^^l^ 
 
 Mk 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 
1 C'l^t 
 
 ^ PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 'S 
 
 5'/%^//'. 
 
 Seciion . v VDT.'^. . .fe .^. . • 
 
 >J^^ ^ ^ 
 
 '^^A 
 
 ■■^.?m->y 
 
 
 \r>iti.-i ^If- 
 
'^^ 
 
EXEGETICAL STUDIES. 
 
EXEGETICAL STUDIES. 
 
 PATON J. GLOAG, D.D, 
 
 MINISTER OF GALASHIELS, 
 
 AUTHOR OF "a COMMENTARV ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES," ETC. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 
 
 MDCCCLXXXIV. 
 
PRINTED BY LORIMER AND GILLIES, 
 FOR 
 
 T & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. 
 
 LONDON, 
 DUBLIN, 
 NEW YORK. 
 
 HAMILTON, ADAMS AND CO. 
 ROBERTSON AND CO. 
 SCRIBNER AND WELFORD. 
 
PREFATORY NOTE. 
 
 Several of the following papers have already 
 appeared in different Magazines, and are incorporated 
 in this work by the kind permission of the editors of 
 these Magazines. The object of these Exegetical 
 Studies is to bring the result of modern exegesis to 
 bear upon the interpretation of some difficult 
 passages of Scripture. Some of these passages, as for 
 example, " Our Lord's Blessing to Peter," " Saved by 
 Fire," and " The Spirits in Prison," are of great import- 
 ance, and have given rise to much controversy in the 
 Church of Christ ; while all of them have been very 
 differently understood by leading divines belonging 
 to different schools of theology. Whether in this 
 work anything has been added to their elucida- 
 tion the reader must judge. In discussing them 
 I have endeavoured to be fair and impartial ; nor 
 do I think that the reader will find any trace of 
 that most objectionable of all polemical artifices by 
 which the controversialist attempts to prejudice his 
 reader against his opponent — the odium theologicum. 
 
 Galashiels Manse, 
 March, 1884. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 I. BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST, 
 IL OUR LORD'S BLESSING TO PETER, 
 
 III. SALTED WITH FIRE, . 
 
 IV. THE WOMEN AT THE CROSS, . 
 -^ V. THE GROANING CREATION, 
 
 VI. SAVED AS BY FIRE, . 
 
 VII. WOMEN VEILED BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS, 
 
 * VIII. BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD, .... 
 
 IX. PAUL'S THORN IN THE FLESH, . 
 
 X. DUALITY OF MEDIATION AND UNITY OF GOD, 
 
 XI. THE COMPLEMENT OF CHRIST'S SUFFERINGS, 
 
 . XII. EXALTATION OF THE POOR AND HUMILIATION OF 
 THE RICH, .... 
 
 XIII. THE INDWELLING SPIRIT LUSTETH TO ENVY, 
 
 XIV. THE SPIRITS IN PRISON, . 
 
 XV. CHRISTIAN PERFECTION, . 
 
 XVI. THE THREEFOLD TESTIMONY, . 
 
 I 
 23 
 
 43 
 58 
 7^ 
 97 
 114 
 
 133 
 
 157 
 177 
 
 213 
 228 
 
 243 
 
 267 
 282 
 
EXEGETICAL STUDIES. 
 
 EXPOSITION I. 
 
 BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST. 
 
 Matthew xii. 31, 32. 
 
 Textics receptus. — A/a rcZro Xsyu v/J!,7v, Tlaffa afia^rla xai 
 l3Xaa<prifJ>loc a(psdr,ffSTai roig avd^uivoig ' tj ds to\) IlvibiMarog ^Xas- 
 cprifiia ovx d^sdrjffBrai roTg avd^wroig. Kai og av U'rrri "koyov -Aara 
 Tou u'loij Tou avd^u'TOu, dpsd^gsrai avrQ ' og d'dv s'l'-ri xard rou 
 IlvBu/jtaTog TOO dyiou, ovx a,<pi6ri(SiTai aWu) o'ors sv rovr(fj rui aiuvi 
 OUTS SV rui fisXXovri. 
 
 Authorised Version. — Wherefore I say unto you, All manner 
 of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men : but the blas- 
 phemy againsi the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 
 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it 
 shall be forgiven him : but whosoever speaketh against the 
 Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, 
 neither in the world to come. 
 
 Revised Version. — Therefore I say unto you, Every sin and 
 blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men ; but the blasphemy 
 against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall 
 speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him ; 
 but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be 
 forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come. 
 
 Besides this passage in St. Matthew's gospel, we 
 have two other statements regarding this sin, given 
 
2 Exegetical Studies, 
 
 with slight deviations, in the gospel of St. Mark 
 (iii. 28-30) and of St. Luke (xii. ic). In St. Matthew's 
 gospel the sin is spoken of as rov IIvev[xaro<i jSXaa- 
 <f>7]fMia ; whilst in St. Mark's gospel it is 09 B'av ^Xaa- 
 <^r}jxrjari eh ro Uvevfia to ayiov ; and in St. Luke's 
 gospel Tft) et9 TO ajiov Uveviia jBXaatprjfxrjaavTL. There 
 is also a remarkable and well authenticated reading in 
 St. Mark's gospel, in the clause ew^j^o? eaTiv alwviov 
 /cp/o-ew?, " is in danger of eternal judgment ; " the best 
 MSS. have o.fxapTrj^aTO'i instead of Kpicrecci';, "is guilty 
 of an eternal sin." ^ — (Revised Version.) 
 
 All these three statements declare the sin to consist 
 in blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, but in none of 
 them is there a description of the nature of this sin. 
 The subject is beset with difficulty, and requires much 
 caution in its treatment. This difficulty arises partly 
 from the indefinite nature of the declaration of our 
 Lord, — whether we are to understand it as an asser- 
 tion of the criminality of the Pharisees, whose conduct 
 gave rise to it, or as an admonition addressed to them ; 
 partly because the statement stands by itself apart, 
 there being no direct mention of this sin in other 
 portions of Scripture ; and partly from the mystery 
 which is inseparably connected with the doctrine of 
 the Spirit's agency. Nor would the determination of 
 this sin, or, if that is impossible, at least the negative 
 statement of its nature — showing wherein it does not 
 consist — be of much practical importance, were it not 
 that it has been the occasion of anxiety and trouble 
 ^ Adopted by Griesbach, Tischendorf, Lachmann, Meyer, and Alford. 
 
Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. 3 
 
 to many scrupulous persons, preventing their recep- 
 tion of the consolations of the Gospel, and impairing 
 their usefulness. 
 
 Numerous opinions have been formed concerning 
 the nature of the sin against the Holy Ghost. With 
 the exception of those who consider the words of our 
 Lord as descriptive of the sin of the Pharisees in 
 ascribing His miracles to the agency of Satan, 
 almost every writer has adopted an opinion of his 
 own. Some suppose that the sin against the Son of 
 Man is an offence against a person which may be for- 
 given, but that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost 
 is an offence against a precept or law, and accordingly 
 irreversible and eternal in its effects. Others have re- 
 solved the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost into final 
 unbelief, impenitence, and hardness of heart, because 
 this state of mind does in its own nature exclude for- 
 giveness. Others have supposed that wilful, deliberate, 
 and presumptuous sins, committed by those who were 
 once awakened, and, for a time, made a fair profession 
 of religion, are unpardonable sins against the Holy 
 Ghost. Others have regarded this sin as equivalent 
 to apostasy, in conformity with the words of the writer 
 of the Epistle to the Hebrews, when he says that it 
 is impossible to restore to repentance those who have 
 fallen away after they have been enlightened, and 
 have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost (Heb. vi. 
 4). Others have made it to consist in that species of 
 infidelity which manifests itself in sneering at and 
 blaspheming the sacred truths of religion, and in 
 
4 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 spreading known lies and calumnies against Christ- 
 ianity. Others have regarded it as hatred, directed 
 especially against the Holy Ghost and His operations, 
 and disclosing itself in blasphemous expressions. 
 Others would have it to consist in a malicious opposi- 
 tion to the truth, when they know and are convinced 
 that it is the truth. Others think that it cannot be 
 any particular sin, but a general and total rejection of 
 the only means of recovery from sin. And it is the 
 opinion of not a few that the blasphemy against 
 the Holy Ghost was the very sin which the Pharisees 
 committed, when they attributed the miracles, which 
 our Lord performed by the agency of the Holy Ghost, 
 to the devil, a sin aggravated by this circumstance 
 that it was committed by those who were eye- 
 witnesses of these miracles, and who had the most 
 convincing proofs of their reality ; and consequently 
 a sin which, at least in its outward form, cannot be 
 committed in the present day, seeing that the miracu- 
 lous gifts of the Spirit are withdrawn from the Church. 
 "The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost," says 
 Meyer, " may be defined to be the sin which a man 
 commits when he rejects the undoubted revelation of 
 the Holy Spirit, and that not merely with a contempt- 
 uous moral indifference, but with the evil will 
 struggling to shut out the light of that revelation ; and 
 even goes the length of expressing in hostile language 
 his deliberate and conscious opposition to this divine 
 principle." And Julius Muller thus expresses his 
 views of the subject : " The nature of this sin is haired 
 
Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. 5 
 
 of that which is cognised as Divine, and the blasphemy- 
 is the expression of this hatred. He who has observed 
 with some degree of attentiveness the heights of 
 human corruption in its more spiritual forms, will 
 have noticed this remarkable phenomenon, how those, 
 who have reached such heights, cannot rest in their 
 aversion to that which is holy and divine, but as with 
 irresistible violence are impelled to give vent to the 
 same by revilings ; how it furnishes them a vile satis- 
 faction to belch forth their most horrifying blas- 
 phemies." 
 
 From this variety of opinion it would appear that 
 if any particular sin, any definite act of blasphemy, be 
 meant, which we do not deny may be the case, that 
 act of sin is to us unknown ; unless indeed, we adopt 
 the opinion that it is the particular sin of which the 
 Pharisees were guilty when they attributed our Lord's 
 miracles to Satan ; an opinion which we shall after- 
 wards prove to be erroneous, but which we may at 
 present regard as extremely doubtful. If it be a 
 particular and overt act of sin, God has not been 
 pleased to reveal it, and all attempts to discover it 
 will end in unfounded hypothesis and failure. This 
 concealment may have arisen from the mercy of God. 
 If this be a sin of such enormity as to be unpardon- 
 able, and if it had been revealed, such is the insane 
 enmity of men's hearts to God, that they would be 
 tempted to commit it. So great is human depravity, 
 so great is our perverseness and rebellion, that the 
 knowledge that an action is forbidden by God is a 
 
6 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 sufficient inducement for us to do it. A divine pro- 
 hibition appears to have a tendency to excite to action 
 that carnal mind which exists within us, and which 
 not only Scripture, but our own sad experience tells 
 us is enmity against God. 
 
 In discussing the nature of the blasphemy against 
 the Holy Ghost, it will be necessary first to consider 
 the occasion on which this sin was mentioned, and its 
 application to the Pharisees, whose conduct called 
 forth the declaration of our Lord. Our blessed Lord 
 had just performed a stupendous miracle ; He had 
 healed a blind and dumb man possessed of a devil, 
 *' in so much that the blind and dumb both spake and 
 saw." This had produced a great impression upon 
 the multitude, so that they were on the point of ac- 
 knowledging Him to be the promised Messiah. All 
 the people were amazed and said, " Is not this the 
 son of David " ? Upon this the Pharisees interposed, 
 and maliciously insinuated that this great miracle 
 was performed by the agency of the devil. "This 
 fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub, the 
 prince of the devils." They were resolved not to believe 
 on our Lord upon any evidence whatever, and to do 
 all in their power to destroy the impression which His 
 doctrines and miracles made upon the people; and as 
 they could not deny the reality of His miracles, they 
 endeavoured to persuade the people that they were 
 performed, not by the agency of God, but by the 
 power of evil spirits, and that consequently, they were 
 no argument in favour of a divine authority. Our 
 
Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. 7 
 
 Lord confutes their foul calumny, and administers to 
 them a severe rebuke. He shows them how absurd 
 was their notion that Satan would lend his power to 
 cast out devils. His kingdom would then be self- 
 destructive, and his authority would come to a close. 
 " Every kingdom divided against itself is brought 
 to desolation ; and every city, and house divided 
 against itself shall not stand. And if Satan cast out 
 Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then 
 his kingdom stand ? " And, as a second argument, 
 He reasons with them on their own principles. There 
 were some among the Jews, probably of the sect of 
 the Pharisees, who took upon themselves to cast out 
 devils, conjuring them by the name of the God of 
 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. " If I by Beelzebub cast 
 out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?" 
 Is it by the name of God, or by the power of the 
 devil ? If by the name of God, as you will readily 
 admit, why do you attribute miracles of the same 
 nature, which I also profess to perform in the name 
 of God, to the power of the devil? Surely it manifests 
 the most inveterate prejudice, to attribute actions of 
 the same nature to the most opposite agencies. And 
 He derives a third argument from the nature of His 
 teaching. The very design of His teaching was to de- 
 stroy the works of the devil, to overthrow the kingdom 
 of Satan ; and therefore it was impossible to suppose 
 that miracles wrought in confirmation of such teaching 
 were performed by the power of the devil. " How 
 can one enter into the strong man's house and spoil 
 
8 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 his goods, except he first bind the strong man ? and 
 then he will spoil his goods. He that is not with Me 
 is against me ; and he that gathereth not with Me 
 scattereth abroad." And, having thus refuted the 
 calumny of the Pharisees, He addressed to them this 
 severe rebuke: "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner 
 of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men : 
 but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not 
 be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a 
 word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him : 
 but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it 
 shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither 
 in the world to come." And in the gospel of Mark 
 the reason of this rebuke is given, " Because they 
 said, He hath an unclean spirit " (Mark iii. 30). 
 
 Some of the clauses of our Lord's declaration require 
 explanation, especially as different meanings have been 
 assigned to them. When our Lord says, "All 
 manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto 
 men ; " these words have been taken to mean, that 
 with the exception of the sin against the Holy Ghost, 
 all sins will ultimately be forgiven. But the state- 
 ment hardly supports this inference. The contrast 
 is drawn between all other sins and the blasphemy 
 against the Holy Ghost : these are declared to be 
 remissible, but this to be irremissible. When it is 
 said, " Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son 
 of Man, it shall be forgiven him ; " the title " Son of 
 Man " must not be considered as equivalent to man, 
 implying an ignorance of Christ's supreme dignity ; 
 
Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. 9 
 
 but is the usual Messianic designation, and as such 
 involves His exalted nature. When it is said that, 
 " Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall 
 not be forgiven him," these words are not to be toned 
 down and softened, as if they were to be understood 
 comparatively, that all other sins will sooner be for- 
 given than this blasphemy against the Holy Ghost 
 (Grotius) ; or that whereas a general repentance will 
 avail for other sins, this can only be pardoned on a 
 particular repentance (Hammond). Such interpre- 
 tations do not come up to the force of our Saviour's 
 words. He here declares that all other sins may be 
 pardoned, but that this shall not ; that it is the only 
 unpardonable sin ; and that it shall not be forgiven, 
 neither in this world nor in that which is to come. 
 Nor is it to be imagined that the reason why to speak 
 against the Holy Ghost is a more heinous crime than 
 to speak against the Son of Man is on account of the 
 superior dignity of the Holy Ghost. In Christ 
 dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily ; He 
 and the Holy Ghost are one. But the reason lies in 
 the clearer revelation which shall be made by the 
 Holy Ghost, and therefore the greater aggravation 
 incurred in sinning against that revelation. As 
 Olshausen remarks : " We may conceive Father, Son, 
 and Holy Ghost as gradations in the revelation of the 
 Divine Being, The knowledge of God as the Father 
 has reference to the power and wisdom ; that of the 
 Son to the love and mercy ; and that of the Spirit to 
 the holiness and perfection of the one Divine Being." 
 
lo Exegetical Studies. 
 
 When it is affirmed that " the blasphemy against 
 the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven, neither in this 
 world nor in the world to come," it has been plausibly 
 argued, that we are by this taught that there is for- 
 giveness of sins in a future world — in the state between 
 death and the resurrection, prior to the final judgment; 
 for at that period the destinies of all men will be 
 inevitably fixed. Augustine declares himself in 
 favour of this opinion. Such also is the opinion of 
 Olshausen in his exposition of this passage. And 
 Julius Muller in his Doctrine of Sift, remarks : " There 
 is according to these words a time to be expected, when 
 all the sins of mankind, with the single exception of 
 blasphemy of the Holy Ghost, will find forgiveness." 
 But this is a somewhat doubtful foundation on which to 
 build such an inference. The evident design of the 
 Saviour is not to assert the remissibleness of all other 
 sins in a future life, but to express in the strongest terms 
 the unpardonable nature of this particular sin. Still, 
 however, this sin may be of such a nature that all 
 unpardoned sin may culminate in it ; this is the case 
 if the nature of this sin consists in final hardness and 
 impenitence, for then it is the only sin which shall 
 not be forgiven. 
 
 The meaning then of our Lord's declaration is as 
 follows : All other sins and blasphemies, however 
 great and aggravated they may be, are remissible ; but 
 the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is irremissible, 
 and shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever 
 speaks a word against Me, who calumniates My 
 
Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. 1 1 
 
 person, it shall on his repentance be forgiven him. 
 But whosoever speaks against the Holy Ghost, who 
 calumniates Him, it shall not be forgiven him, the 
 mercy of God shall not be extended to him ; he is 
 guilty of eternal sin. 
 
 The sin which the Pharisees committed in ascrib- 
 ing our Lord's miracles to the agency of the devil 
 was blasphemy of a heinous character, and was 
 accompanied with peculiar aggravations. They were 
 the eye-witnesses of our Lord's miracles ; they could 
 not deny them, for they saw them with their bodily 
 eyes ; they were also well aware of the purity of our 
 Lord's life and doctrine ; they knew that the very 
 design of His ministry was to destroy the works of 
 the devil, to rescue men's bodies and souls from his 
 power ; yet, notwithstanding this their knowledge and 
 convictions, they bring forth the execrable calumny 
 that He had an unclean spirit, and that His miracles 
 were performed by the agency of the devil. And it 
 must further be observed that these blasphemers 
 were not ignorant persons, but learned men, the 
 teachers of the people, who pretended to a superior 
 sanctity, and who were acquainted with those sacred 
 Scriptures which foretold the advent of the Messiah. 
 And yet this was only a portion of their wicked- 
 ness ; it was only the outward expression of that 
 malice which existed in their hearts. And all this 
 was well known to Christ. He was thoroughly 
 acquainted with their malicious disposition, and it 
 was on account of this extreme malignity that 
 
1 2 Exegetical Shidies. 
 
 He administered the severest rebuke He ever 
 uttered. 
 
 But the question is : Did these Pharisees, in ascrib- 
 ing our Lord's miracles to Satan's agency, commit 
 the sin against the Holy Ghost ? Were they guilty 
 of the unpardonable sin ? This question has been 
 answered in the affirmative by many divines of great 
 learning and reputation.^ Our Lord's miracles, they 
 affirm, were performed by the power of the Holy 
 Ghost (Matt. xii. 28) ; and therefore in ascribing 
 them to Satan, the Pharisees blasphemed the Holy 
 Ghost. And this is especially to be inferred from the 
 explanation given in St. Mark's gospel ; " because they 
 said, He hath an unclean spirit." We cannot agree 
 with this opinion. The blasphemy of the Pharisees 
 was directed rather against Christ Himself than 
 against the Holy Ghost. The words were spoken 
 against the Son of Man, and were, as our Lord declares, 
 pardonable. The Pharisees, it can hardly be doubted, 
 were ignorant that the Agent by whom Christ per- 
 formed His miracles was the Holy Ghost ; and, if so, 
 their blasphemy could have no conscious reference to 
 that Divine Person. Besides, it is to be observed, that 
 the Holy Ghost was not then given ; it was not until 
 Jesus was glorified that the Spirit was sensibly poured 
 forth upon believers ; there was no open manifesta- 
 tion of His influences (John vii. 39). And for this 
 
 ^ This opinion is adopted by Tillotson, Waterland, and Samuel 
 Clark, though by the latter somewhat hesitatingly, in their sermons on 
 the Sin against the Holy Ghost. 
 
Blasphe77iy against the Holy Ghost. 1 3 
 
 reason we hold, not only that the blasphemy against 
 the Holy Ghost was not then committed by the 
 Pharisees, but that in reality such a crime could not 
 then be perpetrated. We therefore consider that our 
 Lord's words were addressed to the Pharisees by way 
 of caution or warning to prevent them continuing in 
 the same malicious disposition after the Holy Ghost 
 was poured forth, and the age of the Spirit had com- 
 menced. As if He had said : You have heaped upon 
 Me the foulest calumnies ; you have called Me a 
 wine-bibber, a glutton, a Sabbath breaker, a friend 
 and associate of publicans and sinners ; you have 
 represented My miracles as being wrought by the 
 agency of the devil ; you have said that I have an 
 unclean spirit : all this I am willing to overlook, all 
 these sins, and blasphemies, and calumnies I will 
 freely forgive, on your repentance ; but beware of 
 persevering in your opposition to Me and My doctrine 
 after the Holy Ghost is given ; beware of blasphem- 
 ing Him ; for whosoever speaketh against Him, it 
 shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, 
 neither in that which is to come. 
 
 The sin, then, against which our Lord cautioned 
 the Pharisees, supposing, as we think most probable, 
 His words to be a caution and not a sentence, was 
 the continuance in their opposition to Him and to 
 His doctrine after the Holy Ghost was given. These 
 blasphemies against Him were pardonable ; their 
 malicious disposition had not as yet placed them 
 outside the pale of Divine mercy ; if, however, they 
 
1 4 . Exegetical Studies. 
 
 persevered in their opposition after the Holy Ghost 
 was given, they would never have forgiveness, but be 
 guilty of eternal sin. And from this we infer that it 
 is probable that the blasphemy against the Holy 
 Ghost is no particular act of sin, but a malicious 
 disposition ; a perseverance in opposition to Christ in 
 spite of the Spirit's influences to overcome that 
 opposition ; an incurable, and therefore an unpardon- 
 able, evil disposition ; and this disposition is here 
 called blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, because it 
 consists in a continued resistance to His influences.^ 
 
 This view of the nature of the blasphemy against 
 the Holy Ghost is further evident, when we consider 
 the allusions to this sin in Scripture. It is true that 
 elsewhere there is no direct mention of this sin. Our 
 Lord's statement is a solitary declaration. But there 
 appear to be indirect allusions to it. This sin is 
 declared by our Lord to be the only unpardonable 
 sin ; now, mention is made in other parts of Scrip- 
 ture of unpardonable sin ; and this would appear to 
 consist in a continued resistance to the Spirit. We 
 have especially three statements on this point ; two 
 in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and one in the first 
 Epistle of St. John. In the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 
 1 This opinion is adopted by Alford, "It is," he observes, "not one 
 particular act of sin which is here condemned, but a state of sin, and that 
 state a wilful determined opposition to the present power of the Holy 
 Ghost, as shown by its fruit, p\a<T<f>-qfda. " To this view, however, it is 
 objected that blasphemy necessarily implies overt acts of sins of speech, 
 and can only be applied to words. But this is not necessarily the case. 
 God may be blasphemed by an ungodly life as well as by profane words. 
 
Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. 1 5 
 
 we read : "It is impossible for those who were once 
 enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and 
 were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted 
 the good word of God, and the powers of the world to 
 come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto 
 repentance ; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son 
 of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame" (Heb. vi. 
 4-6). And again : "If we sin wilfully after that we have 
 received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth 
 no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking 
 for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall 
 devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law 
 died without mercy under two or three witnesses : 
 of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be 
 thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son 
 of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, 
 wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, 
 and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace ? " 
 (Heb. X. 26-29). And St. John mentions the un- 
 pardonable sin, without, however, giving us any 
 intimation as to its nature : " If any man see his 
 brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, 
 and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto 
 death. There is a sin unto death : I do not say that 
 he shall pray for it " (i John v. 16). From the state- 
 ments in the Epistle to the Hebrews, it would appear, 
 that this unpardonable sin consists in an effectual resist- 
 ance to the Spirit's influences, in wilful transgression 
 after having been made a partaker of the Holy Ghost. 
 The special work of the Spirit is to deliver us from 
 
1 6 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 our sinful nature, and to produce holiness within us ; 
 but in carrying on this work He acts agreeably to our 
 moral nature ; His influences are exerted on the 
 human will. A man may be convinced by the Spirit 
 of his guilt and danger ; he may be enlightened in 
 the knowledge of Christ as his Saviour ; he may be 
 made a partaker of the Holy Ghost, and feel the 
 influence of the powers of the world to come ; yet, 
 from perverseness of will, he may so effectually resist 
 the influences of the Spirit, that that blessed Agent 
 may retire from his soul, and leave him in a state of 
 hardened impenitence. God's Spirit will not always 
 strive with man ; there is a limit to His forbearance. 
 This is what we conceive to be that disposition of 
 mind, that unpardonable sin, mentioned by the 
 author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and which we 
 regard as the same as that sin which our Lord calls 
 blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. 
 
 There are several sins mentioned in Scripture as 
 sins against the Holy Ghost ; indeed, every sin is 
 against the Holy Ghost, as it is opposed to His 
 work in the soul ; but special transgressions are 
 adverted to. There is grieving the Spirit, when 
 we commit any of those sins, or indulge in any of 
 those vices which are the opposite of those graces 
 which it is His office to implant in the soul. There 
 is resisting the Spirit, when we oppose ourselves to 
 His sacred influences, and refuse to submit to His 
 agency. There is quenching the Spirit, when we 
 refuse to hearken to His counsels and to comply 
 
Blasphemy agamst the Holy Ghost. 1 7 
 
 with His secret impressions. And, besides these 
 general statements, particular sins against the Holy 
 Ghost are mentioned. Those Jews were guilty of 
 sinning against the Holy Ghost who, on the day 
 of Pentecost, vilified His operations as the effect of 
 drunkenness, saying, "These men are full of new 
 wine." Ananias and Sapphira sinned against the 
 Holy Ghost, when they attempted to deceive Him 
 by keeping back part of the price of the land ; and 
 Simon Magus, when he offered to purchase His 
 miraculous gifts with money. But neither griev- 
 ing, nor resisting, nor quenching the Spirit ; neither 
 the sin of the blaspheming Jews, nor that of Ananias 
 and Sapphira, nor that of Simon Magus, was the 
 blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. This is a sin 
 of a still deeper dye, a crime more heinous than any 
 of these ; it is not a mere resistance, but a continued 
 resistance, when the Spirit's influences are repeatedly 
 quenched ; such a prolonged and obstinate resistance 
 as causes the Spirit to withdraw, and give up the man 
 to a reprobate mind. 
 
 Such a continued resistance to the Holy Ghost 
 as we have here described is necessarily unpardon- 
 able. The religious principle is gone, the soul is 
 unsusceptible of the influences of the Spirit. The 
 man has effectually cut himself off from God: "he 
 is guilty," as our Saviour emphatically asserts, " of 
 eternal sin " (Mark iii. 29). There is hope of a tree 
 if it be cut down that it will sprout again. But if the 
 tree be wrenched up by the roots, if it be entirely 
 
1 8 Execretical Studies. 
 
 i3' 
 
 separated from the ground, no hope can be enter- 
 tained of its future revival. Without the renewing 
 influences of the Spirit we cannot be saved ; we shall 
 continue in a state of depravity, totally unfit for 
 heaven's happiness and unprepared for heaven's 
 services. We shall want those qualifications without 
 which God has declared that we shall never enter 
 into His kingdom, and without which we cannot 
 enjoy heaven. An efficacious remedy for sin has 
 been provided ; but if a man resist the Spirit, he 
 rejects the remedy. A Saviour mighty to save is 
 indeed proffered ; but if a man refuse to accept Him, 
 if he persevere in his opposition to Him, his sin from 
 the very nature of the case, becomes unpardonable. 
 It is not from the mere arbitrary appointment of God 
 that this blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, this 
 continued resistance to His influences, is unpardon- 
 able ; it results from the constitution of things. This 
 is a sin which does in its own nature shut out all 
 remedy ; a sin which could not be forgiven without 
 some change in the immutable nature of God. 
 
 It is evident that the unpardonable nature of this 
 sin is no restriction upon the efficacy of Christ's 
 merits. That efficacy is unlimited ; it embraces all 
 sin ; and there is no sinner, however numerous and 
 aggravated his sins may be, who will not receive for- 
 giveness whenever he embraces the Gospel remedy. 
 But herein lies the difference between the blasphemy 
 against the Holy Ghost and all other sins ; the man 
 who is guilty of this sin will not accept Christ as his 
 
Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. 1 9 
 
 Saviour ; hardened impenitence and indifference are 
 the inevitable results of its commission. Although 
 Christ has died to save sinners, although the value of 
 His merits is infinite, yet final unbelief and impeni- 
 tence are sins which do in their own nature preclude 
 forgiveness. The Gospel remedy to be efficacious must 
 be applied ; if rejected, it cannot be made availing. 
 There are conditions on our part to be performed, 
 and if we do not comply with them we shall perish, 
 not from any want of efficacy in Christ's merits to 
 save us, but because we have rejected the remedy 
 which He has provided. " Repent and be converted, 
 that your sins may be blotted out." " Believe on the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." The 
 remedy which Christ has provided is a remedy only to 
 those who repent and believe ; and it is in the absence 
 of this repentance and belief that the blasphemy 
 against the Holy Ghost — the continued resistance to 
 His influences which are essential to produce these 
 graces — consists ; and this is the reason why this sin 
 is necessarily unpardonable.^ 
 
 Whether this opinion that the blasphemy against 
 the Holy Ghost resolves itself into a continued 
 resistance to the Spirit be acquiesced in or not, it 
 is evident that such a continued resistance, if per- 
 severed in, is unpardonable, and, therefore, is as much 
 to be feared as if it were demonstrated to be the 
 
 ^ " The sin against the Holy Ghost is unpardonable, not because 
 God is unwilling to forgive, but because man has become unable to 
 believe that God can forgive."— Olshausen. 
 
20 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 sin mentioned by our Lord. Nor is this sin confined 
 to any particular age of the Church ; whilst the 
 Spirit's influences continue, they may be effectually 
 resisted. And, indeed, there are alarming symptoms 
 that such a sin is not so uncommon in the Christian 
 Church, as we may be inclined to suppose. When 
 men continue to resist the Spirit ; when they receive 
 the grace of God in vain ; when they turn a deaf ear to 
 the invitations of the Gospel, and harden themselves 
 against the convictions of their own conscience ; 
 when the Saviour knocks at the door of their hearts, 
 and they refuse Him admission, God may be so 
 provoked as to withdraw from such persons His 
 grace. There is a limit to the patience of God 
 toward sinners, when He swears in His wrath that 
 they shall not enter into His rest. Men, by resisting 
 the Spirit, harden their conscience, increase the 
 measure of their guilt, and seal themselves for con- 
 demnation. And, perhaps, this is especially the case 
 with those who, in the language of Scripture, were 
 once enlightened, and had tasted of the heavenly 
 gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 
 and have fallen from the faith. We see multitudes 
 living in a state of total indifference, completely, 
 unaffected by the solemn truths of religion, and by 
 the awful realities of a future state. We see many 
 given up, in all appearance, to a reprobate mind, 
 who have effectually repressed the warnings of their 
 conscience, and who are living without compunction 
 a life of ungodliness and sin. We see others who 
 
Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. 2 1 
 
 take delight in scoffing at religion, and even 
 blaspheming that Holy Name wherewith we were 
 called. 
 
 On the other hand, it is not unusual for scrupulous 
 persons to fear that they have committed the 
 unpardonable sin, and that, consequently, their sins 
 are incapable of being forgiven. This notion, how- 
 ever unreasonable it may appear to a reflecting mind, 
 is not uncommon among those who are naturally of 
 a sensitive and desponding temperament, and who 
 are suffering under convictions of sin.^ But it may 
 be asserted, as a general maxim, that those who fear 
 that they have committed this sin are removed at 
 the greatest distance from its commission. What- 
 ever be the nature of this sin, hardened impenitence 
 constitutes at least one of its effects. Whoever, 
 therefore, is troubled with the thought that he may 
 have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, 
 proves by his very grief and self-accusation that he 
 has not committed it ; for he who is really guilty of 
 it will be secure against all such self-reproaches. So 
 long as religious anxiety exists, the Spirit has not 
 withdrawn from the soul ; for the susceptibility to 
 religious impressions is the effect of His sacred 
 influences. 
 
 There are some who are troubled with blasphemous 
 
 ^ Goethe in his autobiography observes : " I have known several 
 men who, though their manner of thinking and living was perfectly 
 rational, could not free themselves from thinking about the sin against 
 the Holy Ghost, and from the fear that they had committed it." 
 
2 2 Exe^etical Studies. 
 
 <i 
 
 thoughts, and who are led to fear that these may be 
 the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost Such 
 thoughts do strangely and unaccountably enter into 
 our minds, as if they were those fiery darts of the 
 wicked one, about which the apostle speaks (Eph, vi. 
 1 6). But if these thoughts enter into our minds 
 against our will ; if they are not harboured, but 
 resisted by us ; if they are to us a grief and vexation, 
 so far from being the unpardonable sin, they appear 
 to be no sins at all, but the effects of some mental or 
 bodily disorder, or else the solicitations of evil spirits. 
 It is only when the will goes along with evil thoughts, 
 when, instead of resisting we cherish them, that they 
 are sinful. 
 
 Upon the whole there is nothing in the statement 
 of our Lord concerning the blasphemy against the 
 Holy Ghost, to perplex and annoy the scrupulous, 
 though there is much to warn and alarm the careless 
 and indifferent ; and especially there is much to urge 
 us not to trifle with our religious convictions, but to 
 follow the intimations of the Spirit ; and to all there 
 is a pressing exhortation to work out their own 
 salvation with fear and trembling. 
 
EXPOSITION 11. 
 
 OUR lord's blessing to peter. 
 
 Matthew xvi. i8, 19. 
 
 Textiis receptus. — Kayw hz aoi Xiyu, on Ci) i7 UsT^og, xai Wl 
 ravrp rfj Tsr^cf, o'r/.obo[x,riS()i n,o\) rjji/ iKxXrjffiav, %«/ vvXai aSou 
 ou xaTi(iy^vciou<Jiv ahrrig. Ka/ btliSc/i <Soi rag xXiTg rtjg jSadiXB/ag 
 ruv ov^avuiv ' Kal sSiV hridrig snrl rr^g y^g, 'ierai dsdi/xivov h 
 ToTg oh^avoTg • xcci sav "kiisrig k'ir} rr^g yrig, 'iarai XiXv,UyS\iov h 
 roTg ov^avoTg. 
 
 AtitJwrised Version. — And I say also unto thee, that thou art 
 Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church ; and the 
 gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto 
 thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou 
 shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever 
 thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 
 
 Revised Version. — And I also say unto thee, that thou art 
 Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church ; and the 
 gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give unto 
 thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; and whatsoever thou 
 shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever 
 thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 
 
 The occasion of this declaration of our Lord is as 
 
 follows. The time in the course of His ministry had 
 
 arrived, when He was to demand from His disciples 
 
 a confession of their belief in Him as the Messiah. 
 
 23 
 
24 Exegetical Studies, 
 
 Henceforth He was to appear to them in that capacity. 
 Accordingly He put the question to them, " Whom do 
 men say that I, the Son of Man, am ? " The assump- 
 tion of this Messianic title, the " Son of Man," was a 
 plain declaration on His part that He was the 
 Messiah. In answer to this question the apostles 
 replied : Some, entertaining the opinion suggested by 
 the fears of Herod, say that thou art John the Baptist ; 
 others, adopting the Jewish notion of the advent of 
 Elijah as the forerunner of the Messiah, say that thou 
 art Elias ; others, in accordance with the prevalent 
 tradition that Jeremiah was to come and reveal the 
 place where the sacred vessels were concealed (2 
 Mace. ii. 1-7), say that thou art Jeremias ; and others, 
 generally and indefinitely, that thou art a prophet, 
 perhaps the herald of the Messiah. " Then said He 
 to them, But whom say ye that I am ? " St. Peter, 
 with his usual impetuosity, replied, "Thou art the 
 Messiah, the Son of the living God." And then our 
 Lord, in testimony of His approbation of this confes- 
 sion and of its significance, replied : " Blessed art thou, 
 Simon Bar-jona : for flesh and blood hath not revealed 
 it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And 
 I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon 
 this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of 
 Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give 
 unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and 
 whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound 
 in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth 
 shall be loosed in heaven." It was a great crisis in 
 
Our Lord's Blessing to Peter. ^5 
 
 the history of the Church, being the first announce- 
 ment made by our Lord of His Messianic character ; 
 that He was the King of the souls of men; the 
 Messiah, the Son of the Hving God. 
 
 The consideration of these words are of special 
 importance, as upon their meaning depends the true 
 idea of the Christian Church. On them chiefly the 
 Romanists build the assumption of the supremacy 
 of their pontiff; holding that, as the successor of 
 St. Peter and of the supremacy conferred on him, the 
 Pope of Rome exercises supreme authority in the 
 Catholic Church, and that all who do not belong to 
 the Romish Church are not members of the true 
 Church. On the other hand, many Protestant divines 
 have been more solicitous to elude those inferences, 
 which are supposed to be deducible from this declara- 
 tion of our Lord, than careful to find but its true 
 meaning. Hence there is hardly any passage of 
 Scripture on which there has been so much controver- 
 sial writing, and the meaning of which has been 
 more keenly disputed. 
 
 Some suppose that our Lord's words were not ad- 
 dressed to St. Peter as an individual, but to St. Peter 
 as the representative of the apostles.-^ They assert 
 that St. Peter on several occasions spoke as the repre- 
 sentative of the apostles, as at the election of a 
 
 ^ This opinion was not adopted to escape the inferences of the Roman 
 Church, for it was held by Chrysostom, Jerome, and others of the early 
 Fathers. In recent times it has been adopted by Olshausen, Schaff, atnd 
 other divines of the Protestant Church. 
 
26 Exezetical Studies. 
 
 '^s 
 
 successor to Judas, on the day of Pentecost, and in the 
 defence before the Jewish Sanhedrim, and that he is 
 always represented as foremost in speech. Accordingly, 
 they think that this was the case on the present 
 occasion ; that, consequently, the blessings conferred 
 by our Lord were extended to and equally bestowed 
 upon the rest of the apostles ; so that the privilege of 
 being a rock on which the Church was built, the 
 custody of the keys, and the power of binding and 
 loosing on earth with such effect as shall be ratified 
 in heaven — that these blessings, whatever their mean- 
 ing may be, were not conferred on St. Peter alone, but 
 were at this time and by these words bestowed on all 
 the apostles. St. Peter, in the name of the apostles, 
 replied, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living 
 God ; " and our Lord's answer was to St. Peter as the 
 representative of the apostles. 
 
