of course some one of these preachers would be selected as pastor of the
congregation, but all the preachers in the church would help in the work, each
according to his gifts, in teaching, preaching, and overseeing the work of the
church.
Many Baptist churches of today, particularly in cities, have in their
membership a plurality of these elders. Of course only one can be officially
pastor. Mr. Spurgeon, however, had an "official board of elders" in
his church. And others have thought that such ought to be the rule in our
churches, if for no other reason, to sidetrack a ruling board of deacons, who
ought to be restricted to their care of the temporalities of the church.
The Thanksgiving (1:3-7) This thanksgiving is remarkable for its use of the
terms, "all," "always," and "every," and bears
very high testimony to this exceptional church. He thanks God upon
"all" his remembrance of them, being able to recall nothing bad about
them, and "always" in "every prayer" for them every
prayer being one of joy, on account of one thing.
We do well to consider that ground of exceptional thanksgiving. It was
"their fellowship with him in the furtherance of the gospel" by which
they "became partakers of the grace." He refers to their continuous
help toward him ever since he led them to Christ. Other churches might be
ungrateful they never were. Others might fail to see that whoever helped the
preacher had an investment in all his work of which they could not be robbed.
They preached through Paul, and shared his glory and reward. What a lesson here
to those who are not preachers. The idea came from our Lord himself:
"Whoever receiveth a prophet shall have a prophet's reward," and is
thus admirably expressed by John in regard to Gaius: "Beloved, thou doest
a faithful work in whatsoever thou doest toward them that are brethren and
strangers withal; who bare witness to thy love before the church: whom thou
wilt do well to set forward on their journey worthily of God: because that for
the sake of the Name they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles. We
therefore ought to welcome such, that we may be fellowworkers for the
truth." Gaius and Diotrephes represent the missionary and the
antimissionary of apostolic times.
In this glorious way all members of the church may become missionary preachers.
See for other examples the women who helped our Lord, and those who helped Paul
(Romans 16:1-4). See Paul's extension of this thanksgiving thought in 4:10,
14-18. The next thought in the thanksgiving is the time when these fellow
helpers partake of the apostolic grace and reap the fruition of their
sacrifices. He says, "In the day of Jesus Christ." This is the day of
his final advent when he rewards all his saints for their good works. See 1
Corinthians 3:11-15; Revelation 22:12; Luke 6:23; Mark 9:41.
This good work of the Philippians originated in God's grace, who not only began
it in them, but will perfect it by fruition of reward in the day of Christ.
Note the meaning of "began a good work in you." I regret that this
exposition of the passage robs me of one of my early sermons, and it may so rob
you. The idea is not that what he begins he will continue to the end, but what
he originates that will he crown with perfection in the reward of the judgment.
While the primary reference here is that God whose grace began this good work
of helping the missionary will put the crown of perfection on it when he
rewards his people, yet it may be applied to any other work of grace in the
heart. It will not be a broken unfinished column a stream lost in the desert.
What God commences he completes. Let us particularly note the preposition,
"until." It should be rendered "at" as in 1 Thessalonians
5:23. The idea is not of continuing until a given time, but perfecting and
crowning at a given time, i.e., the day of Jesus Christ.
We will now look at his prayer. In chapter 1:8-11, we get a real continuance.
He now prays that all these graces in their hearts may be continued and bound.
That is what he prays for, that their love may become more fervent. We pray the
right thing for a Christian when we pray for his growth in grace; when we pray
for an expansion of his love; when we pray for an enlargement of his horizons.
If he lives low down in the valley, let us take him on the wings of our prayer
to the top of the mountain and let him see what a big world it. is, and keep
himself from narrow thoughts and a narrow life. That is the substance of his
prayer.
The fourth point of the analysis is the account of his state in prison. He
tells them, first of all, and it is a glorious thing, that men may put a chain
on Paul, but they can't chain his love and his faith and his hope. They may bind
him and confine him, but they can't put chains on the gospel. The shackles
become wings to the gospel. It tends to the furtherance of the gospel, just as
the blood of the martyr becomes the seed of the church.
This was accomplished in this way: The emperor's guard, called the Praetorian
Guard, had charge of the state prisoners, and one sentinel every day (and
perhaps two) was chained to Paul Paul's right hand to the sentinal's left
hand. Where Paul walked he walked; whatever Paul said he heard; whomsoever Paul
received he saw, and to whatever was said he was a listener. I have sometimes
thought that it would be a good thing if there was some way of chaining up some
other people I know to make them hear the word of God. They never will come any
other way.
Some of these soldiers were saved, and they told their comrades. Then his
friends, looking at him, the great missionary to the Gentiles, held in bondage,
unable to go about, thinking of Spain and other ends of the world and of
revisiting the churches that he had established these, friends of his who
left the work for him to do when free are now stirred up to take hold
themselves when Paul is bound.
Then there were some enemies of his Christians too, Judaizing members of
these Roman churches stirred by the opportunity of his bonds, who now press
their views of the gospel. As if -they said, "When Paul was free we had no
chance to give our views, but Paul is tied now, and this is our chance to
present our side of it," and they did present their side of it, preaching
some truth. We had the most signal example that ever came before the world, I
think, here in Texas. We remember the strife that was stirred up, and I am
quite sure that these people are doing harder work now than they ever did when they
were in Convention. They feel a responsibility on them to make good their
claim, and I rejoice, for most of them are good people, strangely misled on
some points, but as Paul said, "I rejoice that Christ is preached."
QUESTIONS
1. Give an analysis of the
letter.
2. Why does Paul associate
Timothy with him in the address?
3. What four doctrines of
ecclesiology are involved in the address?
4. Prove that
"elder" and "bishop" are not two distinct offices, but
express different ideas of the one office.
5. Give three examples of
New Testament churches having a plurality of elders or bishops, and one general
passage expressing the custom.
6. Cite several names
applied to the preacher expressing, not different orders in the ministry, but
different ideas of one office.
7. Upon what issue do
Baptists and Presbyterians unite against Romanist, Greek, English, and
Methodist denominations?
8. On what passage do
Presbyterians rely to prove a distinction between "teaching elders"
and "ruling elders," and how do you expound the passage so as to
rebut their contention?
9. What noted Baptist
preacher had in his church a board of "ruling elders"?
10. When the apostles
"ordained elders in every church" how do you prove that these were
all preachers, and not a board of ruling laymen?
11. What other denominations
besides the Presbyterians have boards of "ruling elders" who are not
preachers?
12. What the one great
ground of Paul's thanksgiving in this letter?
13. What do you understand
the passage to mean? Cite a parallel passage from John.
14. What is meant by
"partakers of the grace"? Cite a parallel passage from our Lord.
15. When is this partaking
realized, and what is meant by "the day of Jesus Christ"?
16. Rob yourselves of a big
sermon by expounding "He who began a good work in you will perfect it at
the day of Jesus Christ," and cite a parallel passage to prove that
"until" should be "at," and other scriptures to prove that
rewards of Christians are bestowed at that time.
17. In giving an account of
his prison state, show how the apostle proves that his bonds gave wings to the
gospel.
GOD'S PROVIDENCE IN PAUL'S LIFE
Philippians 1:2 to 2:5.
In the account of his prison condition (1:12-30) there are some expressions
that need explanation. He says, "They, knowing that I am set for the
defense of the gospel . . ." and he was. Whoever touched the fringe of
the doctrine of the gospel of Jesus Christ to destroy it or to make light of it
had Paul to fight. All over the world the spirit of Paul as a stalwart soldier
stood between the pure, simple gospel of Jesus Christ and a Judaizing tendency
that would have made Christianity merely a Jewish sect, and in the same way he
stood against every other error. He loved the gospel. Every promise of it was
dear to him and every doctrine was sacred. He would not yield the width of a
hair on a principle. "Set for the defense of the gospel." I know some
who are set, but they are not set for the defense of the gospel. They are set
in favor of every loose view of doctrine and polity.
Then his assurance of escaping death at this time: "For I know that this
shall turn out to my salvation . . . And having this confidence, I know that I
shall abide, yea, and abide with you all." This is not hope nor
conjecture, but positive knowledge through inward assurance of the Holy Spirit
as in Acts 20:23: "The Holy Spirit testifieth unto me in every city,
saying that bonds and afflictions abide me." See another case of the
reception of positive spiritual knowledge in Acts 27:22-25. Indeed, he
expressly says that the means of his preservation are their prayers and the
supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.
The context here seems to demand that "salvation," (Greek, soteria)
as in some other instances, (see the Greek of Acts 27:34) means bodily
preservation or salvation from physical death. The "supply of the
Spirit" means that overruling power exercised by the Spirit which wards
off impendiny peril as in Acts 18:9-10;. 2 Corinthians 1:9-10. Mark that here
the Holy Spirit is called the "Spirit of Christ" because he is
Christ's alter ego other self as in John 14: 18: "I will not leave you
orphans; I will come unto you," and yet this coming was in the Holy
Spirit, whom Jesus, as well as the Father, sent as his vicar when he ascended
to heaven. See John 15:26.
This case of the efficacy of the Philippian prayers, instrumentally averting
Paul's death at this time, should sink deep into our hearts. They prayed that
Paul might escape death. The supply of the Spirit comes as the means through
which deliverance is effected. Seneca and Burrus, Nero's advisers and delegates
in examining State prisoners, are unconscious of supernatural interposition,
and yet in his own strange way, the Holy Spirit brings it about that Paul is
acquitted at this time.
Not that Paul's death at that time would have frustrated the glory of his Lord,
for he himself testified that Christ would be magnified by either his life or
death, nor that extension of life to Paul would be a favor, for to him
personally death would be a gain and life a continued crucifixion, but that his
life just yet would be for the progress of the gospel and the confirmation of
the saints.
Looking at the alternatives "To live is Christ, to die is gain"
Paul personally was in "a strait betwixt the two, having a desire to
depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better for me: nevertheless to
abide in the flesh is more needful for you." His own desire for rest and
glory was to find gratification in death, which was but a door opening into
heaven and the presence of the Lord, whereas to live was to go on suffering
like his Lord. But when he saw that his living meant good to the cause, he
unselfishly renounced the pleasure of death.
This is not the first time in his history of his suffering that for the sake of
others he welcomed the pain of living. In the second letter to the Corinthians
he says, "For we know that if the earthly house of our tabernacle be
dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal,
in the heavens. For verily in this we groan, longing to be clothed upon with
our habitation which is from heaven. . . . For indeed we that are in this
tabernacle do groan, being burdened; not for that we would be unclothed, but
that we would be clothed upon, that what is mortal may be swallowed up of life.
. . . Being therefore always of good courage, and knowing that, whilst we are at
home in the body, we are absent from the Lord (for we walk by faith, not by
sight); we are of good courage, I say, and are willing rather to be absent from
the body, and be at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:1-2, 4, 6-9).