 This view is exposed to several insuperable objec- 
 tions. There is nothing in the context or in the words 
 to show that St. Peter here acted as the spokesman of 
 the apostles, but much that is opposed to this opinion. 
 To the previous question, " Whom do men say that 
 I the Son of Man am ? " all the apostles in general 
 reply, " Some say that Thou art John the Baptist : some, 
 Elias ; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets." 
 But to the question, " Whom say ye that I am ? " St 
 Peter alone replied, " Simon Peter answered and said, 
 Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." If 
 St. Peter replied in the name of the rest of the apostles, 
 it is not probable that the form of the narrative would 
 
Our Lord's Blessing to Peter. 2 7 
 
 have been changed. Besides, our Lord's answer to 
 this confession of St. Peter intimates that He addressed 
 St. Peter as an individual. He called him by his 
 peculiar name, as if to mark him out from all the other 
 apostles, " Jesus answered and said unto him. Blessed 
 art thou, Simon Bar-jona : for flesh and blood hath not 
 revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in 
 heaven." Here, then, is a precise definite address, for 
 to St. Peter, and to St. Peter alone, did the title Simon 
 Bar-jona belong. On another occasion St. Peter was 
 addressed in a similar manner, when assuredly none 
 of the twelve were included. When, after his denial, 
 our Lord restored him to his apostolic office, he then 
 addressed him in the words, " Simon, son of Jonas 
 (Bar-jona), lovest thou Me?" And from the terms 
 in which the blessing was pronounced, it is evident 
 that St. Peter only was addressed. Our Lord 
 said unto him, " Thou art Peter " {av et lierpoi), that 
 is, thou art rightly called '7reTpo<;, a rock, for thou hast 
 that about thee which that name imports, " and on 
 this rock " (eVt TavTj} rjj ireTpa) " will I build My 
 Church." It is to be observed that not Peter, but 
 Simon, was the original name of that apostle ; Peter 
 was a name previously conferred on him by our Lord. 
 When called to the apostleship, Jesus said unto him, 
 " Thou art Simon Bar-jona : thou shalt be called 
 Cephas, which is by interpretation Peter " (John i. 42). 
 It is therefore evident that these words were addressed 
 to St. Peter alone, and that our Lord could not include 
 the rest of the twelve in this appellation, for He had 
 
28 Exezetical Studies. 
 
 'i>' 
 
 never conferred it on any of them ; it was peculiar to 
 Simon the son of Jonas. It amounts, then, nearly to 
 actual demonstration that St. Peter spoke for himself, 
 and that the words of our Lord were addressed to him 
 as an individual, and not as the representative of the 
 apostles. 
 
 .But though the words were addressed to St. Peter 
 alone, yet it is a different question. What was the 
 rock to which Christ alluded when He said, " Upon 
 this rock will I build My Church " ? The opinions on 
 this point are various. Some suppose that our Lord 
 referred to Himself^ The arguments by which this 
 view is defended are as follows. The Lord Jesus Christ, 
 and not any mere man, is the foundation of His 
 Church. " Other foundation can no man lay than 
 that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." And the 
 difference between the rock on which the Church is 
 built and St. Peter is intimated in the text. When 
 our Lord addressed St. Peter, the word is masculine 
 IT6T/309 ; but when He spoke of the rock on which 
 • He was to build His Church, it is feminine nrerpa. 
 Now Trerpo'i means not a rock, but a stone, whereas 
 irerpa is a rock. St. Peter was a living stone, as he 
 himself says (i Pet. ii. 5), of the spiritual temple 
 built upon Christ, the Rock, the sure foundation. 
 Hence it is supposed that when our Lord said, " Upon 
 this rock will I build My Church," He pointed to 
 Himself as the great and only foundation. On 
 
 ^ This view was adopted by Augustine and Jerome, among the Fathers 
 and is ably advocated by Bishop Wordsworth, 
 
Our Lord's Blessing to Peter. 29 
 
 another occasion our Lord spoke in a similar manner. 
 When He cast out the oxen and sheep out of the 
 temple, the Jews said unto Him, " What sign showest 
 Thou unto us, seeing Thou doest these things ? 
 Jesus answered, Destroy this temple, and in three 
 days I will raise it again." The most natural 
 interpretation of this was that He would destroy the 
 temple of Jerusalem and rebuild it in three days, and 
 so the Jews understood Him ; but the evangelist 
 corrects their mistake and informs us that He spoke 
 of the temple of His body (John ii. 18-21). So here 
 it is affirmed, when Christ said, " Upon this rock 
 will I build My Church," perhaps the most natural 
 interpretation may be to refer the rock to St. 
 Peter ; yet He alluded not to St. Peter, but to 
 Himself, the only foundation upon which His Church 
 is built. 
 
 Now assuredly it is most true, that in a peculiar 
 and incommunicable sense Christ is the only founda- 
 tion of His Church, seeing that there is no other 
 name under heaven given among men whereby we 
 can be saved. But in a different and subordinate 
 sense men are called foundations (Eph. ii. 20; Rev. xxi. 
 14). Nor is there much force in the distinction of the 
 words 7reTpo<; and irerpa. IIerpo<i is in the masculine, 
 because it refers to Peter. And we must remember 
 that our Lord spoke not in Greek but in Aramaic, and 
 that in that language there is no distinction in the 
 words. And although in Greek Trerpo? may generally 
 mean a stone, and irerpa a rock ; yet here from the 
 
30 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 allusion to the name of the apostle, irerpo'i must 
 mean a rock ; as Bengel remarks, " Uirpo'i alias 
 denotat lapidem ; sed in Simone petrain" And besides, 
 the emphatic pronoun this (ravrj}) is made to refer 
 to something not stated, that our Lord laid His 
 hand on His breast, when he said, Upon t/i2s rock 
 will I build My Church. So that in the absence of 
 any explanatory intimation by the evangelist, we must 
 consider the view which refers the rock to Christ 
 Himself as forced and unnatural. 
 
 A somewhat similar, but more plausible meaning, 
 is that the confession which St. Peter made, that 
 Jesus was the Christ the Son of the living God, is the 
 rock on which the Church was to be built.^ The 
 essential doctrines of Christianity may well be termed 
 foundations on which the Church is built ; deny them 
 and the Church can have no existence. Now the 
 confession of St. Peter, that Jesus is the Christ the 
 Son of the living God, lies at the foundation of 
 Christianity ; disbelief in it would overturn the whole 
 scheme of redemption. The name of the apostle 
 JJerpa received its realisation in this confession, and 
 hence to this our Lord alluded, when he said, " On 
 this rock will I build My Church." "We have 
 already seen," observes Bishop Horsley, "that the 
 reason of the name of Peter, given to Simon, lay in 
 the confession which he then made. In that con- 
 
 1 This opinion was the one generally adopted by the'Fathers, and has 
 in recent times been adopted by Calvin, Ewald, Wieseler, Forschammer, 
 and Horsley. 
 
Our Lord's Blessing to Peter. 3 1 
 
 fession, therefore, we must see the rocky thing to which 
 the name alluded." ^ 
 
 What is here stated is readily admitted as true, 
 namely, that the doctrines contained in the confession 
 of St. Peter — the Messiahship and Divine Sonship of 
 our Lord — lie at the foundation of Christianity. But 
 that our Lord alludes to this, as the rock mentioned 
 in our passage, is far from obvious. If this be the 
 meaning, the emphatic words lose their force ; for it 
 is evident that they refer not to the confession of St. 
 Peter, but to St. Peter himself Besides it is not the 
 usual language of Scripture that the Church is founded 
 on confessions and doctrines, but on living persons — 
 on Christ Himself or, in a subordinate sense, on His 
 apostles. And the whole context is against this mean- 
 ing. The blessing is not pronounced so much on the 
 confession of St. Peter, as on St. Peter himself who 
 makes that confession : " Blessed art thou, Simon 
 Bar-jona." 
 
 The only natural interpretation is that which refers 
 the rock, on which Christ builds His Church, to 
 St. Peter himself This is the opinion adopted not 
 only by the Romanists, but by most recent critics and 
 commentators.^ It is certainly the one most agreeable 
 with the connection and the sense of the passage ; and 
 is assuredly not to be rejected, merely because it 
 appears to militate against our preconceived opinions. 
 
 1 Horsley's Works, vol. i. p. 1S9. 
 
 ^ As Bengel, Doddridge, Whitby, Macknight, Ebrard, Meyer, Alford, 
 Farrar, Mansel, and others. 
 
32, - Exegetical StiLciies. 
 
 There is in the passage an evident play upon words ; 
 a paranomasia which is not seen in our version ; the 
 Trerpo? in the first clause refers to the irerpa in the 
 second ; so that the words might be rendered : " I 
 say unto thee that thou art indeed a rock (Trerpo?), 
 and upon this rock {Trerpa) will I build My Church." 
 It is assuredly most natural to refer the emphatic 
 pronoun this to the rock previously mentioned ; that 
 rock was St. Peter, being his name, and the rock 
 afterwards mentioned is a manifest allusion to that 
 name. The whole beauty and force of the allusion 
 would be lost, and the meaning of the passage 
 rendered obscure, if we did not adopt this interpreta- 
 tion. Similar allusions to names are common in the 
 Old Testament. As when God said to Abraham ; 
 " Thy name shall be Abraham, for a father of many 
 nations have I made thee " (Gen. xvii. 5) ; and to 
 Jacob, " Thy name shall be called no more Jacob but 
 Israel, for as a prince hast thou power with God and 
 with men, and hast prevailed " (Gen. xxxii. 28). So 
 here, in precisely the same manner, it may be said : 
 " Thy name shall be called Peter ; for on this rock will 
 I build My Church." " The Lord," observes Ter- 
 tullian ; " said to Peter, Upon this rock I will build 
 My Church. In Peter himself the Church was 
 reared ; that is, through Peter himself." 
 
 The interpretation then most agreeable with the 
 connection of the passage, the natural meaning of the 
 verse, the force of the allusion to the name Peter, and 
 the grammatical structure, is to refer the rock on 
 
Ou7' Lord's Blessing to Peter. '^^t^ 
 
 which the Church was built to St. Peter ; cru et 
 Uerpo^, Kol iirl ravTr) rf} ireTpa olKoBo/Jbrjaco fxov rrju 
 eKKXr/a-iav. But the question naturally arises, In what 
 sense can it be said that St. Peter is the rock on which 
 the Church is built? To this it is replied, that 
 St. Peter may be considered as the rock on which the 
 Church is built, inasmuch as by his preaching and 
 zeal the Gospel was diffused, and the way of access 
 into the Church of Christ was opened up both to 
 Jews and Gentiles. The doctrine taught by this 
 apostle, as is contained in the epistles which bear his 
 name, is also the foundation of our faith But to be 
 a foundation in this sense was not an honour peculiar 
 to St. Peter ; but, as we elsewhere learn both from 
 Scripture and from history, was shared in by the 
 other apostles. They also, by their zealous efforts, 
 propagated the Gospel, and by their doctrine, 
 which is handed down to us in the epistles which 
 bear their names, laid the foundation of our faith 
 Thus we are informed that the Church is built on the 
 foundation of apostles and prophets (Eph. ii. 20) ; 
 and that the wall of the spiritual Jerusalem had 
 twelve foundations, and on them the names written of 
 the twelve apostles of the Lamb (Rev. xxi. 14). 
 Some of the apostles were pre-eminent for their zeal 
 and success, and among them St. Peter was con- 
 spicuous. He came forward on several occasions as 
 the spokesman of the apostles; it was he who took the 
 chief part in addressing the assembled multitudes on 
 
 the day of Pentecost, and who was commissioned by a 
 
 D 
 
34 Exegetical Shcdies. 
 
 divine revelation to preach the Gospel to Cornelius. 
 Still, however, he was not the Rock, but only a rock, 
 a principal foundation-stone of the building of God — 
 a firm and eminent part in the foundation of apostles 
 and prophets. " You say," says Jerome, " that the 
 Church is founded on Peter ; but the same in another 
 place is said of all the apostles." 
 
 The apostles are only foundations of the Church of 
 God in a subordinate sense. The Lord Jesus Christ 
 Himself is the chief, and as regards our hopes of sal- 
 vation, the only foundation of His Church. " Christ," 
 says Jerome, "was the Rock, and He bestowed it upon 
 His apostles to be called rocks also." Hence also St. 
 Paul says, "Ye are built upon the foundations of 
 apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the 
 chief corner stone" (Eph. ii. 20, 21). Christ is the 
 foundation stone spoken of in the Psalms and in the 
 Prophets : " Behold I lay in Sion for a foundation a 
 stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure 
 foundation " (Isa. xxviii. 16). The apostles, and Peter 
 especially, were rocks, inasmuch as they are eminent 
 supports of our faith, and the pillars of the Church in 
 their day and generation, but Christ alone is the rock 
 of our salvation. " Other foundation can no man lay 
 than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (i Cor. iii. 11). 
 
 Our Lord adds : " And the gates of Hades shall not 
 prevail against it," koX irvXav aSov ov Karia'^^ycrovaLv 
 avT7]<;. oS% is the well known Greek term, signifying 
 the invisible state, the abode of the dead. In the 
 Septuagint it is the translation of Sheol, a word of the 
 
Our Lord's Blessing to Peter. 35 
 
 same import. The translation of it in our Authorised 
 
 Version by hell is pecuHarly unfortunate, as the idea 
 
 conveyed by Hades is different fVom the future state 
 
 of punishment. For this another word <yeevva is 
 
 usually employed in the New Testament. Hades is 
 
 often represented as an abode ; hence we read in 
 
 Scripture of the house of Hades, of the keys of Hades, 
 
 and here of the gates of Hades. We are here informed 
 
 that the gates of Hades (irvXai aBov) shall not prevail 
 
 against the Church of Christ. Some suppose that by 
 
 this expression is meant the power of Hades ; but this 
 
 is a very unusual meaning of the word gates} It is 
 
 best to refer it to death. Death is the entrance into 
 
 Hades, and therefore the gates or entrance of Hades 
 
 denote death. The expression may accordingly 
 
 denote that death will not destroy the Church of 
 
 Christ. The Church will never become extinct ; on 
 
 the contrary one generation of Christians shall arise 
 
 after another even to the end of time; a promise which 
 
 has as yet been most amply and fully verified. Or, 
 
 perhaps, there is an allusion to the resurrection of the 
 
 just. Hades shall not retain those consigned to it ; 
 
 the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death ; the 
 
 closed gates of Hades shall at length be thrown open, 
 
 and the ransomed souls of the saints shall issue forth 
 
 to be united with their raised bodies, and thus to 
 
 participate in the resurrection of the just. 
 
 The blessing pronounced on St. Peter is twofold, 
 the custody of the keys, and the authority to bind and 
 
 ^ Thus we speak of the Ottoman, or Sublime Porte. 
 
36 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 loose on earth with such effect as shall be ratified in 
 
 heaven. The first privilege mentioned is the custody 
 
 of the keys. " I will give unto thee the keys of the 
 
 kingdom of heaven ; " Acocrco aoi Ta<i KXeU tt)? ^aaiXeia^ 
 
 Twv ovpavwv. The kingdom of heaven is the same as 
 
 the Church of Christ. " On this rock will I build My 
 
 Church." The most natural meaning of the metaphor 
 
 employed is, that to St. Peter was to be assigned the 
 
 privilege of granting admission into the Church. Our 
 
 Lord here represents His Church under the image of 
 
 a fortress built upon a rock, and to St. Peter was 
 
 consigned the keys of this fortress. Thus it is said of 
 
 Eliakim : " And the key of the house of David will I 
 
 lay upon his shoulder " (Isa. xxii. 22) ; he was to have 
 
 the power of admitting to or excluding from the king's 
 
 palace. So St. Peter was to exercise the same power 
 
 with reference to the Church of Christ. Under the 
 
 Mosaic dispensation, the Church of God was barred ; 
 
 the gates were closed against the Gentiles, and in a 
 
 great measure against the Jews themselves ; but these 
 
 bars and hindrances were to be removed, the gates 
 
 were to be thrown open, the Jewish dispensation was 
 
 to come to an end, the Church of God was no longer 
 
 to be confined to a particular nation, but to embrace 
 
 the whole world. St. Peter is here commanded, by 
 
 the special favour of Christ, to open the kingdom 
 
 of heaven for the admission of mankind. And this 
 
 commission he executed, being the first of all the 
 
 apostles to preach the Gospel both to Jews and 
 
 Gentiles. When the day of Pentecost was come, St. 
 
Our Lord's Blessing to Peter, 
 
 i3 
 
 Peter, we are told, standing up with the eleven, lifted 
 up his voice, and addressed the Jews with such success 
 that on that day three thousand were added to the 
 Church. And he also was fixed upon by divine revela- 
 tion to open the Church to the Gentiles, when he 
 preached the Gospel to Cornelius and his company, 
 the first Gentile converts. Hence, in the council of 
 Jerusalem, he said : " Men and brethren, ye know that 
 a good while ago God made choice among us, that the 
 Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the 
 Gospel and believe " (Acts xv. 7). 
 
 The second privilege conferred on St. Peter was 
 the power of binding and loosing on earth with such 
 an effect as shall be ratified in heaven : koX eav 
 B>jcrr]<i iirl Trj<; 7%, ecTTac SeSefievov iv rot? ovpavba ' koX 
 t eav \v(T7}'i eVl t^? 7779, earai \e\v[xevov iu rot? 
 ovpavoh. Some consider that this privilege contains 
 an explanation of what is meant by " the keys of 
 the kingdom of heaven," and that the clauses are in 
 apposition : but it is more natural to consider them 
 as different privileges. Now, although the custody of 
 the keys — the privilege of opening the Church — was 
 peculiar to St. Peter, being conferred on him as an 
 individual ; yet this second privilege, whatever its 
 meaning may be, was extended to all the apostles. 
 The same evangelist who records the promise made 
 to St. Peter, mentions the extension of the same 
 promise to all the apostles : " Verily I say unto you, 
 Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in 
 heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall 
 
38 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 be loosed in heaven" (Matt, xviii. 18). The explana- 
 tion given of the words bind and loose are various ; 
 the general meaning assigned to them is to forbid 
 and alloiv ; ^ but they would rather seem to mean to 
 retain and remit. For example, the apostles exer- 
 cised this power in loosing the obligation of the 
 Mosaic law in the ceremonial, and in binding it in 
 the moral part ; and with reference to the (gentiles, 
 they bound them to some precepts and loosed them 
 from others. " It seemed good to the Holy Ghost 
 and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than 
 those necessary things ; that ye abstain from meats 
 offered to idols, and from blood, and from things 
 strangled, and from fornication " (Acts xv. 28, 29). 
 Thus, their binding and loosing on earth was ratified 
 by the Holy Ghost in heaven. So, also, St. Paul 
 exercised this authority when he inflicted miraculous 
 punishment on Elymas ; and St. Peter, when he 
 loosed the lame man of his infirmity at the beautiful 
 gate of the temple. St. Peter did so when he 
 baptised Cornelius and his household, and admitted 
 them into the Church of Christ ; and St. Paul, when 
 he excommunicated the incestuous person at Corinth, 
 delivering him to Satan for the destruction of the 
 flesh, that the spirit might be saved in the day of 
 the Lord. It does not appear, however, that this 
 authority extended to the retention and remission 
 of sins ; except so far as there are traces of an 
 apostolic power of inflicting miraculous punishment 
 ^ See Meyer hi loco. Mansel in the Speaker's Commentary. 
 
Our Lord's Blessing to Peter. 39 
 
 on the obdurate, and of removing them from the 
 penitent (Acts xiii. ii ; i Cor. v, 5 ; Jas. v. 15). 
 
 It is matter of great controversy whether this 
 blessing of our Lord to St. Peter conferred on him 
 any supremacy above the other apostles. This is 
 maintained by the Roman Catholic divines, and 
 is admitted by many Protestants, Thus Meyer 
 observes : " There can be no doubt whatever that the 
 primacy among the apostles is here assigned to Peter, 
 inasmuch as Christ singles him out as one in parti- 
 cular whose apostolic labours will, in virtue of the 
 steadfast faith for which he is peculiarly distinguished, 
 be the means of securing, so far as human effort can 
 do so, the permanence and stability of the Church 
 which Jesus is about to found, and to extend it more 
 and more in the world. As in accordance with this, 
 we may also mention the precedence given to this 
 disciple in the catalogues of the apostles, and like- 
 wise the fact that the New Testament uniformly 
 represents him as being, in point of fact, superior to all 
 the others (Acts xv. 7; ii. 14; Gal. i. 18; ii. 7, 8)." 
 But this remark must be taken with considerable 
 limitation ; that St. Peter had a certain priority 
 among the apostles is admitted, but it was a priority 
 of order and not of authority, and even that priority 
 was temporary and not permanent. The privilege of 
 being a rock on which the Church was to be built, 
 and the power of binding and loosing were not 
 conferred on him alone, but on all the apostles. 
 The custody of the keys gave him no authority 
 
40 Exegetical Shidies. 
 
 over the rest, and besides, was of a temporary 
 and not of a permanent nature. Our Lord dis- 
 countenanced all idea of the supremacy and authority 
 of one apostle over the rest. " The princes of this 
 world," He says, " exercise dominion over them, and 
 they that are great exercise authority upon them ; 
 but it shall not be so among you, for whosoever 
 will be great among you, let him be your minister ; 
 and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be 
 your servant" (Matt, xx. 25-27). He gave to His 
 apostles the same commission, and invested them 
 with the same powers ; and when the Son of Man 
 shall sit on the throne of His glory, they shall also sit 
 on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 
 Nor did the apostles understand that these words of 
 our Lord granted to St. Peter any authority over them, 
 for there is no trace of it in the history of the Church. 
 On the contrary, we find them afterwards disputing 
 among themselves who should be the greatest. In the 
 council of Jerusalem, it was St. James, not St. Peter, 
 who presided. St. Peter, instead of sending the other 
 apostles, was sent by them (Acts viii. 14). St. Paul, 
 so far from considering that St. Peter had any 
 supremacy, rebuked him when guilty of dissimulation 
 at Antioch. And after the council of Jerusalem, 
 St. Peter steps into the background, and is seldom 
 mentioned in the New Testament. 
 
 But, whether our Lord's blessing conferred a 
 supremacy on St. Peter or not, certainly no argument 
 can be drawn from the words to justify the preten- 
 
Our Lord's Blessing to Peter. 41 
 
 sions of the Church of Rome. These pretensions rest 
 on the assertion that a supremacy over the apostles 
 was granted to St. Peter ; that St. Peter, as bishop of 
 Rome, transmitted all his authority and power to the 
 Roman pontiffs, who are his successors. It is, how- 
 ever, a matter of considerable doubt whether St. Peter 
 was ever at Rome ; certainly the Church of Rome was 
 not founded by him ; there is no allusion to him in 
 the Epistles of St. Paul written from that city, and 
 the earliest Fathers are silent on the matter.^ But, 
 admitting that our Lord's blessing gave to St. Peter 
 a supremacy over the other apostles, and further 
 admitting that St. Peter was bishop of Rome, it is 
 an immense leap from these premisses to the conclu- 
 sion that he transmitted his powers to the bishops of 
 Rome. The blessing was limited to St. Peter ; the 
 words were addressed to him as an individual, to the 
 exclusion of the apostles his contemporaries, and 
 much more of the Roman pontiffs who pretend to be 
 his successors. Besides, the assumption that the 
 Roman pontiff possesses the supremacy granted to 
 St. Peter involves in it this manifest absurdity, that 
 the Apostle John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, and 
 who also leaned upon His breast at supper, must have 
 been subordinate and subject to the bishop of Rome 
 during the years he survived the martyrdom of St. 
 Peter. The pretensions of the Church of Rome 
 founded on this passage are evidently baseless and 
 
 ^ There is, however, some reason to suppose that by Babylon men- 
 tioned in I Peter v. 13, the city of Rome is meant. 
 
42 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 extravagant. Whatever be its meaning, it certainly 
 cannot possibly denote that our Lord had in view- 
 either the Roman pontiffs as the successors of St. 
 Peter, or the supremacy of the Church of Rome. 
 
EXPOSITION III. 
 
 SALTED WITH FIRE. 
 
 Mark ix. 49. 
 
 Textus recepttts. — Tlag yao nr'o^i aXiS^rtdirai, xal irada, dvsia 
 aXi cckiedriCirai. 
 
 Authorised Version. — For every one shall be salted with 
 fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. 
 
 Revised Version. — For every one shall be salted with fire. 
 
 The text selected for exposition is one of mucli 
 difficulty, as may be seen from the vast variety of 
 interpretations which have been given to it. It is 
 certainly the most obscure passage in the gospel of 
 St. Mark. To whom do the words "every one" (7ra9) 
 allude ? Are they to be taken absolutely to denote 
 all mankind, or are they limited by the context to a 
 particular class? And if limited, to what class, to 
 the wicked or to believers ? What is denoted by the 
 apparently incongruous expression " salted with fire " 
 (irvpl aXiaOrjcreTai) ? What fire is alluded to ? Is it 
 the fire of Gehenna into which the wicked are cast, 
 or the fire of trial by which the righteous are purified? 
 What is meant by the salt with which every sacrifice 
 
 43 
 
44 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 is salted ? And what idea has to be attached to the 
 term salted ? These are questions which have been 
 very differently answered. The omission of the 
 second clause, as in the Revised Version, some- 
 what lessens the difificulty, since it gives greater 
 freedom to the interpretation ; but it does so only to 
 a limited extent, as the main difficulty is contained in 
 the first clause, " For every one shall be salted with 
 fire." To attain to the correct interpretation, we 
 must carefully attend to the context, with which the 
 text is joined by the conjunction " for " (vap) ; 
 assigning a reason for what our Saviour had just said. 
 And, supposing both clauses to be genuine, we must 
 be careful to maintain a uniform meaning of the 
 metaphorical term '^salted" (aXLaOija-erai) in both its 
 applications " salted with fire " and " salted with salt." 
 By these methods the obscurity of the passage may be 
 removed and a correct meaning obtained. 
 
 The first thing to be done is to settle the text. 
 The Revised Version omits the second clause, but 
 appends the following marginal note : " Many ancient 
 authorities add and every sacrifice shall be salted with 
 salt. See Lev, ii. 13." Here, however, we consider the 
 Revised Version in error : the decided preponderance 
 of authorities is in favour of the retention of the clause. 
 In favour of its omission are only the two celebrated 
 MSS., the Vatican and the Sinaitic, two other uncial 
 (L. J), and about eleven cursive MSS. The Vatican 
 and Sinaitic belong to the same recension, indeed 
 Tischendorf affirms that the writer of the Vatican was 
 
Salted with Fire. 45 
 
 employed in writing part of the Sinaitic, a statement 
 which, however, appears highly improbable ; so that 
 these MSS. are almost to be considered as one witness. 
 On the other hand, the words are contained in fifteen 
 uncial MSS., among which are the important MSS., the 
 Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Ephraemi, and the 
 Codex Bezae, in the great majority of the cursive MSS., 
 and in the most important versions — the old Italic, the 
 Peshito, and the Vulgate. The external evidence being 
 so decidedly in favour of the passage, little weight is to 
 be attached to the internal evidence. It is affirmed that 
 Lev. ii. 13 suggested the clause; but, whatever probabil- 
 ity is in this, it is outweighed by the consideration that 
 the clause augments the difficulty of exegesis, and that 
 it is in direct connection with what follows : " Salt is 
 good," namely, the salt by which every sacrifice is 
 salted, " but if the salt has lost his saltness, wherewith 
 will ye season it ? " The words are retained by 
 Griesbach, Lachmann, Meyer, Alford, and Tischendorf 
 in his seventh edition ; and are rejected by Tischendorf 
 in his eighth edition, in which the Sinaitic MS. 
 exercises an undue influence, and by Westcott and 
 Hort, on whose text chiefly the Revised Version is 
 formed. 
 
 The exegesis of the passage is as follows. For {'yap), 
 the connecting particle joins the words with what pre- 
 cedes, assigning a reason for them. Some restrict it to 
 the last clause, " their worm dieth not," and refer what 
 follows to the previous avroiv; but others, more 
 naturally, extend it to the entire paragraph — to the 
 
46 Exegetical Studies, 
 
 denunciations or warnings of our Lord. Every one 
 (7ra<i), by some taken absolutely, by others restricted 
 by the context : this will be the subject of future 
 determination. Shall be salted {aKiaQr\(TeraC) : the 
 verb aXt'^ft) signifies to salt, to sprinkle or season with 
 salt ; here it is evidently to be taken in a metaphori- 
 cal sense ; which may either be " to preserve " or " to 
 purify " — salt being in Scripture the symbol of Divine 
 grace — only we must be careful to retain the same 
 meaning in both clauses. With fire (irvpl) : both 
 datives Trvpl and dXl are to be taken instrumentally ; 
 and therefore irvpl is not " for the fire," but " with 
 fire." This may either be the fire of Gehenna, as in 
 the former verse (to irvp, verse 48), or the fire of trial 
 (i Cor. iii. 13), or the fire of purification (i Peter i. 7), 
 depending upon the meaning assigned to the rest of 
 the clause. ^«(^ (/tat), the simple copulative, uniting 
 the two clauses; not to be rendered "just as" (&>?), 
 according to some, or " but " (Se) according to others ; 
 there does not appear to be any antithesis between the 
 clauses. Every sacrifice (iraaa Ovcria), to be taken 
 metaphorically, not to be applied to actual sacrifices, 
 but denoting men or their acts of self-denial. Shall be 
 salted with salt {aXi oKLcrdrjcreTai) ; salt being an 
 essential part in the Jewish sacrifices. 
 
 In the last clause, "salted with salt," we have a 
 distinct reference to the custom under the Mosaic law 
 of sprinkling the meat-offerings with salt. It is not 
 improbable that our Lord quotes the words from 
 Leviticus ii. 13: "And every oblation of thy meat- 
 
Salted with Fire. 47 
 
 offering shalt thou season with salt ; neither shalt 
 thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be 
 lacking from thy meat-offering ; with all thine offer- 
 ings thou shalt offer salt." Salt appears to be the 
 emblem of consecration ; it was so used, not only by 
 the Jews, but by the heathen in their religious services. 
 The meat-offering salted with salt was thus solemnly 
 consecrated to God, set apart from a common to a 
 sacred use, and thus legally purified. Salt, also, is 
 the emblem of perpetuity, and hence we read of a 
 covenant of salt — a perpetual covenant. " All the 
 heave-offerings of the holy things, which the children 
 of Israel offer unto the Lord, have I given thee, and 
 thy sons and thy daughters with thee, by a statute 
 for ever : it is a covenant of salt for ever before the 
 Lord unto thee and to thy seed with thee" (Num. 
 xviii, 19). "Ought ye not to know that the Lord 
 God of Israel gave the kingdom over Israel to David 
 for ever, even to him and to his sons by a covenant of 
 salt ? " (2 Chron. xiii. 5). And hence the sacrificial 
 salt is called the salt of the covenant (Lev. ii. 13). 
 
 There are several interpretations which may be 
 dismissed without further consideration as being 
 highly improbable, contrary to the context, or 
 linguistically inadmissible. Thus some apply both 
 clauses to the lost, and understand the word salted 
 in the sense of preserved. "For," introducing the 
 reason of the eternal punishment of the condemned, 
 " every one," that is every one of the condemned, 
 " shall be salted with fire " — shall be preserved from 
 
48 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 annihilation in the fire of Gehenna — " and," or just as, 
 " every sacrifice shall be salted " — preserved from 
 corruption — " with salt." This interpretation is too 
 horrible to be admitted, and is in direct opposition 
 to what follows. " Salt is good," which evidently 
 supposes the salt, with which the sacrifice is salted, as 
 a figure for something that is good ; and, besides, the 
 salt of the sacrifice was under the law the emblem of 
 consecration to God, and not of eternal destruction. 
 
 Another interpretation is to translate Tvvpi " for the 
 fire." " Every one shall be salted for the fire ; " but 
 denoting thereby, not the fire of Gehenna, but the 
 sacrifice of consecration. Every one shall be salted 
 for the fire of God's altar ; that is, shall be prepared 
 to be offered a sacrifice to God, holy and acceptable, 
 as every sacrifice is salted with salt ; in contrast to 
 the condition of the wicked, who shall be consumed 
 in the unquenchable fire.^ This gives a pleasing 
 interpretation, and one to which we would gladly 
 assent, but it is grammatically inadmissible. It gives 
 a different rendering to the two datives irvpl and dXl 
 — salted for the fire and salted luztk salt, both must 
 be taken instrumentally, "with fire" and "with 
 salt." 
 
 Dismissing these then, and other interpretations, 
 there are three which require special attention, each 
 depending on the meaning to be assigned to Tra?, 
 " every one " : by one class of critics, the word is 
 limited to the wicked ; by a second class, it is under- 
 
 ^ The view taken by Macknight. 
 
Salted with Fire. 49 
 
 stood absolutely ; and by a third class, it is restricted 
 to believers. 
 
 I. The first class of critics limit 7ra9 to the wicked. 
 They suppose that the fire must be the same as that 
 mentioned in the previous verse — the fire of Gehenna, 
 and hence they consider 7ra? to be limited by the 
 context — every one of those whose worm dieth not, 
 and whose fire is not quenched — that is every one of 
 the impenitent — shall be salted with fire. And the 
 second clause is supposed to be a contrast to the 
 former " every sacrifice " — every one who has dedi- 
 cated himself to God "shall be salted with salt" — 
 solemnly consecrated and accepted by God. The 
 wicked are likened to the burnt-offering, which is 
 salted with fire — wholly consumed ; the righteous are 
 likened to the meat-offering, which is salted with salt 
 — consecrated to God. There are, according to this 
 view, two antitheses : the condemned sinner, reserved 
 for Gehenna, and the believer, the acceptable sacrifice ; 
 fire as the instrument of the punishment of the 
 wicked, and salt as the emblem of the purification of 
 the believer.^ The whole sentence is thus paraphrased 
 by Meyer : " With warrant I speak of their fire 
 (ver. 48) ; for every one of those who come into 
 Gehenna will be salted therein with fire, — that is, 
 none of them will escape the doom of having repre- 
 sented in him, by means of fire, that which is done 
 
 ^ This opinion has been adopted by Grotius, Kuinoel, Doddridge, 
 Lightfoot, Whitby, and especially Meyer, the greatest of our modern 
 exegetes. 
 
 E 
 
50 Exegetical Shidies. 
 
 in sacrifices by means of salt, namely, the im- 
 perishable validity of the divine covenant ; mid every 
 sacrifice, that is every pious man unseduced, who, as 
 such, resembles a (pure) sacrifice shall be salted with 
 salt, that is shall, at his entrance into the Messianic 
 kingdom by reception of higher wisdom, represent in 
 himself that validity of the divine covenant ; as in 
 the case of the actual sacrifice this is effected by its 
 becoming salted." 
 
 Such an interpretation is liable to great objections. 
 I. It appears to be artificial and unnatural. The 
 limitation of tto? to the avTow of the previous verse, 
 *' their worm dieth not " is forced and unnecessary. 
 7ap evidently refers to the whole previous state- 
 ment, giving the reason why we should make 
 sacrifices — cut off our foot or hand, and pluck out our 
 eye, in order to escape falling into Gehenna. 2. It 
 does not give a uniform meaning to the word salted. 
 In the second clause, salted denotes consecrated to 
 God ; but it has not this meaning in the first clause, 
 it rather denotes preserved for punishment. 3. It 
 supposes a contrast or antithesis to exist between the 
 first and second clauses which is not suggested by 
 the text ; the simple copulative koX, and not the 
 adversative copula Se being employed. The anti- 
 thesis would require to be expressed by " burned 
 with fire " and " salted with salt." 4. It almost 
 necessitates us to use the datives in different senses. 
 Salted, that is preserved for the fire ; salted, that is 
 consecrated with salt. 5. And lastly, the meaning 
 
Salted with Fire. 5 1 
 
 given to the first clause is a meaning which one 
 shrinks to adopt — preserved alive, notwithstanding 
 the consuming nature of fire. 
 
 IL A second class of critics understand Tra? abso- 
 lutely, as denoting every man. They consider that 
 there is no necessary limitation expressed in the 
 context, and that 7ra9 is consequently to be taken 
 generally : every one without exception — believers as 
 well as the wicked — "shall be salted with fire." 
 According to this view, the fire mentioned is not the 
 fire of Gehenna, but the fire of trial which shall test 
 the character of all. Fire is in Scripture the symbol 
 of the Divine purity and presence. " Our God is a 
 consuming fire," not only to the wicked but to His 
 people ; a fire which consumes the dross, but leaves 
 untouched the pure metal. This emblem is frequently 
 employed in Scripture : " That the trial of your 
 faith, being much more precious than of gold which 
 perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found 
 unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of 
 Jesus Christ" (i Pet. i. 7). "Think it not strange 
 concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as 
 though some strange thing happened unto you " 
 (i Pet. iv. 12). All are tried in the fire— salted with 
 fire — cast into the furnace. To the righteous the fire 
 is purifying ; it burns up all that is impure, consumes 
 the dross, so that they come forth from it as gold 
 tested in the furnace. But to the wicked the fire is 
 penal ; if there is nothing but dross, no precious metal, 
 it will only consume. To the righteous the very fire 
 
52 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 of trial becomes a consecrating salt ; every sacrifice is 
 salted with salt — purified unto the Lord ; not only- 
 are the persons themselves accepted, but the sacrifices 
 which they have made, their acts of self-denial for the 
 sake of religion ; the fire is converted into the salt of 
 divine grace — a salt which must carefully be preserved. 
 " Salt is good ; but if the salt has lost his saltness 
 wherewith shall it be salted." Hence, according to 
 this interpretation, the meaning of the words is as 
 follows : " If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out : it 
 is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God 
 with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into 
 hell fire : where their worm dieth not, and the fire is 
 not quenched : for," as a reason assigned for this 
 admonition, " every one," both the wicked and the 
 righteous, " shall be salted with fire " — both shall pass 
 through a fiery trial ; in the case of the wicked, the 
 fire is penal, in the case of the righteous it is purifying, 
 and becomes as the salt of consecration ; " and every 
 sacrifice shall be salted with salt," purified and pre- 
 served for God.^ Thus Olshausen observes : " The 
 sense of the expression is this : because of the general 
 sinfulness of the race, every individual must be salted 
 with fire, either on the one hand by his entering 
 voluntarily on a course of self-denial and earnest 
 purification from his iniquities, or on the other hand 
 by being carried involuntarily into the place of 
 punishment ; and therefore (in order to be a sym- 
 
 ^ This opinion has been adopted by Bengal, Olshausen, Dean 
 Bickersteth, Schaff, and Alford. 
 
Salted with Fire. 53 
 
 bolical type of this spiritual transaction) every 
 sacrifice is (as it is written) to be salted with salt." 
 
 This interpretation is more plausible and appro- 
 priate than the former. It gives the full meaning to 
 7ra9 ; and affords a sense in which " every one is 
 salted with fire," The fire tries all without exception, 
 both those who deny themselves, and those who are 
 cast into the fire of Gehenna. Still, however, it is not 
 free from objections. The term salted (aXto-^jyVexat), 
 is not used in the same sense in both clauses ; in the 
 first clause it denotes tried or tested, a meaning which 
 does not belong to it in Scripture. Salt there denotes 
 purification or consecration, but not trial ; whereas, 
 in the second clause, it retains its proper metaphori- 
 cal meaning, consecration for God. Besides no 
 satisfactory meaning can be given to the second 
 clause ; Tra? in the first clause is used in an unrestricted 
 sense, whereas in the second clause, in Tracro Ovcna, it 
 is necessarily restricted to the righteous. Of course if 
 this second clause be omitted, the meaning assigned 
 to the first clause would be less liable to objection ; 
 but the authorities in favour of the retention of that 
 clause are so preponderant, that, notwithstanding the 
 reading of the Authorised Version, it cannot be con- 
 sidered as an interpolation. 
 
 III. The third class of critics limit Tra? to believers. 
 JTa?, according to this view, is not to be taken absolutely, 
 but is limited by the context. Just as in the clauses 
 " every one that heareth the word," " every one who is 
 perfect shall be as his Master," " every man at the 
 
/ 
 
 54 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 beginning doth set forth good wine," the general term 
 Tra? is necessarily limited; so is it in the clause, "every- 
 one shall be salted with fire." The meaning being, 
 " every one who is salted shall be salted with fire," 
 Now, in the New Testament, salt, when employed 
 metaphorically, is always used in a good sense, as the 
 emblem of purification or consecration, or as a 
 metaphor for the grace of God. Thus St. Paul says, 
 " Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with 
 salt" (Col, iv. 6), And our Lord, addressing His 
 disciples, says, " Ye are the salt of the earth " (Matt, 
 V. 13), preserving it from corruption. And in the 
 verse following our text, it is said : " Salt is good. 
 Have salt in yourselves and have peace one with 
 another." Hence then, "shall be salted " {akKTOrjo-eraC) 
 must denote shall be consecrated or purified ; and 
 consequently it follows that the fire {irvpl) here men- 
 tioned cannot be the fire of Gehenna or of eternal 
 punishment, but the purifying fire of trial — that fire 
 which purifies but does not consume. The words, then, 
 are to be taken as expressing a reason why the believer 
 should submit to trials and acts of self-denial for the 
 sake of religion, " It is better for thee to enter into 
 life halt or maimed than having two hands or two 
 feet to be cast into hell fire ; for such acts of self- 
 denial are essential, because every one who is salted 
 or purified, must be salted or purified with fire — the 
 fire of conflict and of trial — he must submit to these 
 acts of self-denial ; and every sacrifice, every one 
 who consecrates himself to God or denies himself 
 
Salted with Fire, 55 
 
 for His sake, shall be salted or purified with salt, 
 with divine grace." The importance of self-sacrifice 
 is here insisted on ; we must cut off our right hand 
 or right foot, or pluck out our right eye, if called upon, 
 rather than incur the danger of being cast into hell 
 fire.^ "According to Mark's gospel," observes 
 Calvin, "our Lord, having spoken of eternal fire, 
 exhorts His own people, on the contrary, to offer 
 themselves now to God to be seasoned tvith fire and 
 salt, that they may be devoted sacrifices, and that 
 they may not draw down upon themselves by their 
 sins ^2Xfire which is never extinguished." 
 
 This interpretation we consider to be the correct 
 one ; it is agreeable to the context, giving the reason 
 why we should make painful sacrifices for religion ; 
 it retains the same meaning of akKjOrja-erai, shall be 
 purified, in both clauses ; and it enforces a lesson 
 upon the disciples, full of importance and yet hard to 
 accept, that we must be purified by trial. In con- 
 formity with this meaning, the passage may thus be 
 paraphrased : " Let it not seem to you a hard saying 
 that I require painful acts of self-denial, for every 
 one of you, my disciples, must, as it were, be salted 
 with fire, pass through the fire of tribulation in order 
 to be purified, and, as with the sacrifices under the law, 
 every sacrifice had to be salted with salt, so every one 
 of you shall be purified with divine grace." The idea 
 is somewhat similar to the expression being " baptised 
 with the Holy Ghost and with fire "(Matt. iii. 1 1). 
 ^ This opinion has been adopted by Calvin, Luther, and Lange. 
 
56 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 The great lesson taught us is the purifying nature 
 of trial. Trial is the fire of the great Refiner. 
 Afflictions are sent with a most merciful purpose to 
 the people of God, in order to purify them, to remove 
 every thing that is sinful and impure and wrong, 
 and to advance the work of grace within them — to 
 call into exercise and to strengthen the graces of 
 their Christian character. God chastens us that we 
 may be made partakers of His holiness, and our 
 light afflictions work out for us a far more exceeding, 
 even an eternal weight of glory. Believers are made 
 perfect through suffering, and it is only through 
 tribulation that they can enter into the kingdom of 
 heaven. The precious metal must be cast into the 
 furnace so that all the earthly dross that cleaves to it 
 may be burned up, and must be polished and purified, 
 until the great Refiner Himself sees His own image re- 
 flected in it. The infinite purity of God is a consuming 
 fire which burns up all that is unholy and impure. And 
 thus it happens that the most tried Christian is gene- 
 rally the most advanced Christian, the most conformed 
 to the moral likeness of God. The more the believer 
 is tried, the more he exercises a strict guard over his 
 conduct, and the more he practises self-denial, the 
 purer does his character become. " He is preserved 
 from corruption, and consequently from everlasting 
 destruction, by the fire of unsparing self-sacrifice." 
 
 But we must remember that affliction may be 
 deprived of its efficacy, and even the very grace of 
 God may be so perverted as to be rendered useless. 
 
Salted with Fire. 57 
 
 " Every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Salt is 
 good ; but if the salt have lost his saltness wherewith 
 will ye season it ? Have salt in yourselves." We 
 must preserve the fruits of the Spirit in all their 
 freshness and vigour. This can only be done by 
 careful watchfulness, strict attention to our heart and 
 conduct, earnest prayer, and the exercises of self- 
 denial. By neglect or carelessness, by relaxing our 
 endeavours, religion will grow cold and languid ; we 
 will decline in the divine life, and lose our impressions 
 of sacred things. And so it is with all the best things 
 which God has bestowed on us ; by our negligence 
 the salt may lose its saltness. Thus, even the glorious 
 Gospel of the grace of God itself may be preached in 
 such a cold manner, or so mutilated and distorted, as 
 not only to lose its entire efficacy, but to become the 
 savour of death unto death. The conduct of believers 
 in the world may be so inconsistent and imperfect, or so 
 devoid of living earnestness, as to influence their fellow- 
 men for evil rather than for good — as to promote luke- 
 warmness rather than excite to a living and healthy 
 piety. And affliction, the design of which is to purify 
 and soften, may have a directly opposite effect, that of 
 hardening and increasing our insensibility. If the 
 salt has lost its savour — if the grace of God be per- 
 verted and abused — there is nothing to restore that 
 savour; nothing wherewith the salt can again be salted. 
 
EXPOSITION IV. 
 
 THE WOMEN AT THE CROSS. 
 
 John xix. 25. 
 
 Textus recephis. — E/Cr^xs/ffav h\ rraoa rSi erav^Oj ro\J ^Itjsou 
 jj nrjTr;^ avrov, xa/ 7] adsX(pri rrjs fij^r^og avrov, Ma^/a rj tou 
 KXwira, xal Mag/a vj MaySaXjjvjj. 
 
 Authorised Version. — Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, 
 His mother, and His mother's sister, Marj', the -wife of Cleophas, 
 and Mary Magdalene. 
 
 Revised Version. — But there were standing by the cross of 
 Jesus, His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary, the wife of 
 Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 
 
 The evangelist Luke informs us that our blessed 
 Lord, during His public ministry, was accompanied 
 by female disciples. Pious women belonging to 
 Galilee became attached to His ministry and His 
 person. They followed Him when He preached the 
 Gospel in the cities and villages of the district. The 
 names of these women are recorded to their eternal 
 honour ; and their devotedness to the Lord is held in 
 perpetual remembrance. " And it came to pass after- 
 ward," writes St. Luke, "that He went throughout 
 
 every city and village, preaching and showing the 
 58 
 
The Wome7i at the Cross. 59 
 
 glad tidings of the kingdom of God ; and the twelve 
 were with Him, and certain women which had been 
 healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called 
 Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, and 
 Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, and Sus- 
 anna, and many others, which ministered unto Him 
 of their substance" (Luke viii. 1-3). To these have 
 to be added Mary, the wife of Cleophas, mentioned 
 in our passage, and Salome, the mother of James and 
 John, the sons of Zebedee (Matt, .xxxvii. 55, 56; 
 Mark xv. 40, 41). They, at least those mentioned by 
 St. Luke, were probably women in affluent circum- 
 stances, and high social positions ; one of them, we 
 are informed, was the wife of a nobleman high in 
 office in the court of Herod, the tetrach of Galilee, 
 
 The women who ministered to our Lord's wants in 
 Galilee, accompanied Him on His last journey to 
 Jerusalem. They followed Him to the cross. When all 
 His male disciples forsook Him, they continued firm 
 in their attachment to the close. They were doubt- 
 less among that great company of people and of 
 women who followed bewailing and lamenting Him, 
 and whom our Lord addressed on His way to Calvary 
 (Luke xxiii. 27). They were present at the cruci- 
 fixion ; " they stood by the cross of Jesus." At first, 
 during the preparations for that awful tragedy, they 
 would be constrained to stand afar off (Luke xxiii. 49) ; 
 the Roman soldiers would prevent them approach- 
 ing ; but afterwards they would gradually draw 
 near, lamenting the cruel fate of Him whom they 
 
6o Exegetical Studies. 
 
 regarded as their Lord and Master, the Saviour who 
 had come to redeem Israel. 
 
 Nor were these women absent from the sepulchre. 
 They came before all the disciples with their spices 
 and ointments. Before the day began to dawn, while 
 it was yet dark, they might be seen approaching the 
 tomb. Nothing could detach them from their Master; 
 even death itself could not sever the cords of their 
 affection. As they followed Him when living, so 
 they came to anoint His body when dead ; for they 
 were the same women who ministered to His wants in 
 Galilee, who were present at the cross and the sepulchre. 
 
 I. The first of these pious women, mentioned as 
 standing by the cross of Jesus is His mother, the 
 Blessed Virgin : 97 MTnp avrov. This circumstance is 
 only mentioned by St. John ; St. Matthew and St. 
 Mark mention the other women by name, but they 
 are silent as to the presence of the Virgin. Probably 
 she stood apart from the rest, not belonging to the 
 group, attended by the beloved disciple. It is pro- 
 bable also that she was not present at the time alluded 
 to by the other evangelists, as she would have been 
 early withdrawn by St. John from so terrible a 
 sight. Mary was present at the crucifixion ; but who 
 will attempt to describe her agony of soul? The 
 ancient painters represent her as veiled at the cross, 
 as hers was a sorrow too sacred and too awful to 
 look upon. She saw her Son, that Son who had 
 been promised by an angel, and miraculously born ; 
 that Son whom she had brought up, and who had 
 
The Women at the Cross. 6 1 
 
 remained with her for thirty years ; that Son who 
 had performed such wonderful and beneficent works, 
 cured the diseased, cleansed the lepers, and raised 
 the dead ; that Son whom she loved as a mother and 
 adored as her Saviour ; that Son who had collected 
 around Him all the best spirits of the nation, and 
 whom a few days before Israel seemed ready to 
 acknowledge as their king, fallen a prey to His 
 enemies, nailed to the cross, and dying a malefactor's 
 death. Then would the words of old Simeon be 
 recalled, for they now received their fulfilment, "Yea 
 a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also." 
 Jesus comforts the sorrowful woman ; in the midst of 
 His cruel agony He addresses her from the cross, and 
 commends her to the care of His dearest friend 
 (John xix. 26, 27). 
 
 We may, perhaps, in the course of this exposition 
 find a natural reason why Jesus intrusted John with 
 the care of His mother, but spiritual reasons are 
 obvious enough. " It presupposes," as Meyer observes, 
 " the certainty in His mind that generally to no other 
 hand could this dear legacy be so well intrusted." 
 And what a blessed provision was thus made for 
 both ! The two dearest friends of Jesus, the two 
 who entered most deeply into His heart of hearts, 
 were now associated in spiritual relationship, could 
 now communicate their holy thoughts to each other, 
 converse about Him whom they so ardently 
 loved and adored ; and just because at the cross 
 they suffered the most deeply, so they could enter 
 
62 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 the more keenly into each other's feelings. This, 
 with the exception of a casual allusion in the Acts 
 (i. 14), is the last mention which we have in Scripture 
 of the blessed Virgin. We are not informed whether 
 our Lord manifested Himself to her after His resur- 
 rection, or whether she was present at the ascension. 
 Had the gospels been mere fictitious narratives, 
 written for the sake of sensation, such circumstances 
 would have been detailed at length ; their silence 
 on these points is a proof of genuineness. According 
 to one tradition, John would not leave Jerusalem 
 until after the death of Mary ; according to another, 
 she accompanied the apostle to Ephesus, where she 
 died in extreme old age. By some it was believed 
 that she was buried at Gethsemane, and by others at 
 Ephesus. 
 
 IL The second woman mentioned is the sister of 
 the Virgin : 97 dBeX^rj ti]<; /jbr}Tpo<i avrov. It is gene- 
 rally supposed that only three women are mentioned as 
 standing by the cross — the Virgin, her sister, and Mary 
 Magdalene ; and that the sister of our Lord's mother 
 is further designated as " Mary, the wife of Cleophas." 
 This, however, has lately been called in question. 
 It is affirmed that four women are here mentioned, 
 named in pairs ; the first pair being our Lord's 
 mother and her sister, whose name, for a reason 
 afterwards to be assigned, is not here stated, and 
 the second pair being the two Marys — Mary, the 
 wife of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene. On this 
 supposition the sister of our Lord's mother and 
 
The Women at the Cross. 63 
 
 Mary, the wife of Cleophas, are to be regarded as 
 different persons. The following are the reasons 
 for this opinion : — i. It avoids the difficulty of 
 supposing that our Lord's mother and her sister had 
 the same name, both being called Mary. Such a 
 coincidence may sometimes occur. Instances have 
 been given of families where two sisters have the 
 same names. Thus it is stated that Maria, Maria- 
 Pia, and Maria-Immaculata, were the names of the 
 three sisters of a Neapolitan king ; and the writer 
 of this exposition was acquainted with a family 
 where two sisters were called Maria and Mary. But 
 such a coincidence of names is rare, and consequently 
 improbable. To escape this objection, some suppose 
 that the word aSeXc/)?; is not to be taken in a strict 
 sense, but in a laxer acceptation, Hengstenberg 
 supposes that Mary, the wife of Cleophas, was not 
 the actual sister but the sister-in-law of the Virgin, 
 whilst Bishop Wordsworth supposes that she was 
 her cousin. This, however, imposes an unusual 
 meaning on aSeX^rj, for which no reason is assigned. 
 Others affirm that there is an actual difference in 
 the names, the Virgin Mary being called in Scripture 
 Mapia/ji, and her sister Mapia. And certainly it is 
 a singular fact that when the name of the Virgin is 
 in the nominative or accusative it is Mapiafjb, though 
 when in the genitive it is Mapla^, as if from Mapia ; 
 whereas all the other Marys of the Gospel history 
 are written Mapia, so that the difference can hardly 
 be explained by affirming that MapcafM is the Hebrew, 
 
64 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 and Mapla the Greek form.^ Still, however, both 
 are forms of the Hebrew name Miriam. 2. On the 
 supposition that four women are here meant, the 
 number stated in St. John's gospel agrees with that 
 given in the gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. 
 When we turn to these gospels, we find three women 
 mentioned, the mother of our Lord being omitted. 
 St. Matthew writes : " Many women were there 
 beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, 
 ministering unto Him : among whom was Mary 
 Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, 
 and the mother of Zebedee's children " (Matt, xxvii. 
 55, 56). And the statement in St. Mark's gospel is 
 precisely similar : " There were also women looking 
 on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, 
 and Mary the mother of James the less and Joses, 
 and Salome" (Mark xv. 40). And the same three 
 women are mentioned as at the sepulchre (Mark 
 xvi. i). All critics agree that Salome, mentioned by 
 St. Mark, is the same as the mother of Zebedee's 
 children, mentioned by St. Matthew. Now, St. John 
 must have known that his own mother, Salome, was 
 present at the crucifixion, and it is improbable that 
 he would have omitted all allusion to her when 
 mentioning the women who stood at the cross. 
 Hence, it is reasonably inferred that Salome, the 
 mother of Zebedee's children, mentioned by 
 St. Matthew and St. Mark, was the sister of Mary 
 
 ^ See article Mary of Cleophas by the Rev. Frederick Meyrick in 
 Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. 
 
The Women at the Cross. 65 
 
 the mother of Jesus, mentioned by St. John. 3. If 
 Salome be the sister of the Virgin, then the silence 
 of John with regard to her name is accounted for, 
 as it is entirely in accordance with his manner. It 
 is the same reserve of style by which he never 
 mentions himself by name, but only by circumlocu- 
 tion, as " the disciple whom Jesus loved," and never 
 mentions his brother James, and only once his father 
 Zebedee (John xxi. 2). 4. The received text admits 
 of being read as if four women were mentioned. 
 The mention of their names in pairs is similar to the 
 manner in which the names of the apostles are 
 enumerated. The Syriac, Ethiopian, and Persian 
 versions insert a copula after Mapla, and they inter- 
 pret the passage as if four women were meant. So 
 also Tischendorf (in Ed. vii. but not in Ed. viii.) in his 
 punctuation apparently adopts the same interpreta- 
 tion, as he omits the comma after KXcoTra.' 
 
 Salome is not conspicuously alluded to in the 
 gospels. She is distinguished as the mother of James 
 and John, who, along with Peter, were the three 
 favourite apostles of our Lord. On one occasion she 
 
 ^ The opinion that two women are here mentioned, namely, Salome, 
 the mother of James and John, the sister of the Virgin, and Mary the 
 wife of Cleophas, the mother of James the less and Joses, is adopted by 
 Lange, Wieseler, Liicke, Ewald, and Meyer ; and among English critics 
 by Alford, Farrar, Bishop Lightfoot, Geikie, and Westcott. On the 
 other hand, the opinion which identifies the Virgin's sister with Mary the 
 wife of Cleophas is maintained by Calvin, Olshausen, Winer, Luthardt, 
 Ebrard, Hengstenberg, and Bruckner, and among English divines by 
 Meyrick in his article on Mary of Cleophas in Smith's Dictiona}-)' of the 
 Bible. 
 
 F 
 
66 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 came forward with the ambitious request to the Lord 
 that her two sons might sit, the one on the right hand, 
 and the other on the left, in His kingdom (Matt. xx. 
 20, 2i). Such a request is not to be too harshly 
 judged, for it was that of a mother interceding for her 
 sons. She was present at the crucifixion, and was 
 one of those women who came early to the sepulchre, 
 and were the first to announce to the disciples the glad 
 tidings of the resurrection (Mark xvi. i, 6-8). Accord- 
 ing to Epiphanius, she was the daughter of Joseph, 
 the husband of the Virgin, by a previous marriage. 
 
 III. The third woman mentioned is Mary the wife 
 of Cleophas, Mapla rj rov KXcoTrd. The words rov 
 KXwna are in the genitive of relationship, so that 
 literally translated, they are "Mary of Cleophas," 
 the particular relationship being left undetermined. 
 Accordingly, some (Calvin) suppose that she was the 
 daughter, and others (Ewald) that she was the mother 
 of Cleophas. The relationship, stated in our version, 
 is, however, most probably correct. She is called by 
 St. Matthew and St. Mark the "mother of James and 
 Joses." Joses is not elsewhere mentioned ; but, on the 
 supposition, which we shall find probable, that Cleo- 
 phas is the same name as Alphaeus, James was one 
 of the twelve apostles. She was doubtless " the other 
 Mary" (97 aWt] Mapia, Matt, xxvii. 61 ; xxviii. i), 
 who is mentioned as accompanying Mary Magdalene 
 to the sepulchre ; for we cannot think that this title 
 designates the Virgin ; and Mary the wife of Cleophas 
 is the only other Mary who has been mentioned. 
 
The Women at the Cross. 67 
 
 Wieseler strangely supposes that by " the other Mary " 
 is meant the wife or daughter of Joseph of Arimathea, 
 because in the Alexandrian manuscript the reading of 
 Mark xv. 47 is Mapia tj 'Icoai']^, a reading which is 
 wanting in authority. 
 
 In the Authorised Version, this Mary is called " the 
 wife of Cleophas ; more correctly rendered it is " the 
 wife of Clopas." Why KXwira should be rendered 
 Cleophas cannot be determined, as there is no differ- 
 ence in the MSS. ; perhaps it is in conformity with 
 the Vulgate, which has Maria Cleophae. The name is 
 not to be identified with Cleopas, KXeoTra?, which St. 
 Luke mentions as the name of one of the disciples 
 going to Emmaus, to whom our Lord appeared after 
 His resurrection (Luke xxiv. 18). KXeoirwi is pro- 
 bably a contraction for KXeoirarpo'^, just as Avriira'i 
 is a contraction for AvTLiraTpo<^. On the other hand, 
 there is reason to suppose that Clopas is the same as 
 Alphaeus, however differently those names may sound 
 to an English ear. They are only a twofold mode of 
 translating into Greek letters the Hebrew word ifi^n- 
 The Hebrew letter Cheth is rendered in Greek 
 generally by X or k, but occasionally without the 
 aspirate, so that the above Hebrew letters might be 
 rendered in Greek characters, Clopi or Alphi, and 
 thus with Greek terminations, Clopas or Alphaeus. 
 This identifies James the son of Mary and Clopas 
 with James the apostle, the son of Alphaeus. 
 
 The above discussion throws some light on the 
 intricate question concerning the relationship of Jesus 
 
68 Exegehcal Studies. 
 
 to the persons called " the brothers of the Lord." 
 The common opinion is that the Lord's brothers are 
 the sons of Mary the wife of Clopas or Alphseus, who 
 is also regarded as the sister of the Virgin ; so that 
 they are not actual brothers, but cousins-germain. 
 The names of these brothers are given in St. Matthew's 
 gospel, namely, James, and Joses, and Simon, and 
 Judas (Matt. xiii. 55). Now it is asserted that these 
 are the names of the sons of Mary and Clopas. Mary 
 is called the mother of James and Joses ; the apostle 
 Judas is called the brother of James; and, according 
 to tradition, Simon, the Bishop of Jerusalem, was the 
 son of Clopas. To this it has been objected, that to 
 suppose brothers to mean only cousins is to put a 
 forced and unnatural meaning on the word ; that a 
 similarity of names, especially such common Jewish 
 names, proves nothing ; that it is doubtful if Judas 
 and Simon were the sons of Mary ; and that, accord- 
 ing to the above opinion, two of our Lord's brethren 
 w^ere apostles, whereas St. John tells us that " His 
 brethren did not believe in Him " (John vii. 4). But 
 the whole hypothesis is destroyed if we adopt the 
 opinion, which appears to us most probable, that 
 Salome, and not Mary the wife of Clopas, was the 
 sister of the Virgin. According to this, it would follow 
 that the sons of Mary the wife of Clopas, were not 
 related to Jesus, whereas James and John the sons of 
 Zebedee and Salome were his full cousins. 
 
 The denial of the common opinion, that the brothers 
 of our Lord were only His full cousins, has an im- 
 
The Women at the Cross. 69 
 
 portant bearing upon our Lord's recommendation of 
 His mother to John. If, according to the opinion 
 first advanced by Helvidius, and now adopted by 
 many eminent critics, that they were the actual sons 
 of Mary and Joseph born after Jesus, then it is some- 
 what difficult to account for His recommendation. 
 If, it is argued, Mary had children of her own, and 
 one of them afterwards such an eminent pillar of the 
 Church as James, the Lord's brother, Jesus would not 
 have broken these domestic ties, and recommended 
 her to the care of John. To this it is replied, that 
 John was in affluent circumstances, and had, perhaps, 
 a house of his own in Jerusalem, which the brothers 
 of our Lord certainly had not. But if, on the other 
 hand, we adopt the favourite opinion of the Fathers, 
 recently defended by Bishop Lightfoot in his com- 
 mentary on the Galatians, and acquiesced in by 
 Professor Westcott, that these brothers of our Lord 
 were the children of Joseph by a former marriage, 
 then His recommendation of Mary to John is easily 
 explained ; for these brethren of the Lord were not 
 connected to Mary by any tie of blood, whereas 
 John was her nephew, being the son of her sister 
 Salome. 
 
 IV. The fourth of those pious women is Mary 
 Magdalene, Mapla rj MaySaXrjvrj. Next to the 
 Virgin she is the most honoured, standing most 
 prominently out in the gospel history. Of her, as 
 well as of the Virgin, it may be said : " Hail thou 
 that art highly favoured ; blessed art thou among 
 
JO Exegetical Shidies. 
 
 women." She, of all the disciples, was chosen to be 
 the first to see the Lord after He had risen, and to 
 announce that joyful fact to the brethren (Mark xvi. 9), 
 an honour the highest that could be conferred. It 
 would be a loss of time even to mention the many- 
 fanciful explanations which have been given of the 
 appellation 77 MayBaXrjv)]. Certainly the most natural, 
 and that which is now generally assented to, is that 
 it denotes the place of her abode, — " Mary of 
 Magdala." Magdala or Migdol is the name of a 
 town on the Sea of Galilee, and the statement that 
 Mary was among the women who accompanied Jesus 
 on His missionary journeys in Galilee coincides with 
 this opinion. 
 
 Mary of Magdala has, by the Romanists, been 
 identified with Mary of Bethany, the sister of Lazarus. 
 This identification is founded on the accounts which 
 we have of the anointings of Jesus. Three anointings 
 are mentioned in the gospels : the first was in the 
 middle of our Lord's ministry, in the house of Simon 
 the Pharisee, when a woman in the city, who was a 
 sinner, brought an alabaster box of ointment, and 
 stood at His feet behind Him weeping, and washed 
 His feet with her tears, and anointed them with the 
 ointment (Luke vii. 37, 38) : the second was toward 
 the close of His ministry, in the house of Simon the 
 leper, when a woman, having an alabaster box of 
 very precious ointment, came and poured it upon His 
 head, as He sat at meat (Matt. xxvi. 7 ; Mark xiv. 3), 
 and the third was also at the close of His ministry in 
 
The Wo77ten at the Cross. 7 1 
 
 Bethany, when Mary, the sister of Lazarus, took a 
 pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and 
 anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with 
 her hair (John xii. 3). 
 
 Now, it has been supposed that these three anoint- 
 ings were performed by the same person, either on 
 one occasion, being accounts of the same transaction, 
 or on different occasions, and that this person was, as 
 St. John informs us, Mary the sister of Lazarus, identi- 
 fying her with Mary Magdalene, who is assumed to 
 be the same as " the woman that is a sinner." That 
 the two last anointings are the same is evident ; both 
 occurred a few days before the crucifixion, and at both 
 the apostles found fault at the waste that was made. 
 But the only point of resemblance between them and 
 the first anointing is, that Simon was the name in both 
 instances of the owner of the house in which this 
 occurred — a coincidence which proves nothing, as 
 Simon was, perhaps, the most common of Jewish 
 names. In all other particulars the anointings are 
 different. In the one case, the woman who anointed 
 was " a woman in the city who was a sinner ; " in 
 the other case, it was the contemplative Mary who 
 sat at Jesus' feet, and had chosen that good part 
 which was never to be taken from her. The one 
 anointing occurred in Galilee during the course of our 
 Lord's ministry ; the other in Bethany, at its close. 
 Nor is there the slightest indication that Mary, the 
 sister of Lazarus, and Mary Magdalene are the same. 
 St. Luke, after mentioning Mary Magdalene as one of 
 
72 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 the women who accompanied Jesus, refers to Mary, 
 the sister of Lazarus, in such a manner as to intimate 
 that she had not been named before : " It came to 
 pass, as they went, that He entered into a certain 
 village ; and a certain woman named Martha received 
 him into her house. And she had a sister called 
 Mary, who also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard His word " 
 (Luke X. 38). 
 
 The identification of Mary of Bethany with Mary 
 Magdalene is now relinquished by all except the 
 Roman Catholics ; but it is still the common opinion 
 that Mary Magdalene is the same as the woman 
 who was a sinner, who washed the Lord's feet with 
 her tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head, 
 and concerning whom our Lord said, " Her sins 
 which are many are forgiven her." So prevalent is 
 this opinion that hospitals, erected for the recovery of 
 fallen women, are called Magdalene asylums. But 
 there is not one syllable in the gospel narrative in 
 support of such a supposition. It seems to have 
 arisen from the fact that the first mention of Mary 
 Magdalene follows the account of the anointing of our 
 Lord by the woman who was a sinner, and from the 
 inference that IV^Lary was a sinful woman drawn from 
 the assertion that our Lord cast out of her seven 
 devils. As to the first reason, it applied as strongly 
 to Joanna the wife of Chuza, and Susanna ; and the 
 second is equally baseless. Demoniacal possession 
 was no evidence of peculiar depravity, but a species of 
 insanity which, for all that we know, may still be a 
 
The Wo7nen at the Cross. 'J2i 
 
 form of mental disease among us. In all probability 
 Mary Magdalene was a woman of high social position, 
 afflicted with insanity, whom our Lord had cured, and 
 who devoted herself to Him with all the warmth of a 
 grateful heart. She was one of these devout and 
 honourable women who accompanied our Lord, when 
 He preached the Gospel in the villages of Galilee. As 
 Dean Plumptre remarks : " Never, perhaps, has a 
 figment so utterly baseless obtained so wide an 
 acceptance as that which we connect with the name 
 of the ' penitent Magdalene.' " 
 
 It is strange to find such a man as Archdeacon 
 Farrar, in his Life of Christ, giving countenance to 
 this baseless opinion. "An ancient tradition," he 
 observes, " especially prevalent in the Western Church, 
 and followed by the translators of our English version, 
 — a tradition which though it must remain ever 
 uncertain, is not in itself improbable, and cannot be 
 disproved, — identifies this woman with Mary of 
 Magdala, 'out of whom Jesus cast seven devils.' 
 This exorcism is not elsewhere alluded to, and it 
 would be perfectly in accordance with the genius of 
 Hebrew phraseology if the expression had been 
 applied to her, in consequence of a passionate nature 
 and an abandoned life." Such a tradition may, 
 indeed, give effect to biography, as it has done to 
 painting and art ; but to allude to it as a matter of 
 history, utterly destitute as it is of proof, and, notwith- 
 standing what is affirmed, in itself wholly improbable, 
 is at least fanciful and hardly permissible. 
 
74 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 But, after all, the tradition is not very ancient. 
 There is not the slightest reference to it in the writings 
 of the Fathers during the jfirst three centuries. It is 
 first mentioned hesitatingly by Ambrose and Jerome, 
 but not until the sixth century is it directly main- 
 tained by Pope Gregory the Great. Through his 
 influence and authority it was recognised by the 
 Latin Church, but it was at no time adopted by the 
 Greek Church. But doubtless what has given it its 
 wide-spread acceptance in Western Europe are those 
 matchless paintings of the penitent Magdalene by 
 Raphael, Correggio, Battoni, Rotari, and other great 
 artists, by which the error has become enshrined in art. 
 It is to be regretted that the English translators of the 
 Bible have given countenance to it, and as it were, 
 stamped it by their authority, by heading the account 
 of the anointing of the sinful woman, " Mary Mag- 
 dalene anointeth Christ's feet."^ 
 
 In the gospel history Mary Magdalene is mentioned 
 for the first time in the company of these holy women 
 who followed Jesus. It is said that the Lord had cast 
 out of her seven devils (Luke viii. 2 ; Mark xvi. 9), 
 implying that He had cured her of demoniacal 
 possession of an aggravated form. Filled with 
 gratitude to her Deliverer, she attached herself to His 
 person. She accompanied Him on His last journey 
 
 1 The identity of Mary Magdalene with the sinful woman is with few 
 exceptions rejected by Biblical scholars and critics, by Calvin, Grotius, 
 Bengel, Winer, Olshausen, De Wette, Meyer, Stier, Alford, Words- 
 worth, EUicott, and Plumptre. 
 
The Women at the Cj'oss. 75 
 
 to Jerusalem, continued steadfastly with Him in 
 His sufferings, stood at His cross, and was present 
 during the closing hours of His agony. When Joseph 
 of Arimathsea and Nicodemus took down the body, 
 she watched where they laid the remains of her much- 
 honoured Lord and Master. With the other women 
 she prepared the sweet spices for the anointing, and 
 after the sacred rest of the Sabbath was past, she 
 hurried with them to the sepulchre. To their surprise 
 they behold the stone rolled away, and the sepulchre 
 empty. Mary runs to give information to the disciples, 
 but she does not remain long away. She returns with 
 Peter and John ; they, having satisfied themselves, de- 
 part; but she remains without the sepulchre weeping; 
 the intensity of her affection keeps her fixed to the spot ; 
 she leaves not her Master dying or dead ; and then it 
 was that to her first of all the disciples the risen 
 Lord manifested Himself in His resurrection body, 
 and announced the joyful intelligence that the bonds 
 of death were burst asunder by Him. Mary was the 
 herald of the great victory of our Lord over death 
 and the grave, of the accomplishment of salvation, of 
 the final defeat of Satan and all the powers of dark- 
 ness. It was not to John the beloved disciple, nor to 
 Peter the sorrowing penitent, though both were at 
 the sepulchre, but to Mary Magdalene, that our 
 Lord first appeared ; she was the elect messen- 
 ger of God ; she was the first to raise the cry 
 of victory, " He is risen," which has since been 
 taken up by countless millions of the human race, 
 
^6 Exegetical Studies, 
 
 and will continue to be repeated until the end of 
 time. 
 
 Tradition has added to this Scriptural account of 
 Mary Magdalene, but it has taken a twofold form — that 
 of the Latin and that of the Greek Church. The Latin 
 Church, which identifies Mary Magdalene with the 
 sister of Lazarus, relates that she in company with 
 her brother Lazarus, her sister Martha, a servant 
 Marcella, and Maximus, one of the seventy disciples, 
 came in a wonderful manner to Gaul. The Jews put 
 them in a ship without oars that they might perish by 
 sea, and the ship landed at Marseilles. Mary 
 remained in a cave near Aries, and lived a life of 
 penitence for thirty years. Clovis, the king of the 
 Franks, was converted at her intercession, and she is 
 specially worshipped in France as one of its patron 
 saints. The tradition of the Greek Church is entirely 
 different ; there is in it no trace of the penitent 
 Magdalene. According to it Mary Magdalene was 
 the daughter of the Syrophenician woman whom our 
 Lord cured of demoniacal possession ; she proceeded 
 to Rome for the purpose of accusing Pilate before the 
 imperial court of the murder of Jesus ; afterwards she 
 came to Ephesus and resided with the Virgin and 
 St. John ; there she died and was buried. According 
 to the biography of St. Willebald, that saint saw 
 her grave at Ephesus in the year 745. About the 
 year 886 the Emperor Leo VI. brought her bones to 
 Constantinople. Next to the blessed Virgin, Mary 
 Magdalene of all Christian women is the most 
 
The Women at the Cross. "JJ 
 
 honoured, both in the Sacred Scriptures and in the 
 traditions of the Church ; hymns have been written in 
 her praise, the painter and the sculptor have per- 
 petuated her fame, and churches innumerable have 
 been erected to her memory. 
 
EXPOSITION V. 
 
 THE GROANING CREATION. 
 
 Romans viii. 19-23. 
 
 Textus receptus. — 'H yag d'roy.apadoxia rrig ■/.riSBCog rrjv aTo- 
 xd'Xv^iv TOjv v'luiv 70V Qiou a--7iy.hiyjTai. Tfj ya^ /xaraior'/jTi 7] 
 xrlffig vTSTayri, ovy kxovffa,, aXXa bia tov vTord^avTOi, it' s'kirihi, 
 oTi xai avrr) i] XTidig sXsvh^uSyjffsrui d'nh rrig dovXsiag rj^g 
 (pdo^dg sig rriv sXivds^iav TTjg ho^rjg tuv rszvcov roZ Qiov. O'Jdafisv 
 ydg on 'Jaffa ri xriSig avffnvdZ^ii xa! dvvudlvsi ay^i rov vvv ' 06 
 fiovov 8s, aXkd xai avroi rTjv drraoyj^v tov Uviv/Marog 'iyovTig, xai 
 ri/jjiTg avroi h savroTg ffrgm^o/xsi/, v/odsfflai d'Trexbiy^S/j.svoi rriV 
 d'TCo'kvT^uGiv rou atL/j^arog ri/xu)v. 
 
 Atiihorised Version. — For the earnest expectation of the 
 creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 
 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but 
 by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope ; 
 because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the 
 bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children 
 of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and 
 travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but 
 ourselves also, which have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we 
 ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to 
 wit., the redemption of our body. 
 
 Revised Version. — For the earnest expectation of the cr^tion 
 waiteth for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation 
 was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of 
 78 
 
The Groaning Creation. 79 
 
 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, v/hich have the first-fruits 
 of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting 
 for our adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. 
 
 One important rule in ascertaining the meaning of 
 any difficult or disputed passage of Scripture is to 
 consider it not by itself, as isolated and detached, but 
 in strict connection with the context. This may not 
 entirely remove the difficulty, but will often prevent 
 the adoption of a false meaning, and suggest the 
 direction in which the true meaning is to be found. 
 The apostle, in the previous part of this chapter, has 
 been discoursing on the privileges of believers, and in 
 the verses immediately preceding he mentions the 
 high dignity of sonship. " The Spirit itself beareth ^1 
 witness with our spirit that we are the children of 
 God ; and if children, then heirs ; heirs of God, and 
 joint-heirs with Christ." He states, as if incidentally, 
 that, as in the case of the Lord Himself, the glory 
 which awaits believers will be preceded by suffering : 
 " If so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also 
 glorified together." Suffering and glory were con- 
 joined in the case of the Master, and will also be 
 conjoined in the case of the disciple ; first the cross, 
 then the crown ; first the battle, then the victory ; 
 first the toil and heat of the day, then the rest. But 
 the glory will be so transcendentally great that the 
 sufferings will be completely forgotten ; or rather, we 
 
8o Exegetical Studies. 
 
 will bless God for them, as being the prelude to the 
 glory, " For I reckon that the sufferings of this 
 present time are not worthy to be compared with the \ 
 glory which shall be revealed in us." And then 
 follows the passage selected for exposition, in which 
 the apostle assigns as a reason for the certainty and 
 transcendent greatness of the glory of believers, that 
 it is expected and will be shared in by all creation : 
 " For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth 
 for the manifestation of the sons of God." The same 
 idea of suffering first and glory afterwards is extended 
 to all creation : first the bondage of corruption, and 
 afterwards the glorious liberty of the children of God. 
 " Because the creature itself also shall be delivered 
 from the bondage of corruption into the glorious 
 liberty of the children of God." 
 
 There are no variations of any importance in the 
 readings of the text ; but the translation in our 
 Authorised Version requires emendation. It is to be 
 observed that in these verses there is mention both of 
 the creature (verses 19, 20, 21) and of the creation 
 (verse 22) ; but in the original the words are ex- 
 pressed by the same term /cTio-t?. It is confusing, and 
 leads to error to give the word two meanings. It 
 ought throughout to be rendered either creation or 
 creature. In verse 20, the words *' not willingly, but 
 by reason of him who hath subjected" (01;;^; eKoixra, 
 aXKa Sia rov vTrord^avTo) are to be taken as a 
 parenthesis, and consequently the words " in hope " 
 (eV ikirihi) are to be applied, not to the sub- 
 
The Groaning Creation. 8i 
 
 jector {jov vTroTa^avra), but to the state of sub- 
 jection (vTreTayr)) ; " For the creature was made 
 subject to vanity ... in hope." Verse 21 has 
 been differently rendered, but it is best to consider 
 it with Meyer as specifying the object of the hope 
 of creation ; and hence otl is not to be translated 
 because, but that. Tr]u eXevOepiav t?}? 80^779 is not to 
 be translated " the glorious liberty," as if it were a 
 Hebraism, but " the liberty of the glory " : t?]? So^t;? 
 is the genitive of apposition ; that liberty which con- 
 sists in the glory of the children of God. 
 