Exhortation, part I, (1:27 to 2:4). This first part of the exhortation is
directed to one great end: "Only let your manner of life be worthy of the
gospel of Christ." The common version renders it "conversation"
instead of "manner of life." The author greatly prefers a more literal
rendering than either: "Live your citizen life," otherwise we miss
the delicate allusion to the Roman citizenship enjoyed by the Philippian
colony, and the higher allusion to Christian citizenship in the New Jerusalem.
This harmonizes the passage with the context (3:20): "For our citizenship
is in heaven, etc.," and puts it in line with the great passage in
Ephesians 2:11-19, which treats of the "fellowcitizens with the
saints."
It is related of S. S. Prentiss that just after he had electrified the nation
by his great speech before Congress in the contest for his seat in that body,
in which he emphasized the thought that to deny him his seat was to
disfranchise Mississippi and rob it of its most glorious heritage, he was
invited by ardent admirers to deliver an address in New York City, on which
occasion his only theme was his first words "Fellow Citizens."
Earth never heard a greater oration, and every man in the audience was lifted
to a conception of American citizenship high as the shining stars. The sonorous
roll of his magical voice in the mere prolonged pronunciation of the oft
repeated word "Fellow Citizens" was compared to the archangel's
trumpet. He was greater than Cicero against Verres, who declared that earth's
highest honor was to be able to say, "I am a Roman citizen" and
earth's meanest tyrant and greatest robber was one who arbitrarily stripped an
accused man of that privilege.
In Acts we see Paul himself, at this very Philippi, and again at Jerusalem (Acts
16:37-38; 22:25), terrify his persecutors by his claim of Roman citizenship.
All this goes to emphasize his one great exhortation: "Live your citizen
life worthy of the gospel, whether I come to see you or be absent." He
then shows just how the exhortation may be carried out:
1. "Stand fast in one Spirit, with one mind striving together for the
faith of [i.e., the truth of] the gospel." This is an exhortation to unity
so marvelously elaborated in Ephesians 4:1-6: "I therefore, the prisoner
in the Lord beseech you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were
called, with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one
another in love; giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond
of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one
hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and father of
all, who is over all, and through all, and in all."
2. "In nothing terrified by your adversaries." The exhortation is
most timely because the Philippian Christians were persecuted at this time as
Paul had been when with them. Indeed, they commenced their Christian life in a
fiery furnace which had never cooled. We see Paul's glorious tribute to them in
a previous letter: "Moreover, brethren, we make known to you the grace of
God which hath been given in the churches of Macedonia; how that in much proof
of affliction the abundance of their joy, and their deep poverty abounded unto
the riches of their liberality. For according to their power, I bear witness,
yea, and beyond their power, they gave of their own accord, beseeching us with
much entreaty in regard of this grace and the fellowship in the ministering to
the saints: and this, not as we had hoped) but first they gave their own selves
to the Lord, and to us through the will of God" (2 Cor. 8:1-5). To
encourage them to follow the exhortation he assigns three reasons:
1. The infliction of the persecution was a token of the damnation of their
persecutors.
2. Their endurance of the persecution was a God-given token of their salvation,
echoing the beatitudes of our Lord: "Blessed are they that have been
persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all
manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad:
for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets that
were before you" (Matt. 5:10-12).
3. This suffering therefore in behalf of Christ was a special privilege granted
to favored saints. They had seen Paul endure the same conflict, and elsewhere
he thus enumerates and glories in his afflictions: "Are they ministers of
Christ? (I speak as one beside himself) I more; in labors more abundantly, in
prisons more abundantly in stripes above measure, in deaths oft. Of the Jews
five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods,
once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day have I been
in the deep; in journeyings often, in perils of rivers, in perils of robbers,
in perils from my countrymen, in perils from the Gentiles, in perils in the
city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false
brethren; in labor and travail, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in
fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Besides those things that are without,
there is that which presseth upon me daily, anxiety for all the churches. Who
is weak, and I am not weak? who is caused to stumble, and I burn not? If I must
needs glory, I will glory of the things that concern my weakness" (2 Cor.
11:23-30); and, "And he hath said unto me, My grace is sufficient for
thee: for my power is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I
rather glory in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
Wherefore I take pleasure in weaknesses, in injuries, in necessities, in
persecutions, in distresses, for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I
strong" (2 Cor. 12:9-10).
He then clinches the exhortation to unity and unselfishness by five other
mighty considerations: (1) "If there be any comfort in Christ, (2) if
there be any consolation of love, (3) if there be any fellowship of the Spirit,
(4) if there be any tender mercies and compassions, (5) if you wish to fulfil
my Joy, then seek after this unity, without faction, or vainglory, and in
lowliness of mind." This method of hypothetical statement has all the
force of positive affirmation having no suggestion of doubt.
He then advances to a sixth reason grander than all the others the example of
our Lord: "Let this mind be in you which was also in our Lord Jesus
Christ." Indeed, "If any man have not the Spirit of the Lord he is
none of his."
QUESTIONS
1. Explain "set for the
defense of the gospel."
2. How did Paul know that he
would escape death as a result of his first Roman imprisonment, and what other
examples of this knowledge?
3. What is the meaning of
"salvation" (Greek, Soteria) in this passage, and what other
example of similar use of this word?
4. What is meant by
"the supply of the Spirit" through which he would escape, and what
other instances?
5. Why is the Holy Spirit
called "the Spirit of Christ"?
6. To what, instrumentally,
is this supply of the Spirit granted, and what the value of the lesson?
7. Who at this time were
Nero's advisers and delegates in examining prisoners of state?
8. Were they conscious of
supernatural intervention in their acquittal of Paul?
9. Why would not Paul's death
at this time frustrate the glory of Christ, why was not the extension of his
life a personal favor to him, and why then was he spared at this time?
10. Explain Paul's
"strait betwixt two," why was the decision to live unselfish on his
part, and what other instance of his life similar to this?
11. What the one great end
of his exhortation in 1:27 to 2:4?
12. Give the rendering of
the passage in both common and revised versions, and why is the author's
suggestion a better rendering?
13. Cite a passage of
similar meaning in Ephesians.
14. Relate the incident of
S. S. Prentiss and of Cicero, illustrating.
15. In what two incidents is
Paul an illustration?
16. How does he suggest the
carrying out of his exhortation?
17. Show the timeliness of
the exhortation.
18. Show from another letter
Paul's tribute to their endurance of afflictions, and where do we find his
statement of his own case illustrating what he here enjoins?
19. What three encouragements
does he give to enforce his exhortation?
20. In what other letter
does he similarly use the word "token"?
21. How does he clinch his
exhortation?
22. What a sixth and greater
reason?
THE DEITY OF CHRIST
Philippians 2:5-11.
Attention was called, at the close of the preceding chapter, to that highest of
all motives to unity, humility and self renunciation the example of our Lord
Jesus Christ in his voluntarily divesting himself of the glory and prerogatives
of his heavenly estate, and his assumption of a human nature in order to secure
our salvation and the highest glory of the Father. We may here, if anywhere,
pause to reflect on Paul's uniform method of preaching doctrine, never as a
mere theory, but always with a practical end in view. His exhortations to
obedience and morality and unselfish love are all based on a solid foundation
and doctrine. The senseless modern cry, "Let us have more humanity, more
morality, and less dogma," was to him as unthinkable as a house without
foundation, or a stream without a source. On the other hand, mere abstract
dogma, or theoretic theology, without reforming power on the life, was but as
sounding brass or tinkling cymbal. Between his dogmatic theology and a holy
life was an essential and indissoluable relation.
The doctrines involved in Philippians 2:5-11. This is by far the greatest and
most instructive passage in the letter, and the second most important in the
whole Bible, especially if it be considered, as it must be, with the parallel
passages (John 1:1-5, 9, 14; Col. 1:15-20; Heb. 1:2-13) because it expresses
the love of the Son for sinful man, and his honor toward the Father. Only one
other outranks it (John 3:16) which expresses the Father's love toward sinful
man, and only one other comes next to it (Rom. 15:30) "The love of the
spirit" expressed in the deeds of John 14-16. The three embody the love of
the trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Strangely enough, Aryans and Socinians rely on this passage to make good their
denial of our Lord's essential deity, saying, "He counted not equality
with God a thing to be grasped, and his exaltation was an achievement and not
inherent," and one party of the Gnostics cite it in denial of his real
humanity, saying, "He had only the form, or likeness, of a man," and
the destructive critics quote it to support their undervaluation of our Lord's
testimony to the integrity and inspiration of the Old Testament, saying,
"He emptied himself, and hence his views of the Old Testament have no more
authority than the views of any other pious Jew of his time."
There are some real difficulties in the passage, but none that affect its
incalculable value as revealing our Lord's Father, his real humanity, his great
work of redemption on the cross, his consequent exaltation to universal
sovereignty, and his restoration to original glory. It is my purpose here to
state briefly the main points of the teaching of the passage, referring somewhat
to the differences of interpretation. While I bear in mind that this is a study
in New Testament English and so must not encroach on the domain of New
Testament Greek, yet, without pedantry, I must refer to certain Greek words
which underlie all the various English renderings. So essential deity and
humanity, and his great work of human redemption. The definements and
subtilities of scholarly critics in handling this passage, and their
infinitesimal details of divergence, constituting a vast and tedious literature,
accentuate the proverb: "The more I know of expert scholarship the more I
like common sense." And yet (I state it for the reader's satisfaction),
the best of them and the bulk of them of all ages, nations, and denominations,
coincide in their conclusion that the passage does teach what the average mind
gathers in a moment, the existence of our Lord prior to his incarnation, his
equality in nature with the touching this phase lightly, I name the crucial
Greek words of the text, which are as follows:
1. Morphe, translated "form," e.g., "existing m the form
of God, taking the form of a man" (v. 6-7).
2. Huparchon, rendered "existing," "subsisting," or
better still, "originally subsisting" (v. 6).
3. Harpagmon, rendered "robbery" in common version;
"prize" in the Canterbury Revision; "a thing to be grasped"
in the American Standard Revision; "something to be clung to," in the
Twentieth Century (v. 6).
4. Ekenosen, rendered "emptied" himself.
5. Homoiomati, rendered "likeness of men" (v. 7).
6. Schemati, rendered "fashion of men."
The Twentieth Century translation thus renders the whole passage: "Let the
Spirit of Jesus be yours also. Though from the beginning he had the divine
nature, yet he did not look upon equality with God as something to be clung to,
but impoverished himself by taking the nature of a servant, and becoming like
other men. Then he appeared among us as a man, and still further humbled
himself by submitting himself even to death, yes, death on the cross! And this
is why God raised him to the very highest place and gave him the name which
ranks above all others, so that in honor of the name of Jesus every knee should
bend, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should
acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
Observe three merits of this Twentieth Century rendering:
1. It alone brings out the true meaning of huparchon, namely, "From
the beginning." The word certainly means "originally existing, or
subsisting," like John's "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God and the Word was God."
2. Its "impoverished himself" instead of "emptied himself"
brings the passage in line with a previous statement of the same general fact
by Paul: "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he
was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty, might
become rich" (2Cor.8:9).
3. The rendering is in smooth running, everyday English. Observe also that the
only difference between the common version and the revised version on the one
hand, and the American Standard, Bible Union (edited), and the Twentieth
Century on the other hand in rendering the noun harpagmon, does not
affect the deity of our Lord, for all teach that, but only the time when the
"emptying" commences, for if the American Standard be right, then the
emptying commenced in the thought of the Son when he counted not equality with
God a thing to be grasped, the emptying merely resulting from the thought.
The author believes that the common version more closely follows the
grammatical construction, for harpagmon has the active sense, while the
rendering, "a thing to be grasped," being passive, would call for
another form of the noun, harpagma.
In other words, the American Standard derives its rendering, not from the form
of the noun, but from what it regards as a contextual demand. The only other
use of the word in Greek literature, sacred or profane, is its employment by
Plutarch "On the education of boys" where it has the active sense.
Hence the earlier scholars and versions, and the most conservative modem
scholars, sustain the common version. But all these renderings agree in
attributing essential deity to our Lord) if not by positive affirmation, at
least by the strongest implication. The idea of the expression "form of
God" may be gathered from a comparison with other Pauline expressions,
"The express image of his person," "the effulgence of his
glory," and with the Logos of John.
From the author's sermon before the Southern Baptist Convention, 1908, this
passage is cited:
HIS RELATIONS TO
THE FATHER
"These relations are expressed in the words image, effulgence, form,
Logos, Son. When our text says, 'Who is the image of the invisible God, and
another passage says, 'The very image of his substance,' it cannot mean less
than that he is the visible of the invisible God.
"To illustrate: Philip said, 'Lord, show us the Father and it sufficeth
us.' He replied, 'When thou hast seen me thou hast seen the Father.' And when
it is said, 'Who being the effulgence of God's glory,' is not that, at least,
the saying forth, the outshining of the divine glory which must be another way
of saying, 'He is the visible of the invisible'?
"Of kindred meaning is the expression, 'Existing in the form of God.' Form
is the apparent, the phenomenal. So Logos, or the Word, is the revelation of
the Father's mind, heart, and will, the unveiling of the hidden. Of like
purport is the declaration: In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead
bodily.'
"But we must hark continually back to his nature the Word was God,'
lest by the weakness of the terms image, effulgence, form, and Logos, we
account him only a manifestation."
We may rest assured that Paul's teaching here concerning our Lord must be
construed in harmony with his teachings in Colossians and Ephesians written
such a short time later. It is needful to give a word of caution against
interpreting too much or too little into the Kenosis, "He emptied
himself" (A.V.), "Made himself of no reputation." There is no
room for dogmatism in a matter necessarily so mysterious, but
1. It is certain that he did not divest himself of his deity, for then he would
not be the God-man, nor could it be said, "In him dwelleth all the fulness
of the Godhead bodily."
2. We know that he laid aside his heavenly glory, for he prays: "And now,
Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with
thee before the world was" (John 17:5).
3. We know that he laid aside the riches of that heavenly estate, as Paul says,
"For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich,
yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be made
rich" (2 Cor. 8:9).
4. We know that he laid aside his equality with the Father, completely
subordinating his own will to the will of the Father: "Not my will but
thine be done," "I came to do the will of him that sent me," and
became a bond servant.
5. We know that he did not resort to his inherent omnipotence to work miracles
in his own behalf, or to avert disaster from himself, or to relieve himself
from the perplexities and burdens of a real humanity. Indeed, all his miracles
were wrought by the power of the Holy Spirit.
6. In the same way he relied on the Holy Spirit, whom he received without
measure at his baptism, for his superhuman knowledge. The inspiration of all
the prophets was less than his. "He knew what was in man," and spoke
by infallible authority of all the Old Testament books. So that the radical
critics but advertise their own folly and infidelity in undervaluation of his
testimony concerning Old Testament books and their meaning. No matter how far
he emptied himself of his own inherent omniscience, that in no way affects the
testimony of one who received the Spirit without measure. All the resources of
Deity were at his command, through the Spirit, so far as they bore upon his
mission.
The key passage, in interpreting his original status, and the emptying himself,
is the preceding verse: "Not looking each of you to his own things, but
each of you also to the things of others. Have this mind in you which was also
in. Christ Jesus." Christ did not look to his own things, i.e., his
equality with the Father, and the riches and glory of his heavenly state, but
"emptied himself, etc." Here again we must be cautious of putting too
much stress on the word, "emptied," for it is Paul himself who only a
little later affirms: "In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
The "emptying" is not absolute, but only a temporary and voluntary
suspension of exercise, a holding in abeyance for the time being. It was
doubtless this consideration that influenced the conservative translators of
the common version thus to render the passage. "Made himself of no
reputation." His humiliation consisted:
1. In his incarnation, i.e., taking "the form of a bondservant," and
rendering absolute obedience to the will of the Father.
2. An obedience even unto death.
3. Yea, the death of the cross. In this obedience he not only magnified the law
in its precepts, demonstrating that it was holy, just, and good, but also
magnified its penal sanctions by "bearing in his own body the sin of the
world."
His exaltation consisted:
1. In his resurrection, thereby demonstrating all his high claims asserted in
his lifetime, and demanding that angels who had worshiped him in his original
glory and in his incarnation should now worship his glorified humanity (Heb.
1:6).
2. His ascension and reception into heaven.
3. His enthronement there as King of kings and Lord of lords, and his anointing
with the oil of gladness above his fellows.
4. His session there until all his enemies are made his footstool (Psalm 110:1)
and until he comes as final judge at the last and great and general judgment.
5. At which time every knee bends to him, and every tongue confesses that he is
Lord.
Two things in this exaltation call for further explanation:
1. The name that is above every name, what is it? Is it the name, Jesus, or the
name of Jesus, a new name bestowed on Jesus? Two reasons oppose the former,
namely:
(1) His name "Jesus" was given at his incarnation, but this is a name
at his exaltation, and expressive of it.
(2) If the writer meant the name "Jesus," then it would seem that
this word should have been in the dative, but "Jesus" is in the
genitive and the expression is "in the name of Jesus." The author
thinks that the name given to Jesus is, as expressed in Revelation 19:16,
"King of kings and Lord of lords," which is expressive of his
exaltation.
2. What is meant by "every knee" and "every tongue"? When
does this take place? The expression in its context, calls for the highest
degree of universality, and can mean no less than every human being, good and
bad, and every angel, good and fallen) without exception in either case. It
means that all of them will recognize and confess his universal sovereignty.
All this will occur at his final advent when he shall sit on the white throne
of the general judgment and shall fix the final status of all moral
intelligences. This is indeed an achievement, not by the Son as originally
subsisting, but by the Son veiled in humanity and obedient unto death.
QUESTIONS
1. What Paul's method of
presenting doctrine?
2. How would he have
regarded the modern cry, "Give us more humanity and morality and less
dogma," and the custom of some to present theology as an abstract system?
3. What can you say of the
rank of the passage, Philippians 2:5-11, and what two others may be classed with
it, and why?
4. What three heresies are
strangely drawn from this passage?
5. What the crucial Greek
words of the passage, and how rendered in American Standard Revision?
6. What three excellencies
in the "Twentieth Century" rendering?
7. What two examples of
usage only in Greek literature of harpagmon, and what its form in both
active and passive, what the renderings in the English versions cited, which
the most grammatical, and
8. What the only practical
difference between these renderings, and their effect on the teachings of the
passage as to Christ's original deity?
9. What the idea of the
various terms "form," "image," "effulgence" and
Logos?
10. What caution given in
interpreting "He emptied himself"?
11. Was this emptying
absolute, and if not, what?
12. Cite six particulars as
expressive of the "emptying," negative and positive.
13. What the key passage in
interpreting this paragraph?
14. In what did his
humiliation consist?
15. In what did his
exaltation consist?
16. What the name above
every name, and why?
17. What the meaning of
"every knee" and "every tongue"?
18. When this "bending
of every knee" and "confession of every tongue"?
PAUL'S LIBATION AND THE CHRISTIAN'S GROWTH
IN GRACE
Philippians 2:12 to 3:14.
Salvation in us (Phil. 2:12-18). This paragraph, like the foregoing one, is a
part of the exhortation commencing: "Live your citizen life" (1:27).
Take it all in all, it is the highest model of exhortation in all literature.
An aged Baptist cannot read it without a sigh of regret over our pulpit
decadance in the power of exhortation a power like an electric storm bringing
into rapid play all the elemental forces of land and sky, a spiritual storm
that buried doctrines as thunderbolts on the head while seismic upheavals shook
the foundations under the feet. When we recall the rugged and doctrinal
forcefulness of our less cultivated fathers, our own tame, mild, and polite
exhortations are as the cooing of a fledgling dove compared with the roaring of
a Numidian lion. Alas! The exhorter has left us! This mighty special gift of
the Spirit (Rom. 12:8) is no more coveted and honored among us.
It would pay us to swap off a lot of our weak preachers for a few old-time
exhorting deacons. Teaching appeals to the head; exhortation to the heart.
Teaching instructs; exhortation applies. Teaching illumines; exhortation
awakens and stirs; it rings alarm bells, kindles beacon flames on the mountains,
fires signal guns, blows trumpets, unfurls warflags and beats the bass drum.
But exhortation is only harmless thunder without the lightning bolt of
doctrine. We must not mistake "hollerin," for exhortation, nor
perspiration for inspiration. O that this generation could have heard J. W. D.
Creath, Micajah Cole, Deacon Pruitt, and Judge A. S. Broadus exhort in great
revival meetings, while strong men wept, enemies became reconciled, and love
illumined and beautified rugged, homely faces! Then as Christian fire attained
a white heat, the lost soul, pierced through and through by fiery arrows of
conviction, cried out' "God be merciful to me the sinner," or,
"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And Heaven came down our souls to greet, And
glory crowned the Mercy Seat.
It must be understood that this exhortation from first to last is addressed to
Christians to citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem. It is not an exhortation to
sinners to flee from the wrath to come not an appeal to the lost to accept by
simple faith, without works, the salvation done for us in expiation and
justification, but to Christians to work out the salvation of sanctification,
God's prevenient grace working in us, both to will and to work, for his good
pleasure.
This letter, more than any other, sharply distinguishes between the external
and the internal salvation. The external salvation is complete expiation of sin
by the Son alone, eternal and irreversible justification by the Father alone,
and the internal salvation is regeneration, sanctification, and glorification
by the Holy Spirit alone. The Spirit gives life to the soul in regeneration;
that life is developed and perfected in sanctification. Our working out
salvation is in co-operating with the Spirit in developing and perfecting the
life commenced in regeneration. As a means or merit towards justification our
works are an offense toward God and a blasphemous attempt to usurp the office
of our Lord Jesus Christ. See Romans 2:27-28. Furthermore, as a means or merit
toward regeneration, works on our part are an offense toward God, as Paul
testifies later (Eph. 2:4-10; Titus 3:4-5). Regeneration is a creation unto
good works. The salvation that we are exhorted to work out is sanctification,
and even in sanctification the prevenient grace of God works in us, both to
will the work and to do it. All the exhortations in this letter are towards
sanctification, a cultivating and developing of the Christian life.