 The chief difficulty relates to the meaning to be 
 attached to /cricrt?. Its special meaning is to be 
 ascertained from the context. There are four differ- 
 ent senses in which it is used in the New Testament. 
 Sometimes it denotes the sum-total of what God 
 has created — the creation. " From the beginning 
 of the creation, God made them, male and female " 
 (Mark x. 6; so also Mark xiii. 19; Rom. i. 20; 
 2 Pet. iii. 4). Sometimes it is used to denote what is 
 created — tJie creature; so it is thrice rendered in the 
 passage under consideration, and this is its evident 
 meaning in the last verse of this chapter : " 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" (Rom. viii. 39; so also Rom. i. 25). 
 Sometimes it is used for mankind in general ; as in 
 the command to preach the Gospel to every creature 
 (Mark xvi. 15 ; so also Col. i. 23). And sometimes it 
 
 is limited to believers, 2.s\N\iQ.x\ the apostle says : "If 
 
 G 
 
82 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 any man be in Christ, he is a new creature " (2 Cor. 
 V. 17; so also Gal. vi. 15). In the two last senses, 
 KTL<n<i is limited by the context. In our passage we 
 prefer the meaning creation as the most usual mean- 
 ing of the word, both in the Septuagint and in the 
 New Testament.^ 
 
 There are different opinions as to the extent of the 
 creation {KTicrii) in our passage. The most opposite 
 meanings have been assigned to the term. The 
 Reformers generally limited it to the inanimate crea- 
 tion ; this was the opinion of Luther and Beza. St. 
 Augustine limits it to the unbelieving portion of the 
 human race, and in this he is followed by Doddridge, 
 Whitby, Macknight, and many modern commen- 
 tators. Some restrict it to the unbelieving Jews, and 
 others to the unbelieving Gentiles. Others have ex- 
 plained it of believers as the new creation, though this 
 would seem in contradiction to verse 23. The greater 
 number of modern exegetes refer it to the lower crea- 
 tion, as distinguished from mankind. Others, and 
 notably Olshausen, take it in its most ujilimited sense 
 as denoting all created things generally, the animate 
 and inanimate nature, including mankind. Towett 
 strangely supposes that its meaning is not to be taken 
 in each of the four verses in which it is used in pre- 
 cisely the same sense. " It may," he observes, " refer 
 to the creature considered from within, in which sense 
 It is a personified aapl^^ which is the best explanation 
 of it in verse 19; or to the creature considered from 
 
 ■* So also Revised Version. 
 
The Groaning Creation. Z'}) 
 
 without, as the figure of a former dispensation, which 
 is the sense to which it inclines in verses 20, 21 ; or to 
 the creation collectively, of which man is, nevertheless, 
 the principal part, as in verse 22. That even this 
 last is not to be pressed too strictly we shall see in 
 considering verse 23, the form of which seems to 
 exclude the believer from the circle of creation." 
 
 The term is plainly limited by the context. The 
 lioly angels are excluded, because it cannot be said of 
 them that they are subject to vanity. It is also mani- 
 fest that believers in Christ are excluded, because 
 they are directly contrasted with the creation ; for, 
 after stating that "the whole creation groaneth and 
 travaileth in pain together until now," the apostle 
 adds, " not only so, but ourselves also," belonging to 
 a different category, " which have the first-fruits of the 
 Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, 
 waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of 
 our body." 
 
 So far, such limitations of the term are evident and 
 generally admitted ; but it is a much more difficult 
 inquiry. Whether those who are not believers are 
 also excluded ? Does 77 kt[(ti<; here refer to the human 
 race at, all ? This is a point which has been much 
 controverted ; reasons have been assigned both for 
 and against the exclusion of unbelievers. On the one 
 hand, it has been maintained that there are intimations 
 in the passage which show that /crtcri? does not include 
 unbelievers. For example, it is affirmed that " the 
 creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly," 
 
84 Exegetical Shtdies, 
 
 an assertion which can hardly agree with the fall of 
 man, and with the free and deliberate sinful acts of 
 the human race. We are informed that the restora- 
 tion of the creation to liberty will take place at the 
 revelation of the sons of God ; whereas unbelievers 
 can only be restored on the condition of their conver- 
 sion, or on their actually becoming the sons of God. 
 If unbelievers are meant, we would have expected 
 that sin would have been more prominently mentioned 
 as the cause of their subjection to vanity, and faith in 
 Christ alluded to as the condition of their deliverance 
 from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of 
 the glory of the children of God. Besides, when 
 KTiaL'i denotes the human race, mankind without 
 exception is meant ; whereas, when the unbelieving 
 portion of the human race is meant, the term Koafio<i 
 is always used in the New Testament. But, on the 
 other hand, strong reasons have been assigned against 
 the exclusion of unbelievers. It may well be affirmed 
 that mankind was subject to vanity, not willingly, 
 because their coming into the world in a depraved 
 state was involuntary, being a consequence of the sin 
 of Adam. The word ktlo-l^; is never employed in the 
 New Testament to signify animate and inanimate 
 creation with the exclusion of the human race, and 
 that believers are not here included appears from the 
 context. Besides, the apostle does not mean by kt[<ji,<; 
 the unbelieving portion of the human race exclusively, 
 but in connection with the lower creation ; so that 
 the term /co(r/u,o9, which is restricted to the unbelieving 
 
TJie Groaning Creation. 85 
 
 world, would be here inappropriate. And to restrict 
 the term to the lower creation would give a very 
 narrow and feeble meaning to the passage. 
 
 Nevertheless, the meaning that is adopted by the 
 greater number of our modern exegetes, is that not 
 only believers, but also unbelievers are excluded from 
 the creation here adverted to ; that, in the words of 
 Dean Alford, "The right explanation is, all animate and 
 inanimate nature as distinguished from mankind." - 
 According to this view, the ktI(tl<; is to be restricted 
 to the lower creation, just in the same manner as we 
 use the popular term " all nature," from which we are 
 accustomed to exclude intelligent beings. So also we 
 speak of "natural history," meaning thereby the 
 description of the lower animals, and the " animal 
 creation," excluding from this phrase the human race. 
 According to this view, the apostle alludes to the 
 involuntary subjection of the inferior creation to 
 vanity, and to a deliverance from this subjection and 
 a restoration to liberty at the revelation of the sons of 
 God, when Christ's kingdom shall be universally 
 established, when all things shall be put in subjection 
 under His feet, and when evil shall be finally subdued 
 or abolished throughout the universe. 
 
 The apostle asserts that " the creature was subject 
 to vanity," ry iiaTaioTqrt, rj KTLai<i vTrerajr]. The word 
 
 1 This is the view adopted by Grotius, Reiche, De Wette, Neander, 
 Ewald, Tholuck, Meyer, Philippi, and all our best modern critics. 
 Olshausen is almost the only critic of note who adopts the opposite 
 opinion. 
 
86 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 l^aTaibTri<i denotes emptiness, instability, decay, what 
 is called in the next verse corruption ((f)0opd'i). To be 
 subject to vanity is to be under its dominion, to be 
 enslaved by it, an expression equivalent to "the 
 bondage of corruption." The apostle evidently pre- 
 supposes a period when the creature was not thus 
 enthralled. The allusion, in all probability, is to the 
 change which came over creation at the Fall ; when a 
 curse was pronounced not only upon man, but upon 
 the ground, and, as some suppose, upon the inferior 
 creation for man's sake (Gen. iii. 17, 18). By the Fall 
 the human race undoubtedly became subject to vanity; 
 and the same is also the case when we restrict the 
 term /crto-i? to the inferior creation. We are not, 
 indeed, in a position to tell what change came over 
 the face of the earth, and over the nature and happi- 
 ness of the lower animals as a direct consequence of 
 the fall of man, whether and how far they have 
 deteriorated from a more exalted pristine condition ; 
 but most certain it is that sin has involved the lower 
 creation in numerous calamities. Man's cruelty has 
 brought a vast amount of suffering and misery on the 
 inferior animals. The burdens which are laid upon 
 them often far beyond their strength, the cruel sports 
 in which men indulge, deriving happiness from what 
 occasions suffering to the brute creation, those dis- 
 closures in the practice of vivisection which have lately 
 been made, often wantonly torturing living animals 
 beyond what is necessary for the advancement of 
 medical research, the unfeeling insensibility to their 
 
The Groaning Creation. 87 
 
 wants, the barbarities practised upon them, occasion 
 those groans and that travail of creation about which 
 the apostle speaks, and which rise up to heaven, call- 
 ing aloud for vengeance. 
 
 Whatever, as naturalists, we may think of the nature 
 of the lower animals, and however readily we admit 
 that many of them were created with fierce and 
 ravenous dispositions, and that the Fall effected no 
 change in their anatomical structure, yet it is certain 
 that the sin of man is the cause of much of their 
 misery. Indeed, the more we reflect upon it, the more 
 we shall be constrained to arrive at the opinion that 
 sin is the great cause of disturbance in the universe of 
 God ; that all real evils are directly or indirectly 
 occasioned by it, and that by it the creation was made 
 subject to vanity, and labours under the bondage of 
 corruption. Banish sin from this world, and you 
 banish misery, and strife, and unhappiness, and cruelty, 
 and wrong ; you bring in the golden era of purity, and 
 peace, and happiness ; you restore the bliss of Paradise. 
 Banish sin from this world, and, for all that we know, 
 many of those agencies which we now look upon as 
 the laws of nature, but which are in reality disturbances 
 in nature, as, for example, those laws which occasion 
 and regulate the famine and the pestilence, may be 
 modified or cease. Banish sin from this world, and 
 you banish along with it disease, and pain, and death ; 
 you deliver the creation from the bondage of corrup- 
 tion, and exalt it to the liberty of the glory of the 
 children of God. 
 
88 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 The apostle tells us that this subjection of creation 
 to vanity was involuntary : ov^ cKovaa. We have 
 seen how, in a certain sense, this is true even of the 
 intelligent creation, although morally accountable and 
 possessed of freedom of will. They fell into a state 
 of moral corruption, not willingly, but in consequence 
 of the sin of Adam. But whatever modification of 
 meaning these words must have when applied to the 
 human race, they are true in their most direct sense 
 when applied to the lower animals. The irrational 
 creation was made subject to vanity by no fault of 
 their own ; they are not morally accountable 
 creatures ; they have no sense of God, nor of their 
 obligation to Him, and therefore cannot be guilty of 
 sin properly so called. 
 
 Their subjection, the apostle further tells us, was on 
 account of him who subjected (Slo, top virord^avTa). 
 Negatively the subjection was not occasioned by 
 themselves, and positively it was by reason of the 
 subjector. There are various opinions concerning the 
 person who is here meant. St Chrysostom supposes 
 that it was A^am, and that what the apostle here 
 teaches us is, that his transgressions brought creation 
 into so deplorable a condition.^ Others suppose that 
 the subjector is the devil, because it was through his 
 temptation that our first parents sinned and fell. 
 But although it was in consequence of the guilt of 
 Adam that the subjection arose, and although Satan 
 was the active agent in that guilt, yet the absence of 
 
 ^ So also Doddridge and Macknight. 
 
The Groaning Creation. 89 
 
 any defining statement constrains us to refer the 
 Subjection to God. This subjection to vanity was no 
 unforeseen event, but was in conformity with His will 
 and counsel. For wise reasons, though to us 
 inexplicable, God subjected the creation to vanity. 
 The subject is connected with the deepest mysteries 
 of God's moral government, with the origin and 
 permission of moral evil — a problem which has baffled 
 the understanding of the wisest of the human race, and 
 which may now justly be regarded as insolvable. 
 
 The apostle adds " in hope," eV iXirlSc, denoting 
 that this state of subjection is not hopeless, irremedi- 
 able, and eternal, but only temporary, and that it shall 
 issue in deliverance and restoration to liberty. "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," The creation then may indulge 
 in the expectation of future deliverance ; nor is there 
 any inappropriateness in attributing to the irrational 
 creation such feelings as expectancy and desire, for 
 such personifications are common in Scripture, and, 
 indeed, in all literature. 
 
 In confirmation of his assertion that the creation is 
 subject to vanity, the apostle adds : " For we know 
 that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in 
 pain together until now." Othafiev, we know it. It is 
 a fact which can neither be disputed nor denied. We 
 have only to open our eyes to see the sufferings, and 
 our ears to hear the groanings of creation ; we have 
 only to penetrate below the outside covering, and we 
 
90 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 shall see that the world is not so happy as it sometimes 
 appears to be. We may be insensible to its sufferings, 
 we may carefully avoid the abodes of wretchedness, we 
 may shut our eyes and stop our ears to the miseries 
 and sighs of humanity ; but think on the vast multi- 
 tudes laid on beds of sickness and racked with pain ; 
 think on the painful diseases with which life is often 
 terminated ; think on the squalor, and degradation, 
 and wretchedness of vast masses in our crowded 
 cities ; visit our infirmaries, our hospitals for the 
 incurable, our asylums, our rooms for surgical opera- 
 tions ; penetrate into the dark abodes of misery and 
 crime — the prisons, the dungeons, the torture 
 chambers ; think on the atrocities perpetrated by 
 slave-dealers and slave-holders ; think on the fields 
 of battle and the places of execution ; think on the 
 bloody revolutions and the reigns of terror ; think on 
 the cruelties and barbarities which have been per- 
 petrated on the defenceless inhabitants of invaded 
 countries ; think on the cruel tyrants who have 
 glutted themselves in the miseries of their victims ; 
 think on the persecutions which have raged in almost 
 every country, and on the foul atrocities of the 
 inquisition, practised by a so-called Christian priest- 
 hood ; listen to the cries of oppressed humanity and 
 outraged innocence ; and although it may be asserted 
 that the word creation is here to be limited to the 
 inferior animals, yet we cannot help thinking that the 
 sufferings of mankind also entered into the thoughts 
 of the apostle, when he penned these words — 
 
The Groaning Creation. 91 
 
 sufferings which were abundantly visible and audible 
 when he wrote this Epistle, when the Roman empire 
 was ruled by one of the greatest monsters who ever 
 disgraced humanity, — a very prodigy of wickedness — 
 the Emperor Nero. Hardly any period in the past 
 history of the world afforded a more complete verifica- 
 tion of his words : " For we know that the whole 
 creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together 
 until now." 
 
 The apostle proceeds to affirm that believers them- 
 selves are not excluded from these groans and this 
 travail. "And not only so," — not only is this the 
 case with regard to the creation, — ■" but ourselves also," 
 we who are Christians as distinct from the creation — 
 " who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we our- 
 selves groan within ourselves." Believers are not 
 delivered from the common calamities which befall 
 the rest of the creation ; they likewise are subject to 
 sickness, pain, bereavement, death, and to all the out- 
 ward miseries to which their fellow-men are exposed. 
 And besides those general, they have special sufferings 
 arising from what remains of indwelling sin, the 
 infirmity of their best purposes, and a constant and 
 painful feeling of dissatisfaction with their spiritual 
 condition. These cause them to groan within them- 
 selves, and earnestly to long for deliverance, not only 
 from the calamities of life, but from the presence 
 and power of indwelling sin. As Philippi remarks, 
 " With the perpetual Abba cry of the children of God 
 is blended a perpetual Kyrie eleison" At present they 
 
92 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 have the first-fruits of the Spirit {rr]v aitapyiyv rov 
 TIvevfjiaTo^) ; that is, not the highest gift of the 
 Spirit, nor the first outpouring of the Spirit, 
 but the earnest (appa^ayv) of future or higher gifts — 
 the first-fruits as the pledge of the approaching 
 harvest. Those graces of faith, hope and love, which 
 are now imparted to them, are the first-fruits of the 
 spiritual harvest. And the imperfections of their 
 present state, and the possession of these first-fruits, 
 excite their longing for their perfect redemption ; 
 *' waiting for the adoption," the public manifestation 
 of their sonship, namely " the redemption of their 
 body," the complete recovery both of soul and body 
 from the fatal effects of the Fall, when they shall enjoy 
 that full and perfect liberty of God's children, of 
 which, in the gift of the Spirit, they possessed the 
 foretaste here below. 
 
 The truth taught us in this passage is, that there 
 will be a period of renovation. The creation will not be 
 always subject to vanity ; it will be emancipated from 
 the bondage of corruption. The golden age is not in 
 the past, but in the future. There will yet dawn even 
 upon this lower world a purer and happier era, when 
 what is now in disorder will be rectified, and misery 
 and evil will be modified, if not removed. Creation 
 will be no longer ruled over by vanity as by some cruel 
 master, and be under the bondage of corruption ; but 
 it will attain to the liberty of the glory of the children 
 of God — that liberty which will occur at the manifes- 
 tation of the sons of God. This renovation of the 
 
The Groaning Creation. 93 
 
 world is alluded to in many parts of Scripture. The 
 prophets foretold it in the sublimest language of 
 Oriental poetry. " The wolf also shall dwell with the 
 lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid ; 
 and the calf and the young lion and the fatling 
 together ; and a little child shall lead them. And 
 the cow and the bear shall feed ; their young ones 
 shall lie down together ; and the lion shall eat straw 
 like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the 
 hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his 
 hand in the cockatrice' den. They shall not hurt nor 
 destroy in all my holy mountain ; for the earth shall 
 be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters 
 cover the sea " (Isaiah xi. 6-9). Nor is the New 
 Testament silent about this renovation of the world. 
 This is the "times of restitution of all things," 
 about which St. Peter speaks in his address to the 
 Jews (Acts iii. 21) ; and the "new heavens and new 
 earth," to which he alludes in his second epistle 
 (2 Pet. iii. 13), and of which mention is made by 
 St. John in the Apocalypse (Rev. xxi. i). All the evil 
 effects of the Fall will be removed, and therefore what- 
 ever mischief it caused to creation will be done away 
 with. Nay, it would seem that the disturbing 
 influences of sin will be removed from this lower 
 world ; in the new heavens and the new earth dwelleth 
 righteousness. It may be that purity and innocence 
 will again take up their abode here below, and that 
 the whole earth will be converted into Paradise. It 
 may be that the world, purified from sin, will constitute 
 
94 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 the abode of redeemed man. It may be that the Lord 
 Jesus Christ in His human nature will reign here 
 with His saints. These are points not revealed, and 
 about which it is vain to conjecture. But one thing is 
 revealed, that a glorious future is in store for the 
 world ; that the poetical description of the prophets 
 will at least in spirit be realised ; and that the 
 creation which is now subject to vanity, under the 
 bondage of corruption, continually groaning and 
 travailing in pain, will attain to liberty, will be 
 delivered from these evils, and purified from sin and 
 defect. As Luther expresses it : " God will not only 
 make the earth, but the heavens far fairer than they 
 are now. The present world is in its working clothes, 
 hereafter it will put on an Easter and Whitsunday 
 suit." 
 
 This glorious consummation, we are informed, will 
 take place at the revelation or manifestation of the 
 sons of God. The period here alluded to is the final 
 triumph of Christ and His people, when believers who 
 are even now the sons of God will be openly mani- 
 fested and declared to be so ; when their adoption 
 will be consummated and publicly proclaimed to 
 the whole universe ; when Christ will have obtained 
 the complete victory over all His enemies, and when 
 all things will be put in subjection under His feet ; 
 and when, in the redemption of countless millions of 
 the human race, He will see of the travail of His soul 
 and will be satisfied. Then will the earnest expec- 
 tations of creation, its longings for deliverance be 
 
The Groaning Creation. 95 
 
 fulfilled. And so also, we are informed, believers 
 themselves look forward to the same glorious issue, 
 "waiting for the adoption," — this manifestation of 
 sonship, " even the redemption of our body," Then 
 will all the fatal effects of the Fall be reversed ; death 
 will be abolished, and even our very bodies will be 
 raised from the tomb. Then will commence a new 
 era of eternity, the history of a redeemed and 
 ransomed universe. Such is the final consummation 
 of the present state of things ; the sufferings of crea- 
 tion will terminate in glory, as was seen in the case of 
 Christ and His disciples. 
 
 We conclude with a paraphrase of the whole 
 passage : For the earnest expectation of the creation 
 — its conscious and unconscious longings, is waiting 
 for the revelation or manifestation of the sons of God, 
 when Christ shall appear in glory, and openly ac- 
 knowledge and reward His faithful servants. For the 
 creation lost its original purity and happiness, and 
 was made subject to vanity, became a prey to 
 wretchedness, not of its own free will, but brought 
 about by the counsel and will of God who subjected 
 it. But this subjection to vanity is not final and 
 irremediable, but a subjection in hope that the creation 
 itself shall be delivered from the bondage of corrup- 
 tion, set free from that condition of slavery and 
 subjection to vanity, and brought into that liberty 
 which consists in the glorified state of the children 
 of God. For we know, it is a patent and acknow- 
 ledged fact, that the whole creation ever since the Fall, 
 
96 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 has groaned and travailed in pain together, and has been 
 full of misery and suffering, until now, even to this 
 present hour; and not only is this the case, but even we 
 ourselves, who possess the first-fruits of the Spirit, and 
 thus enjoy in some degree the deliverance and liberty 
 of the sons of God, even we groan within ourselves, 
 exposed as we are to all the calamities of life, and 
 burdened with a heavy load of guilt and imperfection, 
 waiting for our adoption, the public declaration of our 
 sonship, which consists in the redemption of our body, 
 our complete deliverance from all the evil effects of 
 the Fall, death, the last enemy, being vanquished. 
 
EXPOSITION VI. 
 
 SAVED AS BY FIRE. 
 
 I Corinthians iii. 15. 
 Texius receptus. — "E'l rivog rh i^yov xara/iayiasrai, ^^/i/w^^jffsra/' 
 
 Authorised Version. — If any man's work shall be burned, he 
 shall suffer loss : but he himself shall be saved ; yet so as by 
 fire. 
 
 Revised Version. — If any man's work shall be burned, he shall 
 suffer loss : but he himself shall be saved ; yet so as through 
 fire. 
 
 There is no important variation in the readings of 
 the manuscripts and versions in this verse, so that 
 the words may well be considered as the genuine 
 words of the apostle. The only difference in the 
 rendering is, that whereas the Authorised Version 
 translates Sta ttu/oo? " by fire," the Revised Version has 
 " through fire," an alteration which is correct, and 
 imparts to the verse a somewhat different meaning. 
 
 The difficulty in this verse consists in the interpre- 
 tation ; in ascertaining the precise meaning attached 
 to the words by the apostle. For the elucidation of 
 
 this it is necessary that we should first consider the 
 
 97 H 
 
98 Exegetical Shidies, 
 
 context The apostle compares believers, or the 
 Church of Christ, to a building of God, " Ye are 
 God's building." It is one building of which he 
 speaks — viz., the Church of Christ in whatever part 
 of the world established, and in whatever period of 
 time it exists. He does not speak of many buildings 
 or churches, as for example of the Church of Corinth, 
 the Church of Rome, the Church of Jerusalem ; but 
 of one building, the Church universal. Nor is the 
 metaphor employed that of a city, but that of a 
 house or temple. Of this building, he himself was 
 privileged to lay the foundation when he first 
 preached the Gospel at Corinth. "According to the 
 grace of God which is given me, as a wise master- 
 builder," as a skilful architect (ap^^tTe/crtoy), " I have 
 laid the foundation." He refers his doing so to " the 
 grace of God which was given unto him : " it was not 
 by reason of his own merits that he was so highly 
 privileged, but it was owing to the unmerited gift of 
 God ; nor was this grace peculiar to him in virtue of 
 his apostolic office, as if it were the prerogative of 
 the apostles to lay the foundation, but it was given 
 to him in common with all Christian missionaries. 
 And as St. Paul was privileged to lay the foundation, 
 so others were employed to build up the structure : 
 " and another buildeth thereon ; " not only Apollos, 
 who succeeded the apostle in Corinth, but all other 
 subsequent teachers. In doing so, they must exercise 
 a wise caution, " But let every man take heed how," 
 with what materials, " he buildeth thereupon.'' 
 
Saved as by Fire. 99 
 
 It is of the superstructure that the apostle in this 
 admonition speaks, not of the foundation itself. The 
 one and only foundation on which the building 
 stands, is Jesus Christ : " For other foundation can 
 no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 
 Christ Himself is the sure and well-tried founda- 
 tion of this spiritual edifice ; according as it is 
 written, " Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a 
 stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure 
 foundation " (Isa. xxviii. 16). This foundation has 
 been laid, once for all, by God Himself; He has 
 given His Son to be the foundation of His Church. 
 In one point of view, indeed, the apostle laid the 
 foundation {reduKa, Qdvai), when he first preached 
 Christ — His death and resurrection — at Corinth. But 
 in another and higher point of view the foundation 
 was already laid {Keifxevov) by God, " Behold, I lay 
 hi Zion for a foundation." And it is Christ Himself 
 who is this foundation laid by God ; not any doctrine 
 concerning Christ, not even the atonement ; nor any 
 fact in His history, not even His death or resur- 
 rection. Christianity, unlike all other religions, is 
 founded on a Person ; it is the religion of Christ, 
 He is the great centre of our faith, so that if the 
 living Christ were removed from it, His religion 
 would have no existence. " The historical Person of 
 Christ," observes De Wette, " is the one unchangeable 
 element of Christianity : Jesus Christ, the same 
 yesterday, to-day, and for ever." In a word, Christi- 
 anity is Christ. 
 
lOO Exegetical Studies. 
 
 But although the building is one and the foundation 
 one, yet the builders are many, and the materials 
 which they employ are different. Some build well 
 and substantially, and others build ill and unsub- 
 stantially. Some, observes the apostle, pursuing the 
 metaphor, build upon this foundation, gold, silver, 
 precious or costly stones — materials at once durable 
 and valuable ; and others build wood, hay, stubble- 
 materials perishable and of little or no value. The 
 builders here alluded to are the teachers of Christi- 
 anity ; and consequently the different materials 
 employed are different kinds of teaching ; on the 
 one hand good and wholesome doctrine, and on the 
 other hand that which is worthless. The apostle does 
 not here speak of Christians who are building up 
 their religious character, except by implication ; and 
 far less does he speak of worthy Christians as repre- 
 sented by the gold, the silver, and the costly stones, 
 and unworthy Christians as represented by the wood, 
 the hay, and the stubble. 
 
 All these materials will be tested. There is a day 
 coming when the fire of trial or of judgment will test 
 the materials which the different builders have built 
 on the foundation. " Every man's work shall be made 
 manifest ; for the day shall declare it." This day is 
 not the destruction of Jerusalem;^ nor the mere 
 lapse of time ; ^ nor the clear light of the Gospel ; * 
 nor the day of tribulation ; * but, as is often the case 
 
 1 Bishop Burnett, Lightfoot, Whitby. 
 * Grotius. ^ Calvin. * Augustine. 
 
Saved as by Fire. lOi 
 
 where the term day is used emphatically (Rom. xiii, 
 12 ; Heb. x. 25), the day of the Lord, the Parousia, 
 the day of Christ's appearance, when by the light of 
 His countenance all darkness will be dispelled. The 
 apostle adds, " because it (the day) shall be revealed 
 by fire," or rather is revealed {airoKaXvirieTaC) by 
 fire," announcing at once its futurity and certainty. 
 Fire is the element in which Christ shall appear ; 
 " He shall be revealed from heaven in flaming fire " 
 (2 Thess. i. 8). And as the day will reveal the works, 
 so the fire, by which that day shall be ushered in, will 
 test them, " and the fire shall try every man's work 
 of what sort it is." Here, also, it is evident that the 
 fire is not the fire of persecution which certainly did 
 test the early converts to Christianity, and revealed the 
 reality or the falsehood of their discipleship ; but the 
 fire of judgment, in which Christ shall appear, and by 
 which all works will be tried. Then shall all the 
 labours of the different teachers be tested ; the 
 doctrines which they taught shall be examined ; 
 that which is profitable will be rewarded, and that 
 which is worthless will be consumed. The imperish- 
 able materials — the gold, the silver, and the precious 
 stones — will stand the test, and the builder will 
 receive his wages ; the perishable materials — the 
 wood, the hay, the stubble, will be burned up, 
 and the builder will lose at once his hire and his 
 labour. " If any man's work abide which he hath 
 built thereupon, he shall receive a reward ; if any 
 man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss : 
 
I02. Exegetical Studies. 
 
 but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through 
 fire." 
 
 Two things are presented to our consideration : 
 the destruction of the work and the salvation of the 
 worker. 
 
 I. The Destruction of the Work. — At the 
 great day of manifestation — the Parousia or coming of 
 the Lord, — and by the fire of judgment, all perishable 
 materials will be consumed ; whilst the gold, the silver, 
 and the costly stones remain ; the wood, hay, and 
 stubble will be burned up. The metaphor is that of a 
 building tested by fire ; what is incombustible about it 
 remains, what is combustible is destroyed. The city 
 of Corinth itself, some years before this, was burned 
 by the Romans ; all the meaner buildings — the wood 
 houses, the thatched roofs were consumed by the 
 conflagration ; whilst the substantial buildings — the 
 stately temples, the marble pillars, the gold, the silver, 
 and the brass remained among the ruins.^ Or to take 
 a more exact illustration. The temple of Jerusalem, 
 that building erected to the glory of God, has been 
 burned over and over again ; its roofs, cloisters, 
 columns, porches, gates, have been consumed ; but 
 several of its walls, composed of the most solid 
 materials, carefully selected, and substantially built, 
 have stood the test of centuries, and remain to this 
 
 ^ "It is possible," observes Dean Stanley, "that this whole image, as 
 addressed to the Corinthians, may have been suggested or illustrated by 
 the conflagration of Corinth under iMummius ; the stately temples stand- 
 ing amidst the universal destruction of the meaner buildings." 
 
Saved as by Fire. 103 
 
 day the enduring monuments of its past greatness. 
 So, in like manner, with Christ's spiritual temple ; 
 there are materials which are imperishable, and there 
 are materials which are perishable. All that teaching 
 which glorifies Christ and promotes the holiness of 
 the human race is like the gold, the silver, and the 
 costly stones ; but all that teaching in which Christ 
 is in a great measure overlooked, and which is over- 
 laid by extraneous matter, which, whilst it may 
 please the intellect, fails to purify the heart, will not 
 stand the test of the great day of the Lord's 
 appearance. 
 
 It is to be observed that anti-Christian doctrines, — 
 doctrines which deny Christ and are opposed to His 
 religion, are not here alluded to. All the builders are 
 building on the true foundation ; but some of the 
 materials employed are perishable. The apostle 
 primarily alludes to those Jewish accretions to the 
 Gospel, which were common in his day ; or, it may 
 be, to those who preached Christ from improper 
 motives, out of envy or strife. And, in our days, 
 there are many perishable materials employed in 
 building Christ's spiritual temple. Some add to the 
 Gospel ; as, for example, inculcate penances, morti- 
 fication, the neglecting of the body ; others diminish 
 from it, and teach a latitudinarianism beyond the 
 liberty which the Gospel allows. So, also, mis- 
 taken zeal often distorts the Gospel, and by its 
 extravagant practices and irreverent expressions 
 raises a prejudice against it in the minds of in- 
 
I04 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 telligent men, as if true religion were conjoined with 
 a certain feebleness of intellect. Many teachers are 
 heated by a controversial spirit, and seek rather to 
 promote the interests of their sect than the cause of 
 Jesus Christ. Some are narrow-minded, and restrict 
 the covenant mercies of God within the limits of the 
 small community to which they belong. Some intro- 
 duce their own opinions into the Gospel, and mix up 
 the human with the divine. All those may be build- 
 ing on the true foundation ; but the materials with 
 which they build are worthless — wood, hay, stubble, 
 which will be burned up by the fire which will try 
 every man's work. 
 
 The builder, who uses these perishable materials 
 " shall suffer loss." And this loss is twofold. First, 
 his works shall be destroyed. He shall lose all his 
 labour, and toil, and efforts ; he shall find that he has 
 been " labouring in vain, and spending his strength for 
 nought and in vain ; " that the inculcation of bodily 
 penances does not advance the spiritual interests of 
 men, that narrow-mindedness and bigotry are destruc- 
 tive of charity, that latitudinarianism has produced a 
 defective Gospel, that the extravagancies of mistaken 
 zeal have not advanced the kingdom of Christ, and that 
 preaching a sensational religion was not for the edify- 
 ing of the Church. And, secondly, he shall lose the 
 reward of his labours. Whilst they who have 
 laboured faithfully and preached the pure Gospel 
 will receive the reward of those who have turned 
 many to righteousness ; those whose ministry has 
 
Saved as by Fire, 105 
 
 been a failure by defects in their teaching, mixture in 
 their motives, or inconsistency in their conduct, will 
 lose in a measure the reward of the faithful servant. 
 At the same time, the fire of judgment will not be 
 entirely consuming ; it will be also purifying ; it will 
 consume the dross, but purify the gold ; it will remove 
 the bigotry and intolerance which adhered to many 
 good and religious men when on earth, and will 
 enable them to look on things, not with the jaundiced 
 eye of prejudice, but in the light of God's truth. The 
 very burning up of the works will be for the advantage 
 of the worker ; the loss sustained will in some measure 
 be gain. 
 
 II. The Salvation of the Worker. — " But he 
 himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire." This 
 clause has given rise to a variety of opinions, but 
 when we attend to the context, when we remember 
 that the builder though he employs worthless materials 
 is building on the true foundation, and that the fire is 
 the fire of judgment in which Christ will appear, the 
 words are not difficult of explanation. 
 
 I. There is the truly revolting interpretation of 
 some of the early Fathers who think that " saved 
 through fire " means preserved for hell Jire. ^ The 
 works are consumed, but the workers are saved, that 
 is kept alive for ever in the fire of hell. The fire here 
 is conceived to be the fire of Gehenna. Thus St. 
 Chrysostom observes, " The false teacher shall not 
 
 ^ The same meaning which some of the Fathers give to that other 
 text, " Salted by fire," Mark ix. 49. 
 
io6 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 perish with his works ; but shall be preserved in the 
 fire."^ But it is evident that such an interpretation is 
 as erroneous as it is horrible. The fire here men- 
 tioned is not the fire of Gehenna, but the fire of 
 judgment which will try every man's works — the 
 works of the righteous as well as of the wicked, and 
 in which fire Christ Himself shall appear. And such 
 a meaning given to a-cnOrjcreTat, preserved for eternal 
 fire, is unexampled in Scripture ; indeed, gives to 
 the word a meaning precisely the opposite of that 
 designed. It is evident that it denotes saved from 
 hell, admitted into heaven. 
 
 2. Another interpretation, advanced by certain 
 Roman Catholic divines, is that the fire here men- 
 tioned is that of purgatory. This is one of those 
 verses by which the Romish doctrine of purgatory has 
 been frequently defended. Those who are saved are 
 undoubtedly true believers ; they have built upon the 
 true foundation ; but they are imperfect believers, and 
 before they can be admitted into heaven they have to 
 be purified ; they must pass through an ordeal of 
 fire ; the dross must first be burned up ; hence they 
 are saved through fire ; they suffer the pains of 
 purgatory, designed for the purification of those who 
 have not been completely purified, or whose sins have 
 not been expiated in life. But although there is an 
 appearance of support to this view in this verse, yet 
 when closely examined in connection with the con- 
 text, it will be seen that this appearance wholly 
 
 ^ So also Theophylact and CEcumenius. 
 
Saved as by Fire. 107 
 
 vanishes. The fire is that which occurs at the day of 
 judgment, whereas purgatory exists only during the 
 intermediate state, and a termination is put to it by 
 the judgment ; then every man's fate is finally and 
 irrevocably decided ; not to mention that in this fire 
 Christ Himself appears. Nor is the reference to the 
 purification from personal sin ; the fire of judgment 
 is one of trial and separation ; " not a purgatorial, but 
 a probationary fire ; " and the materials which are 
 tested by it are the doctrines of teachers, and not 
 the characters of believers. So that as Bengel 
 observes : " This text so far from fanning the flames 
 of purgatory, acts as their extinguisher." ^ 
 
 3. The usual meaning adopted by critics is that 
 '* saved so as through fire " is a proverbial expression 
 to denote saved with difficulty — as we would say, " a 
 hair-breadth escape." The same expression, or 
 similar expressions, are often used in this sense in 
 Scripture. As, for example, "we went through fire 
 and through water" (Psalm Ixvi. 12), that is, we were 
 in the greatest danger, we passed through circum- 
 stances of extreme peril. "When thou walkest through 
 the fire, thou shalt not be burned " (Isa. xliii. 2), that 
 is, when thou art in extreme danger, a way of escape 
 will be opened up. Joshua, the high priest, is com- 
 pared to " a brand plucked out of the fire " (Zech. iii. 
 2), that is snatched from almost certain destruction 
 (see also Amos iv. 1 1). And St. Jude, referring to the 
 
 ^ Hie locus ignem purgatorium non modo non fovet, sed plane 
 extinguit. 
 
io8 Exepetical Studies, 
 
 ^>" 
 
 mode of dealing with those who have fallen, speaks of 
 saving them with fear, pulling them out of the fire 
 (Jude 23), that is, rescuing them as by violence from 
 a state of imminent peril. And, undoubtedly, such a 
 meaning imparts an important sense, and, at first sight, 
 appears fully justified by the passage. If a definite 
 fire had not been previously mentioned, such would 
 have been the meaning of the clause ; but the fire is 
 previously alluded to as the fire in which the day of 
 the Lord shall be revealed, and as the fire which shall 
 try every man's work ; and, therefore, it must be the 
 same fire mentioned in the clause " saved through fire." 
 We are not, then, justified in considering it merely as 
 a proverbial expression. The difficulty of salvation is 
 not here prominently brought forward ; on the con- 
 trary, it would rather appear that the salvation is 
 certain, inasmuch as the man is building on the true 
 foundation. Salvation is often in Scripture represented 
 as a difficult attainment ; we must strive to enter in 
 at the strait gate, and the righteous scarcely are 
 saved ; but it does not appear that this is the thought 
 contained in this passage. 
 
 4. Hence, then, we consider that the reference is to 
 the loss, that those who build with worthless materials 
 will suffer.^ "They shall be saved, yet so as through 
 fire," saved, but with the loss of all things which are 
 consumed in the fire. " Paul," observes Meyer, 
 "represents the builder as still busied in the building, 
 
 1 There is not much difference between this interpretation and the 
 last, except that the one emphasises the difficulty and the other the loss. 
 
Saved as by Fire. 109 
 
 with the work which he has been carrying on ; all at 
 once the fire seizes the building, he flees and is saved, 
 but only as a man is saved through and from the 
 midst of fire." Like the merchant who intrusts him- 
 self and his fortune to a vessel; a storm arises, dashing 
 the vessel against the rocks ; all the goods, and cargo, 
 and lading go down to the bottom of the ocean ; the 
 merchant is however saved, being conveyed by the 
 life-boat, or wafted by the waves to the shore, but with 
 the loss of all his riches — stript, empty, bare, reduced 
 to poverty.^ "Saved as through fire," the works 
 destroyed and the workers saved. As it is said that 
 those who were saved in the deluge were saved 
 "through water" K vSaro<; (i Pet. iii. 20), that is, 
 through the midst of water, so here " saved through 
 fire " Bia Trupo?, is saved through the midst of the fire 
 of judgment. 
 
 This passage teaches us that there will be different 
 degrees of reward in heaven. The works of some 
 abide, and they receive a reward, whereas the works of 
 others are burned, and they suffer loss. Both classes 
 are saved, but the one are rewarded, and the other are 
 saved with loss. Many who are first, who are now 
 most prominent and most pushing in the Church, who 
 are able debaters and zealous controversialists, who 
 occupy the chief seats in our synagogues, will be last ; 
 and many who are last, who are humble, modest, and 
 retiring, who occupy no prominent position either in 
 
 1 "Ut mercator naufragus, amissa merce et lucro, servatur per undas." 
 — Bengel. 
 
no Exegetical Studies. 
 
 the Church or in the world, who concern themselves 
 with nothing but with preaching faithfully Christ 
 Jesus and Him crucified, will be first. Some will 
 enter heaven with difficulty, while to others an abun- 
 dant entrance will be administered. Some will impair 
 their inheritance of blessedness, while others will 
 receive a full reward. Some will be nearer the throne, 
 .be possessed of larger capacities of knowing and loving 
 God than others. Heaven is not a state of equality ; 
 all will indeed be perfect, but the capacity of one glori- 
 fied saint will be greater than that of another. Paul, 
 who laboured more abundantly than all the apostles, 
 who founded the Church of Christ in so many countries 
 and cities and converted multitudes to the faith, 
 who attained to a degree of personal holiness probably 
 higher than that of any mortal man, and who received 
 such rich communications of grace, will be more richly 
 rewarded and advanced to greater glory than the 
 penitent thief who was converted at the hour of death, 
 and who had no opportunity of working for Christ or 
 of exhibiting the fruits of holy living. " As one star 
 differeth from another star in glory, so also is the 
 resurrection of the dead." 
 
 The text also teaches us the important and often 
 forgotten lesson of religious toleration. We are not 
 at liberty to judge men who differ from us in their 
 religious opinions, provided they are holding the Head, 
 even Christ. Of course we have our own ideas of 
 the truth ; we are bound to examine the doctrines of 
 Christianity, and to form our own religious opinions ; 
 
Saved as by Fire. in 
 
 and these we are permitted anxiously to cherish as 
 what we conceive to be the truth, earnestly to contend 
 for against those who oppose them, and zealously to 
 seek their diffusion. All aim at the truth, and all 
 are bound to maintain what they conceive to be the 
 truth. But there may be many whose religious 
 opinions are very different from ours ; who, according 
 to our view, have adopted errors ; who do not see 
 things in the light in which we regard them ; 
 who, for example, may be Arminian in their views, 
 whilst we are Calvinistic, or vice versa; but whose 
 character may be marked by a spirituality, a purity, 
 a heavenly-mindedness, a holiness to which we are 
 strangers. We can recall many living, or who have 
 lived in our days, whose religious opinions we judge 
 to be erroneous, whom we look upon as enter- 
 taining heretical views, but with whom in point of 
 personal holiness we are not for a moment to be 
 compared.^ Let us then judge not, lest we should be 
 judged. "Judge nothing before the time, until the 
 Lord comes, who both will bring to light the hidden 
 things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels 
 of the heart ; and then shall every man have praise 
 (his due reward) from God." We should avoid all 
 narrow-mindedness. Our sympathies ought to be 
 large and broad. The doctrines which we sincerely 
 hold are not necessarily true ; those from whom we 
 differ may be nearer the truth than we. If a man is 
 building on the true foundation ; if love and devotion 
 ^ The instance of Thomas Erskine of Linlathen will suggest itself. 
 
112 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 to Christ are the ruling principles of his conduct ; if 
 his character is distinguished by purity and spiritual- 
 ity ; let us beware of calling in question the religion 
 of such a man, who may occupy one of the foremost 
 seats in the kingdom of heaven, because he differs 
 from us on certain points of doctrine. 
 
 Lastly, we see here the necessity of building well. 
 All are in reality builders, not only the teachers, but 
 the taught. All of us are by our actions building up 
 our characters, whether good or bad, for eternity. 
 Let us build on the one foundation, Jesus Christ. All 
 structures erected on other foundations will be 
 destroyed, and the builders themselves will perish. 
 Such are the foolish builders, who, without a founda- 
 tion, build their house upon the sand. But we must 
 endeavour not only to build on the true foundation, 
 but, like a wise master-builder, to build well — to 
 employ good, solid, and substantial materials — 
 materials which will stand the test of the fire of 
 judgment. We must endeavour to possess the true 
 faith, to live a holy life, and to work for Christ at once 
 with Christian zeal and holy prudence. Errors and 
 mistakes often pervert zeal into a means, not of 
 advancing, but of retarding the cause of Christ ; 
 blemishes of character often destroy the influences of 
 otherwise good and religious persons ; and harshness 
 and intolerance of disposition often produce a large 
 amount of mischief, and create a prejudice against 
 religion. It will be a sad thing when we come to die 
 to discover that the greater part of our life has been 
 
Saved as by Fire. 1 1 3 
 
 spent in vain, that the works which we have done 
 will all be lost as being worthless, and although it 
 may be we shall be saved, yet it will be with loss. 
 It is a selfish view of life to be content to get to 
 heaven ourselves, to be saved as through fire, but 
 without benefiting our fellow-men, without having 
 communicated any spiritual good, without having 
 converted the wicked from the error of their ways, and 
 so hiding the multitude of their sins. The loss 
 incurred by such is not so much the loss of happiness 
 to themselves as the loss of good to others — a life 
 spent in vain and without profit to their fellow-men. 
 Such may be building on the true foundation, and 
 accordingly shall be saved ; but they are building 
 with worthless materials, and the edifice which they 
 are erecting will be burned up ; they shall suffer loss, 
 and though saved, yet it will be so as through fire ; 
 they will enter heaven with diminished glory. 
 
EXPOSITION VIL 
 
 WOMEN VEILED BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS. 
 
 I Corinthians xi. lo. 
 
 Textus receptus. — A/a rfKtTO h(fu\ii n ywri s^ovffiav £%6/i' 
 iTi Trig xitpaXrig dia roiig ayys}.o\jg. 
 
 Authorised Versz'on. — For this cause ought the woman to have 
 power on /ler head, because of the angels. 
 
 Revised Version. — For this cause ought the woman to have a 
 sign ^authority on her head, because of the angels. 
 
 The celebrated John Locke confesses that the mean- 
 ing of these words of St. Paul was beyond his compre- 
 hension ; and certainly few of the sayings of that 
 great apostle have given rise to so much discussion, 
 and to so great a diversity of opinion. But their 
 difficulty must not deter us from attempting an 
 explanation, especially as the object of the apostle 
 in writing these words is perfectly obvious. 
 
 The first thing to do, in order to attain to a correct 
 interpretation of the passage, is to consider the 
 context. Nearly the whole of the First Epistle to 
 the Corinthians was written for the purpose of 
 correcting the disorders which had arisen in the Church 
 
 of Corinth. One of these disorders was occasioned 
 114 
 
Wo7nen Veiled because of the Angels. 115 
 
 by the conduct of the Corinthian women in their 
 assembhes for pubhc worship. It would appear that 
 they had adopted the unseemly, and, to an Oriental, 
 immodest custom of appearing with their heads 
 uncovered. The practice of covering or uncovering 
 the head at public worship was different among 
 different nations. The men among the Jews, as is 
 well known, cover their heads ; and that for the same 
 reason as we uncover them, namely, as a mark of 
 respect and reverence. It would also appear that 
 among the Romans the men used to worship with 
 their heads covered, whilst among the Greeks they 
 were accustomed to uncover their heads. Accordingly, 
 in the mixed congregation of the Corinthians, com- 
 posed partly of Jewish and partly of Greek converts, 
 there would be a want of uniformity with regard to 
 this practice among the men ; some would pray with 
 covered and others with uncovered heads. On the 
 other hand, it would seem to be the universal custom 
 among the Orientals for the women in their public 
 assemblies to wear a veil, or at least a covering on 
 their heads. The Corinthian women had abandoned 
 this practice in their Christian assemblies ; many of 
 them, in defiance of the custom of their country, and 
 of the natural modesty of their sex, appeared with 
 their heads uncovered, and thus gave occasion of 
 offence to the heathen. Their reason for doing so was 
 probably because they considered that Christianity 
 had done away with all distinctions of sex, and had 
 abolished the inequality between the man and the 
 
1 1 6 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 woman, there being in Christ Jesus neither male nor 
 female ; and that, therefore, all those marks of distinc- 
 tion, all those symbols of subordination, should be 
 done away with. 
 
 The Apostle sets himself to correct these dis- 
 orders in the Corinthian Church. He enjoins order 
 and decorum in their Christian assemblies. He tells 
 them that Christianity had not abolished the natural 
 distinction and subordination of the sexes : that, as 
 the head of every man is Christ, so the head of the 
 woman is the man ; and, as regards the matter in 
 question, he enjoins that in their assemblies for 
 worship the men should appear with their heads 
 uncovered, and the women with their heads covered. 
 " Every man praying or prophesying, having his head 
 covered, dishonoureth his head (that is, Christ). But 
 every woman that prayeth or prophesieth, having her 
 head uncovered, dishonoureth her head (that is, the 
 man)." The reason which he assigns for the injunc- 
 tion is the natural subordination of the woman ; that 
 as the man is the reflection of the glory of God, so 
 the woman is the reflection of the glory of the man : 
 " For the man is not of the woman ; but the woman 
 of the man. Neither was the man created for the 
 woman, but the woman for the man." And then 
 follow the words which form the subject of the present 
 exposition : " for this cause " — evidently on account of 
 this subordination, " ought the woman to have power 
 on Jier head, because of the angels." 
 
 The commands or injunctions of the apostle on this 
 
Women Veiled because of the Aftgels. 117 
 
 practice refer to matters which do not come properly 
 under the law of moral duties, but under the law of 
 expediency. Abstractly and by itself there can be 
 nothing either morally right or wrong in having the 
 head covered or uncovered ; the matter belongs to an 
 entirely different category from honesty, truth, for- 
 giveness, and such like moral duties. But as it is 
 important that religious assemblies should be orderly 
 conducted, and that the disorders in the Corinthian 
 Church should be suppressed ; these rules and regula- 
 tions are laid down by the apostle chiefly as a matter 
 of order. " Let all things," he observes, " be done 
 decently and in order." " God is not the author of con- 
 fusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints" 
 (i Cor, xiv, 40, 33). In things morally indifferent, re- 
 spect is to be paid to the customs of the country in 
 which the Christians lived. In'the East it was regarded 
 as a matter, not merely of gross impropriety, but of 
 immodesty, for women to appear with their heads 
 uncovered in popular assemblies ; and, for this reason, 
 for a Christian woman to do so was morally wrong. 
 The apostle, in this epistle, frequently adverts to 
 similar cases, — to things which in themselves were 
 matters of indifference, but which in consequence of 
 circumstances became morally right or wrong ; such 
 as those questions of meats and drinks, the eating of 
 things offered in sacrifice to idols, the abstinence 
 from blood ; the regulations regarding which vary 
 with circumstances and national customs. Principles, 
 rather than things, are here involved. " All things," 
 
1 1 8 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 observes the apostle, " are lawful unto me, but all 
 things are not expedient : all things are lawful for 
 me, but I will not be brought under the power of 
 any" (i Cor. vi. 12). 
 
 The reading of the textus receptus is attested by 
 predominant authority. Two cursive manuscripts 
 read ovk 6(f)elX6t ; but this is evidently a correction to 
 escape a difficulty. Nor is there much difficulty in 
 the translation, nor any obscurity in the purpose of 
 the apostle. Bia tovto denotes "for this cause;" that 
 is, on account of what has just been said concerning 
 the subordination of the woman to the man ; and 
 hence the words which follow, " ought the woman to 
 have power on her head," must have reference to this 
 subordination. Perhaps e^ovaiav, might be more 
 correctly rendered authority. The words which follow 
 hia T0V9 d^<yi\.ov<; have been considered by some as a 
 gloss, since the sense is complete without them ; but 
 for this opinion there is no authority, as they are con- 
 tained in all manuscripts. Some translate them as a 
 form of oath, " by the angels ; " but this is inadmis- 
 sible ; as to swear by the angels is opposed to apostolic 
 teaching. It must, however, be borne in mind, 
 especially as this will form an important element in 
 our explanation of the verse, that the word djyiXov^ 
 admits of the translation inesse7igers as well as 
 angels. 
 
 There are two great exegetical difficulties con- 
 nected with this verse ; first, the meaning of the 
 words, " a woman ought to have authority on her 
 
Wo7nen Veiled because of the Angels. 119 
 
 head ; " and secondly, the import of the reason 
 assigned for this, " because of the angels." 
 
 I. What is meant by the woman having power or 
 authority on her head ? o^et/Vet ri <yvvr] e^ovcriav e%eii^ 
 
 We at once discard all conjectural emendations. 
 Any supposed change in the letters of the word 
 i^ovaiav — as i^iovaa, " when she goes out ; " e^ ov<Tia<iy 
 " according to nature," — is completely inadmissible. 
 Indeed, when we consider the mass of materials 
 which we possess for ascertaining the correct reading 
 of the text of the New Testament, conjectural 
 emendation is in all cases inadmissible. Authority, 
 alone, and not conjecture is the rule upon which we 
 must go. And here the authority of manuscripts, 
 versions, and Fathers is, without variation, in favour 
 of i^ovaiav. 
 
 Whatever meaning we may assign to the words, 
 the context proves beyond dispute that it must be an 
 assertion of the subordination of the woman to the 
 man. *' For this cause," on account of this subordina- 
 tion, "the woman ought to have authority on her 
 head." Accordingly, it has been ingeniously and ably 
 maintained that i^ovala is an unusual word for a 
 head-dress or veil ; perhaps a Cilician provincial- 
 ism.^ Of course, if this could be made out, all 
 difficulty in the expression would vanish. Indeed, 
 in some Greek dictionaries the meaning veil is given, 
 but unfortunately the only authority assigned for this 
 
 ^ See Michaelis, Ernesti, Hitzig, and Blomfield. 
 
1 20 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 is our text. It has been argued that the Hebrew 
 word "7*1-1"^, used for a veil or cloak (Isa. iii. 23 ; Cant. 
 V. 7), is derived from the verb tt^, or n"T1> which has 
 the signification, to subdue; and that when Paul 
 uses the Greek term i^ovala, he might have in view 
 the Hebrew relation of the words veil and subjection. 
 But even were this derivation of the Hebrew word for 
 a veil correct, we cannot infer from it that Paul used 
 the usual word for authority in the sense of veil. It 
 has further been added, that the Latin word imperiuin 
 is used to denote some female ornament, and that 
 therefore it is possible that the cognate Greek term 
 i^ovala may also have been similarly employed. Of 
 course, it cannot be denied that this might have been 
 the case, but there is no proof that it was so ; in no 
 writing does the word occur in the sense of a head- 
 dress. 
 
 We are then constrained to abandon this meaning 
 of the word, although affording so excellent a sense, 
 and to keep to the ordinary meaning authority. As, 
 however, from the context, this authority must denote 
 the subordination of the woman to the man, we are 
 constrained to suppose that the word is used by 
 metonymy for the symbol of authority. " For this 
 reason ought the woman to have the symbol of 
 authority;" or, as the Revised Version has it, "the 
 sign of authority on her head ; " that is of the 
 authority of the man over her ; and which symbol or 
 sign of authority, as we elsewhere learn from the con- 
 text, is the covering of the head. An instance in the 
 
Women Veiled because of the Angels. 121 
 
 Old Testament illustrates this custom. When 
 Rebekah was informed that her destined husband 
 Isaac, came forth to meet her, "she took a veil and 
 covered herself," not merely from modesty, but as the 
 symbol of her subordination. This is the meaning 
 given by the translators of our Bible ; who, for the 
 information of their readers, attach this gloss on the 
 margin, " a covering in sign that she is under the 
 power of her husband." 
 
 It is not to be denied that this explanation is not 
 entirely satisfactory. The meaning given is harsh 
 and somewhat obscure. Besides, even when we inter- 
 pret i^ovaia as the symbol or sign of authority, yet 
 one would naturally suppose that the authority spoken 
 of belongs to the person, and not to the authority 
 exercised over that person by another. According to 
 the above explanation, it would appear that we 
 almost force upon the word i^ovaia a meaning directly 
 contrary to its import, — subordination instead of 
 mithority. Meyer observes that " the context justi- 
 fied the use of i^ovata to denote the sign of a^iother's 
 power ; the phrase thus simply having its proper 
 reference brought out, and by no means twisted into 
 an opposite meaning." Bishop Wordsworth gets over 
 the difficulty by saying that " the true power of woman 
 is in gentle submission." The context compels us to 
 give the phrase the above interpretation of subordina- 
 tion. Hence the sense of the passage is : For this 
 cause, because at creation there was a subordination 
 of the woman to the man, and at the fall a renewal 
 
122 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 of this subordination in the sentence, '* He shall rule 
 over you," the woman ought to bear on her head the 
 mark of man's authority, and thus appear veiled or 
 covered in the Christian assemblies for public worship.^ 
 
 II. We now come to the more difficult clause : 
 " because of the angels," — Sta tov<^ dyjeXoix;. 
 
 It is evident that without these words the sentence 
 would be complete in itself ; the addition assigns 
 the reason why the woman should have on her head 
 the symbol of man's authority. A vast variety of 
 meanings have been attached to these words, but 
 they may be arranged under the three following 
 clauses : — 
 
 I. Some suppose that the words refer to real ange/s; 
 dyyekov^ is here taken to denote the angels or super- 
 human spirits, whether holy or evil angels. 
 
 The interpretation generally adopted is to refer the 
 word to the /lofy angels^ to those blessed spirits who 
 surround the throne of God, and who, as the servants 
 of Christ, minister to those who are the heirs of salva- 
 tion. The angels are represented in Scripture as 
 taking a lively interest in the redemption of the human 
 
 ^ The meaning here given is that adopted by most commentators, 
 both of ancient and modern times ; among the Fathers and Greek com- 
 mentators by TertuUian, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact ; 
 among the Reformers by Calvin, Luther (Luther's gloss is similar to 
 that on the margin of our Bibles : " that is the veil or covering by which 
 one may see that she is under her husband's authority "), and Beza ; 
 among recent German expositors, by Bengel, Neander, Ewald, Liicke, 
 Ruckert, Billroth, Cremer, Olshausen, De Wette, and Meyer ; and 
 among English writers, by Doddridge, Whitby, IMacknight, Conybeare, 
 Alford, Stanley, Lias, Farrar, and Wordsworth. 
 
Women Veiled because of the Angels. 123 
 
 race. "There is joy," our Saviour informs us, "in the 
 presence of the angels of God over one sinner that 
 repenteth" (Luke xv. 10). Especially it appears to 
 have been the opinion of the Jews that the holy angels 
 were present at their religious assemblies. There are 
 some indications of this opinion in the Old Testa- 
 ment. Thus, the Psalmist declares, " I will praise 
 thee with my whole heart : before the gods (that is, 
 the angels) will I sing praise unto thee " (Ps. cxxxviii. 
 i). And there appears to be a similar allusion in 
 those words of the royal Preacher : " Suffer not thy 
 mouth to cause thy flesh to sin : neither say thou 
 before the angel that it was an error" (Eccl. v. 6). 
 There is indeed no reference to this notion in the 
 New Testament, unless, as some suppose, in i Tim. 
 V. 21 ; but the apostle, it is supposed, adopts the 
 Jewish opinion, as being in conformity with the word 
 of God. The Greek Fathers often refer to the presence 
 of the angels at public worship. " Open the eyes of 
 faith," says St. Chrysostom, " and thou shalt behold a 
 theatre of spectators ; for, if the air is filled with angels, 
 much more the church." Bengel supposes that the 
 reason why the apostle names the angels is because as 
 the angels are represented as veiling their faces before 
 God, so women ought also to veil their faces when 
 they worship. Such a reason, however, would apply 
 with equal force to the men, who are enjoined to 
 uncover their heads. Some think that the reference 
 here is to guardian angels ; ^ but there are no traces 
 ^ So Theophylact, Jerome, and Theodoret. 
 
124 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 of any such allusion in this passage. The reason 
 generally assigned is because the angels, as spectators 
 and fellow-worshippers, are the lovers of order and 
 subordination, and therefore all unseemliness and 
 immodesty in worship must be offensive to them. 
 We must have regard to them in our worship, so as 
 by no impropriety to offend their pure natures. As 
 Calvin puts it : " If women uncover their heads, not 
 only Christ, but all the angels will be witnesses of 
 the outrage. When women assume a higher place 
 than becomes them, they gain this by it, that they 
 discover their impudence in view of the angels of 
 heaven ; " or, as Erasmus paraphrases it : " If a woman 
 has arrived at that pitch of shamelessness that she 
 does not fear the eyes of men, let her at least cover 
 her head on account of the angels who are present at 
 your assemblies." 
 
 Such is the meaning which is generally assigned to 
 this difficult expression. The presence of the holy 
 angels in their assemblies is given as the reason why 
 women should veil their faces, because, by a violation 
 of this seemly custom, they would offend these holy 
 spirits. But such a reason does not commend itself 
 to our judgment ; it appears to be far-fetched. St. 
 Paul does not lay much stress elsewhere on the 
 sentiments of the angels ; he employs reasons far 
 stronger and more telling. Indeed, he deprecates 
 anything approaching to a voluntary humility and 
 worshipping of angels. We, at least, would never 
 think of censuring unseemly conduct at public 
 
Women Veiled because of the Angels. 125 
 
 worship, by telling the worshippers that they ought 
 to conduct themselves in a more orderly manner, 
 because the holy angels were present among them. 
 Such a reason would be destitute of force, as being 
 too indefinite and transcendental. 
 
 Accordingly, many expositors suppose that not holy 
 but evil angels are referred to. They suppose that the 
 apostle here accommodates himself to, or adopts, a 
 notion then undoubtedly prevalent among the Jews, 
 and afterwards embraced by the early Fathers, that 
 the sin of at least a portion of the fallen angels 
 consisted in their yielding themselves up to human 
 love. This extravagant notion arose from a gross 
 misconception of those words of Scripture wherein 
 we are told that " the sons of God saw the daughters 
 of men that they were fair ; and they took them 
 wives of all which they chose " (Gen. vi. 2). In the 
 Alexandrian manuscript of the Septuagint, the words 
 " sons of God " are rendered " angels of God." This 
 notion is largely dwelt upon in the apocryphal Book 
 of Enoch, the greater part of which is generally 
 admitted to have been written before the Christian 
 era, and some suppose is adopted by Jude, who 
 quotes from that book. To this rabbinical notion it 
 is supposed the apostle refers ; women should veil 
 themselves, because they might tempt or be tempted 
 by the evil angels. This is the interpretation which 
 is directly given by Tertullian : " It is on account 
 of the angels that he saith, women must be veiled, 
 because on account of the daughters of men, angels 
 
126 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 revolted from God." The same opinion appears to be 
 adopted by no less an authority than Archdeacon 
 Farrar. " There can," he observes, " I think, be no 
 shadow of doubt in the unprejudiced mind of any 
 reader who is familiar with these Jewish views of the 
 subject in which Paul had been trained, that he is 
 referring to the common rabbinical interpretation of 
 Gen. vi. 2, where the Targum, and, indeed, all the 
 Jewish authorities down to the author of the Book 
 of Enoch, attached the fall of angels to their guilty 
 love for earthly women." A modification of this 
 view, softening its grossness, is also adopted by 
 Dean Stanley, who thus paraphrases our passage : 
 " Therefore the authority of man is to be seen visibly 
 resting on her head in the covering which shrouds 
 her from the view of these angelic beings who, as 
 we read in the same primeval records, were the first 
 to break through the sacred relations of man and 
 wife, the first to entice her from that subjection to 
 which God had appointed her." So also Macknight 
 supposes that the reference is not to the Jewish 
 notion of the fall of angels, but to the seduction of 
 the woman by the artifices of the serpent ; and that 
 the wearing of the veil was to be the perpetual 
 monument of her fall, and of her subjection to man 
 in consequence. " Eve," he observes, " having been 
 seduced by evil angels to eat the forbidden fruit, she 
 and all her daughters were punished for that sin, by 
 being subjected to the rule of their husbands. The 
 apostle, therefore, enjoined the Eastern women, 
 
Women Veiled because of the Angels. 127 
 
 according to whose custom the wearing of a veil was 
 a token of subjection, to be veiled in the public 
 assemblies for worship, that, remembering their first 
 mother's seduction by evil angels, they might be 
 sensible of their own frailty, and behave with 
 humility."^ 
 
 But neither do we think that this interpretation is 
 the correct one. We cannot imagine that either 
 St. Jude, or far less the Apostle Paul, adopted that 
 gross and extravagant notion of the rabbinical writers 
 and of the author of the Book of Enoch. Nor does 
 the more moderate view, that the reference is to the 
 seduction of Eve, recommend itself; for this seduc- 
 tion was not effected by evil spirits in general, but 
 by one pre-eminently, — namely, the devil. And, in 
 general, if evil angels were meant, we would expect 
 some statement to that effect by the apostle, as " the 
 angels that sinned," " the angels that kept not their 
 first estate." 
 
 2. Accordingly, some suppose that the word here 
 rendered a7igels does not refer to the angelic spirits, 
 whether good or evil, but that it is used with reference 
 to the ministers, or Christian prophets, who were 
 specially set apart to conduct the worship of the 
 congregation. The name angel, it is said, is con- 
 ferred on ministers both in the Old and in the New 
 Testament. Thus in the prophecy of Malachi we 
 read : " The priest's lips should keep knowledge, and 
 they should seek the law at his mouth : for he is 
 
 ^ A similar interpretation is adopted by Whitby. 
 
128 Exegetical Sttidies. 
 
 the messenger (or angel) of the Lord of Hosts" 
 (Mai. ii. 7). And in the book of the Revelation we 
 read of the angels of the seven churches, which 
 appellation has been supposed to refer to the bishops 
 or presidents of these churches. Such a name is also 
 sufficiently appropriate, as ministers are the mes- 
 sengers or ambassadors of God. The reason then 
 here assigned is, that women should veil their faces, 
 lest they should draw away the affections or distract 
 the attention of the ministers or presidents of the 
 assemblies. 
 
 To this opinion, however, it is justly objected that 
 the name wy^ekot is never given to ministers in the 
 New Testament ; certainly never by the Apostle 
 Paul. He calls them airoarokoi eKKXrjaLwv (2 Cor. 
 viii. 22), but never ayjeXoL eKKkyjacwv. Nor is it at all 
 obvious that by the angels of the Apocalyptic Churches 
 the ministers or bishops are meant. We cannot, then, 
 suppose that the reference here is to ministers, — a 
 reference which does not elsewhere occur. 
 
 3. Others suppose that the reference is to the 
 messengers or spies sent by the heathen into the 
 public assemblies of Christians. It must be remem- 
 bered that the word d'yyeKo^ denotes a inessefiger as 
 well as an angel ; and that it is from the context 
 alone that we can determine which of the two mean- 
 ings is correct. In the New Testament the word 
 frequently occurs in the sense of messenger. Thus, 
 in reference to the Baptist, it is said : " This is he of 
 whom it is written. Behold I send My messenger {tov 
 
Woiizen Veiled because of the Angels. 129 
 
 wyyeXov fiov) before thy face, which shall prepare thy 
 
 way before thee" (Matt. xi. 10). So, also, the name 
 
 is given to the disciples whom the Baptist sent to 
 
 inquire of Jesus whether He were the Messiah, "And 
 
 when the messengers (ayyeXcov) of John were departed'* 
 
 (Luke vii. 24). And it is said of Jesus that on His 
 
 last journey to Jerusalem He sent messengers 
 
 (ayyiXovs;) before His face (Luke ix. 52). But the 
 
 most remarkable passage, and the one which bears 
 
 most closely on our subject, is in the Epistle of 
 
 James, where this very word is applied to the spies 
 
 whom Joshua sent to spy out Jericho : " Likewise, 
 
 also, was not Rahab the harlot justified by works 
 
 when she had received the messengers (ajjeXov;), and 
 
 sent them out another way" (J as. ii. 25); whereas, 
 
 in the Epistle to the Hebrews, when reference to the 
 
 same incident is made, the word (KaTacrK07rov<;) spies 
 
 is employed (Heb. xi. 31). In all these passages it is 
 
 evident that ayyekoL must denote inesse7tgers, as it 
 
 refers not to supernatural agents, but to human 
 
 beings. 
 
 Now, it is argued that this is the meaning of the 
 
 term here ; women, in their assemblies for worship, 
 
 ought to veil their faces because of the messengers. 
 
 The messengers here meant are the heathen spies ; 
 
 and just as the spies sent by Joshua are called arfye- 
 
 X,ou9, so also may the spies sent by the heathen be so 
 
 termed. Tertullian informs us that the heathen 
 
 were in the habit of sending spies or messengers to 
 
 observe what was said or done in their Christian 
 
 K 
 
130 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 assemblies ; and indeed, nothing was more natural 
 than that they should do so, as the religious assem- 
 blies of the Christians were open to the public. 
 According to this view, the apostle exhorts the 
 Corinthians to see that their assemblies are con- 
 ducted with proper order — that all unseemly practices, 
 all offensive attitudes, all violations of what was 
 called decorum in dress, everything approaching to 
 immodesty be avoided ; he tells them to remember 
 that the eyes of the heathen are upon them ; that 
 their conduct is narrowly watched, and that the least 
 •deviation from the rules of propriety would be 
 observed, and blackened, and exaggerated ; and that 
 the messengers or spies of their heathen adversaries 
 were often present in their assemblies. This, we con- 
 sider, is the true meaning of the passage, and it 
 affords an adequate reason why the Corinthians 
 should be very careful of the manner in which they 
 •conducted their worship ; that reason being because 
 they were watched. It is a meaning which is only 
 adopted by a few expositors,^ but it recommends 
 itself to us as that which best satisfies all the require- 
 ments of the case. The only strong objection brought 
 against it is that a^'yekoi, when standing absolutely in 
 the New Testament, always denotes good angels. 
 But we consider this an assertion which has not been 
 •demonstrated. When St. Paul says, " Know ye not 
 that we shall judge angels?" (i Cor. vi. 3), it is only 
 by referring the term to evil angels that we can obtain 
 1 Amonir these are Rosenmiiller and Schrader. 
 
Women Veiled because of the Angels. 131 
 
 any true sense. Accordingly, we do not think that 
 there is anything in the context to prevent us 
 maintaining that dyjekov; is here to be translated 
 messengers. 
 
 This portion of St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, 
 regulating the order of public worship, is very valuable. 
 The public worship of the Corinthian Church appears 
 to have degenerated into a scene of confusion ; the 
 Lord's Supper was degraded into an ordinary meal ; 
 many spoke at once in the church ; some uttered 
 incoherent ejaculations ; even women as well as men 
 prophesied ; and, in violation of the customs of their 
 country, and forgetful of the natural modesty of their 
 sex, they appeared with uncovered heads. The 
 apostle uses a variety of arguments, and lays down 
 various regulations, to repress these disorders. He 
 tells them that God is the author of order and not of 
 confusion ; he specifies the order and the due sub- 
 ordination to be observed ; and he here reminds 
 them of the watchful eye of the world. Indeed, it 
 would appear that one great reason for the establish- 
 ment of the Christian ministry — for setting apart 
 a body of men to conduct public worship — was for 
 the sake of order. One of the great properties of 
 the charity which the Gospel inculcates is that it 
 " doth not behave itself unseemly " — does nothing to 
 offend those rules that regulate the order or secure 
 the peace of society. 
 
 Lastly, we may take notice of the apostle's atten- 
 tion to minute matters. He gives instructions even 
 
132 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 about the attire of women and their personal appear- 
 ance ; he gives rules about eating and drinking ; he 
 lays down regulations about feasting ; nothing seems 
 too minute to be beyond his observation. We must 
 not consider such things to be beneath the notice 
 of the apostle, or that attending to them indicated 
 littleness of mind. On the contrary, this attention 
 to little matters was the mark of the greatness of 
 his mind. All great men are attentive to small 
 details, knowing that it is only by such minuteness 
 that exactness can be attained, and that complete 
 success can crown their efforts. And certainly St. 
 Paul was not one who overlooked small matters ; for 
 he well knew that attention to small things often 
 leads to great results, while inattention might lead to 
 discomfiture and failure. 
 
EXPOSITION VIII. 
 
 BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD. 
 
 I Corinthians xv. 29. 
 Textus recepttis. — 'Ecrs/ r/ r^oirisovaiv 01 BairriZ^oiMsvoi uts^ ruv 
 
 VSKOUV. 
 
 Atithorised Versio7i. — Else what shall they do which are 
 baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are 
 they then baptised for the dead .'' 
 
 Revised Versioft. — Else what shall they do which are baptised 
 for the dead ? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are 
 they baptised for them ? 
 
 The obscurities of the New Testament do not arise, 
 as is the case with many of the obscurities in classical 
 writings, from any uncertainty as to the original text ; 
 at least this is not a prominent cause of obscurity ; 
 for, notwithstanding the extraordinary number of 
 various readings, thanks to the labours of Lachmann, 
 Tischendorf, and Tregelles, we now possess a text 
 which to all intents and purposes is restored to its 
 original purity. Nor do many of these obscurities 
 arise from a defective knowledge of the language in 
 which the New Testament was written ; for, although 
 
 iZ3 
 
1 34 Exegetical Studies, 
 
 there are but few remains of that particular dialect 
 of the Greek used by the sacred writers, yet such is 
 the accuracy of scholars that in general there is little 
 reason to doubt that the true meaning of the words 
 has been ascertained. But, among other reasons' 
 three may especially be assigned for our difficulty in 
 understanding certain Scriptural passages. First, there 
 is undeniably a certain obscurity in the style of many 
 of the sacred writers. This is obviously the case in 
 the epistles of St. Paul. That great apostle was 
 careless about style ; his impetuous spirit hurried 
 him along ; he often deserts the subject in which he 
 is engaged, and introduces a long digression, as if 
 some new thought had struck him, and then without 
 any notice returns to his original subject. This 
 creates a difficulty in following his train of thought, and, 
 of course, in understanding his meaning. Instances 
 of such Pauline digressions are numerous, and must 
 suggest themselves to every critical reader. A second 
 cause of obscurity is our ignorance of the customs and 
 modes of thought prevalent among the early converts. 
 In order thoroughly to understand the Epistles, we 
 must put ourselves in the position of those to whom 
 the apostle wrote, understand their views, and be 
 acquainted with their practices. But we are lament- 
 ably ignorant of the age immediately succeeding that 
 of the apostles. A period of nearly forty years inter- 
 venes between the writings of the New Testament and 
 the writings of the early Fathers, with the solitary 
 exception of the short Epistle of St. Clement. Hence 
 
Baptism for the Dead. 135 
 
 the sacred writers may often allude to customs which 
 have left no trace in the history of the Church, and to 
 modes of thought of which we are entirely ignorant. 
 But the chief cause of obscurity is the novelty and 
 sublimity of the truths revealed. The apostles advert 
 to truths formerly unthought of in the heathen world, 
 and hence the Greek terms which the sacred writers 
 were forced to employ must have been often inade- 
 quate to express the sentiments they intended to 
 convey. And, besides, there are other revealed truths 
 of so sublime a nature as to lie beyond the sphere of 
 human intelligence, and the statement and elucida- 
 tion of these must often be difficult of comprehension. 
 The passage selected for exposition is one of those 
 obscure statements of Scripture : " Else what shall 
 they do which are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise 
 not at all ? why are they then baptised for the dead ? " 
 What does the apostle mean by being baptised for 
 the dead ? What is the nature of this baptism ? How 
 are we to interpret the word dead ? Are we to give 
 to these terms a natural or a metaphorical significa- 
 tion ? These questions naturally arise, and accord- 
 ingly there are few passages in the New Testament 
 which have given rise to such a variety of explana- 
 tions. More than twenty interpretations might be 
 mentioned, each having the authority of some dis- 
 tinguished divine, and each defended by plausible 
 reasons. Indeed, some of these interpretations are so 
 plausible, that although only one can be correct, it is 
 difficult to give a preference to one more than to 
 
~i^6 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 another. Hence great caution, as well as great 
 candour, are requisite in our endeavours to ascertain 
 the true interpretation. 
 
 The first thing to be done, in the way of interpreta- 
 tion, is to discover the connection of the passage. 
 When attentively read, it is seen to be wholly uncon- 
 nected with what immediately precedes. We have 
 here one of those digressions of St. Paul which so 
 frequently occur in his epistles, and which, as we have 
 already observed, form one great cause of obscurity in 
 his writings. He is reasoning concerning the reality 
 of the resurrection, but he interrupts his argument by a 
 digression on the order of the resurrection, and now he 
 goes back on the passage under discussion and resumes 
 his reasoning. We would connect this twenty-ninth 
 verse with the twentieth, and consider the whole inter- 
 vening passage from verse twenty-one to verse twenty- 
 eight as a parenthesis, which, according to the style of 
 modern writing, would have been attached as a note. 
 The apostle has been speaking of the vanity of the 
 Christian life apart from the resurrection : "If, in this 
 life only, we have hope in Christ, we are of all men 
 most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the 
 dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept ;" 
 and then, after a digression on the order of the resur- 
 rection, suggested by the woxdi first-fruits, he resumes 
 his argument. " Else," if Christ be not risen, " what 
 shall they do which are baptised for the dead ? ' 
 Dean Stanley strangely imagines that " the confusion 
 may possibly have arisen from some actual interrup- 
 
Baptism for the Dead. I37 
 
 tion in the writing or the material of the letter." But 
 whilst the passage is thus disconnected with what 
 immediately precedes, it is directly connected with 
 what follows, "And why stand we in jeopardy every 
 hour?" If Christ be not risen, what is the use of 
 enduring sufferings for our profession of faith in Him ? 
 The next point in the interpretation is to ascer- 
 tain the train of thought in the apostle's reasoning in 
 favour of the resurrection. There were some among 
 his Corinthian converts who called in question the 
 resurrection of the dead, either affirming that it was 
 already past, assigning to it a metaphorical meaning — 
 a resurrection from dead works ; or maintaining that it 
 would never occur — that it was an impossibility. Now 
 the apostle addresses three arguments in proof of the 
 resurrection. His first and chief argument, upon which 
 he puts the greatest stress, is that derived from the 
 resurrection of Christ. " If there be no resurrection of 
 the dead, then is Christ not risen." And if this be the 
 case, Christianity rests on a false foundation, " your 
 faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins." In testifying to 
 the resurrection of Christ " we are found false witnesses 
 of God." But we have the most convincing proofs 
 from numerous and unquestionable witnesses, that 
 Christ has risen from the dead, and this His resurrec- 
 tion is a proof and pledge of ours. His second argu- 
 ment is, that if there be no resurrection and no future 
 state, then those believers who have died are annihil- 
 ated. " Then they also which have fallen asleep in 
 Christ are perished ; " their Christianity has done 
 
138 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 them no good, or rather, as it is inseparably connected 
 with self-denial and suffering, it has augmented the 
 misery of human existence : " If in this life only we 
 have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." 
 But this is a consequence which cannot be admitted : 
 " Christ is risen from the dead, and is become the 
 first-fruits of them that slept." And analogous to this, 
 the apostle adduces a third argument, that if there 
 be no resurrection, all the trials and sufferings of 
 believers are useless ; not the practice of the Christ- 
 ians, but the maxim of the Epicureans is reasonable : 
 "Why stand we in jeopardy every hour? If, after 
 the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at 
 Ephesus, what advantageth it me if the dead rise 
 not ? Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die" — 
 an inference which is to be rejected with horror ; " Be 
 not deceived, evil communications corrupt good 
 manners." Now, it is evident that it is to this third 
 argument that the passage under consideration belongs, 
 namely, the uselessness of the sufferings of believers 
 if there be no resurrection. Hence, then, we consider 
 that a preference is to be given to the interpretation 
 which suits that argument : baptism for the dead 
 must be connected with the sufferings of believers. 
 