There are several special points in the exhortation (2: 12-18):
1. "Don't depend on Paul he is absent you, yourselves, work out your
own salvation. It is your salvation, not his."
2. "Depend on God he is always present to enable you both to will and to
perform."
3. The manner of the obedience is "without murmurings and
questionings," an evident allusion to Israel's misconduct in the
wilderness, more elaborately treated in 1 Corinthians 10.
4. The end of the working out: (1) As to themselves was blameless harmless
without blemish. See Ephesians 5:27; 1 Thessalonians 5:23. (2) As to the world
was that they might be seen as lights, holding forth the Word of Life. (3) As
to Paul was that he might have whereof to glory in the day of Christ, proving
that he had not run in vain nor labored in vain. (4) As to both Paul and
themselves, in case he suffered martyrdom at that time was that he would be a
libation poured out on the sacrifice and service of their faith, to their
mutual joy.
On this reference to the drink offering, which was the liquid part, i.e., the wine,
of the meal offering, observe:
1. It was not itself a bloody or an atoning sacrifice, but an act of worship
following propitiation, expressive of dependence on the divine favor for all
the blessings of temporal prosperity and of appreciation thereof.
2. A part of the offering was burned with incense, the incense representing
their prayers to or worship of God, the burning representing God's acceptance
of their sacrifice, but the wine was poured on or around the altar. (See first
recorded instance of the drink offering poured on the altar, Genesis 35:14.)
3. The Philippian contribution to God, in the person of his apostle, is the New
Testament fulfilment of the old typical meal-offering a spiritual sacrifice
of the new regime. See the thought elaborated at the close of the letter:
"I am filled, having received from Epaphroditus the things that came from
you, an odor of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to
God" (4:18-19) and a similar reference in 2 Corinthians 9:10-15.
All this leads to the explanation of the apostle's meaning when he says,
"Yea, and if I am poured out upon the sacrifice and service of your
faith," which means that in case of his martyrdom at that time his blood
would represent the outpoured wine, or drink-offering, completing their
spiritual meal-offering. The sacrifice would then be a joint one, their part
representing the meal, oil, and incense, and his part the libation of wine;
hence the consequent mutual joy. I have been thus particular in this explanation
to save you from adopting two errors of many commentators, to wit:
1. That Paul follows the idea of the heathen sacrifice rather than the idea of
the ritual of Old Testament law.
2. That the thought of the passage is that Paul is acting as the priest in
presenting the Philippian sacrifice, and while so acting is slain, pouring out
his blood on their sacrifices, as Pilate mingled the blood of the Galileans
with their sacrifices. Both of these are grave errors and utterly untenable.
The New Testament spiritual sacrifices never fulfil heathen types, and
particularly in the New Testament economy the kingdom officers are never the
priests of the people. Every citizen of Christ's kingdom is a priest unto God,
and without a human "go-between" directly offers to God his own
spiritual sacrifices through Jesus Christ himself, the only mediator between
God and man.
It is one of the deadliest errors of the Papacy that Christians require a human
priest to mediate their offerings. Neither apostle, pastor, evangelist, nor any
of the saints, nor the Virgin Mary exercise such functions. It is blasphemy
against Christ and subversive of the priesthood of each individual saint. The
New Testament knocks out the middleman. We want not the shadow of a human
priest to fall on our cradle, our absolution, our Bible, our marriages, our
Christian offerings, our observance of the Lord's Supper, our death, the
sepulture of our bones, our disembodied souls.
There can be no more beautiful thought than Paul's conception; his pouring out
the wine of life was his libation. What he speaks of here as only a
possibility, he later, at the end of his second imprisonment, speaks of as a
certainty, yea, already taking place: " I am already being poured out, and
the time of my exodus is come" ( 2 Tim. 4:6). Ah! what a libation!
Here we recall the words of Tom Moore in Paradise and Peri: Oh I if there be one boon,
one offering, That Heaven holds dear, 'Tis the last libation that Liberty draws
From the heart that bleeds and breaks in her cause.
But the drop of patriot blood did not open the gates of paradise to the exiled
Peri. The libation of Christian martyrdom far outranks the libation of a dying
patriot, but paradise must already be opened by holier and atoning blood before
either can be acceptable to God as a Christian sacrifice.
Epaphroditus Timothy Paul. "I have sent Epaphroditus," "I
send Timothy forthwith," "I trust in the Lord that I, myself, shall
come shortly." How deep his concern for these Philippians, and how
tenderly sympathetic his heart toward them in all their anxieties, their
sufferings and spiritual needs! How appreciative of the merits of his
co-laborers, and how complete his testimony to their fidelity! No wonder the
brightest and most gifted young preachers delighted to serve under his
leadership!
We may count it a settled thing that no man can be a great leader of men who
has no power to draw a following. And no man can long hold the following he
draws whose selfishness does not allow him to recognize and appreciate the
merits of his followers. He must testify to the value of their service, not in
the insincere compliments of a politician, but in the spontaneous expressions
of truth and love. It is Paul's testimony that paints in fadeless word colors
the portraits of Timothy and Epaphroditus, and confers immortality on them by
hanging their portraits in the gallery of Christian heroes, ever seen as if
living, and held in everlasting remembrance. So as stars in the constellation
of Paul, they shine forever.
The third chapter of Philippians 3, rightly commencing with verse 2, is in
every way remarkable. Its solemn, urgent caution is not called out by any
condition already existing at Philippi, but an anticipated condition. There
were few Jews at Philippi and few Jewish Christians. The apostle knew well,
however, the persistence, both of Jewish hostility to the doctrine of the
cross, and also the persistence of that element of Jewish converts that with
tireless propagandism sought to make Christianity a mere sect of Judaism. He
writes as if some disturbing incident at Rome or new message brought from
abroad had interrupted his letter, indicating an imminent danger to the faith
of the Philippians, and hence the abruptness of his change of topic:
"Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the
concision."
It is quite probable that the fires were already kindled under the Jewish pot
A.D. 62 that would make it boil over in revolution against Roman authority,
and precipitate the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. As these fires grew
hotter it would be necessary later to write the letter to the Hebrew Christians
of Asia that would make a complete and final break between Judaism and
Christianity, and that would turn all Jewish Asia against Paul as he so sadly
notes in his last letter (2 Tim. 1:15).
In a time of intense fanatical patriotism the letter to the Hebrews, so clearly
showing the abrogation of the Jewish polity and the complete supersession of
the Old Covenant, would incense all Jews against the writer. Midway between
Philippians 3 and the letter to the Hebrews would appear Colossians 2:8-23,
showing progress toward the final break. Paul's prescience discerned the signs
of the times, and the desperate intolerance that would be awakened in the misled
patriot party of Jews. On this account we have Paul's admonition.
There is here, as elsewhere, a play on the words "dogs,"
"workers," and "concision." The Pharisees counted Gentiles
as dogs and stressed ritualistic observance and external works and fleshly
circumcision as a means to salvation, indeed counted themselves as free, never
in bondage, because of lineal descent from Abraham and of the circumcision.
Paul retorts: "They are the real dogs; their works are evil and
unavailing; their circumcision is a mere mutilation of the flesh."
Regeneration is the spiritual circumcision and the source of good works. The
issue was vital and fundamental, as announced by our Lord to Nicodemus.
THE FLESH VS.
THE SPIRIT
Paul illustrates by his own example. He was of the stock of Israel, of the
tribe of Benjamin, circumcised the eighth day (therefore not a proselyte), a
Hebrew of the Hebrews, of the sect of the Pharisees, touching the law
blameless, zealous to persecution, so if any man might have confidence in the flesh,
he more. But all these things he counted as refuse in comparison with the
excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, through whom comes the true
righteousness grasped by simple faith. So far the passage is in line with
Galatians and Romans on justification by faith, apart from natural birth and
works of the law. He then passes on like Romans 8 to sanctification, and like 1
Corinthians 15 to glorification.
Commencing with "That I may gain [or win] Christ" (last clause of 3:8
to the end of 3:14) is the remarkable part of the chapter which calls for
special explanation. Adopting the logical rather than the consecutive order of
the words we notice first:
THE HIGH
CALLING, OR VOCATION
Paul's calling (Acts 9:3-6; 22:6-10; 26:12-19) was special and effectual. It
was a high calling, not only as coming from on high, but because it was toward
high things of both duty and glory. It was calling of God in Christ Jesus. Like
a foot race, it had a goal where the judge awarded a prize. The race is not run
until the goal is reached, nor won until the prize is awarded.
What, then, is the goal? It is the state of the resurrection from the dead, and
includes both complete sanctification of the spirit and glorification of the
body. Paul had not yet attained either one. What is the prize? It is that which
is to be won: "That I may win, or gain, Christ, and be found in him at the
great judgment day." Here the "winning of Christ," or the prize,
is not merely Justification by faith, when one first believes, but getting to
him where he now is, and being completely like him in both soul and body. It is
that state in which the final judgment finds us. "Attaining unto the
resurrection from the dead" means attaining to the state of the
resurrection from the dead, and not merely the act of being raised. It is quite
important that we know when the salvation of the soul is complete, and when
sanctification of the soul is perfected. It is only the other side of death
that the "spirits of the just made perfect" are seen. (Hebrews 12:
22-24.)
As long as life has a lesson to be learned, or a discipline to be endured, the
race of the soul is not run, nor the goal reached. By one fact we positively
know when the soul discipline is ended. It is precisely at that time when it is
passing over the line where accountability to judgment ceases. And the final
judgment takes cognizance of the deeds done in the body.
No soul, good or bad, is judged on account of what it does after the death of
the body, but it is judged for all deeds up to that event.
Therefore the goal for the soul is the death of the body, and the goal for the
body is its resurrection. If it be raised in dishonor, the prize is lost. If it
be raised in honor, glorified like the body of our Lord, the prize is won.
You can thus understand Paul's words: "Not that I have already obtained,
or am already made perfect." He had "not yet laid hold on all the
things for which Christ laid hold of him." When Christ apprehended Saul of
Tarsus on the way to Damascus, he laid hold of him for more things than Paul
had yet laid hold of. Paul wanted more than had yet been realized. He was
indeed already justified and regenerated, and had already made much progress,
but much was yet ahead. The race was not yet run over the whole course; the
goal and the prize were yet to be reached and won. Later, indeed, when actually
facing martyrdom be wrote: "I am already being poured out, and the time of
my exodus is come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I
have kept the faith: henceforth [not sooner] there is laid up for me the crown
of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give to me at that
day; and not to me only [to show that the goal is the same with all the
runners] but to all them that have loved his appearing" (2 Tim 4:6-8).