 There is not much variety in the readings of the 
 passage. The only point of importance is that instead 
 of i/Trep Twv veKpcov in the second clause, the true 
 reading is virep avrcov ; ^ " Else what shall they do 
 
 ^ This reading is attested by all the best MSS., and is undoubtedly 
 correct. 
 
Baptism for the Dead. 1 39 
 
 which are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not at 
 all ? Why are they baptised for them ? " an altera- 
 tion which occasions no difference in the sense. So 
 also the translation given in our version is tolerably 
 accurate. The conjunction kirii, translated " else," 
 might be properly rendered " since ; " or '' this being 
 the case." 01 ^aTrn^ofjievoL, " they who are baptised," 
 denotes a particular class of Christians. The word 
 dead is in the plural, tmv veKpwv ; not a dead person, 
 but dead persons. But the chief thing to be attended 
 to is the force of the preposition virep. Its primary 
 meaning when it governs the genitive is over or above; 
 but, unless our passage be an exception, it is never 
 used in this local sense in the New Testament ; it is 
 always used figuratively. In this sense it almost 
 always denotes " for the sake of," " on behalf of" 
 Thus : " for their sakes {virep aurcov) I sanctify 
 myself" (John xvii. 19). So also in Rom. i. 5 ; Eph. 
 iii. 13; Phil. i. 29; Col. iii, 24; 2 Thess. i. 5, &c. 
 More rarely, but still closely connected with the above 
 meaning, it signifies " instead of ; " as, for instance, in 
 2 Cor. V. 20 : " We pray you in Christ's stead {virep 
 XpLaTov) be ye reconciled to God ; " and in Philemon 
 13 : "Whom I would have retained with me, that in 
 thy stead (vTrep a-ov) he might have ministered unto 
 me." Hence the most literal translation of the verse is : 
 Since what shall the baptised for the sake of (instead 
 of) the dead do ? If the dead rise not at all, why are 
 they baptised for the sake of (instead of) them ? 
 Nor is there any difficulty in ascertaining the 
 
140 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 meaning of the words taken separately. Tl Troc^aovcriv 
 evidently imports : What is the object or use of 
 their doing? What profit or advantage will result 
 from it ? What will they gain ? It is also evident 
 that the baptism here spoken of is to be taken 
 literally ; not figuratively as a baptism of fire, but the 
 Christian baptism— baptism into the faith of Christ, 
 into a belief of His religion Some expositors suppose 
 that the word dead {veKpwv) is to be taken figuratively 
 for the spiritually dead. But this would involve the 
 grievous anomaly, that the same word is to be taken 
 figuratively in one part of the passage and literally in 
 another ; for it is evident that in the clause, " If the 
 dead rise not at all ? " the word must be taken literally 
 to denote those who are actually dead. 
 
 In adverting to the different interpretations which 
 have been given to " being baptised for the dead " 
 (^aTTTt^ofjievot virep rcov veKpwv), we may discard at 
 once and without further examination all those which 
 give a figurative sense either to the word baptised or 
 to the word dead, as being wholly inadmissible. As, 
 for instance, those which regard the word baptised in 
 the sense of afflicted, the interpretation adopted by 
 Dr. Macknight. " What shall they do to repair their 
 loss who are immersed in sufferings for testifying the 
 resurrection of the dead, if the dead rise not at all ? 
 And what inducement can they have to suffer 
 death for believing the resurrection of the dead ? " 
 The reference is certainly to the sufferings of 
 believers, but the words do not admit of this 
 
Baptism for Vie Dead. 141 
 
 figurative interpretation. So also those interpreta- 
 tions are to be rejected which consider the word dead 
 to denote either the spiritually dead, " What shall 
 they gain who are baptised in order to convert those 
 who are dead in sins? "^ or dead works, "What shall 
 they gain who are baptised for the removal of their 
 dead works?" So also several other interpretations are 
 in themselves so evidently improbable or so manifestly 
 erroneous that the mention and consideration of them 
 need not detain us. We shall examine seven inter- 
 pretations which appear plausible, reserving what we 
 consider the correct interpretation to the last. 
 
 I. A very common interpretation is that which 
 considers Christ as here referred to under the desier- 
 nation dead. " What shall they do which are baptised 
 for the dead ? " that is for Christ. This is the meaning 
 which is usually adopted by uncritical writers ; nor 
 does it want the weight of critical authority, for it is 
 the view taken by Whitby in his learned commentary. 
 It assumes two forms. What shall they do who 
 are baptised for the dead, that is, for Christ ? If 
 there be no resurrection, if the dead rise not at all, 
 then is Christ not risen : He is dead, He is still in the 
 grave ; those who are baptised into His name, are 
 baptised into the name of a dead Christ. He cannot 
 help Himself, and therefore He cannot help us. Or, 
 as this interpretation has been otherwise considered, 
 those who are baptised into Christ are, as the apostle 
 elsewhere expresses it, " baptised into His death " 
 1 Hofmann. 
 
142 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 (Rom. vi. 3), as being the great sacrifice for sin ; but 
 if Christ be not risen what shall they gain who are 
 thus baptised into his death ? His death is without 
 efficacy ; no possible merit can arise from it. 
 
 Either of these views of this interpretation, referring 
 the term dead to Christ, affords a good sense, one 
 which well agrees with the argument of the apostle, 
 and is not altogether at variance with the connection ; 
 either of them shows the uselessness of a profession 
 of Christianity made by baptism to Christ, if there 
 be no resurrection. But the fatal objection to this 
 application of the term dead to Christ is that the word 
 is not in the singular, — the dead one, namely, Christ, 
 — but in the plural, — dead persons, those who are 
 dead. Also the preposition virep cannot possibly mean 
 " into," as the above interpretation requires, but " for 
 the sake of," or more rarely " instead of" Baptism 
 is not said to be vivep Xpiarov, but et'9 XpCarov. To 
 admit of the above interpretation, the words would 
 require to be et9 rov veKpov. For these reasons we 
 can have no hesitation in concluding that the inter- 
 pretation, which refers the term dead to Christ, is 
 completely inadmissible. 
 
 2. A second and more plausible interpretation 
 refers the word dead to the resurrection of the dead, 
 and reads the clause thus : " What shall they gain 
 who are baptised for the hope of the resurrection of 
 the dead, if the dead rise not at all ? " Baptism, it is 
 argued, is not only a declaration of our belief in the 
 resurrection, but a figurative or symbolical represen- 
 
Baptisfn for the Dead. 143 
 
 tation of it. "We are," says the apostle, "buried 
 with Christ by baptism into death : that like as 
 Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of 
 the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of 
 life" (Rom. vi. 4, 5). And the same idea is expressed 
 in the Epistle to the Colossians : " Buried with Him in 
 baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the 
 faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from 
 the dead " (Col. ii. 12). But if there be no resurrection 
 of the dead, to what purpose our baptism ? It has lost 
 its significance. This was the interpretation generally 
 adopted by the Fathers. Thus Tertullian observes : 
 " To be baptised for the dead means to be baptised 
 for the body, because it is the body which becomes 
 dead. What then shall they do who are baptised for 
 the body, it the body rise not again ? " (Adv. Marcion, 
 V. 10). And so also St. Chrysostom expresses himself \ 
 in the following eloquent terms : " When we have 
 instructed the catechumen in the Divine mysteries of 
 the Gospel, and are about to baptise him, we command 
 him to say, ' I believe in the resurrection of the body.' 
 And he is baptised in this faith. This is what St. 
 Paul recalls to their memory. If there is no resurrec- 
 tion of the body, why are you baptised for the dead ? 
 Why are you baptised in the profession that they will 
 rise from the grave ? You, on your part, proclaim 
 their resurrection, and the priest, on his side, repre- 
 sents it. For your immersion into the water at bap- 
 tism, and your emersion from it, is a figure of the 
 resurrection of the dead. God raises you from the 
 
144 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 grave of sin by the laver of regeneration in baptism, 
 and thus gives you a pledge of the resurrection which 
 you profess. If, then, there is no resurrection of the 
 body, all that is done in baptism on behalf of the dead 
 is a mere theatrical show. What then will they do 
 who are baptised for the dead, and in the profession 
 on their behalf that they will rise from the grave ? 
 They will have been cheated by an idle delusion."^ 
 
 Now certainly this interpretation gives a good 
 meaning, suited to the argument of the apostle ; for 
 if there be no resurrection of the dead, baptism into 
 the belief, and as a representation of it, is a useless 
 ceremony. Nor does the preposition here entirely 
 lose its meaning ; for as Bishop Wordsworth observes : 
 " Baptism was a practical argument, virlp rdv veKpwv, 
 for the dead. Believers were baptised in behalf of the 
 dead, and in their vindication. They justified them 
 from the charge of folly in grounding their hopes on 
 a vain and false foundation." But the great objection 
 to this interpretation is that it gives a somewhat 
 figurative meaning to the term dead ; it introduces the 
 word resurrection, so that, according to this view, the 
 words are not simply, " What shall they do who are 
 baptised for the dead ? " but " What shall they do 
 who are baptised for the resurrection of the dead ? " 
 that is, in the hope of its occurrence. And therefore, 
 for this reason, we consider the above interpretation 
 also as inadmissible, 
 
 3. A third interpretation is to consider that the 
 
 ^ Quoted by Bishop Wordsworth. 
 
Baptism for the Dead, 145 
 
 reference here is to the practice among the early- 
 Christians of deferring baptism until death. Accord- 
 ingly the passage is thus paraphrased : What shall 
 they gain who are baptised at the moment of deaths 
 with a view to their state when dead ? This meaning 
 has been adopted and defended by Calvin. " Those," 
 he observes, "are baptised for the dead, who are 
 looked upon as already dead, and who have altogether 
 despaired of life. It is well known to us from the 
 very commencement of the Church, those who had,, 
 while yet catechumens, fallen into disease, if their life 
 was manifestly in danger, were accustomed to ask 
 baptism, that they might not leave this world before 
 they had made a profession of Christianity ; and this 
 in order that they might carry with them the seal of 
 their salvation. They were baptised for the dead, 
 inasmuch as it could not be of any service to them in 
 this world, and the very occasion of their asking 
 baptism was that they despaired of life." Now, it is 
 certain that baptism on a death-bed was practised in 
 early Christianity. Many deferred their baptism and 
 their open avowal of Christianity until near death, 
 either from conscientious motives, because they were 
 afraid that they would not be able to live up to the 
 holy profession made at baptism ; or from supersti- 
 tious views, because they thought there was some 
 efficacy in baptism to remove or wash away their 
 past sins, so that if they were baptised immediately 
 before death they would enter pure into the presence 
 of God. We need only refer to the notable example 
 
146 ' Exegetical Studies, 
 
 of Constantine, who delayed his baptism until his last 
 illness. The practice certainly degenerated into gross 
 superstition, and was the occasion of much abuse, 
 leading men to continue in sin, supposing that if 
 baptised in the moment of death their sins would be 
 forgiven them. But, it is argued, that at first, in the 
 time of the apostle, the practice was not superstitious. 
 It arose from conscientious motives, from scruples of 
 conscience which were to be respected, from a salutary 
 dread of the instability of one's resolutions, from a 
 fear of bringing dishonour on the name of Christ ; 
 and perhaps, also, from the jealousy of the office- 
 bearers of the Church, who would not confer baptism 
 until the character of the catechumens was thoroughly 
 tested and their knowledge advanced. If, then, the 
 baptism of a catechumen had for some conscientious 
 reasons, either on his own part or on the part of the 
 Church, been deferred, and if his last sickness over- 
 took him, it was evidently his duty to be baptised at 
 death ; he himself would receive the comforts which 
 arise from that holy ordinance, and he would edify the 
 Church by the declaration of his faith at the hour 
 of death, and in being thus baptised he was baptised 
 for the sake of the dead — with a view to death. 
 
 Here, also, no fault can be found with the appropri- 
 ateness of the above interpretation. Although the 
 practice of baptism at death soon degenerated into 
 •superstition, yet we can easily imagine that there was 
 .at first nothing wrong or superstitious about it, and 
 it is not legitimate to argue against a practice from 
 
Baptism for the Dead. 147 
 
 its abuse. Certainly, in the apostolic age some might 
 be baptised with a view to death. It is also evident 
 that this meaning suits the apostle's argument, for 
 such a baptism at death would have been a useless 
 ceremony were there no resurrection from the dead. 
 But the great objection to this interpretation is that 
 the word dead is modified : it is used in the sense of 
 death, and denotes, not those who are already dead, 
 which is its evident meaning, but those who are 
 about to die. For this reason the above interpretation 
 does not come up to the full sense of the passage. 
 
 4. A fourth interpretation is that advanced in a 
 sermon by Dr. Somerville of Jedburgh,^ an interpreta- 
 tion which we have not found elsewhere, and which 
 he himself observes is " unsupported by the authority 
 of any ancient or modern expositor." ^ He inter- 
 prets the phrase "baptism for the dead," "in the 
 view or expectation of receiving their dead friends 
 again ; " in other words, baptised with a view to re- 
 union with the dead. " What shall they do who are 
 baptised for the sake of the dead ? " that is, who have 
 become Christians from a desire to regain their dear; 
 and departed friends in another and better world. 
 Dr. Somerville supposes that several of the early con- 
 verts may have been induced to become Christians on 
 
 ^ Dr. Somerville was in his days a noted minister. He wrote a 
 history of the reign of Queen Anne. His memoirs are edited by 
 Professor Lee of Glasgow. He was the father-in-law of the celebrated 
 Mrs. Somerville^, 
 
 ^ A somewhat similar interpretation is mentioned by Meyer, as having 
 been maintained by Koster. 
 
148 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 account of the consolation which the Gospel afforded 
 to those mourning over the loss of near relatives. 
 The death of friends was to the heathen a calamity 
 without any mitigation, and hence we read on their 
 tombstones the most desponding sentiments. Now, 
 suppose a heathen family mourning over the loss of 
 some beloved one ; they can derive no comfort from 
 their own dark religion ; no ray of hope penetrates 
 through the darkness of heathenism beyond the grave ; 
 death is to them an eternal separation. But they 
 hear the message of the Gospel ; they listen to these 
 words, " I am the resurrection and the life : he that 
 believeth on Me, though he were dead yet shall he 
 live ; " they are told that death is not an eternal 
 separation — that friends separated by death will be 
 re-united in a better world. This comforting assur- 
 ance is like oil poured on their breaking hearts ; the 
 desire of meeting their departed friends induces them 
 to embrace Christianity ; they are baptised for the 
 sake of the dead. The motive, indeed, may not be a 
 very high one, but it leads to something better — to a 
 confession of faith in Christ. 
 
 Such an explanation is very ingenious. It is in 
 full accordance with the argument of the apostle. 
 It gives the preposition virlp its full meaning, " for 
 the sake of" And, so far as it appears, there is no 
 strain put on the apostle's statement : " What shall 
 they do who are baptised," who become Christians, 
 " for the sake of the dead " — out of affection to them, 
 and with the hope of rejoining them — " if the dead 
 
Baptism for the Dead. 149 
 
 rise not? Why are they baptised for the sake of 
 them ? " But this interpretation is far-fetched ; it is 
 not one which would naturally suggest itself ; indeed, 
 it has not suggested itself to any of the numerous 
 expositors who have attempted to explain these 
 words of the apostle ; its very ingenuity is a pre- 
 sumption against it. Besides, there must have been 
 few among the heathen who became Christians from 
 such a motive. Nor does this meaning suit the con- 
 nection, as there is no reference in such an interpreta- 
 tion to the sufferings of believers. 
 
 5. A fifth interpretation is to suppose a reference 
 to a custom among the early Christians of baptising 
 their converts over the graves of martyrs. This is 
 Luther's explanation, and has been adopted by 
 Ewald and other writers : " to confirm the resurrec- 
 tion, the Christians had themselves baptised over the 
 graves of the dead." Accordingly, the passage is 
 thus rendered, " What shall they do who are baptised 
 over iyivep) the dead ? " In the Lutheran version, the 
 passage is thus rendered : "Was machen sonst, die 
 sich taufen lassen iiber der Todten?" The full force 
 of the preposition virep is thus given ; it is rendered 
 according to its primary meaning over. 
 
 It is no objection to this interpretation to say with 
 Meyer that it is inadmissible, because the preposition 
 v-Klp nowhere else occurs in the New Testament in 
 this local sense of over ; for as Winer remarks : 
 " Might not the preposition be used with this simple 
 local meaning in a single passage only?" But the 
 
1 50 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 great objection is, that this meaning rests on a custom 
 which is elsewhere unknown in the early Christian 
 Church ; and although it may be asserted that such 
 a custom might have existed, though all traces of it 
 are lost, yet it was a gross superstition, and we cannot 
 suppose that the apostle would have employed it as 
 zxi argument in favour of the resurrection. 
 
 6, A sixth interpretation, and the one which has 
 the preponderance of learned critics in its favour, is 
 that which supposes that the apostle here alludes 
 to the custom of vicarious baptism ; the practice of 
 believers in the Corinthian Church of submitting 
 to baptism as substitutes on behalf of believing 
 friends who had died without baptism. What shall 
 they do who are baptised on behalf of the dead 
 as their substitutes? What is the use of such a 
 custom ? ^ There are traces of such a practice in 
 early Christianity, although it was always regarded 
 by the Fathers as a superstition, and adopted only 
 by the Marcionites and other heretical sects. Thus 
 Tertullian (De Resurr. 48) alludes to it, when he 
 says : " They adopted this practice (of being baptised' 
 in room of the dead) with such a presumption as 
 made them suppose that the vicarious baptism would 
 be beneficial to the flesh of another in anticipation 
 of the resurrection." Chrysostom, in a curious passage, 
 quoted by Dean Stanley, informs us that, " after a 
 catechumen was dead, they hid a living man under 
 
 ^ This opinion is adopted by \Yiner, Billroth, Rlickert, Meyer, De 
 Wette, Alford, Conybeare, and Stanley. 
 
Baptism for the Dead. 1 5 1 
 
 the bed of the deceased ; then coming to the dead 
 man, they spoke to him, and asked him whether he 
 would receive baptism ; and he making no answer, 
 the other replied in his stead, and so they baptised 
 the living for the dead." And Epiphanius mentions 
 that among the heretics in Asia and Galatia, there 
 was a practice, when any of them died without 
 baptism, to baptise others in their name, lest in 
 the resurrection they should suffer punishment as 
 unbaptised. It is asserted that this is the only 
 meaning that the Greek will admit of; it gives the 
 full force of the preposition, " for the sake of." The 
 custom was undoubtedly a gross superstition, as if 
 one could be baptised for another, or undertake to 
 be a Christian for another. But it is affirmed, that 
 the apostle mentions it without note of approbation ; 
 he merely alludes to it as an argument personal to 
 themselves, argumentum ad homineni. If there be no 
 resurrection of the dead, what is the use of that 
 custom practised by some of you of being baptised 
 for the sake of your deceased relatives ? Just, in a 
 similar manner as our Saviour, who, accused by the 
 Pharisees of casting out devils through Beelzebub, 
 the prince of the devils, says : " And if I by Beelzebub 
 cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them 
 out ? Therefore they shall be your judges." So 
 here, without any note of approval : If there be no 
 resurrection, why do you suffer yourselves to be 
 baptised as substitutes for the dead ? Out of your 
 own mouths do I judge you. 
 
152 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 It is admitted that the above interpretation correctly 
 represents the meaning of the words, and is perhaps 
 that which would at first suggest itself, namely, that if a 
 convert to Christianity happened to die unbaptised, 
 a Christian might volunteer to be his substitute and 
 representative, and so might have the baptismal rite 
 administered to him on behalf of his deceased friend. 
 But the great objection to this view is, that it is no 
 argument at all ; this baptism for the sake of the dead 
 was itself erroneous, and what is itself false cannot be 
 adduced as an argument in favour of a truth. Besides 
 there does not appear to be any mark of disapprobation 
 of such a superstition on the part of the apostle. Dean 
 Alford, indeed, asserts that in the words tI Troit^TovaLv 
 there is a tacit reprehension ; yet this is far from 
 evident. On the other hand. Dean Stanley admits 
 the want of any disapproval, and attempts to justify 
 the apostle's language, as " an instance of accommo- 
 dation to the feelings and opinions of those addressed, 
 without any expression of condemnation on his part." 
 But it would rather appear that the apostle, by 
 adopting this custom as an argument, far from dis- 
 approving of it, gives countenance to it, and admits 
 that if there were a resurrection from the dead, the 
 dead would profit by substitutes being baptised instead 
 of them. And certainly, especially in the Epistle to 
 the Corinthians, it was St. Paul's custom to mention 
 the abuses which prevailed in the Corinthian Church 
 only with a view sharply to correct and rebuke them. 
 " There is," observes Frederick Robertson, " an 
 
Baptism for the Dead. 153 
 
 immense improbability that Paul could have sus- 
 tained a superstition so abject, even by an allusion. 
 He could not have even spoken of it without anger." 
 For these reasons this interpretation, notwithstanding 
 the high authority by which it is supported, does 
 not satisfy us as the correct explanation. 
 
 7, A seventh interpretation, and the one which, 
 on the whole, appears to us the best, consists in 
 supposing that what is meant is baptism to fill the 
 place of the dead : " What shall they do who are 
 baptised instead of the dead ? "^ The apostle 
 represents one set of Christians succeeding another ; 
 when their ranks were thinned by death, others 
 rushed in to supply their place. The hardships and 
 sufferings to which their deceased friends had been 
 exposed, did not deter others from taking their place, 
 and exposing themselves to the same hardships and 
 sufferings. But, asks the apostle, if there be no 
 resurrection of the dead, why do the baptised take 
 the places of the dead ? Why do they voluntarily 
 submit to like suffering for their faith? Why are 
 they baptised in room of the dead ? Such an 
 interpretation agrees well with what follows : " And 
 why stand we in jeopardy every hour? I protest by 
 your (our) rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus 
 our Lord, I die daily. If after the manner of men 
 I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth 
 it me, if the dead rise not ? " Indeed, this is the only 
 
 ^ This opinion is adopted by Hammond, Doddridge, Olshausen, and 
 others. 
 
154 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 interpretation which fully agrees with the immediate 
 context ; it connects the baptism for the dead with the 
 sufferings of believers, and this is a strong presump- 
 tion in favour of its correctness. 
 
 But before adopting this explanation, there are 
 several objections to be disposed of: — i. It is objected 
 that "the question of the apostle would thus be 
 irrelevant, because the place of the dead being sup- 
 plied by their successors, it would be no matter to 
 them whether the dead rose or not " (Alford). But the 
 answer to this objection is obvious. The apostle has 
 in view the sufferings which are necessarily involved 
 in supplying the place of the dead, and which sufferings 
 would be useless if the dead rose not ; whereas, if 
 there be a resurrection of the dead, these sufferings 
 will be amply recompensed in another world. 2. It 
 is objected that the preposition virlp is not used in its 
 true signification ; it is used instead of avTi, and made 
 to denote " instead of," " in the room of," whereas its 
 true meaning is " for the sake of" But we have seen 
 from examples that hirep has occasionally the meaning 
 "instead of" (2 Cor. v. 20; Phil. 13). And in the 
 following passage from Dionysius Halicarnasis, there 
 is an exact example of this use of uTrep : "They agreed 
 to enlist soldiers in the room of those who had died 
 in the war " (vTrep rwv aTroOavovToav crrpaTCcoTcov). 
 Besides these two meanings run into one another ; 
 Christians who are baptised instead of the dead may 
 also be said to be baptised for the sake of the dead, 
 or on their account, seeing they have taken their 
 
Baptism for the Dead, 155 
 
 place : 3. It is further objected that the word 01 
 /SaTTTL^ofMevot denotes a particular class of Christians, 
 whereas according to the above interpretation they 
 refer to all. It is admitted that the reference is to 
 Christians generally ; but, in answer to the objection 
 it may be observed that Christians are here, as it were, 
 particularised ; they are represented as those who 
 supply the place of the dead, who succeed them. 
 
 And what a truly noble idea does this interpreta- 
 tion give us of Christians ! They are baptised in the 
 room of the dead. They are their successors, their 
 followers, they step into their places, they occupy their 
 ground, they fill up their ranks, they fight in the battle 
 in which their companions have fallen. And, especially 
 in the season of persecution, what a touching scene it 
 must have been to see the baptised rushing into the 
 ranks of those who have fallen, nobly enduring the 
 same sufferings, meeting the same doom, like soldiers 
 occupying the breach which death had made in their 
 ranks, thus verifying the observation of the Fathers, 
 that " the blood of the martyrs became the seed of the 
 Church." 
 
 And so also this interpretation gives us a striking 
 view of the nature of baptism. " Baptised in the room 
 of the dead." Baptism thus unites the baptised living 
 with the baptised dead ; it constitutes us the succes- 
 sors of those who have gone before ; it is the cere- 
 mony of our enrolment into the great army of the 
 living God ; it ensures the perpetuity of the Church, 
 and supplies it with a constant succession of those who 
 
156 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 bear the name of Jesus. Baptism also binds us to do 
 the work of those holy men and women who have 
 died in the Lord ; it is a solemn consecration to the 
 service of Christ ; it puts us in the place of the dead ; 
 it imposes upon us those duties which they in their 
 life performed, and enables us to look forward with 
 hope to those rewards which they now enjoy. 
 
EXPOSITION IX. 
 
 PAUL'S THORN IN THE FLESH. 
 
 2 Corinthians xii. 7. 
 
 Texttis recepUcs. — Ka/ tt^ vTrs^^oXf} ruv dvoxaXv-^sc/jv iva /j,ri 
 vTs^ai^ojfMai, sdodrj /moi Cxo'Ao-v]^ rj^ ffaf/,i, ayysXog 2aTav 'ha ,«,£ 
 KoXa(pi^rj, ha [iir, u'Tn^ai^ufJ^ai, 
 
 Authorised Version. — And lest I should be exalted above 
 measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was 
 given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to 
 buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. 
 
 Revised Versio7i. — And by reason of the exceeding greatness 
 of the revelations — wherefore, that I should not be exalted over- 
 much, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger 
 of Satan to buffet me, that I should not be exalted overmuch. 
 
 There are many allusions in St. Paul's epistles, which, 
 on account of our ignorance of the circumstances under 
 which they were written, are, in a great measure, unin- 
 telligible to us ; but were perfectly intelligible to 
 those to whom the apostle wrote. Of this nature is 
 the prediction of the Man of Sin, recorded in the 
 Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, which must be 
 allowed to be perhaps the most obscure passage in the 
 writings of St. Paul. But this passage, so obscure to 
 us, was not necessarily obscure to the Thessalonians, 
 
 J 57 
 
158 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 as the apostle had explained himself when in Thessa- 
 lonica : " Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with 
 you, I told you these things ? " (2 Thess. ii. 5). We 
 are ignorant because we want the information which 
 was imparted to them. So also the Corinthians 
 would be in no doubt with regard to the Christ-party, 
 who, in distinction from the parties of Paul, Apollos, 
 and Cephas, styled themselves "of Christ" (i Cor, 
 i. 12), because these existed within the Church of 
 Corinth ; whereas this has given rise to a multitude 
 of suppositions among modern divines. And so also, 
 in the matter proposed for consideration, the Corin- 
 thians would be perfectly aware of what St. Paul 
 meant by "the thorn in the flesh," which proved a 
 hindrance to his preaching the gospel, and which was 
 visible to all, because he laboured under such an 
 infirmity when he was with them in Corinth. Nay 
 more, the knowledge of these early Churches is the 
 cause of our ignorance. In all these three instances, 
 the obscurity is occasioned by the circumstance that 
 the subjects alluded to were so well known to the 
 Churches addressed. These were points on which 
 those to whom St. Paul wrote required no informa- 
 tion. 
 
 There is a difference in the reading in the MSS., 
 which gives rise to a corresponding difference in the 
 translation. Many of the best MSS. insert hCo after 
 aiTOKoXv'ifewv, a reading adopted by Lachmann, 
 Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers, but rejected by 
 Tischendorf (seventh and eighth editions), Meyer, and 
 
PauVs Thorjt in the Flesh. 159 
 
 Alford. And the last clause, "va //.^ virepaipw^aL, is 
 omitted in most of our best MSS., but retained by- 
 most of the editors of the text. The insertion of hio 
 gives rise to the rendering of the Revised Version, 
 giving a meaning somewhat obscure ; whilst the 
 Authorised Version is founded on its omission. The 
 literal rendering according to the textiis receptiis is : 
 " And that I might not through the abundance of the 
 revelations be exalted overmuch, there was given to 
 me a thorn in the flesh, an angel of Satan to buffet 
 me, that I might not be exalted overmuch.'' 
 
 A few remarks only are requisite on the exegesis 
 of the passage. The affliction, whatever it was, was 
 given by God (iSoOrf) to the apostle, for so only can 
 the phrase be used, to prevent his being uplifted by 
 the abundance of the revelations imparted to him. 
 The apostle calls this affliction o-KoXoy^r rf) aapKi. 
 The word ctkoKo'^^ in classical Greek signifies a sharp- 
 ened stake, and hence Dean Stanley supposes that 
 the reference is to the punishment of impalement; 
 hence a-KoXoin^elv, to impale. The word, however, is 
 used in the Septuagint to denote a thorn. Thus, of the 
 Canaanites it is said that they should be (TK6\orre<i iv 
 Tot<? 6<p6akfMdi<; to the Israelites (Num. xxxiii. 55). See 
 also Ezek. xxviii. 24, and Hosea ii. 6. And it is 
 probable that this is the meaning of the word when 
 used to represent the infirmity of the apostle, as the 
 other meaning, s^ake, would be an obvious exaggera- 
 tion. The two datives iSoOr) fioi o-KoXo-yfr ry aapKi are 
 here used, the one to describe the person, and the 
 
1 60 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 other the part of the person affected ; ^ hence : " There 
 was given a thorn to me to (that is, in) my flesh." 
 The phrase d'yyeXo'i ^ardv is not to be translated 
 " the angel Satan," or " a hostile angel," but the 
 messenger or angel of Satan. Satan is represented in 
 Scripture as having angels of his own (Rev. xii. 7). The 
 affliction, although given by God, was yet the angel 
 of Satan. Many outward evils are traceable in Scrip- 
 ture to Satan. He was permitted to afflict Job (Job 
 ii. 6, 7) ; our Lord declares that the woman, whom 
 He cured of a spirit of infirmity of eighteen years' 
 standing, had been bound by Satan (Luke xiii. 16) ; 
 and St. Paul orders the incestuous member of the 
 Corinthian Church to be delivered over unto Satan 
 for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might 
 be saved (i Cor. v. 5). So here Paul's infirmity is 
 ascribed to Satan. 
 
 There are several references in St. Paul's epistles 
 to his bodily infirmity, which may be considered as 
 directly bearing upon this subject. Thus, in the 
 Epistle to the Galatians, he writes : " Ye know how 
 through infirmity of the flesh (or rather on account 
 of infirmity of the flesh Be aaOeveiav ttj^ crapKo<;) 
 I preached the Gospel unto you at the first ; and my 
 temptation (or as the best ]\ISS. read 'your tempta- 
 tion,' TOP ireLpacTfiov vfMcov) which was in my flesh, ye 
 despised not nor rejected, but received me as an 
 angel of God, even as Christ Jesus" (Gal. iv. 13, 14). 
 Paul's bodily infirmity detained him in Galatia, and 
 
 ^ Winer's G>-ammar of the Nciu Testament, p. 234. 
 
Paul's Thorn in the Flesh. i6r 
 
 his first preaching the gospel there was in conse- 
 quence of this detention. This infirmity was of so 
 humiliating a nature that it was a temptation to the 
 Galatians to despise and reject him, which temptation, 
 however, they overcame. So also in the Epistles to 
 the Corinthians, besides the passage under discussion, 
 there are several other incidental references to this ill- 
 ness, as when the apostle speaks of being with them in 
 weakness (i Cor. ii. 3) ; of his bodily presence being 
 weak and his speech contemptible (2 Cor. x. 10) ; and 
 of his glorying in the things which concern his in- 
 firmities (2 Cor. xi. 30). 
 
 It would appear that the apostle's bodily infirmities 
 had some connection with the visions and revelations 
 with which he was so highly honoured by God. 
 Strong mental excitement, through the nervous 
 system, affects the body, and often permanently 
 injures the health; and thus "the abundance of the 
 revelations " {virep^okrj tmv airoKoXvy^ewv) may have 
 superinduced some bodily infirmity. There are 
 several examples in Scripture of such effects arising 
 from supernatural visions. Thus Jacob, in conse- 
 quence of the appearance of God to him at Peniel, 
 halted on his thigh, and became permanently lame 
 (Gen. xxxii. 32). Daniel relates that he fainted, and 
 was sick many days after one of his remarkable 
 visions (Dan. viii. 27). And St. Paul himself is an 
 example ; for he was struck with blindness, which 
 lasted for three days, in consequence of the brightness 
 of that light which shone upon him on his way to 
 
 M 
 
1 62 Exezetical Studies. 
 
 '<b' 
 
 Damascus (Acts xx. 9). Hence it is probable that this 
 infirmity, this thorn in the flesh, was also the result 
 of the apostle's supernatural visions. And this pro- 
 bability is increased, when it is recollected that St. 
 Paul alludes to it in connection with the " visions and 
 revelations of the Lord," and especially with a remark- 
 able vision which occurred fourteen years before he 
 wrote this Epistle, and on account of which the thorn 
 in the flesh was given to him (2 Cor. xii, 1-7). In 
 this vision he was caught up to paradise, and such 
 was his mental condition that he could not tell 
 " whether he was in the body or out of the body ; " 
 and hence we may well believe that the glories of 
 this revelation permanently affected his bodily health ; 
 just as our eyes would be permanently injured were 
 we to gaze for a few moments on the sun. 
 
 In the consideration of the particular nature of this 
 infirmity of the apostle, there are several particulars 
 which must be taken into account, (i.) It was a bodily 
 ailment. The apostle calls it " a thorn in the flesh," 
 and in the Epistle to the Galatians he speaks of " the 
 infirmity of the flesh." (2.) It was painful. This is 
 implied in the word o-KoXoyjr : it was sharp as a thorn 
 in the flesh. (3.) It was permanent and intermittent. 
 Paul besought the Lord thrice that it might depart 
 from him, but his request was not granted. It at- 
 tacked him when he was at Corinth, and again when 
 he preached the Gospel in Galatia. (4.) It was a 
 hindrance to his preaching the Gospel. In Galatia he 
 preached the Gospel through infirmity of the flesh, 
 
Paul's Thorn in the Flesh. 163 
 
 and in Corinth he had to struggle against personal 
 weakness. (5.) It was visible and apparent to others. 
 It was not some secret trial, but in some manner 
 outwardly manifest. This is evident from the allusion 
 to it in the Epistle to the Galatians : " Your tempta- 
 tion^ which was in my flesh ye despised not nor 
 rejected," could only be said of what was visible. (6.) 
 It was humiliating, and apt to make the apostle an 
 object of scorn to others. The Galatians were 
 tempted by it to despise and reject the apostle, and 
 their resistance to that temptation is mentioned to 
 their praise; and his adversaries at Corinth reproached 
 him on account of the weakness of his bodily presence. 
 (7.) Nevertheless, it was the object of his glory. There 
 was something connected with it which gave rise not 
 merely to resignation, but to calm satisfaction on the 
 part of the apostle. "Most gladly," he observes 
 "will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of 
 Christ may rest upon me." And this would be the 
 case if his infirmity were connected with the visions 
 and revelations he experienced. All these conditions 
 met in this affliction of the apostle, and therefore any 
 interpretation which does not satisfy these conditions, 
 must be erroneous. 
 
 For this reason we may at once set aside several 
 opinions which suppose that the apostle does not 
 allude to any bodily affliction, but to some mental 
 trial. The opinion of many theologians of the 
 Romish Church, that St. Paul refers to the sensual 
 ^ The correct reading of Gal. iv. 14. 
 
1 64 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 temptations to which he was exposed, may be indig- 
 nantly rejected as highly derogatory to the apostle, 
 opposed to the conditions of the problem, and 
 unworthy of examination.^ Such a temptation 
 could not be given by God, nor be the object of the 
 apostle's glory. We may say with Luther : " Ah no ! 
 blessed Paul, it was not such trial which afflicted thee." 
 The early Reformers, on the other hand, supposed 
 that spiritual trials are meant. Thus Calvin inter- 
 prets rri aapKL metaphorically, and supposes that by 
 it are meant the remainders of depravity in the hearts 
 of the regenerate. "The flesh here," he observes, 
 " denotes not the body, but that part of the soul which 
 has not yet been regenerated. There was given to 
 me a goad that my flesh might be spurred by it, for 
 I am not yet so spiritual as not to be exposed to 
 temptation according to the flesh." So that accord- 
 ing to him it is the same struggle which is described 
 by the apostle in the seventh chapter of the Epistle to 
 the Romans. Luther most characteristically supposes 
 the thorn in the flesh to be spiritual solicitations of 
 Satan, such as blasphemous thoughts, mental struggles, 
 the so called " fiery darts of the devil ; " whilst 
 Osiander and Mosheim suppose that it was remorse 
 for his former life. But all these interpretations do 
 not answer any of the conditions of the problem ; 
 these trials were not bodily disorders, visible to others, 
 
 1 Such an opinion was adopted by the Venerable Bede, Thomas 
 Aquinas, Bellarmine, Cornelius a Lapide, and other distinguished 
 Romanists. 
 
PauVs Thorn in the Flesh. 165 
 
 and humiliating in their nature. The apostle could 
 not glory in such spiritual trials. The thorn in the 
 flesh, whatever it was, was given him by God, and 
 therefore must have been wholly unconnected with 
 personal sin or spiritual imperfection. 
 
 It has recently been attempted to show that St. 
 Paul's infirmity must be connected with some defect 
 of character, such as an infirmity of temper. This is 
 the opinion advanced by Professor Lias in his Com- 
 mentary on the Epistles to the Corinthians. A 
 certain irritability of temper, he observes, was the 
 great moral defect of the apostle. He exhibited this 
 in his attack upon the high priest Ananias in the 
 Sanhedrim, in his stern language to Elymas the 
 sorcerer, and in his quarrel with Barnabas. He 
 desired above all things to avoid the necessity of using 
 .sharpness, lest his language might exceed the bounds 
 of Christian love. He could not trust himself in his 
 present state of mind to visit Corinth, lest God should 
 humble him before them. Now certainly it is to be 
 admitted, that if any fault is to be found in the 
 character of the great apostle, it was this infirmity of 
 temper ; but it is most unwarrantable to suppose that 
 this was the thorn in the flesh to which he alludes. 
 It does not answer the conditions of the problem at 
 all. It would not be an infirmity in the flesh, it would 
 not be painful, it could not be said to be given him by 
 God, nor would it be an object in which to glory. God 
 would not, in opposition to the earnest prayers of the 
 apostle, have permitted such an infirmity to remain ; 
 
1 66 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 if this were the affliction, certainly his earnest prayers 
 for its removal would have received a gracious answer. 
 Of no mental or spiritual trial, then, does the 
 apostle speak. It is a bodily ailment, ao-Qiveia t?}? 
 aapKO'?. And this is the uniform meaning given 
 to it by the Fathers, however much they differ 
 as to its particular nature. The first who 
 alludes to it is Irenaeus, and he does so in general 
 terms. After quoting the text, he observes : " What ! 
 Would the Lord have His apostle so buffeted and to 
 endure such infirmity ? Yea, saith the word, for 
 strength is perfected in weakness, rendering him a 
 better man who by means of his infirmity becomes 
 acquainted with the power of God. For how could a 
 man have learned that he is himself an infirm being 
 and mortal by nature, and that God is immortal and 
 powerful, unless he had experience in both ? " (Adv. 
 Hser. V. 3, i). So also Cyprian expresses himself 
 still more indefinitely : " The apostle Paul, after ship- 
 wrecks, after scourgings, after many and grievous 
 tortures of the flesh and the body, says that he is not 
 grieved but benefited by his adversity, in order that 
 while he is sorely afflicted he might be more truly 
 proved. ' There was given to me,' he says, ' a thorn in 
 the flesh, a messenger of Satan to buffet me ' " (De 
 mortalitate, 13). But as to the particular nature of 
 this bodily ailment, there is a vast variety of opinion. 
 Almost all the diseases to which man is heir, have 
 been ascribed to the apostle. It may not be uninter- 
 esting to notice a few of these opinions which are 
 
Paul's Thorn in the Flesh. 167 
 
 commended either by respectable authority or inherent 
 plausibility. 
 