This is in line with what he wrote to the Thessalonians: "And the Lord of
peace himself shall sanctify you wholly [not in part] ; and may your spirit and
soul and body be preserved entire, without blame, at the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ (1 Thess. 5:23).
Those who claim to be sinless now, to have already attained perfection of
spirit, only advertise their guilty distance from God and put themselves into
an attitude of direct conflict with the scriptures.
See I Kings 8:36; I John 1:8. Making such a claim in this life shows that the
one making it is in a dim light. Light makes manifest. Job, apart from God and
confronted by man only, maintained his integrity, but when Jehovah came in the
whirlwind Job said, Who is this that hideth counsel without knowledge? Therefore have I
uttered that which I understood not, Things too wonderful for me, which I knew
not. Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak; I will demand of thee, and declare
thou unto me. I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear; But now mine eye
seeth thee: Wherefore I abhor myself, And repent in dust and ashes.
Job 42:3-6
Isaiah was the saintliest man of his generation, but in the year that King Uzziah
died he saw the Lord of hosts in the supernal light of heaven, and heard the
cherubim crying, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is Jehovah of hosts," then he
said, "Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and
I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the
King, Jehovah of hosts."
If, then, Paul had not yet attained and counted not himself already perfect
what does he do? (1) Forgetting the things behind, (2) stretching out to the
things before, (3) be presses on toward the goal.
The meaning of these words needs to be brought out in a realistic way. We
forget a defeat in the past when we do not stay whipped in mind, but
courageously try another battle, like Robert Bruce, who failed twelve times and
then won the thirteenth time, at Bannockburn. We forget past victories when we
do not rest on our laurels but "count nothing done while anything remains
to be done." General Gates rested on the laurels of Saratoga and found
defeat at Camden. He fled at the beginning of the battle, ran eighty miles to
Charlottesville, and if he had not died he would be running yet.
Dr. Burleson used to tell of a man who related such a brilliant experience to
the church when he joined it that it evoked unusual praise from pastor and church.
So much was said about it that he, himself, began to glory in it. He carefully
wrote it out and would read it to every visitor. He became so complacent over
it that he stopped right there no progress a case of arrested development.
In the lapse of time the mice got into the drawer where he kept his precious
document and ate up his Christian experience! We need an experience that rats
cannot eat up an experience not folded up and put in a drawer, but one that
moves forward taking "the steps of the faith of Abraham.
QUESTIONS
1. State the terminal points
of this great exhortation, and its rank.
2. Show that exhortation is
a distinct gift of the Spirit, and distinguish between exhortation and
teaching.
3. Cite the names of some early
Texas Baptist preachers or deacons who were great in exhortation, and the
effect on both Christians and sinners.
4. What mistakes may be made
as to exhortation, and what is the real lightning of exhortation?
5. To what class, saints or
sinners, is this whole exhortation addressed, and to what particular duty does
all the exhortation in this letter point?
6. Cite three special points
in the exhortation, and the four ends in view.
7. Between what phases of
salvation does this letter clearly distinguish?
8. What three important
observations on Paul's allusion to the drink offering in his possible libation?
9. What the exact meaning of
his being "poured out" on the sacrifice of their faith and service?
10. What two grave errors of
interpretation by some commentators on this passage, and what the fearful
consequences of the second?
11. Show that what is here
spoken of as a possible libation is later spoken of as a certainty.
12. Cite the illustrative
passage in Tom Moore's, Paradise and the Peri, and what is a greater libation
and why either cannot open the gates of paradise, giving two proofs from the
revised text of Revelation, which tells of paradise regained.
13. In the references to
Timothy and Epaphroditus, what great excellencies of heart does Paul exhibit,
and how do these immortalize both of them?
14. Where should the third
chapter commence, and what probably calls forth this abrupt change in the
direction of the exhortation, and how probably this also called forth Colossians
2:8-23 and still later the letter to the Hebrews?
15. How may this letter to
the Hebrews have occasioned the "turning away of all Asia" from Paul,
referred to in 2 Timothy 1:15?
16. Show the play on words
in "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the
concision."
17. What the antitype of
circumcision, what the real issue here involved, and what its importance?
18. How does Paul illustrate
the case?
19. Where in his
illustrative example does the reference to justification by faith end, and
where commences and ends the reference to sanctification of soul and
glorification of body?
20. Explain the "high
calling."
21. What athletic game is
used to illustrate?
22. What the
"goal" for the spirit, and how do you prove it?
23. What the
"goal" of the body?
24. Show that this does not
make death a purifer.
25. If one makes claim of
perfection of spirit now, what two things does it prove? and illustrate by two
Old Testament examples.
26. Not having yet obtained,
show what three things Paul does, and explain and illustrate the terms.
27. Relate Dr. Burieson'8
illustration.
THE MINISTRY OF TEARS AND PAUL'S RECIPE
FOR HAPPINESS
Philippians 3:15 to 4:23.
This chapter closes the exposition of the letter to the Philippians. Commencing
at 3:15 we make a running comment on the rest of the letter.
"Let us therefore, as many as are perfect." It is somewhat surprising
that just before this Paul said that he counted not himself to be perfect, but
that is in the passive voice, to be perfected. Now we have an active form of
the same word, only it is an adjective instead of a verb, and the question
arises, Is there a contradiction? The answer is, no. The adjective
"perfect" is frequently used in the New Testament in the sense of
full-grown, mature, as a mature Christian and not a novice, not a babe in
Christ, as in the letter to the Hebrews, where he says that "when for the
time ye ought to be teachers ye have need that one teach you again the first
principles of the oracles of God," and then says, "Let us go on to
perfection," that is, to maturity.
To continue: "And if in anything ye are otherwise minded, God shall reveal
even this unto you." What kind of a revelation is this? Does it mean that
God will indefinitely keep up his external revelation, so that there will be
continual additions to the Bible? It does not mean that. It is an internal
revelation by the Spirit of God. In other words, where a matter is not clear a
man, if he be of the right mind and seeks the Spirit's guidance, then God will
reveal the matter to him by inward monition.
Verse 17: "Brethren, be ye imitators together of me, and mark them that so
walk even as ye have us for an ensample. For many walk, of whom I told you
often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of
Christ: whose end is perdition, whose God is the belly, and whose glory is in
their shame, who mind earthly things."
This passage puts before us two examples, one they are exhorted to follow, and
the other they are exhorted to shun. The first is the example of Paul himself
just cited and expounded in the preceding chapter. Every preacher should be an
example to the flock, as Peter says: "Not lords over God's heritage, but
examples to the flock." Now Paul wishes to be imitated just as far as he
follows Christ, as he explains it in another passage, "Follow me as I
follow Christ." The other, the evil example, and before I expound it I
raise this question: To what kind of people is he referring that give this evil
example? Then I raise this question: Is he referring to the Judaizing element
of the Christian church, as he has been doing in chapter 3? He is referring to
Antinomians, whether Jews or Gentiles. That is a big word and is applied in
theology to that class of people who emphasize salvation through justification
so as to deny the necessity of Christian people's living right, that is,
opposed to the law. I do not know any worse enemies to the cross of Christ than
the Antinomians, and I am sorry to say that we have had some of them in Texas.
They are not necessarily Jews, but people who, as Luther did in some things, so
stress justification by faith, election, calling, and predestination that they
take no account of the kind of life that a Christian ought to live. I am
ashamed to say that I knew a Baptist preacher in Texas who, after offering an
infamous proposition to a fellow Christian too shameful for me to specify
said, "What harm will it do? You and I are both Christians, and nothing
that a Christian does is charged against him."
Paul says, "I tell you, even weeping, that these people are enemies of the
cross of Christ. Their god is their appetite their lust; their god is the
gratification of their animal desires, and they glory in their shame." To
me the most horrible thing in the world is for a man to profess belief in the
high doctrines of grace and then live an evil life. God calls men to good
works; God regenerates men, creates them unto good works, and whom he calls he
not only justifies but sanctifies, and I am sure that the unsanctified man will
never enter heaven.
I quote a part of that verse again: "I now tell you, even weep-ing."
Such a thing excited the deepest concern in Paul's heart, and I recall
attention to this verse in order to cite in this connection Monrod's lectures,
or sermons on Paul, and particularly the one on the "Tears of Paul."
What things excited this man's tears? There are many cases of Paul's weeping,
and in each case there was a specific cause for his tears.
Let us look at Jesus on Olivet weeping over Jerusalem. There is no such
lamentation in all history: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the
prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have
gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her brood under her
wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate I"
On this passage is based the hymn
Did Christ o'er sinners weep? And shall our cheeks be dry? Let floods of
penitential grief, Burst forth from every eye.
The psalm says, "He that goeth forth weeping, bearing precious seed, shall
doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him." Tears
are an indication of earnestness and sympathy. Macaulay, in that famous poem of
his, "The Battle of Ivry," represents Henry of Navarre this way: He looked upon the foemen
and his glance was stern and high; He looked upon his comrades and a tear was
in his eve.
Verse 20: "For our citizenship is in heaven." The citizens of a city
were enrolled. Rome enrolled her citizens, and the Philippians were all on that
roll as being a Roman colony, but our citizenship is in the New Jerusalem, the
heavenly Jerusalem, from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus
Christ. Where is Jesus now? He is in heaven, at the right hand of the Father.
How long will he remain there? Until his enemies be made his footstool. Why
will he come back to this earth? To raise the dead, the just and the unjust,
and to judge the world in righteousness. Our citizenship is in heaven. From
whence, i.e., from heaven; Peter says, "Whom the heavens must retain until
the time of the restoration of all things," and our text adds, "Who
shall change our vile bodies that they may be fashioned like unto his glorious
body according to the working whereby he is able to subdue all things unto
himself." That subject is abundantly discussed in 1 Corinthians 15, and it
embodies a cardinal doctrine, vital and fundamental. A man who does not believe
in the resurrection of the dead and the glorification of the bodies of the
saints has no right to claim to be a Christian.
Keble in his "Christian Year" uses this language: Before the judgment seat,
Though changed and glorified each face, Not unremembered we shall meet, For
endless ages to embrace.
Chapter 4: "Therefore, my brethren beloved and longed for, my joy and
crown." More than once I have called attention to Paul's joy and crown. He
says about the same thing in the letter to the Thessalonians "Ye are my
crown of rejoicing." The psalmist says, "He shall come again with
rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him."
When we enter heaven it will not delight us that on earth we were great
generals, or great admirals, or great statesmen, but it will delight us to see
there those who, through our instrumentality, were saved. That shares the very
heart of Christ.
"He will be wondered at" in the old sense of the word admired in all
them that believe, and the whole ransomed church of God will be his crown of
rejoicing. "He shall see of the travail of his soul and be
satisfied." So when we see those of them whom we have influenced to become
Christians, or more faithful Christians, they will be our "crown of rejoicing."
When Spurgeon died a memorial service of his death was held in Nashville,
Tennessee, and I was invited to deliver the oration; and my first volume of
sermons is that oration. As a part of the oration I drew a picture, and yet a
scriptural picture, of those who greeted Spurgeon when he entered heaven the
aged widows whom he had sheltered and protected, the orphans whom he had
clothed and fed, the young preachers whom he had instructed and whose expenses
he had largely met and who were supplied with libraries by his wife these
all, passing into heaven, were standing on the battlements to shout their
welcome to the coming preacher, and he shouted back, "Ye are my crown of
rejoicing," and it is this to which Paul alludes when he says, "For
other foundation can no man Jay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
But if any man buildeth on the foundation gold, silver, costly stones, wood,
hay, stubble; . . . a day of fire shall declare it," and the bad material
that he has put on shall be his loss. He, himself who is on the foundation will
be saved, but only the good material that he has put in the building will be
his reward. "He will come with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with
him."
We now come to an exhortation upon which I wish to give a few remarks. "I
exhort Euodia, and I exhort Syntyche, to be of the same mind in the Lord. Yea,
I beseech thee also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they labored with
me in the gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names
are in the book of life."
The position of women in Macedonia was far superior to many other countries,
and the Macedonian women were particularly prominent and useful in the
Philippian church. That, in fact, accounted in part for the great liberality of
that church. Here were two sisters, both prominent, both great workers, that
helped Paul when he was there, and also Clement, and they helped all the rest
of Paul's fellow workers. But they fell apart, I do not know just why. There
might have been some little talk at a quilting, but I am pretty sure it was not
at a bridge party. Or it might have been at a Ladies' Aid Society. How sad!
Paul stands up for these women. He gives them both a certificate of good
character; they were both noble workers, his fellow laborers. He exhorts
somebody, whoever this true yokefellow is, to help these women to get together.
It is a very sad thing when two prominent men in a church get to pulling apart,
but I think it is a sadder thing when two prominent women get to pulling apart.
Men know better how to put things in a parentheses than women. Whenever there
is a sharp difference between two women in a church it is much more apt to
reach the home and the children. A man can have a difference with a man and say
nothing to the wife about it, and especially to the children, but if a woman
has a difficulty everybody in the house has to hear about it, and everybody
must take sides or get into trouble.
I am a great believer in women's societies. A woman's society helped to take
care of our Lord. There are a great many Texas churches that would have gone
into oblivion long ago but for a few faithful women. They were the life and
soul of this Philippian church.
It is too bad that Euodia and Syntyche could not pull together. The longer we
serve as pastors the more we find Euodias and Syntyches, and the Lord give us
wisdom when we come to deal with these cases. "I beseech thee also, true
yokefellow, help those women."
Let us look at this word "yokefellow." Is it a proper name or not?
Farrar and others say that this is a proper noun, and by a play on words, not
unusual with Paul, he calls him a true yokefellow. I think Paul refers to
Epaphroditus, who was there when this letter arrived and who was the pastor,
and he had just demonstrated at Rome that he was a true yokefellow with Paul.
The subscription says that this letter was carried by Epaphroditus. Paul could
refer to the pastor of the church as the yokefellow, who put his neck into the
yoke when he found Paul in prison at Rome, and helped him pull the gospel
wagon; so I doubt its being a proper noun.
Verse 3 closes this way: "Whose names are in the book of life." On
that book of life I give some scriptures to be studied: Exodus 32:32-33; Psalm
69:28; 87:6; Isaiah 4:3; Ezekiel 13:9; Daniel 12:1; Luke 10:20; Revelation 3:5;
13:8; 17:8; 20:12; 21:27. I also recommend that one of my sermons in the first
book of sermons called The Library of Heaven. The last book mentioned as
belonging to the "Library of Heaven" is the book of life, and in that
sermon will be found some helpful light on this book of life, and particularly
on this question: When does a man's name go into the book of life? Of course in
the divine purpose the roll of the saved was complete in eternity. He who hath
numbered the very hairs of our heads I presume has numbered the heads as well,
and in that sense the book would be the elect as in God's thought, but I don't
think that is the thought here. The book of life is the register of the
citizens enrolled. He says, "Our citizenship is in heaven." Our names
go down and we become citizens, that is, whenever we are converted. It is a
register of judicial decisions recorded as each one is justified. Hence this
book is the deciding thing at the judgment seat of Christ: "Whosoever is
not found written in the book of life" already written before the
judgment day comes "shall be cast into the lake of fire." It is in
view of that book that we have that good old Baptist hymn: When thou, my righteous
Judge, shalt come, To take thy ransomed people home, Shall I among them stand?
Shall I, who sometimes am afraid to die. Be found at thy right hand? How can I
bear the piercing thought: What if my name should be left out?
In verse 5, going on with the running comment, we have this statement,
"The Lord is at hand." What does that mean? It does not mean the
Lord's coming. It means his presence. It means that we should live continually
as if sensible of the presence of the Lord right here. As John says in the
letter to the Laodiceans, "Behold I stand at the door and knock" at
the door of the heart of the church member "and if any man hear my voice
and open the door I will come in and I will sup with him and he will sup with
me." Commencing with verse 6 and extending to verse 9 we have the famous
recipe for happiness as found in the analysis. Here is the secret of happiness,
and it certainly consists of he following things:
1. "Be anxious about nothing." We have heard people say, "It is
the pace that kills." It is not the pace that kills; it is the anxiety
that kills the anxiety that draws the wrinkles on the brow and the crow's
feet around the eyes, and makes a man look as if he was not only aged, but
burdened an Atlas with the world on his shoulders, and those anxieties are the
kill-joys and the most foolish things in the world, for nine-tenths of the
things that we are anxious about never happen. The danger exists in our
imagination. "A brave man never dies but once a coward is dying all the
time. He dies every day of his life."
My father taught his children a solemn lesson. He had only twelve children of
his own, so he adopted three other families, making twenty-five in all, and in
the winter time the great room of our house was he dining room, about forty
feet long, and a fireplace eight feet wide. It took two grown men to bring in
the back log for us. Now, with that big fireplace roaring and the big, heavy
dining table pushed back, the twenty-five of us would gather around that fire
and he would talk and instruct us. One dayω1 shall never forget it it was
Saturday the dining table had just been pushed back and every boy on the
place was growling because they had planned to go fishing and it was pouring
down rain. My father looked around and said, "Boys, by the will of God, I
give you permission to fret and be anxious about everything in the world but
two things." We thought this allowed us a big margin and eagerly asked
what they were. This was his answer:
"First, never fret or be anxious about a thing you can help. If you can
help it, just help it, and quit worrying.
"Second, never fret about a thing you can't help, for fretting won't do
any good."
The more we thought about it the more we found that there wasn't any margin
about it at all; the two things covered all things.
In Psalm 37 is a passage that I have read at family prayers oftener than any
other in the Bible, another recipe for happiness: "Fret not yourselves
because of evildoers . . . Trust in the Lord and do good . . . Delight thyself
also in the Lord, and he shall bring it to pass. Rest in the Lord; wait
patiently for him . . . I have seen the wicked in great power, spreading
himself like a green bay tree; and lo I he passed away. . . . I have never seen
the righteous forsaken nor his seeding begging bread. . . . The steps of a good
man are ordered by the Lord." To the same effect is our Saviour's Sermon
on the Mount: "Be not anxious for the morrow, as to what ye shall eat or
drink, or what ve shall out on." That is the first step in the recipe for
happiness. Throw anxieties over your shoulders. They don't do a bit of good.
It was a custom in that big family of ours to practice archery. It was
noticeable that whenever a boy drew an arrow to the head and let it fly at the
target, if the arrow, visible in its flight, seemed to be going too far to the
right he would lean to the left, as if his leaning would shape the course of a
shaft after it was sped from the bow. So in futile anxiety we waste our
strength on impossible things.
2. "But in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let
your requests be made known unto God." When we are troubled about anything
let us take it to the Lord in prayer. We can't carry it. Let us put in on him.
That is the second step. What is the result? "And the peace of God which
passeth all understanding shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ
Jesus." The peace of God!
3. The first step disposes of anxiety, and the second substitutes prayers and
supplication with thanksgiving. The third element of the recipe relates to the
government of the thoughts: "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are
true, whatsoever things are honorable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever
things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good
report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these
things."
I call attention to a law. We become assimilated, that is, made like unto the
things that we habitually and steadfastly contemplate. If we habitually think
about falsehood, and dishonesty, and murder, and unlawful things, and things of
bad report, and immodest things, then we become like them.
A lady member of my church had great concern about the future of her daughter.
I said to her, "My sister, what sort of pictures do you hang up in your
daughter's room to look at the first thing in the morning and the last thing at
night? If you want her to be unselfish, put up the picture of Florence
Nightingale or Clara Barton. If you want her to be modest or pure in heart, put
up the picture of Mrs. Prentiss. If you want her to be worldly-minded, then put
up those fashionable pictures that represent worldly things, like a round of
fashionable social games and pleasures, as the thing for her to think
about."
While I am talking about pictures I am not referring so much to painted canvas
as to the direction of habitual thoughts. It is a tremendous lesson.
God pity the poor girl whose selfish, worldly-minded mother is thinking only of
society's demands and leaves the girl's soul beggarly and bankrupt in the sight
of God.
Dr. Broadus used to say, "The best way to judge a man to ask him to tell
what he reads when he is tired. On what does he relax his mind." Some
people want to go to a show, some to read yellow-backed literature, some to
take a moral furlough. Our habitual trend is evidenced by what our minds turn
to as soon as restraint of duty is removed. What comes to us first say, on
Monday morning after we have preached on Sunday on what the preachers call
"Blue Monday"?
4. The fourth element of the recipe for happiness is in the verses 11-13:
"I have learned in whatsoever state I am, therein to be content. I know
how to be abased, and I know how to abound: in everything and in all things have
I learned the secret both to be filled and to be hungry, both to abound and to
be in want. I can do all things in him that strengtheneth me." Of course
that man is unhappy whose happiness depends on a big dinner, and he can't get
it, or upon the weather; he is miserable because it rains or is cold, or if the
bank breaks and the crop fails. Here I give a secret that I told all over Texas
in 1887: The springs of our happiness are never outside of us but in us. If we
are all right inside, the external things can't disturb our happiness. The
remarkable, acute discernment of Robert Burns expresses the thought exactly: "Tis not in title, nor
in rank, Tis not in wealth like London bank, To give us peace and rest; If
happiness has not her seat And center in the breast; We may be wise, or rich,
or great, But never can be blest.