 An opinion very common among the Fathers is that 
 St. Paul's thorn in the flesh was violent headache 
 {Ke(^a\a\'y[a). Thus Tertullian, speaking of Paul's 
 being buffeted by Satan, adds, " this was by means 
 of a pain in the ear or the head " (De Pudic, ch. xiii.). 
 And Jerome, in his note on Gal. iv. 13, observes: 
 " The tradition is that he often suffered from a most 
 grievous pain in the head, and that this was the 
 messenger of Satan sent to buffet him." This seems 
 to have been the favourite opinion among the Fathers. 
 The tradition was tolerably general, although its 
 origin cannot be conjectured. Certainly such a bodily 
 infirmity would be a great hindrance to the mental 
 activity of the apostle in preaching the gospel. 
 Still the opinion is only deserving of mention on 
 account of the patristic authority by which it is 
 supported, as being a tradition which comes nearest 
 to the time of the apostle ; in other respects it 
 completely fails. It could not have rendered the 
 apostle contemptible ; nor, indeed, could have been 
 very visible. 
 
 A more plausible opinion is that the thorn in the 
 flesh was a defect of utterance} " The view," observes 
 Dr. Doddridge, " that the apostle had of celestial 
 glories, affected his nervous system in such a manner 
 as to occasion some paralytic symptoms, and parti- 
 
 1 This opinion, advanced by Whitby, has been adopted by Macknight, 
 Doddridge, and Eadie. 
 
1 68 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 cularly a stammering in his speech, and perhaps some 
 distortion in his countenance, referred to elsewhere 
 in the phrase of the infirmity in his flesh." It is 
 asserted that there are several allusions which seem 
 to point this way. The apostle speaks of himself as 
 rude in speech (l8ccoT'r]<; tm Xoyo), 2 Cor. xi. 6) ; and it 
 was the reproach of his opponents that his speech 
 was contemptible (6 Xoyo'i i^ov9€vr,/jievo<;, 2 Cor. x. 10). 
 Such, it has been observed, must have been a heavy 
 trial to the apostle, as before the attack he was so 
 eloquent as to be mistaken at Lystra for Mercury, the 
 god of eloquence (Acts xiv. 12). And as this might 
 threaten both his acceptance and his usefulness, it is 
 no wonder that he should pray earnestly for its re- 
 moval ; and yet it was the object of his glory, inas- 
 much as it reminded him of the revelations of the 
 Lord by which it was occasioned. Now, it must be 
 acknowledged that such a hypothesis answers nearly 
 all the conditions. But still it is a mere conjecture, 
 and rests on too few passages to be maintained. 
 'ISL(OT7]<i tS X67&) does not denote one who is not 
 eloquent as a speaker, but one who has not learned 
 eloquence in the rhetorical schools. The affliction 
 befell the apostle fourteen years before he wrote the 
 Second Epistle to the Corinthians, and therefore 
 several years before he came to Lystra, where the 
 inhabitants mistook him for the god of eloquence, 
 which they could not have done had there been an 
 impediment in his speech. And it cannot be supposed 
 that the man who delivered the speech to the Atheni- 
 
Paul's Thorn in the Flesh, 169 
 
 ans and the oration before Agrippa was suffering from 
 defective utterance. 
 
 The most common opinion in recent times is that 
 the apostle was afflicted with opJithabiiia or disease of 
 the eyes} It is supposed that the apostle's sight was 
 permanently affected by the appearance of the Lord 
 to him at his conversion, and that the miraculous 
 cure effected by Ananias was incomplete. " The 
 apostle at his conversion," observes Lewin, " had been 
 subjected to the blaze of the heavenly light, and his 
 eyes may ever afterwards have been more or less 
 affected. For a time he was perfectly blind ; the 
 scales then fell from his eyes by the touch of Ananias, 
 but a memento of his sinful career still remained. 
 The climate of Damascus is peculiarly injurious to 
 the sight, and almost all the inhabitants suffer more 
 or less from ophthalmia ; and as Paul resided there 
 for nearly three years after his conversion, a permanent 
 affection of the vision may have been contracted." 
 And he observes that the term thorn is peculiarly 
 applicable to this ailment. He gives the following 
 quotation from a writer on this disease : " The pain 
 of ophthalmia, when severe, exactly resembles that 
 of a thorn or a pin run into the eyes." This 
 opinion is supported by several supposed allusions to 
 defect in vision. Thus on two occasion it is observed 
 in the Acts of the Apostles that St. Paul looked 
 steadfastly (arei^icra?), as if his sight were bad — once 
 
 1 This opinion has been maintained by Alford, Lewin, Plumptre, 
 and Farrar. 
 
1 70 Exegetical Shidies. 
 
 when he announced the punishment to be inflicted on 
 Elymas the sorcerer (Acts xiii. 9), and another time 
 when he rebuked the High Priest, Ananias (Acts xxiii. 
 3). And it was probably this defect in vision which 
 prevented him recognising the High Priest. So also, 
 after alluding to the infirmity in his flesh to the 
 Galatians, he adds : " For I bear you record, that, if 
 it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your 
 own eyes, and have given them to me" (Gal. iv. 15), as 
 if the Galatians were willing, had it been possible, to 
 give their own eyes to the apostle to supply his lack 
 of vision. And his mention of the large letters {irrjXlKa 
 r^papbixaTo) with which he wrote the Epistle to the Gala- 
 tians (Gal. vi. II), is supposed to be an allusion to his 
 defective eye-sight. But these are insufficient grounds 
 on which to build an hypothesis. All the passages ad- 
 duced have no necessary connection with the apostle's 
 weakness of sight. His blindness at his conversion was 
 merely temporary, and was completely cured by the 
 miracle performed by Ananias. 'ATevLaa<; merely 
 implies a steadfast gaze, and is applied to Stephen 
 (Acts vii. 55) as well as to Paul. The passage in the 
 Epistle to the Galatians is a mere statement of the 
 strong affection of the Galatians for the apostle. And 
 his mode of writing has no necessary connection with 
 his eye-sight. 
 
 Another opinion, adopted by authoritative names, 
 is that Paul's thorn in the flesh was epilepsy or falling 
 sickness.^ The reason of its adoption is the closeness 
 
 1 This opinion was adopted by Ziegler, Holsten, and Ewald, and has 
 
Pater s Thorn m the Flesh. 171 
 
 of the parallel between such an infirmity and the 
 conditions of the problem. Parallel instances in 
 history are also adduced which illustrate this ailment 
 of the apostle. Bishop Lightfoot especially dwells 
 on the case of King Alfred. The trances and 
 ecstasies of Mahomet, St. Bernard, St. Francis of 
 Assissi, St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Teresa of Spain, 
 George Fox, Jacob Boehme, and Emmanuel Sweden- 
 borg have been mentioned as illustrations or analogies. 
 Such an opinion, however, derives no support from 
 any Scriptural intimations ; it would also convert the 
 visions and revelations of the apostle into mere 
 natural phenomena, and thus would do away with the 
 supernatural. Several other diseases might be named 
 which would as completely answer the particulars 
 mentioned. 
 
 Such are the chief hypotheses or opinions which 
 have been entertained concerning Paul's thorn in the 
 flesh. Those which refer it to some mental infirmity 
 are to be rejected as opposed to the conditions of the 
 problem ; whilst those which refer it to some particular 
 bodily infirmity, though more in accordance with the 
 conditions of the question, are conjectures — hypotheses 
 without any certain data to go upon — mere surmises 
 of ingenious scholars. Hence many critics have con- 
 fessed their ignorance of the ailment.^ There is no 
 specification in Scripture. The Corinthians required 
 
 recently been favoured by Bishop Lightfoot. Dr. Schaff also, in his dis- 
 cussion on the subject, gives to it the preference. 
 
 1 So Olshausen, Ruckert, Billroth, Neander, De Wette, Meyer, Words- 
 worth, and Stanley. 
 
172 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 no explanation, and, as we have already remarked, 
 their knowledge is the cause of our ignorance. 
 
 Nor is this concealment without advantage to us. 
 St. Paul was under no necessity to explain to the 
 Corinthians what was well known to them ; but, in 
 withholding this information, he was guided by a 
 higher Spirit than his own. If the particular infirmity 
 had been mentioned ; if, for example, we had been 
 told that it was, as many suppose, a disease of the 
 sight ; we might have been tempted to restrict the 
 consolation which the subject is so well calculated to 
 afford, and the lessons which it teaches to that par- 
 ticular infirmity. But its indefiniteness imparts to it 
 a manifold application. Every one who is afflicted 
 with any bodily ailment or mental trouble ; every one 
 who is vexed or crossed with any sorrow or annoyance; 
 every one who has some burden laid upon him — some 
 hindrance in the path of duty — can refer to the case 
 of the apostle ; and be induced to imitate the apostle's 
 example, to appropriate the apostle's consolation, and to 
 be inspired with the apostle's confidence. This trouble, 
 this sickness, this cross, this obstacle, this burden, this 
 annoyance is my thorn in the flesh ; it may be the 
 messenger of Satan to buffet me — to tempt me to sin, 
 or to drag me back from the path of duty ; but it is 
 also given me by God for my good, and, although 
 unremoved, notwithstanding my earnest prayers, yet 
 I, like the apostle, can rely on the promise of my 
 Redeemer : " My grace is sufficient for you ; My 
 strength is perfected in weakness." 
 
PauVs Thorn in the Flesh. 173 
 
 We have here an instance of unanswered prayer. 
 The apostle besought the Lord thrice that this thorn 
 in the flesh might be removed. It was not from 
 selfish motives that he made this request, but because 
 he felt that this bodily ailment was a hindrance to his 
 preaching the Gospel, and what he prays for is that 
 that obstacle which prevented the full exercise of his 
 faculties might be taken away, so that he might be 
 enabled to throw himself into the cause of Christ with 
 more bodily strength and more mental vigour, with- 
 out let or hindrance. Nevertheless his prayers were 
 unanswered ; the thorn in the flesh was not removed ; 
 the apostle, it is probable, carried it with him to the 
 grave. And it was well for the apostle that his 
 prayer in this instance was unanswered. " Lest I 
 should be exalted above measure through the 
 abundance of the revelations, there was given to me 
 a thorn in my flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet 
 me, lest I should be exalted above measure." To keep 
 him humble, from being spoiled by the exceeding 
 greatness of the revelations communicated to him, 
 this thorn in the flesh was given him by God — this 
 bodily infirmity which continually reminded him of 
 his weakness and dependence on God. " That he 
 might not fall into the devil's sin, God permits him 
 to fall under the devil's scourge " (Bp. Bull). And it 
 had also the effect of preventing his admirers and 
 partisans — the Paul party in Corinth — from exalting 
 him too much. Here was some constitutional weak- 
 ness, visible to others, which detracted from his 
 
174 Exegetical Studies, 
 
 unwearied efforts and great performances, which was 
 apt to make him the object of ridicule to others, so 
 that his opponents and detractors could urge against 
 him that his bodily presence was weak and his speech 
 defective. Not Paul, but Christ must be glorified. 
 Paul shone merely with a borrowed light. And so 
 also the refusal of the apostle's prayer was for the 
 advantage of the Church in general. The Gospel 
 preached through the weakness of the apostle proved 
 itself to be the power of God. " We have," writes the 
 apostle, "this treasure in earthen vessels that the 
 excellency of the power may be of God and not of 
 us " (2 Cor. iv. 7). " When Paul was weakest as a 
 teacher of the present, he was strongest as the apostle 
 of the future " (Stanley). Paul was no second founder 
 of Christianity, as some who restrict their attention to 
 his almost perfect character, his indefatigable zeal, his 
 missionary successes, and his matchless epistles, 
 appear inclined to imagine. He was the mere 
 instrument of communicating the unsearchable riches 
 of Christ to the world ; the earthly vessel, not the 
 treasure itself; not in any sense the master, but the 
 disciple. 
 
 But we have not only an instance of unanswered, 
 but an instance of answered, prayer. St. Paul's prayer 
 was refused in form, but answered in reality. " And 
 He said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee ; for 
 My strength is made perfect in weakness." We know 
 not how this answer came, whether by vision or 
 internal inspiration, but at all events it was fully 
 
PauVs Thorn in the Flesh. 175 
 
 realised in the experience of the apostle ; he felt its 
 reality. The affliction — the hindrance whatever it 
 was, was not removed, but still his prayer was 
 abundantly answered ; grace was conferred upon 
 him ; power not merely to sustain the infirmity, but to 
 rise above it. The burden laid upon him was not 
 taken from him, but it was sustained by the divine 
 arm. And thus the thorn in the flesh, although it 
 seemed to the apostle a hindrance to his preaching 
 the Gospel, yet, in the result, was not so ; Christ's 
 strength was perfected in St. Paul's weakness. He 
 could even glory in his infirmities, that the power of 
 Christ might rest upon him. When he was weak, it 
 was then that he was strong. He had a fund of 
 strength to which he could continually repair. And 
 such also was the case with a far greater than the 
 apostle. Jesus Christ Himself, in that mysterious 
 agony which befell Him in Gethsemane, prayed, 
 " Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me." 
 And yet the cup was not removed ; He had to drain 
 it to the dregs. But that mysterious prayer was 
 answered. " He was heard in that He feared " (Heb. 
 V. 7). " There appeared an angel unto Him from 
 heaven strengthening Him " (Luke xxii. 43). The 
 greatest triumphs of Christianity have been connected 
 with the cross. 
 
 Strength perfected in weakness ; this is the law of 
 Christ's spiritual kingdom. Not the removal of the 
 weakness, but the triumph of grace in spite of it. 
 Thus it was with the apostle ; in spite of his consti- 
 
176 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 tutional weakness, he was the greatest and most 
 successful missionary the world ever saw. " I can," says 
 he, " do all things through Christ that strengtheneth 
 me." There was no limit to his actions, when labour- 
 ing in the strength of Christ. And thus it should also 
 be with us. Weak in ourselves, we should be strong in 
 Christ. To Him we should repair and draw out of 
 His infinite fulness even grace for grace. We should 
 follow on to know the Lord, never forgetting our 
 dependence on Him or overlooking the necessity of 
 His grace. 
 
EXPOSITION X. 
 
 DUALITY OF MEDIATION AND UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 Galatians iii. 20. 
 Textus receptus. — *0 Z\ iJ.i<sir7\g hlq ovk sffriv ' 6 dl Qeog if; 
 
 igTIV. 
 
 Atithorised Version. — Now a mediator is not a mediator of 
 one, but God is one. 
 
 Revised Version. — Now a mediator is not a mediator of one ; 
 but God is one. 
 
 This verse, if we are to judge from the number of 
 explanations which have been given of it, is the most 
 obscure in Scripture. Winer states this number at 
 250 ; a number which Professor Jowett, in his com- 
 mentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, on what 
 authority we know not, has augmented to 430. A list 
 of interpretations has been given in the various mono- 
 graphs on this verse, and Meyer in his valuable com- 
 mentary states and discusses the merits of no less 
 than eighteen. The reason of this obscurity arises 
 partly from the elliptic brevity of the language, which 
 requires something to be supplied ; partly from a 
 mistaken application of the term mediator; and 
 partly from a want of a clear perception of the 
 
 177 N 
 
178 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 apostle's argument. The words, taken by them- 
 selves, are simple enough ; they contain the enuncia- 
 tion of two self-evident propositions — the duality of 
 mediation : " Now a mediator is not a mediator of 
 one," and the unity of God: "But God is one;" 
 but the difficulty arises in connecting these two pro- 
 positions with the preceding or succeeding statements, 
 and interweaving them with the apostle's argument. 
 This vast number of explanations may be greatly 
 reduced by rejecting all those which are extravagant 
 or unintelligible, and which so far from explaining 
 increase the difficulty ; all those which apply the 
 word fjie(7lTi]<i directly to Christ, it being evident that, 
 the apostle speaks not of Christ, but of Moses 
 as the mediator ; all those which give different 
 meanings to the numerical term eU in the two clauses ; 
 and all those which are at variance with the context, 
 either with that which precedes or with that which 
 follows. 
 
 There is no difference in the reading of the text. 
 All uncial and cursive manuscripts contain the same 
 words in the same order. Hence we cannot adopt 
 that violent method of solving the difficulty, which 
 LUcke employs, who supposes that the words were 
 originally a gloss, written on the margin by some 
 annotator explaining the term fxeaiTT)^, and which has 
 found its way into the text. 
 
 So also the meaning of the separate words is so 
 evident, that there exists hardly any difference of 
 opinion regarding the translation. Ae is transition- 
 
Duality of Mediation and Umty of God. 1 79 
 
 ary: Now. '0 fiealrr)^ denotes the idea of a mediator, 
 and is to be taken generically ; and hence is not to be 
 translated " the mediator," or " this mediator," refer- 
 ring to Moses, but a mediator. 'Evo'i ouk eanv denotes 
 that a mediator does not imply only one person, but 
 necessarily supposes two, between whom he inter- 
 venes ; hence the words are correctly rendered is not 
 a mediator of one. The second clause Se ©eo? el? 
 Icrriv expresses a contrast to this idea of a mediator : 
 but God is 07ie. The words exactly rendered are, 
 " Now a mediator of one is not ; but God is one." 
 
 In order to obtain a true meaning of the passage 
 we must carefully observe the context, and endeavour 
 to trace the apostle's line of argument. The words 
 are contained in a paragraph, wherein theapostle dis- 
 cusses the blessings or promises conferred on Abra- 
 ham ; and which, as they were given before the 
 promulgation of the law, he considers were conferred 
 on the spiritual seed of Abraham, which, centering in 
 Christ, included believing Gentiles as well as believing 
 Jews ; in short, these blessings or promises were 
 nothing else than an annunciation or prefiguration of 
 the Gospel. " The Scripture, foreseeing that God 
 would justify the heathen through faith, preached 
 before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, ' In thee 
 shall all nations be blessed ' " (Gal. iii. 8). Long 
 after this the law intervened, but it did not abrogate 
 or supersede the promise ; it was given for a special 
 purpose, and is not to be regarded as an addition to the 
 covenant made with Abraham. Even human cove- 
 
1 80 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 nants, if properly ratified and sanctioned, are not legally 
 made void, except by the consent of both parties ; 
 nothing can be taken from them or added to them ; 
 and much more is this the case with the covenants 
 of the unchanging God, whose promises cannot fail 
 and whose word cannot prove abortive. " Brethren, 
 I speak after the manner of men ; though it be but a 
 man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man dis- 
 annulleth or addeth thereto." The promise was made 
 to Abraham and to his seed, namely to Christ, and to 
 all who are in union with Him — who constitute His 
 mystical body ; it was made long before the law ; it 
 was not a matter of law or contract at all, but of 
 promise — the free gift of God. " And this I say, that 
 the covenant which was confirmed before of God in 
 Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty 
 years after, cannot disannul, that it should make 
 the promise" — namely, the promise of blessings made 
 to Abraham and to his seed — "of none effect. For 
 if the inheritance be of the law," if it depended on the 
 condition of its observance, " it is no more of promise ; 
 but God gave it to Abraham by promise." 
 
 But now the question arises, if the law is unconnected 
 with the promise made to Abraham, what is its use ? 
 Ti ovv 6 vofio^ ; " What then is the law ? " For what 
 purpose was it given ? The apostle answers, " It was 
 added because of transgression ; " rwy irapa^daeoiv 
 %apti/, literally " for the sake of transgressions." 
 Different meanings have been attached to these words. 
 Some suppose the law was given in order to restrain 
 
Duality of Mediation and Unity of God. i8i 
 
 transgression, to be a check and hindrance to sin. 
 Others think the meaning is that the law was added 
 for the punishment of transgressions ; to reveal the 
 wrath of God, and thus to quicken the moral sense. 
 Others suppose the meaning to be that the law was 
 given in order to multiply transgression ; " The law 
 entered that sin might abound " (Rom. v. 20). But 
 the meaning here seems to be that the law was added 
 to excite in man the consciousness of transgression — 
 to convince of sin, and so to make him feel his need 
 of redemption.^ The apostle is here treating of the 
 law as a preparation for the Gospel, as an educator to 
 teach us the necessity of a Saviour, and to excite us 
 to repair to that Saviour : " The law was our school- 
 master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justi- 
 fied by faith " (Gal. iii. 24). And this use of the law 
 in giving rise to a sense of sin is repeatedly insisted 
 upon by St. Paul ; without the law there can be no 
 true sense of sin : " I had not known sin, but by the 
 law." " By the law is the knowledge of sin." " Where 
 no law is, there is no transgression." Thus, then, the 
 use of the law was transitionary, to convince of sin and 
 to lead to the Saviour : " Till the seed should come 
 unto whom the promise was made," ar^pf^'i ov eXdrj to 
 aTrepfia w e^rrrj^'yekTat. The apostle further adds, as 
 another speciality of the law in distinction from the 
 
 1 " The law was published in order to make known transgressions, 
 and in this way to compel men to acknowledge their guilt. As men 
 naturally are too ready to excuse themselves, so, until they are roused 
 by the law, their consciences are asleep." — Calvin. 
 
1 8 2 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 promise, that it was " ordained by angels " (Siarayel'^ 
 Be ayyeXcov). The meaning of these words is, that the 
 instrumentality of angels was employed in the pro- 
 mulgation of the law from Mount Sinai. This fact is 
 indeed not clearly stated in the account which we have 
 of the giving of the law in the book of Exodus, but 
 there is an apparent reference to it in the book of 
 Deuteronomy, where Moses in his song says : " The 
 Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them ; 
 He shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with 
 ten thousands of saints : from His right hand went a 
 fiery law for them " (Deut. xxxiii. 2). In the Septu- 
 agint, which St. Paul as a Hellenistic Jew was in the 
 custom of using, the words are, e'/c Be^iwv avrov ayyekot, 
 fier avrovy " His angels were with Him on His right 
 hand." So also the Psalmist, referring to the giving 
 of the law, says : " The chariots of God are twenty 
 thousand, even thousands of angels : the Lord is 
 among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place " (Psalm 
 Ixviii. 17). In the New Testament this instrumental- 
 ity of the angels in the giving of the law is several 
 times adverted to. St. Stephen, in his address to the 
 Sanhedrim, says, " Who have received the law by the 
 disposition of angels " (Acts vii. 53) ; and the author 
 of the Epistle to the Hebrews, asserting the superior 
 glory of the Gospel, observes that the Gospel was 
 directly communicated by the Son, and the law was 
 indirectly communicated by angels, "If the word 
 spoken by angels was steadfast " (Heb. ii. 2), It was 
 also a Jewish tradition that angels were employed in 
 
Duality of Mediation and Unity of God. 183 
 
 the giving of the law ; thus Josephus says, " For our- 
 selves we have learned from God the most excellent 
 of our doctrines, and the most holy part of the law by 
 angels." It is, however, to be observed, that the 
 angels were not the authors of the law, but the minis- 
 tering servants employed in the giving of the law. 
 The only author of the law is God ; it contains His 
 commandments and not the commandments of any 
 creatures, however exalted ; but in the promulgation 
 of the law, for wise purposes. He was pleased to 
 employ the angels as His ministers. 
 
 As another distinction between the law and the 
 promise, and that to which our passage specially 
 refers, the apostle adds that the law was given " in 
 the hand of a mediator," kv xeipi ^ecrirov. The 
 expression iv %eipfc is a Hebraism, denoting instru- 
 mentality, so that the words may be rendered " through 
 a mediator." A mediator denotes one who intervenes 
 or comes between two parties at variance ; it generally 
 denotes an arbitrator or reconciler, but the idea of 
 arbitration or reconciliation is not essential to it, and 
 in the case under consideration is awanting. The 
 Fathers in general considered that the Mediator here 
 alluded to was Christ, because to Him pre-eminently 
 does this title belong. Others suppose that it was the 
 angel of the covenant, to whom the Jews gave the 
 name Metatron. But it is evident from the whole 
 context, and from the train of the apostle's argument, 
 that the Mediator here alluded to was Moses. He it 
 was who intervened between the two parties — God and 
 
1 84 Exegetical S Indies. 
 
 the Israelites ; he received the law from God and 
 communicated it to the people. Hence the Israelites 
 said unto Moses : " Speak thou with us, and we will 
 hear : but let not God speak with us, lest we die " 
 (Exod. XX. 19). And Moses, in his address to them, 
 says: "I stood between the Lord and you at that 
 time, to show you the word of the Lord : for ye were 
 afraid by reason of the iire, and went not up into the 
 mount " (Deut. v. 5). Thus Moses was the mediator 
 of the legal covenant, but he was not a reconciler ; he 
 was merely the medium of communication between 
 God and the Israelites ; the law given to Moses 
 through the instrumentality of angels was received by 
 the Israelites through the instrumentality of Moses. 
 Among Jewish and rabbinical writers the name 
 mediator is frequently applied to Moses, He is so 
 designated by Philo : " Moses, being amazed and con- 
 strained by this command, believes these inscrutable 
 events, and rose up to be a mediator." 
 
 And now follow the words which form the subject 
 of exposition : " Now a mediator is not a mediator 
 of one ; but God is one." The apostle dwells upon 
 the last distinction between the law and the promise 
 which he had mentioned — that the law was given 
 through a mediator ; and he takes up the word 
 mediator, and further explains this distinction. The 
 words are not to be understood as a definition or 
 explanation of the term mediator, for that is obvious 
 and would be unimportant, but are to be considered 
 as a continuation of the apostle's argument. There 
 
Duality of Alediation ajid Unity of God. 185 
 
 are here expressed two antitheses — (i) A mediator 
 (6 /AecTiTT^?), and God (6 ©eo?) ; (2) Not of one (et-o? ovk), 
 and one (et?). "A mediator is not of one," evidently 
 includes a duality, necessarily supposes two parties 
 between whom he mediates. On the contrary (Se) 
 " God is one," and therefore without a mediator. This 
 is the evident meaning of the words ; and, taken in 
 connection with what goes before, we do not think it 
 impossible to discover their application. The law was 
 ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator ; but a 
 mediator is not a mediator of one person, but of two 
 — here, in the case under consideration, the mediator 
 was Moses, and the two parties between whom he 
 stood were God and the Israelites. But God is not 
 a mediator between two parties : He is one ; in His 
 promise God acts alone and independently — here, in 
 the case under consideration, in the giving of the 
 promise to Abraham by God, there was no mediator, 
 it was absolute and unconditional, without the inter- 
 vention of a third person. The covenant which God 
 made with the Israelites at Sinai was given through 
 a mediator — namely, Moses ; but the covenant which 
 God made with Abraham, that in him and in his 
 seed all nations of the earth should be blessed, was 
 given directly without a mediator. The one was 
 conditional, and by law or contract ; the other was 
 unconditional, and by promise. St. Paul expresses 
 this thought not directly but indirectly, in order to 
 give point to his observation. Thus by attending to 
 the connection, and following the line of the apostle's 
 
1 86 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 argument — the distinction which he draws between 
 the promise made by God to Abraham, and the law 
 given to the Israelites through Moses — we are enabled 
 to attain to a reasonable meaning of the text. 
 
 The words then are to be considered as a part of 
 the apostle's argument on the relation of the promise 
 made to Abraham to the law. He magnifies the 
 promise at the expense of the law. According to 
 his view, the promise made to Abraham was the 
 same as the Gospel, the message of eternal life ; the 
 law was the ground of condemnation, and by con- 
 vincing of transgression, might lead to the reception 
 of the Gospel. In this passage four distinct points 
 of subordination of the law to the promises are 
 mentioned. i. The law was restricted and con- 
 ditional ; it " was added because of transgression," 
 in order to excite the consciousness of sin. The 
 promise, on the contrary, was absolute and uncondi- 
 tional. 2. The law was temporary and provisional ; 
 it was given " until the seed should come to whom 
 the promise was made." The promise was permanent 
 and eternal. 3. The law was communicated in- 
 directly : " it was ordained by angels " — promulgated 
 through their instrumentality. The promise was 
 directly given by God. The same point of distinction 
 is dwelt upon by the author of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, when he says : " If the word spoken by 
 angels was steadfast, and every transgression and 
 disobedience received a just recompense of reward ; 
 how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation ; 
 
Dttality of Mediation and Unity of God. 187 
 
 which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, 
 and was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him ?" 
 (Heb. ii. 2, 3). 4. The law was received from God 
 through a mediator. The promise was received by 
 Abraham directly from God without any intervention. 
 The apostle, leaving the three first points of contrast, 
 dwells more particularly upon the fourth point, as 
 in his view the most important. Now a mediator 
 (generally considered) is not a mediator of one, but 
 God is one. In the law, there is a duality ; in the 
 promise, there is a unity. The law was with^ the 
 promise was witJiout a mediator. Hence, then, our 
 text may be considered as an imperfect syllogism, in 
 which the conclusion has to be supplied. Now a 
 mediator, through whom the law was received, does 
 not pertain to one, but necessarily presupposes two ; 
 but God, the giver of the promise, is one ; therefore 
 in the promise the idea of a mediator is excluded. 
 
 The meaning which we have assigned to the text, 
 depends on the supposition that St. Paul is maintain- 
 ing the subordination of the law to the promise made 
 to Abraham. This, however, has been called in 
 question by many eminent critics. They assert that 
 such a subordination is not to be found in the apostle's 
 discourse ; that, so far from depreciating, he seeks to 
 glorify the law. The consideration that the law was 
 ordained by angels serves for its glorification, inas- 
 much as angels are mentioned along with God for the 
 purpose of manifesting His glory, as when it is said, 
 that Christ shall come with His holy angels. Nor is 
 
1 88 Exegetical Shidies. 
 
 there anything disparaging in the statement that the 
 law was received through a mediator, inasmuch as in 
 the Gospel itself there is a Mediator, namely the Lord 
 Jesus Christ ; so that here there is no distinction be- 
 tween the law and the Gospel. And the subordination 
 of the law to the promise lies outside of the apostle's 
 argument. But to these arguments, it has been justly 
 replied : It is true that when angels are joined simply 
 with God or Christ they are added with a view to glori- 
 fication ; but when the discourse is of God simply as 
 one (o Se 0eo9 et9 eanv) and of His revelations to His 
 creatures, it is evident that a revelation given 
 directly by God is superior to a revelation given 
 indirectly by means of angels, as, indeed, is insisted 
 upon by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 The mediator here alluded to is not the mediator of 
 the new covenant, the eternal Son of God, but the 
 mediator of the law, Moses a human being ; and since 
 there is here a direct antithesis between a mediator 
 (o /xeo-iTT/?) and God (6 ©eo?), ev %fipt ueairov must 
 point to some mark of inferiority as compared with 
 the promise, which is directly given by God. And 
 with regard to the assertion that the subordination 
 of the law to the promise is not within the scope of the 
 apostle's argument, this is the very question in 
 debate, and is, we consider, amply refuted by an 
 attentive consideration of the whole paragraph. The 
 next verse indicates that the apostle had been so 
 depreciating the law as to give rise to the idea that 
 there was not only a subordination, but an actual 
 
Duality of Mediation and Unity of God. 189 
 
 opposition between the law and the promise : " Is the 
 law then against the promises of God ? " 
 
 Such we consider to be the correct interpretation 
 of this obscure passage ; the apostle is showing the 
 subordination of the law to the promise ; and one of 
 the points of subordination which he mentions 
 is that the law was given through a mediator, but 
 the promise was given without a mediator, ^ Thus 
 Schleiermacher observes : " The mediator of an agree- 
 ment does not exist when there is only one person 
 but always pre-supposes two persons ; these were God 
 and the Jewish nation. But God is one with reference 
 to His promises ; that is, God therein acts quite freely 
 unconditionally, independently, and for Himself alone, 
 as one numerically, because it is no agreement 
 between two, but His free gift." So also Conybeare 
 thus paraphrases the verse : " The law was enacted by 
 the ministration of angels through the hand of Moses, 
 who was a mediator between God and the people. 
 Now where a mediator is, there must be two parties. 
 But God is one, and there is no second party to His 
 promise." And Bishop EUicott gives the following 
 interpretation : " Now a mediator does not appertain to 
 one, standing or acting alone ; but in the promise 
 God is one, does stand and act alone ; therefore in 
 the promise a mediator does not appertain to God. 
 Is then the law a dispensation, which, beside other 
 distinctions, involved a mediator, opposed to the 
 
 ^ This opinion is substantially adopted by Schleiermacher, Usteri, 
 Conybeare, Ellicott, and Lightfoot. 
 
1 90 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 promise which rested on God, and involved no 
 mediator ? God forbid ! " 
 
 The obvious objection to this explanation is that 
 the Gospel, equally with the law, involves a mediator ; 
 as Moses is the mediator of the law or old covenant, 
 so Christ is the Mediator of the Gospel or better cove- 
 nant. "There is one mediator between God and 
 man, the man Christ Jesus" (i Tim. ii. 5). Moses 
 intervened between God and the Israelities ; and 
 Christ intervenes between God and sinners. But to 
 this it is answered that the apostle is not discoursing 
 directly on the Gospel, but on the promises made to 
 Abraham, and these promises were made directly by 
 God without the intervention of a mediator. It is 
 true that these promises were to all intents and pur- 
 poses the same as the Gospel, and hence the apostle 
 says that] " God preached before the Gospel unto 
 Abraham " (Gal. iii. 8) ; but yet this is not promi- 
 nently brought forward. Besides, the mediator of the 
 Gospel is different from the mediator of the law ; the 
 word is used in a different sense. Jesus Christ is, as 
 Mediator, the Reconciler between God and sinners ; 
 He is " the Surety of the better covenant ; " He has 
 destroyed the duality which exists in the case of two 
 parties at variance, and made them one in Himself 
 On the other hand, Moses, as the mediator of the law, 
 is in no sense a reconciler, but merely a medium of 
 communication between God and the Israelites, who 
 receives the law from God and communicates it to the 
 Israelites. And, as has been well remarked, we must 
 
Duality of Mediation and Unity of God. 191 
 
 " remember St. Paul's habit of insulating the matter in 
 hand, and dealing with it irrespective of all possible 
 objections." 
 
 Before concluding this exposition, we would advert 
 to four other explanations of our text which are 
 remarkable either from their plausibility or from the 
 authorities by whom they are supported. We shall 
 merely mention them without entering upon their 
 merits. 
 
 I. One interpretation is that which supposes that 
 the reference is to the right and title of the Gentiles to 
 the promises made by God to Abraham and his seed. 
 In the covenant made with Abraham the believing 
 Gentiles were included as well as the believing Jews ; 
 both constituted His spiritual seed which is represented 
 in Christ. Here the two parties are God on the one 
 hand, and Abraham and his seed, including all that 
 believe, both Jews and Gentiles, on the other. But 
 when the law was given Moses stood only between God 
 and the Israelites, and did not stand between God and 
 the whole collective seed of Abraham. Consequently 
 nothing which Moses did could disannul the promise 
 made by God to Abraham, in which the Gentiles were 
 concerned as well as the Israelites ; for no covenant can 
 be altered except by the mutual consent of both parties. 
 In what was done at Mount Sinai by the mediation 
 of Moses, there was no one to appear for the Gentiles ; 
 so that this transaction between God and the Israelites 
 did not abrogate or disannul the covenant made 
 between God and the spiritual seed of Abraham. 
 
192 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 In conformity with this interpretation the following- 
 meaning is given to the words : Now a mediator is 
 not a mediator of one party, but of two parties ; but 
 God is one of the parties, and the other is not only the 
 Jews but also the Gentiles, for whom Moses did not 
 intervene.^ This view is thus stated by Locke : " God 
 is but one of the parties concerned in the promise ; the 
 Gentiles and Israelites together make up the other. 
 But Moses, at the giving of the law, was a mediator 
 only between the Israelites and God ; and therefore 
 could not transact anything to the disannulling of the 
 promise, which was between God and the Israelites 
 and the Gentiles together, because God was but one 
 of the parties of the covenant ; the other, which was 
 the Gentiles as well as the Israelites, Moses intervened 
 or transacted not for." Calvin also supposes that the 
 reference here is to the Jews and Gentiles, although he 
 gives a different interpretation. 
 
 2. A second explanation given is that we have 
 here a statement of the parties between whom the 
 mediator intervenes. The following meaning is given 
 to the words : A mediator is not a mediator of 
 one — the idea of mediation necessarily supposes two 
 parties ; but God is one, that is one of the parties. 
 This gives a very simple meaning to the words ; 
 but it is merely the statement of an obvious fact ; 
 and so far as it appears without any doctrinal or 
 practical application. Winer draws the inference that 
 
 ^ This opinion has been adopted ly Locke, Michaelis, Whitby, and 
 Doddridee. 
 
Duality of Mediation and Unity of God. 193 
 
 as God will certainly perform His part of the covenant, 
 so the other party is bound to perform his part. The 
 two parties in the giving of the law are God and the 
 Israelites ; but as the law was given not with reference 
 to the Israelites alone, but with reference to the whole 
 human race, the two parties may be considered to be 
 God and man. If man does not obey the law of God, 
 he violates the conditions of the covenant and forfeits 
 the blessings which it confers, Olshausen gives a 
 somewhat similar explanation, but he supposes that 
 the design of the apostle is to magnify the Gospel 
 above the law ; and that therefore from this statement 
 an inference is to be drawn which the apostle ha> 
 suppressed, but which directly and obviously flows 
 from it. Taking 6 Se 0eo9 et? eVrtv as denoting God is 
 one, and consequently only one party, he gives the 
 following explanation of the words : " Mediation pre- 
 supposes a state of separation, and there can be no 
 mediator in the case of one ; since God is the one 
 party, there miust also be a second, namely men who 
 were separated from God. In the Gospel, it is other- 
 wise ; in Christ, the representative of the Church, all 
 are one ; all separations and distinctions are done away 
 in Him." 
 
 3. The third interpretation is that of Dean Alford. 
 It is somewhat obscure, and not easily stated in 
 intelligible language. According to Alford, the 
 clause is to be connected rather with what follows, 
 " Is the law then against the promises of God ? " 
 
 than with what precedes. He supposes that the 
 
 O 
 
1 94 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 words 6 0eo9 eh eanv represent not merely the 
 numerical unity of God, but "unity as an essential 
 attribute, extending through the whole of the divine 
 character." Now, the idea of /Lieo-tri;? is opposed to 
 this unity, belongs to a state ovx eh ', there is variance 
 between two, namely God and the sinner ; and con- 
 sequently is apparently opposed to the promises be- 
 longing to 6 669, the one (faithful) God. The law 
 being thus set over against the promises — being 
 given through a mediator between two — belonging 
 to the state ovx ^^'^ > ^^^ promises being given by 
 the one God — belonging to the state eh — it might 
 seem as if there were an opposition between them. 
 ■" Is then the law against the promises pf God ? " An 
 inference which the apostle rejects with horror. " God 
 forbid." It could only be so, provided the law per- 
 formed the same office with the promises ; that is, 
 provided it could justify the sinner ; whereas its oflfice 
 is directly the reverse, to give rise to the consciousness 
 •of sin, and thus to lead to condemnation : " For if 
 there had been a law given which could have given 
 life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 
 But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that 
 the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given 
 to them that believe." 
 