I have already discussed the offerings that Paul next refers to, and so I come
to the conclusion of the letter: "Salute every saint in Christ
Jesus." But suppose a man is a Methodist! Well, if he be a saint, salute
him. If he be a Roman Catholic, give him the hand of fellowship not the hand
of church fellowship but Christian fellowship; rejoice in heart over every
really converted soul of whatever denomination. "They that are of Caesar's
household salute you." What was Caesar's household? It does not mean
Caesar's individual family, but his slaves and dependents. The household of a
Roman Emperor included clients and advisers, as well as hundreds of slaves,
well-trained, efficient, educated, and many of them nobles in their own land
before their captivity. Some of the noblest men and women in Rome were slaves
who had been princes and princesses in their own land; some of them had been
heroes. Caesar's household was very extensive. Dr. Lightfoot calls attention to
the fact that a recent discovery bears on this passage. He says that the names
of 170 members of Caesar's household are inscribed on the monuments that have
been discovered, and they include quite a number of names mentioned in Paul's
letter to the Romans.
QUESTIONS
1. What the sense of
"perfect" in 3:15, and what its distinction from
"perfected" in 3:12?
2. What the sense of
"reveal" in 3:15?
3. What two examples, one
good and the other bad, are put before us in 3:17-18, and who are these
"enemies of the cross"?
4. Cite the instances of
Paul's weeping, showing for what in each case, and cite every instance of our
Lord's weeping and for what in each case, together with a pertinent passage
from the psalm concerning the same, and the cases of Elisha and Jeremiah, all
bearing on the ministry of tears.
5. Who has given a great
discourse on the tears of Paul?
6. Cite the first stanza of
the hymn on the weeping of Christ, and Macaulay's couplet on Henry of Navarre
in the battle of Ivry,
7. What the allusion in
"Our citizenship is in heaven," and what the parallel passage in
Ephesians?
8. On the "whence also
we wait for our Lord" (v. 20), cite a passage from the Psalm and one from
Peter in Acts, showing how long our Lord remains in heaven, and a pertinent
passage each from Romans and 1 Corinthians to show what his employment is in
heaven.
9. What Paul's "crown
of rejoicing" in 4:1, and our Lord's at the judgment?
10. Why is an alienation
between two prominent good women of a church more disastrous and more difficult
to heal than in the case of men?
11. Who the yokefellow in
4:2, and does the reference to Clement mean that he, with the women, labored
with Paul, or that these women labored with Clement and others as well as Paul?
12. Cite the passages in
both Testaments on the "book of life," tell what it is, when the
enrolment takes place, and what its final use.
13. Cite a stanza from a
great hymn bearing on this final use.
14. What the meaning of
"The Lord is at hand," and cite a similar passage from James and one
from Revelation.
15. State the four elements
of the recipe for happiness in 4:6-8, 11-13, and give parallel to same, part in
Psalm and part in the Sermon on the Mount.
16. What the meaning of
Caesar's household?
THE BOOK OF PHILEMON
Philemon 1-25.
This letter was addressed to Philemon, Apphia, Archippus, and the church in
Philemon's house. The probable relations of these parties to each other are as
follows: ...Philemon the husband, Apphia the wife, Archippus the son. Philemon
was probably pastor of the church in his own house, and Archippus probably
pastor of the church at Colosse, or possibly at Hierapolis. This letter was
principally addressed to Philemon because he) alone, under the law, had full
control over Onesimus for life or death, and his decision was final. The family
and the church in his house were included because the status of Onesimus, when
determined by Philemon, would necessarily interest and affect them all.
The relation of Paul to Philemon prior to this letter is given in verse 19, in
which Paul says, "Thou owest to me even thine own self," which
implies that he was Paul's convert. This conversion probably occurred in Paul's
two years' meeting at Ephesus when "All they that dwelt in Asia heard the
word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks," Acts 19:10.
The inhabitants of the Lycus valley were doubtless accustomed to attend the May
Festivals at Ephesus in honor of Diana "whom all Asia worshiped"
(Acts 19:27). Paul's meeting overlapped two of these festivities. Paul also
calls Philemon his "beloved and fellow worker" (v. 1) and his
"partner (v. 17). The terms seem to imply that Philemon was a preacher.
Moreover, Paul heard reports by Epaphras of Philemon's faith and work (vv.
5-7).
Paul's previous relation to Archippus is seen from the following statements: He
calls him "fellow soldier" (v. 2) and in the accompanying letter to
the Colossians (4:17) he sends this message: "Say to Archippus, Take heed
to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfill
it." So it is probable that Archippus also was a convert of Paul and
ordained by him.
Doubtless his family lived at Colosse (Compare verses 2, 11, 12, 16 with
Colossians 1:2; 4:9, 17) and other letters were sent at the same time with
this, viz.: Colossians and Ephesians (Compare Philemon 10, 13; Colossians 4:7,
9; Ephesians 6:21), the date of which is about A.D. 63.
The characteristics of the letter to Philemon are, (1) It is one of the
shortest in the New Testament. (2) It is more personal than any other except
perhaps 2 John. Three John, though personal also, has more to say of missionary
and church matters. (3) .It is about a private matter over which Philemon has
absolute legal control.
This brief personal letter about a private matter is of immense importance, and
therefore was incorporated into the inspired Bible, That private matter touches
the worldwide institution .of slavery an institution as old as human history
and discloses the attitude of Christianity toward the institution. But there
are other Pauline passages which also disclose Christianity's attitude toward
slavery. Paul himself in Galatians 3:27-28 declares, "For as many of you
as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. In Christ Jesus there can be
neither bond nor free." And in 1 Corinthians 12:13 he declares: "In
one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether bond or free," and
in Colossians 3:11 he declares: "In the new man there cannot be Greek and
Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman;
but Christ is all and in all." These are great principles.
These passages teach (1) In Christ there can be no distinction between bond and
free. (2) In water baptism there can be none. (3) In the Spirit baptism there
can be none. (4) In the church there can be none. These settle the attitude of
Christianity toward slavery so far as principles go. Moreover, in Colossians
3:22 to 4:1; Ephesians 6:5-9; 1 Timothy 6:1-2; Titus 2:9-10 he sets forth with
great clearness the reciprocal duties of the Christian master and slave. These
passages settle Christianity's attitude toward slavery so far as duties go. But
in both principles and duties the discussion is abstract. The peculiar value of
Philemon is that it gives us a concrete case, all the parties involved not only
being prominent and well known, but all belonging to one household and to one
church. The slave is named and his offense. The master, his wife, his son, and
his church are named. An inspired apostle comes in contact with the fugitive
slave. Not then in abstract generalities as given in the two sets of passages
above, but in a most specific and concrete case what will Christianity do? Not
what ought it to do, but what did it do? Let us not shun the particulars:
1. It convicted the slave of the double sin of fleeing from the master and of
robbing him.
2. It led him to repentance and reformation.
3. It converted him to Christ, thus bringing him into a blessed state of peace
with God.
4. It manifested intense sympathy, with and love toward this slave as a man
equal before God with all other men in religious privileges.
5. It restores the now penitent fugitive slave, with his own consent, to his
master, according to the laws of the land, but it identifies the slave with the
apostle returning him, who assumes all that the slave owes the master by theft
or loss of service.
6. It counts the converted slave as a spiritual son and as the very heart of
the sender.
7. It commends him as a brother in Christ to the master, and intercedes for
full forgivenesss.
8. It assumes not to command that the slave be set free, but suggests it to the
master, as of his own free will, in expressing confidence that the Christian
master "will do more than is asked." Thus Christianity's attitude
toward slavery is expressed in the foregoing principles, reciprocal duties, and
concrete case. Without the concrete case the Bible would be incomplete.
Let us see how this attitude has been received:
1. Those who comprehend that kingdom of our Lord is not of this world, but
having to do with spiritual matters between God and man and between man and
man, and stands opposed to arms and violence as a means of propagation, and
that while it claims that we should render unto God all that is God's, and unto
Caesar all that is Caesar's, are thoroughly satisfied with this attitude and believe
that its leavening principles will ultimately abolish slavery and all other
legal evils, through the consent of the evildoers converted to God, and that
the evildoers not converted to God will be subjected to the punishments of his
province and judgment.
2. But fanatics in every age have been dissatisfied with this attitude because
it deals only with cases where slave or master is a Christian, and does not
commence a crusade against slave-holding per se, denouncing and fighting
governments and legislation enforcing or permitting slavery, and censure
Christianity because it does not resort to violence to enforce its principles.
It sneers at an inspired apostle returning a fugitive slave and trusting to
voluntary love to bring about his emancipation. For example, these fanatics in
this country quit preaching "Christ and him crucified" and
substituted the theme, "John Brown and him hanged." The result was an
emancipation by violence at a cost of blood and treasure that beggars computation,
leaving behind problems to be solved that may prove to be insoluble by human
wisdom.
Slavery was imposed upon the colonies and later upon the States of this Union
as follows:
1. The mother country dumped upon the colonies convicts and political prisoners
as slaves.
2. Some of the colonies made slaves of conquered Indians.
3. Men of commerce here and in Europe, through greed, equipped slave ships and
introduced African slavery. One New England seaport fitted out a fleet of 250
slave ships, thereby laying the foundation of colossal fortunes which their
descendants enjoy to this day.
4. Long after the section into which the slaves were sold earnestly desired the
abolition of the slave trade, it was retained in the interest of those
enriching themselves by the traffic.
The best men in both free and slave sections regretted its imposition on the
nation, but in view of many grave complications were sorely puzzled as to the
most honest and practical solution of the problem.
Though born and reared in the South, personally I never knew but one politician
who advocated the perpetuity of the slave trade. From my earliest childhood the
most familiar talk I can recall was on this line: This institution was imposed
upon us. We believe it to be evil, but we recognize difficulties and
complications in the solution of the evil calling for the highest human wisdom
and forbearance. Its rigors should be abated and gradual emancipation
encouraged where provision can be made for the care of those emancipated.
Indeed, the first time I ever heard the word "Abolitionist," it was
applied to me, only a child, because I said, "There ought to be no
slaves."
In Paul's day slavery as an institution was worldwide and had so existed from
the beginning of history. More than half the population of the Roman Empire
were slaves. The slave had no rights in law. He could be tortured, maimed,
crucified, fed to fishes, or thrown to wild beasts at the' will of his master.
The majority of these slaves were war captives, equal to their masters in social
position and heroism, and oftentimes superior in education and patriotism. This
immense servile population formed an ever restless, seething, muttering volcano
beneath the fabric of society.
Servile insurrections of magnitude had occurred, threatening to upheave and
destroy the foundations of government. Here and there some high-spirited slave
a hero, noble, or prince in his own country resented, by violence, the
indignities heaped upon him by a cruel and capricious master. Hence a law was
enacted by Augustus Caesar that when a master was killed by a slave, all the
other slaves of the household should be put to death. Many rich, corrupt Romans
had hundreds of slaves. A case in point occurred about the time Paul entered
Rome as a prisoner. An infuriated slave, unable in his proud spirit to endure
longer the tyranny and cruelty to which he was subjected, slew his Roman
master, Pedanius. When it was found that 400 fellow household slaves must now
perish, under the law, by wholesale execution, there were popular appeal and
protest. But the inexorable Senate decided that public safety demanded the
enforcement of the law, and so they sent out a battalion of the Praetorian
Guard to repress popular interference and see that the law was enforced. Bo,
surrounded by the imperial guard, the 400 innocent men, women, and children
were publicly executed.
Roman literature of Paul's day and later teems with allusions to the danger to
the state arising from the system of slavery. Historians, poets, and orators
grew eloquent on the dangers toward the state and the masters, but seemed not
to realize the horrors of the system toward the slave.
Our Lord had said, "My kingdom is not of this world, else would my
servants fight." The mission of Christianity would have perished if it
had, as a political, earth force, preached a crusade against civil institutions
and relations. It contented itself by lifting master and slave into a spiritual
kingdom where in Christ there would be neither bond nor free, but all were
brothers, with equal religious privileges and rights. This leaven ultimately
creates a Christian civilization, in whose atmosphere all men become equal,
even in civil matters.
One privilege remained to the slave he might flee to an influential friend of
his master and implore his intercession. A case in point is as follows: About
thirty years after Paul's letter, a fugitive slave of a rich Roman fled to the
noblest Roman of his day, Pliny the younger. Fortunately for literature,
Pliny's letter of intercession, when he returned the fugitive slave to his
master, has been preserved, furnishing an historical parallel to Paul's letter
apart from its religious element.
Following is a translation of Pliny's letter: Caius Pliny to Sabinianus, health: Thy
freedman, with whom thou saidst thou wast incensed, came to me, and falling at
my feet, as if at thine, clung to them. He wept much, much he entreated, and
much was the force of his silence. In short, he fully satisfied me of his
penitence. Truly I believe him to be reformed, because he is sensible of his
wrong. Thou art angry I know; and thou art angry justly, this also I know; but
clemency has then the highest praise, when there is the greatest cause for
anger. Thou hast loved the man, and I hope thou wilt love him. Meanwhile it is
sufficient that thou suffer thyself to be entreated. It will be right for thee
to be angry with him again, if he shall deserve it, because having once yielded
to entreaty, thine anger will be the more just. Forgive something in view of his
youth. Forgive on account of his tears. Forgive for the sake of thine own
kindness. Do not torture him, lest thou torture also thyself; for thou wilt be
in torture, when thou, who art so gentle, shalt be angry. I fear lest, if to
his prayers I should unite my own, I should seem not to ask, but to compel. Yet
I will unite them, and the more fully and abundantly in that I have very
sharply and severely reproved him, strictly threatening that I will never
hereafter intercede for him. This I said to him because it was necessary to
alarm him; but I do not say the same to thee. For perchance I shall intercede
again, and shall again obtain; only that my request be such as it befits me to
ask and thee to grant. Farewell.
The letter of the noble heathen does him great credit, not only as an
epistolary gem, exquisite in tact and style, but shows his kindliness of heart
toward an unfortunate man shut off by law from human right or privilege. But it
does not recognize the inherent manhood of a slave. It makes no plea on that
score. There is condescending pity in it, but no appeal to God's fatherhood or
man's brotherhood. It sees no place in time or eternity where master and slave,
on a footing of equality, stand without distinction of person or social
position before a supreme and final judge. It does not commend the slave as
Pliny's son, or very heart, or as a brother beloved to Sabinianus. It does not
offer to make good whatever debt the slave, under the law, may owe to the
master. As the heavenly kingdom is higher than the Roman Empire, so far does
Paul's letter surpass the letter of the noble heathen.
For other purposes than illustration and comparison this letter of Pliny is
here introduced. It brings to the fore these questions:
1. Did Onesimus, like the slave of Sabinianus, designedly flee to Rome to
invoke the intercession of Paul as an influential friend of his master,
Philemon?
2. Had there been opportunity to Onesimus to sufficiently know Paul and his
relation to Philemon as a warrant for this step?
3. Was Paul, before this letter, ever in the Lycus valley, thus affording the
opportunity of this knowledge to Onesimus?
The answers to these questions in order are as follows:
1. In the absence of any statement from Paul as to how Tie first met Onesimus
in Rome, we may for the present say only this much: It is possible that
Onesimus designedly fled to Rome to seek Paul's intercession with his master,
and hence that Onesimus himself brought about the first meeting with the
apostle for this very purpose.
2. It is every way probable that Onesimus had ample opportunity sufficiently to
know Paul and his influential relations with Philemon to warrant the step. This
knowledge may have come about in either of two ways: Philemon, in his visits to
Ephesus, the metropolis of his province, either while a heathen attending the
annual festival in honor of Diana, or after his conversion in attending Paul's
meeting, may have followed a common custom not only in taking his wife and son,
but his household slaves. In this way Onesimus could have known Paul. Again, a
household slave must have beard much of the great apostle, who was not only
revolutionizing all Asia, but especially had revolutionized this family,
husband, wife, and son, and had led to Christ Epaphras, the evangelist, who had
planted the churches in the Lycus valley. In the same way he must have known
that Epaphras had gone to Rome to see Paul, a prisoner there.
Thus the opportunity for knowledge was ample. And when we consider the fact
that after Onesimus reached Rome, knowing Paul was there, it would be natural
for a fugitive slave, anxious to escape detection, to avoid meeting one so well
acquainted with his master's family, and it would be quite easy to avoid the
meeting, since Paul was hindered from moving about by his chain, and his place
of confinement as a prisoner would be well known, unless the slave himself
designedly brought about the meeting. Then our answer to the previous question
must be changed from "possible" to "probable," for this
furnished an adequate reason for the interview, which otherwise the slave had
both reason and ability to prevent.
3. The third question, to wit: Was Paul ever, before this letter, in the Lycus
valley, thereby increasing the opportunity of Onesimus to know him? We must
divide the question, settling first: Was Paul ever before in the Lycus valley?
Some contend that he was, because Acts 16:6 says, "He went through the
region of Phrygia and Galatia," and the Lycus valley was a part of
Phrygia. They fail to note, however, that all of ancient Phrygia was not
incorporated into the Roman province of Asia, and that the following verse
distinctly declares that he was forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word
in Asia at this time.
But Professor Ramsay, an expert on Paul's travels, contending against Bishop
Lightfoot, argues with great force that Paul on his third tour must have passed
through the Lycus valley to reach Ephesus. The scriptures on which he bases his
contention are Acts 18:23 and 19:1, which say, "He went through the region
of Galatia, and Phrygia, in order, establishing the disciples . . . and having
passed through the upper country, came to Ephesus." We shall not here
attempt to decide whether Ramsay or Lightfoot be correct about Paul's line of
travel on this occasion, since even if one agree with Ramsay that it led
through Colosse, it has no bearing on the opportunity of Onesimus to know Paul.
It was simply a confirming tour, going over ground previously traveled, and did
not become evangelistic till Ephesus was reached. There is neither proof nor
probability that Paul stopped in the Lycus valley and no evidence whatever that
he became acquainted with the Philemon family until the great Ephesus meeting
described in Acts 19. Therefore, Professor Ramsay's contention, however well
sustained, is irrelevant to the matter under consideration.
Tradition has something to say of the future of Onesimus:
1. A letter of Ignatius) about A.D. 107, mentions an Onesimus, pastor at
Ephesus, and incidentally seems to allude several times to matters in the
letter to the Colossians, but there is nothing in this Ignatius letter to
identify Onesimus, pastor at Ephesus, with Paul's Onesimus. The mere sameness
of name proves nothing.
2. Traditions of both the Roman and Greek churches have much to say of Paul's
Onesimus, giving him exalted positions, but the historical evidence underlying
the traditions is without value, practically amounting to nothing.
After the foregoing discussion there is little more in the text of the letter
to which attention needs to be called. However, we will look at the section
(8:21) of the letter which has ever excited the greatest admiration. This
section discloses Paul's method of making his plea:
1. I might enjoin by apostolic authority, but do not.
2. I might appeal to what you owe me, even your very salvation, but do not.
3. I might have presumed to keep Onesimus to serve me in your stead, but do
not.
4. For love's sake I beseech rather, being such a one as Paul, the aged, and a
prisoner.
5. Onesimus is the spiritual child of my bonds, my very heart.
6. It may have been God's providence that you lost him for a season to have him
forever.
7. Before, he was not helpful, though he is named Onesimus (meaning helpful) ;
now he is helpful, justifying the name.
8. Before, he was a slave; now, he is a brother.
9. As you and I are "partners," what he is tome let him be to you
receive him as you would me.
10. What he owes you by reason of theft or loss of service when absent, I,
Paul, give written bond to pay.
11. You have refreshed other hearts, refresh also the heart of Paul, the aged
prisoner.
12. I am confident you will do more than I ask. This plea reminds us of other
historical petitions, such as, Judah's plea for Benjamin (Gen. 44:18-34), and
Jeannie Dean's plea before England's queen for her sister Effie, as told by Sir
Walter Scott in The Heart of Midlothian.
On Lightfoot's contention that "Paul, the aged" (v. 9) should
harmonize with Ephesians 6:20 and be rendered, "Paul an ambassador,"
I would say that the form of the word is not the same as in Ephesians. The
ambassador feature has already been given in verse 8. The context demands the
usual meaning of the word "aged."
J. M. Pendleton illustrates (v. 18-19) the doctrine of Christ as surety for the
sinner, and the release of the obligation against the original debtor just as
soon as the creditor charges the debt to the surety. In this way Old Testament
saints could be forgiven before the surety actually paid the debt in expiation.
QUESTIONS
1. To whom was this letter
addressed?
2. What the probable
relations of these parties to each other?
3. To whom was this letter
principally addressed, and why were the others included?
4. What the relation of Paul
to Philemon prior to this letter?
5. What Paul's previous
relation to Archippus?
6. Where did this family
live?
7. What other letters were
sent at the same time with this?
8. What the date?
9. What the characteristics
of the letter to Philemon?
10. What then gives this
brief personal letter about a private matter its immense importance, and
justifies its incorporation into the inspired Bible?
11. What other Pauline
passages which also disclose Christianity's attitude toward slavery; what their
teaching, and what the greater importance of this letter?
12. How has this attitude
been received?
13. What example in this
country?
14. How was slavery imposed
upon the colonies, and later upon the states of this union?
15. What was the state of
mind of the best men in both free and slave sections toward the institution per
set
16. What the condition in
Paul's day?
17. What one privilege
remained to the slave?
18. What case in point?
19. What the pleas made in
Pliny's letter?
20. Compare this with Paul's
letter.
21. For what other purposes
than illustration and comparison is this letter of Pliny introduced?
22. What the answers to
these questions in order?
23. What has tradition to
say of the future of Onesimus?
24. What part of the letter
has ever excited the greatest admiration, and what the items of Paul's plea?
25. Of what other historical
petitions does this remind us?
26. What says the author of
Lightfoot's contention that "Paul the aged" (v. 9) should harmonize
with Ephesians 6:20 and be rendered, "Paul an ambassador"?
27. What great, doctrine
does J. M. Pendleton illustrate by verses 18-19, and how?