 4. According to a fourth interpretation the apostle 
 alludes to the unity which is in Christ — all are one in 
 Christ. The law creates disunion ; it is given by a 
 mediator ; but a mediator is not a mediator of one ; 
 it presupposes two parties at variance. Hence the 
 
Duality of Mediation and Unity of God. 195 
 
 law worketh wrath — it creates a breach between God 
 and man; it is the cause of separation. The promise, 
 or the Gospel, on the contrary, creates union ; God is 
 one ; He is reconciling all things to Himself ; the 
 variance occasioned by the law is removed ; and thus 
 a union is established between God and man. All 
 are united in Christ, who is the seed to whom the 
 promises were made. And hence the apostle con- 
 cludes his argument in these words : " There is neither 
 Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is 
 neither male nor female ; for ye are all one in Christ 
 Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's 
 seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. iii. 
 28, 29). According to this view, the words are to be 
 paraphrased as follows : Now a mediator is not a 
 mediator of one — it supposes two parties at variance; 
 namely, God and man ; but God is one ; in the pro- 
 mise, that is, in the Gospel, God and man are recon- 
 ciled — are one in Christ. Not only by His atonement, 
 but in His own incomprehensible person. He has 
 united God and man. In the law there is the duality 
 of mediation — disunion between God and man ; in 
 the promise there is the unity of God — union between 
 God and man. 
 
EXPOSITION XL 
 
 THE COMPLEMENT OF CHRIST'S SUFFERINGS. 
 
 COLOSSIANS i. 24. 
 
 Textus receptus. — NSii yjiiioi h rolg 'ffaQruxaci [lou ucrs^ u/awv, 
 %a} avravaTXri^oj ra ucre^Jj'/iara ruv $Xi-y\/suv too X^kStoO sv rfj 
 ffa^xi /xou vTi^ Tov ffu)/ji,arog aurov, tdriv ri exxXriffla. 
 
 Atithorised Version. — Who now rejoice in my sufferings for 
 you, and fill up that which is behind of the afiflictions of Christ 
 in my flesh for His body's sake, which is the Church. 
 
 Revised Version. — Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your 
 sake, and fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflic- 
 tions of Christ in my flesh for His body's sake, which is the 
 Church. 
 
 The context of this passage does not throw much 
 light upon its meaning, inasmuch as the words are a 
 parenthesis which might be omitted without any 
 injury to the general sense. In the preceding para- 
 graph St. Paul had been adverting to the glory of the 
 Gospel dispensation, arising from the supreme dignity 
 of its Author, the unspeakable blessings which it 
 confers, and the universal reconciliation which it 
 effects. Of this glorious Gospel he was privileged to 
 
 be a minister, an announcer of the glad tidings of 
 196 
 
The Complement of Christ's Sufferings. 197 
 
 reconciliation, " Whereof I, Paul, am made a minister." 
 Here the apostle breaks off his discourse to interject 
 a brief thanksgiving to God that he was permitted 
 to suffer for Christ's sake, since by his sufferings " he 
 fills up that which is behind of the afflictions of 
 Christ for His body's sake, which is the Church." 
 Having thus given vent to the personal emotion 
 excited within him, he, as his manner was, returns 
 to the point at which he had broken off, and takes up 
 the thread of his discourse by repeating its last phrase, 
 "Whereof I am made a minister, according to the 
 dispensation of God which is given to me for you, 
 to fulfil the Word of God ; even the mystery which 
 hath been hid from ages and generations, but now is 
 made manifest to His saints." 
 
 The word who (6<i) in our Authorised Version is but 
 weakly attested, and is not even inserted in the 
 textus receptiis ; it is, however, defended by Meyer, 
 but rejected by Tischendorf, Lachmann, and Alford. 
 The pronoun my (ftou) before sufferings is wanting in 
 all the uncial MSS., and is very feebly attested. 
 With these exceptions the words of our text are 
 fully supported. 
 
 The exegesis of the passage is as follows, vvv, now, 
 not a particle of connection or transition, but of time, 
 as is evident from its position in the original, and 
 from the parenthetical nature of the verse ; now^ 
 at this present time, in contrast with the past, before 
 he was made a minister. Either now, whilst reflect- 
 ing on the glorious Gospel which I am privileged to 
 
198 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 announce, or rather, nozu, although a prisoner at 
 Rome and in chains, — although suffering for the cause 
 of the Gospel. Xaipo), I rejoice ; in the midst of my 
 sufferings I now rejoice. This union of joy with 
 suffering often occurs with this apostle : " We glory 
 in tribulation." ev tol^ Tradij/xaat, in sufferings. The 
 apostle's sufferings were not merely the sphere of 
 his joy, "joy in the midst of sufferings," but the 
 cause or occasion of his joy, "joy on account of suffer- 
 ings." virep v^ibiv^foryotc ; not "instead of you," or 
 " in room of you," — there is here no reference to the 
 idea of substitution, — nor yet " on your account," but 
 " on your behalf," or, as the Revised Version has it, 
 "for your sake." koX, and; the simple copulative 
 " and through them I fill up." avTavaifkrjpa), I fill up. 
 This double compound verb is only found here in the 
 NewTestament; the simple compound ai^aTrXT^pwisused 
 elsewhere (i Cor. xvi. 17 ; Phil. ii. 30). The force of 
 mni is not that Paul " in his turn " fills up ; that is, " as 
 Christ suffered for me, so I suffer for Christ ; " but it 
 signifies to fill up in way of supplement. The comple- 
 ment corresponds to that which is lacking (Meyer) ; 
 hence it may be rendered "supplement," or rather 
 " complete." to. varep^j/xara, tJuxt whicJi is behind ; 
 indicating what was yet wanting in the afflictions of 
 Christ to fill them up, or render them complete. The 
 word denotes " those things which are wanting or lack- 
 ing." The nearest approach to it is "deficiencies," though 
 without the implication that there was any positive 
 defect in the afflictions of Christ. Our Authorised 
 
The Complemejit of Chrisf s Sufferings. 199 
 
 Version is not inappropriate, " that which is behind." 
 Twv dXi^jrecov, of the afflictions. A different word from 
 that rendered siifferirigs {iraOrjiMaaL) in the former 
 clause ; it does not denote the vicarious sufferings of 
 Christ, but His afflictions, tov Xpca-rov, of Christ ; 
 not the af^ictions of which Christ was the cause, but 
 of which He is the subject ; His afflictions, the 
 afflictions which He endures. eV t^ crap/cl /iou, in my 
 flesJi ; belonging to the verb "fill up," namely, fill up 
 or complete in my flesh. Paul's sufferings in his 
 flesh supplemented or completed what was lacking in 
 Christ's affliction, virlp, for the sake of, " on behalf 
 of" TOV awiiaro'^ avTov, His body; there being here 
 an antithesis of the apostle's flesh {aapKL) and Christ's 
 body (^cTcofiaro^). 6 iartv r) eKKXrjala, which ts the Church, 
 an explanation of what is meant by the body of 
 Christ. 
 
 The passage literally translated is as follows : 
 " Now I rejoice in sufferings for your sake, and fill 
 up in my flesh that which is lacking of the afflictions 
 of Christ for the sake of His body, that is, the 
 Church." The passage is correctly rendered in 
 Luther's version : " Nun freue ich mich in meinem 
 Leiden, das ich fur euch leide, und erstatte an 
 meinem Fleisch, was noch mangelt an Trubsalen in 
 Christo, fur seinen Leib, welcher ist die Gemeine." 
 
 This being the exegesis of the passage, several 
 interpretations may at once be dismissed as inadmis- 
 sible. All those, for instance, which give a substi- 
 tutionary meaning to the preposition for, as if St. 
 
200 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 Paul's sufferings were vicarious like those of Christ, 
 a meaning unsupported by this passage, and in 
 evident contradiction to the general scope of Pauline 
 doctrine. So also we may dismiss all those meanings 
 which regard the afflictions of Christ as those of which 
 He is the cause : such as " afflictions which Christ 
 sends," " afflictions of which Christ is the author." 
 The genitive is not the genitive of agency, but of 
 possession. We may also omit those meanings which 
 give a metaphorical or figurative interpretation to 
 the afflictions of Christ ; such as " afflictions for the 
 sake of Christ." The sufferings of the apostle were 
 certainly for Christ's sake ; but they are not so 
 designated in this passage. The afflictions of Christ 
 are the afflictions endured by Christ. 
 
 Having thus dismissed without examination what 
 we consider inadmissible interpretations, we now 
 proceed to consider four of the most plausible mean- 
 ings which have been attached to the words. 
 
 I. Some understand by what is lacking in Christ's 
 afflictions deficiencies in those sufferings which He 
 endured for the reconciliation of His people. They 
 suppose that there was a certain deficiency in the 
 sufferings to which Christ submitted in order to re- 
 concile the world to God, which deficiency had to 
 be completed, or filled up, or supplemented, by the 
 sufferings of St. Paul and of other followers of Christ. 
 A distinction is made between sufferings for the sake 
 of atonement, and sufferings for the sake of recon- 
 ciliation. The former refer to original sin, and are 
 
The Complement of Christ* s Sufferings. 201 
 
 complete and infinitely sufficient ; the latter refer to 
 actual sins, and have to be supplemented by the 
 sufferings of all who take up the cross for Christ's 
 sake. The great argument for this view is that it 
 gives a true and natural meaning to the passage, and 
 that it is supported by the context, wherein the 
 apostle is discoursing on the blessings of reconcilia- 
 tion with God through Jesus Christ. This, or some- 
 thing like this, is the meaning which the Romanists 
 adopt, and which is supported by the majority of 
 their divines. And it is chiefly on the above inter- 
 pretation of this verse that they maintain their 
 doctrine of indulgences, works of supererogation, and 
 the transferable merits of the saints — doctrines which, 
 according to our Protestant notions, have given rise 
 to the grossest abuses in the Christian Church. They 
 assume that St. Paul's sufferings, and the sufferings 
 of other saints, were meritorious, and that in this 
 sense St. Paul, by his sufferings filled up the defici- 
 encies in the afflictions of Christ. 
 
 Such a view we consider not only as totally un- 
 supported by this text, but as in direct variance with 
 the views of St. Paul and the undoubted sense of 
 Scripture. It involves the idea of substitution. But, 
 as we have already seen, the words, strictly inter- 
 preted, do not admit of this idea. St. Paul suffered 
 not in the room, but for the sake of, the Church. It 
 may, indeed, be asserted, that substitution is contained 
 in the notion of atonement, but not in the notion of 
 reconciliation ; but, in reality, there is no essential 
 
202 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 difference between these two ideas ; the atonement is 
 the cause of the reconciliation. The distinction is 
 not a Scriptural one, but is introduced for a purpose. 
 It is also to be observed that the apostle does not 
 speak of the sufferings, but of the afflictions (^ii/ret?) 
 of Christ ; he employs a word which, in itself, does 
 not necessarily imply the idea of meritorious suffer- 
 ing, but rather seems to exclude it. And certainly 
 the above view is directly opposed to Paulinism. 
 Nothing can be more alien to the theology of 
 St. Paul than the assumption that there is any 
 deficiency in the expiatory sufferings of Christ. 
 And, indeed, the whole of Scripture is opposed to 
 this view of the subject. The sufferings of Christ, as 
 an atonement for sin, and as the cause of reconcilia- 
 tion, are always represented as perfect. The sacrifice, 
 which He offered on Calvary, is of infinite efficacy. 
 " The blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth 
 from all sin." Whatever be the meaning of this 
 difficult passage, it cannot possibly imply any defect 
 or incompleteness in the expiatory sufferings of 
 Christ, which needs to be supplemented by the 
 efforts or endurance of weak and sinful men. Even 
 several Roman Catholic divines oppose the above 
 interpretation : " As if," observes Estius, " Christ had 
 not suffered enough for redemption, and, therefore, 
 needed a supplemental satisfaction of martyrs." And 
 he remarks that the doctrine of the satisfaction of 
 the saints " cannot be solidly concluded from this 
 passage." 
 
The Co7nplement of Christ's Stifferings. 203 
 
 11. Others consider the afflictions of Christ, which 
 have to be filled up, not as His expiatory sufferings, 
 but as sufferings endured for the building up of His 
 Church, and for the confirmation of believers. Ac- 
 cording to this opinion, the sufferings of Christ are 
 regarded from two points of view, sufferings for the 
 sake of satisfaction {satisfactoricc), and sufferings for 
 the sake of edification {cedifactoricB) : they have their 
 sacrificial efficacy, and they have their ministerial 
 utility. Considered sacrificially, the sufferings of 
 Christ are perfect : He has offered, once for all, a 
 complete atonement for the sins of the world. But 
 considered ministerially, the sufferings of Christ are 
 incomplete ; " they are supplemented by the afflictions 
 of the faithful." The phrase, " the afflictions of Christ," 
 is here employed in its true and natural sense, — the 
 affliction which He Himself endured. This is the 
 view advanced by Bishop Lightfoot in his unrivalled 
 Commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians. " It 
 is," he observes, " a simple matter of fact that the 
 afflictions of every saint and martyr do supplement 
 the afflictions of Christ. The Church is built up by 
 repeated acts of self-denial in successive individuals 
 and successive generations. They continue the work 
 which Christ began. They bear their part in the 
 sufferings of Christ ; but St Paul would have been 
 the last to say that they bear their part in the atoning 
 sacrifice of Christ." 
 
 Notwithstanding the high authority by which this 
 view has been advanced, the ingenuity by which it 
 
204 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 has been supported, and the natural sense which it 
 gives to the phrase, " the afflictions of Christ," we must 
 regard it as hazy and far fetched. No such distinction 
 of the sufferings of Christ as those for satisfaction and 
 those for edification, is to be found in Scripture, nor 
 is there any ground for affirming that the one is 
 complete and the other incomplete. Although the 
 sufferings of Christ are an example for our imitation, 
 viewed as an instance of self-sacrifice, and the suffer- 
 ings of the saints are for the edification of the Church, 
 considered as examples of faith and patience ; yet it 
 would afford but a doubtful and mystical meaning to 
 affirm that the afflictions of believers complete the 
 afflictions of Christ in the building up of His Church. 
 Such a meaning does not lie on the surface, and 
 would not suggest itself to the first readers of the 
 Epistle. With the profoundest respect for the great 
 commentator who has advanced it, we are neverthe- 
 less compelled to dismiss it as obscure, unsatisfactory, 
 and fanciful. 
 
 III. A third and more plausible interpretation is 
 that which takes St. Paul's sufferings as similar and 
 almost coincident with Christ's afflictions. The suffer- 
 ings of St. Paul were in an important sense the 
 sufferings of Christ. He drank of the same bitter 
 cup, and was baptised with the same baptism. He 
 trod the same path of sorrow. And more especially 
 those sufferings which he endured for the sake of the 
 Gospel were the afflictions of Christ. Take Christ 
 away, and his sufferings would cease ; he would no 
 
The Comi)le77tent of Christ's Sufferings. 205 
 
 longer suffer persecution. Thus, then, in his flesh, in 
 his own person, he filled up that which was behind 
 in the afflictions of Christ. He endured sufferings like 
 those of his Lord, endured them for the sake of the 
 Church. He was filling up the measure of his suffer- 
 ings, and supplementing wherein these came short of 
 the afflictions of Christ. 
 
 This is the view advanced by Meyer, perhaps the 
 greatest of modern exegetes. " Paul," he observes, 
 " describes his own sufferings as afflictions of Christ, in 
 so far as the apostolic suffering in essential character 
 was the same as Christ endured. The collective mass 
 of these afflictions is conceived in the form of a definite 
 measure. He only who has suffered all, has filled tip 
 that measure." And he gives the following interpre- 
 tation of the passage : " I rejoice on account of the 
 sufferings which I endure for you, and am in the 
 course of furnishing the complete fulfilment of what 
 in my case still remains in arrear of fellowship of 
 affliction with Christ." It is observed that he does 
 not understand the expression ra va-repij/naTa twv 
 6\v^e(ov rod Xpiarov to mean any deficiencies in the 
 sufferings of Christ Himself, but in his (the apostle's) 
 own sufferings ; that which he has endured still fell 
 short of Christ's afflictions, and this deficiency he 
 was now by his sufferings in the course of filling up 
 in his flesh. " Every explanation," he observes, " which 
 involves the idea of the suffering endured by Christ in 
 the days of His flesh having been incomplete or 
 needing supplement, is an anomaly which offends 
 
2o6 Exes:etical Studies, 
 
 ^> 
 
 against the analogy of faith of the New Testa- 
 ment." ^ 
 
 There are numerous passages in Scripture which 
 seem to confirm this view. Thus St. Paul expresses 
 his desire to " know Christ, and the power of His 
 resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, 
 being made conformable to His death." And again, 
 he says : " As the sufferings of Christ abound in us, 
 so our consolations also abound by Christ." "If we 
 suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him" (Phil, 
 iii. 10 ; 2 Cor. i. 5 ; 2 Tim. ii. 12). And St. Peter 
 calls upon his converts to rejoice, inasmuch as they 
 were "partakers of Christ's sufferings" (i Pet. iv. 13). 
 There is therefore a similarity almost amounting to 
 identity between the sufferings of Christ and the 
 sufferings of believers. When a man endures any 
 loss, or pain, or persecution, for righteousness' sake, 
 which he might have escaped but for his devotion 
 to Christ, he is a partaker of Christ's sufferings, a 
 fellow-traveller with Him along that path of sorrow 
 which leads to glory. There is certainly a great 
 difference in point of measure or quantity between 
 Christ's sufferings and his, but he is by his sufferings 
 filling up the deficiency, and this not for his own 
 discipline in righteousness alone, but also for the 
 edification of his fellow-believers, — " for His body's 
 sake, which is the Church." 
 
 Now, it must be admitted that this interpre- 
 
 1 Similar views have been adopted by Schleiermacher, Huther, Winer, 
 and other distinguished German theologians. 
 
The Complement of Christ's Sufferings. 207 
 
 tation, as it is so ingeniously explained by Meyer, 
 gives a good sense to our passage, and has much 
 to recommend it. The apostle is filling up in his 
 own case the deficiencies in his own sufferings by 
 which they came behind the sufferings of Christ. 
 The difficulty in the way of our accepting this view 
 is that there appears to be a want of simplicity about 
 it ; it is not the meaning which lies on the surface 
 of the passage. The words "the deficiencies (ra 
 vaTepTj^ara) of the afflictions of Christ," seem to 
 imply some deficiency in the afflictions of Christ 
 Himself, whereas, according to Meyer, they are a 
 deficiency in the sufferings of the apostle, whereby 
 " they remained in arrear of the fellowship of 
 affliction with Christ." And hence we are dis- 
 posed, though not without considerable hesitation, 
 to reject this opinion as not sufficiently natural and 
 exhaustive. 
 
 4. A fourth view is that which considers the 
 afflictions of Christ as His afflictions in His body, 
 the Church. According to this view, the afflictions 
 of Christ are not those which He personally endured 
 while He was on earth, but those which He now 
 mystically endures in heaven, a view which is sup- 
 ported, if not justified, by the explanatory words, 
 " for His body's sake, which is the Church." These 
 words are held to afford the key of the whole 
 passage. Christ's body, the Church, has its comple- 
 ment of suffering to endure ; and St. Paul, as a 
 member of that body, by his sufferings, filled up 
 
2o8 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 his part, which was wanting in the way of completion, 
 though not in the way of substitution. 
 
 Christ, who once suffered in His own person, still 
 suffers in His Church. There is a mystical union 
 between Him and His people, a principle of identity. 
 The Church is His body, and if one member of the 
 body suffers, all the members suffer with it. Thus 
 our Lord, when He encountered Paul on His way to 
 Damascus, accused him of persecuting, not His 
 Church, but Himself : " I am Jesus, whom thou 
 persecutest." There is a living sympathy between 
 Christ and His people. " In all their afflictions, He 
 was afflicted." And these sufferings of Christ's body 
 have to be filled up ; every member of that body has 
 a certain measure of suffering allotted to him, and 
 must do his part in the common work. The suffer- 
 ings of the whole Church, from its birth down to the 
 end of time, is the measure which requires to be filled 
 up ; and each believer adds his quotum, until at 
 length, when the measure is filled up, Christ's body, 
 as He Himself, will be received into glory ever- 
 lasting. 
 
 This is the view adopted by many of our most 
 distinguished commentators and Biblical critics.^ 
 " Christ," says St. Augustine, " is still suffering 
 affliction ; not in His very flesh, in which He has 
 
 ^ As Chrysostom and Augustine among the Fathers ; Calvin, Baza, 
 Luther, and Melanchthon, among the Reformers ; Bengel, Whitby, 
 and Doddridge ; and, more recently, Olshausen, De Wette, Alford, 
 Ellicott, Bishop Alexander, Wordsworth, Conybeare, and Eadie. 
 
The Complement of Christ's Sziffermgs. 209 
 
 been received into heaven, but in my flesh, which 
 still labours and is sorrowful on earth." " As," says 
 Calvin, " Christ once suffered in His own person, so 
 He suffers daily in His members, and in this way 
 there are filled up those sufferings which His Father 
 hath appointed for His body, the Church." "The 
 afflictions of Christ," observes Olshausen, " can be 
 understood subjectively of the mystical Christ alone ; 
 that is of Christ so far as He fills the Church with 
 His life and being. The Church of Christ which had 
 suffered much from the very beginning, is to endure 
 more suffering still by the dispensation of God ; a 
 certain measure of suffering is allotted her which 
 must be filled up. St. Paul supplies that deficiency 
 on his part by his sufferings in the flesh." And he 
 speaks of Christ as " the suffering God in the history 
 of the world." "All the tribulations of Christ's body," 
 observes Dean Alford, " are Christ's tribulations. 
 Whatever the whole Church has to suffer, even to 
 the end, she suffers for her perfection in holiness and 
 her completion in Him ; and the tribulations of 
 Christ will not be complete till the last pang shall 
 have past, and the last tear have been shed. Every 
 suffering saint of God in every age and position is in 
 fact filling up, in his place and degree, the afflictions 
 of Christ in his flesh, and on behalf of His body. 
 Not a pang, not a tear is in vain." 
 
 But before we adopt this view, several objections 
 have to be considered and answered. i. Such a 
 view, it is said, gives a figurative interpretation of the 
 
2IO Exegetical Studies. 
 
 afflictions of Christ ; it refers not to those which He 
 endures in person, but to those which He endures 
 metaphorically in His Church, whereas we ought to 
 take " the afflictions of Christ " as personal and real. 
 But to this it may be replied that the interpretation is 
 hardly figurative. The Scriptures speak of Christ as 
 suffering in His members. How this is the case, whether 
 actual suffering is here spoken of, or whether this 
 expression is a mere accommodation to our weakness, 
 we do not know ; but still, the analogy of Scripture 
 justifies us in taking St. Paul's words in the sense 
 for which we contend. Bishop Lightfoot admits that 
 this explanation cannot be charged with wresting the 
 meaning of al 6\l>ifw^ rov Xpiarov. 2. It is objected 
 that such a view introduces an unmeaning tautology 
 into the text, compelling us to read it* as follows : 
 " Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill 
 up in my flesh that which is lacking of the afflictions 
 of Christ in His body, for the sake of His body, which 
 is the Church." And certainly at first sight this 
 appears to be the case ; but, on a closer examination, 
 the tautology will somewhat disappear. The suffer- 
 ings of each believer, and pre-eminently the sufferings 
 of St. Paul, vv'ere not only a filling up of the comple- 
 ment of the afflictions of Christ's body, but were more- 
 over, and in addition, for the sake of the body, tending 
 to its edification and perfection. 3. It is asserted that 
 the idea of Christ suffering in the sufferings of His 
 people is nowhere found in the New Testament. 
 This is the objection urged by Meyer. " He lives," 
 
The Complement of Christ'' s Stifferings. 211 
 
 he observes, " in His people ; His heart beats in them ; 
 He is mighty in them when they are weak ; He is 
 their hope, their life, their victory ; but nowhere is it 
 said that He suffers in them. This idea, moreover, — 
 which, consistently carried out, would involve even the 
 conception of the dying of Christ in the martyrs — 
 would be entirely opposed to the victoriously reigning 
 life of the Lord in glory, with whose death all His 
 sufferings are at an end. Crucified through weakness, 
 He lives at the right hand of God, exalted above all 
 heavens, and beyond the reach of further suffering." 
 But this, as we have already shown, is not so. Does not 
 the risen Christ accuse Paul, when persecuting His 
 disciples, of persecuting Himself, as if He Himself 
 suffered in the persecutions of His people ? ^ Is He 
 not repeatedly said to sympathise with us, and does 
 not sympathy presuppose a certain degree of suffer- 
 ing ? We cannot tell how the sufferings of His 
 people affect the exalted Saviour ; but whether in 
 reality or as an anthropomorphism, in condescension 
 to our weakness, suffering is ascribed to Him ; and 
 our ignorance must not be allowed to deprive us 
 of the rich consolation which the conviction of His 
 sympathy affords us, for what can more effectually 
 sustain us under the wrongs and sorrows of time than 
 the assurance that so often as we suffer for righteous- 
 ness' sake. He suffers in us and with us ? 
 
 ^ On Acts ix. 4, Meyer observes : " Christ appears as the one against 
 whom the persecution of Christians is directed, but not as affected by it 
 in the sense of suffering." 
 
212 Exes'etical Shidies 
 
 ^>' 
 
 Upon the whole, then, we hold that the objections 
 brought against this view of our passage are not 
 insuperable, and are constrained to adopt it as the 
 true interpretation. And, assuredly, it is of all views 
 the most consolatory and sustaining. However 
 mysterious the idea, we believe that Christ suffers in 
 and with us, that He sympathises in all our sorrows. 
 There is a vital chord which unites Him with us, as 
 the Head to the body. Though He has gone up on 
 high to reassume the glory which He had with His 
 Father before the world was, He feels for His suffering 
 brethren on earth, and is not unmindful of their 
 sorrows. The perfections of His divinity do not 
 obliterate the sympathies of His humanity. " We 
 have not," writes the author of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, " a high priest who cannot be touched with 
 the feeling of our infirmities, but one who was in all 
 points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." 
 
EXPOSITION XII. 
 
 EXALTATION OF THE POOR AND HUMILIATION 
 OF THE RICH. 
 
 James i. 9, 10. 
 
 Textics re.ceptns. — Yiavyas^tji hi 6 a,hi\<plg 6 Taitiivhi h rui 
 U'v|/e; ccuroD ' d 5s 'xXovffiog, h rrj TWTrsD/uidsi aurov. 
 
 Authorised Version. — Let the brother of low degree rejoice in 
 that he is exalted : but the rich, in that he is made low. 
 
 Revised Version. — But let the brother of low degree glory in 
 his high estate : and the rich, in that he is made low. 
 
 In this passage there is no important difference in the 
 
 readings of manuscripts ; that of the textiis receptiis 
 
 is accepted by all critics. Nor is there any difficulty 
 
 in the translation. Literally rendered it is as follows: 
 
 " But let the lowly brother glory in his exaltation, but 
 
 the rich in his humiliation." The difficulty lies entirely 
 
 in the interpretation. 
 
 By the brother (6 dSeX^o'i) is evidently intended the 
 
 Christian brother; because Christianity unites all 
 
 those who embrace it into a holy brotherhood. The 
 
 " brethren," and the " saints " were the usual names 
 
 employed to designate the members of the Church. 
 
 Love to God and Christ unites all believers in love, 
 
 213 
 
214 Exegetical Stitdies. 
 
 brings them into a common relation to God, their 
 heavenly Father, so that they regard each other as 
 brothers and sisters of the same divine family. It 
 was only at a later period that the name Christian 
 was adopted by the Church itself That name was at 
 first given about nine years after the ascension, by the 
 citizens of Antioch, to distinguish believers from the 
 Jews, in consequence of the numerous conversions of 
 Gentiles in that city ; but it was not until some time 
 after, that it was accepted by believers themselves, and 
 gloried in as a designation of their religion. It occurs 
 three times in the New Testament, and that in the 
 mouth of those who were not Christians (Acts xi. 26 ; 
 XX vi. 28 ; I Pet. iv. 16). 
 
 The word raizuvo'i, rendered both in the Authorised 
 and in the Revised Versions, " of low degree," denotes 
 humble or lowly ; so that 6 aSeX(f)o<i 6 raireivo^ is the 
 humble or lowly brother. It does not in itself 
 necessarily involve the idea of poverty ; on the con- 
 trary, it is generally employed to denote a spiritual 
 condition ; but here, where the contrast is with the 
 rich (6 TrXouo-to?), it must denote the poor — the 
 Christian who is poor as regards this world's wealth. 
 The majority of the early Christians were of the poor; 
 it was to the poor chiefly that the Gospel was 
 preached, and it was chiefly they who embraced the 
 Gospel. It is probable that the unbelieving Jews by 
 fraud and extortion deprived their believing brethren 
 of their goods. " God," says St. James, " hath chosen 
 the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the 
 
Exaltation of Poor — Humiliation of Rich. 215 
 
 kingdom which He hath promised to them that love 
 Him" (Jas. ii. 5 ; see also i Cor. i. 26-28). 
 
 But whilst there is no difference of opinion as to who 
 is indicated by aBe\(po^ 6 Ta7reivo9, it is otherwise 
 with regard to 6 7r\ovaLo<;. Many expositors suppose 
 that by the rich here is meant the unbeliever — not the 
 rich brother but the rich man.^ They assert that the 
 rich in this Epistle of St. James, are spoken of as the 
 persecutors of the Christians — the adversaries of 
 Christ and His kingdom, — and are by him uniformly 
 denounced and threatened with condemnation. So 
 that according to them " the lowly brother " denotes 
 Christians generally, because the majority of early 
 Christians were poor ; whilst " the rich " denotes 
 those who were not Christians, so that the contrast is 
 between believers and unbelievers. And this meaning, 
 they contend, is intimated by the words which follow : 
 " But the rich, in that he is made low ; because as the 
 flower of the grass he " not merely his riches, but the 
 rich man himself, " shall pass away. So shall the rich 
 man (6 irXovcrio^) fade away in his ways." The words 
 have been differently rendered. Huther supposes 
 they are ironical : " Let the rich man glory in his 
 humiliation,; " let him glory in that which is in 
 reality his shame ; as St. Paul speaks of those who 
 glory in their shame (Phil. iii. 19). Alford converts 
 the conjunctive into an indicative, supplying Kavxarai: 
 " The rich man glories in his humiliation " — in his 
 riches which shall perish. Basset supposes that we 
 ^ So Beza, Huther, Alford, and Basset. 
 
2 1 6 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 have here an instance of the rhetorical figure called 
 zeugma^ in which two nouns are construed with one 
 verb, though only one of them, the first, directly suits 
 the verb ; and hence he supplies another verb as alcr'yv- 
 veaOw : " If the lowly brother is to rejoice in his 
 exaltation, the rich man is to grieve in his degradation." 
 But all such meanings are unnatural and forced. The 
 most natural meaning is to take the word aSeX^o? as 
 a general term, which is specified by the lowly and 
 the rich. It is forced and unnatural to change the 
 form of the verb in the two clauses ; so that in the 
 first clause it is an injunction, "Let him rejoice," and 
 in the second it is an assertion, " He rejoices ; " or to 
 substitute instead of it another verb altogether. Nor 
 is there any great difficulty in the expression, " The 
 rich man shall pass away," as it is apparent that 
 St James alludes to the fleeting nature of riches. 
 Thus, then, the complete words are KavxaaOw he 6 
 ahek<^o<i 6 7r\ov(Tio<; : "Let the rich brother rejoice." ^ 
 
 By the rich man, then, is meant the Christian 
 brother, who is rich, and by the lowly brother the 
 Christian brother who is poor. The contrast is thus 
 complete. Although it is true that the majority of 
 the early Christians were poor, yet there were several 
 among them who were rich. Mention is made of 
 Joseph, a rich man of Arimathaea, and of Nicodemus, 
 both of whom were men in an exalted position, being 
 members of the Sanhedrim, of the Ethiopian eunuch, 
 
 1 So Cah-in, De Wette, Wiesinger, Bruckner, Erdmann, Words- 
 worth, Plumptre, Farrar, and Dean Scott. 
 
Exaltation of Poor — Htimiliation of Rich. 2 1 7 
 
 treasurer to Candace the queen of Ethiopia, and of 
 Sergius Paulus, the Roman governor of Cyprus. And 
 to the rich Christians there are special exhortations 
 addressed, as when St. Paul writes : " Charge them that 
 are rich in this world that they be not high-minded, 
 nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who 
 giveth us richly all things to enjoy" (i Tim. vi. 17). 
 
 The objects, in which the poor and the rich brother 
 are to glor}^, are contrasted ; the poor brother is to 
 glory in his exaltation, ev raJ vylrec avrov ; whilst the 
 rich brother is to glory in his humiliation, iv rfj 
 raTTeivMcrei avrov. These objects have been differently 
 interpreted. The common opinion is that the words 
 are to be understood spiritually ; that St. James here 
 alludes to a spiritual exaltation and a spiritual 
 depression. " Let the lowly brother glory in his 
 exaltation : " let him, amid the depressing influences 
 of poverty, glory in that elevation, to which as a 
 Christian he is raised, in those spiritual riches which 
 are conferred on him, and in that crown of glory 
 which is in reserve for him. He is constituted a child 
 of God and an heir of heaven. Although poor in 
 this world, yet he possesses a treasure which moth 
 cannot corrupt nor thieves steal. And, doubtless, 
 many who were slaves in the world were the Lord's 
 freedmen ; many who were regarded as the off- 
 scouring of all things were the Lord's most precious 
 jewels. This dignity was a proper object for glorying 
 in, as it was conferred on them, not on account of 
 their own merits, but from the divine graciousness. On 
 
2 1 8 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 the other hand, " Let the rich brother glory in his 
 humiliation ; " let him amid his earthly grandeur 
 rejoice in that lowliness of spirit which the Gospel has 
 conferred upon him ; that being made conscious of the 
 vanity of earthly riches, he has been induced to seek 
 after the true riches, to cultivate that spiritual abase- 
 ment which is the prelude to all true exaltation. 
 Although rich in this world, yet as a Christian he is 
 poor in spirit, and clothed with humility. According 
 to this interpretation, the contrast in the two 
 characters presented is as follows : Let the brother, 
 who is outwardly poor, glory in that he is spiritually 
 exalted ; and let the brother, who is outwardly rich, 
 glory in that he is spiritually made low. Here 
 certainly the contrast is preserved, and a good and 
 instructive meaning is imparted to the passage. It 
 may perhaps be objected that such a meaning is 
 figurative, or rather that it is a mixture of the literal 
 and the figurative ; for whilst the poor and the rich 
 are taken literally, the objects of glorying — the exalta- 
 tion and the humiliation, are taken figuratively. 
 And besides humiliation is hardly a proper object for 
 glorying in, since for one to boast that he is humble 
 is an evidence of pride. 
 
 Accordingly, other expositors^ give a different inter- 
 pretation. According to them the poor man is to 
 glory in his exaltation, because poverty is his true glory. 
 His lowliness, instead of being a thing to be ashamed 
 of, is his true title to honour. Christ pronounces 
 
 1 Plumptre and Farrar. 
 
Exaltation of Poor — Htimiliation of Rich, 2 1 9 
 
 a blessing upon the poor ; He has consecrated poverty 
 by being Himself poor, and by preaching the Gospel 
 to the poor. The rich man, on the other hand, is to 
 glory in his humiliation ; his riches are in reality a 
 weakness ; they place him in a lower position than his 
 poorer brother ; his true ground of glorying is to 
 accept the position which God has assigned him 
 with trembling, by reason of the dangers to which his 
 riches expose him, and like St. Paul to glory in his 
 infirmities. " Poverty and riches," observes Archdeacon 
 Farrar, "stand in God's estimation in reverse positions. 
 Humble poverty is true wealth. Pampered wealth is 
 real poverty. Let the poor brother glory in the 
 beatitude of poverty ; it is the gift of God. The rich 
 brother, then, is worse off, is in a worse position than 
 he ; his riches are his humiliation in the heavenly 
 order, for they are a temptation to which he is only 
 too liable to succumb; they tend to make him more 
 of a worldling, less of a Christian." Now such a 
 meaning may be sufficiently appropriate for the first 
 clause of the verse ; the poor may rejoice that they 
 are placed in a more favourable position for salvation 
 and for the cultivation of Christian graces than the 
 rich. But it loses its appropriateness when applied to 
 the second clause ; for the rich man can hardly be 
 exhorted to glory in that which is a temptation, an 
 obstacle to his salvation. 
 
 Others^ suppose that when it is said, " Let the rich 
 man glory in his humiliation," the reference is to 
 ^ Macknight, Wordsworth, and Erdmann. 
 
2 20 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 actual poverty induced by persecution, to the rich 
 Christian being stripped of his possessions for the 
 sake of the Gospel ; let him glory in being thus 
 deprived of his wealth. Poverty was undoubtedly a 
 common effect of persecution for conscience' sake. 
 Men were then deprived of their goods, their lands, 
 and their riches for the sake of Christ ; they were 
 exposed to fines and extortions because they declared 
 themselves members of the small and persecuted sect 
 of Christians. Both heathens and Jews combined in 
 robbing Christians of their wealth. The author of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of the Jewish Christians 
 "taking joyfully the spoiling of their goods, knowing 
 that they have in heaven a better and an enduring 
 substance" (Heb. x. 34). Now such a humiliation and 
 poverty was a proper object for glorying in ; it was for 
 the sake of their blessed Master that they suffered ; 
 it was devotion to His cause that constrained them to 
 surrender their earthly riches ; to them it was given, 
 not merely to believe, but also to suffer for His sake. 
 "We glory in tribulation," writes St. Paul. Such a 
 meaning is highly appropriate for the second clause 
 of the verse, " Let the rich brother glory in his 
 humiliation ; " let him glory in the loss of all things 
 for the sake of Christ. But it does not preserve the 
 contrast in the first clause ; on the contrary, those 
 who adopt the above meaning give to that clause a 
 spiritual interpretation ; let the poor brother glory in 
 his exaltation ; " having been made a son of God by 
 adoption in Christ, and an heir of His glory and 
 
Exaltation of P 007^ — Humiliation of Rich. 221 
 
 kingdom, which are promised to the meek and lowly 
 of heart " (Wordsworth). 
 
 We consider then that the words admit of a more 
 extended and literal signification. The poor brother 
 is called upon to rejoice when he becomes rich ; and 
 the rich brother is called upon to rejoice when he 
 becomes poor ; the one is to thank God for the riches 
 which in His providence He has conferred on him; and 
 the other is to thank God for the riches which in His 
 providence He has withdrawn from him ; the exalta- 
 tion of the poor and the depression of the rich ought 
 both to be matters of thanksgiving and rejoicing. 
 The contrast is complete ; let us now examine the 
 sentiment contained in this interpretation. 
 
 I. The Exaltation of the Poor. — Let the poor 
 brother rejoice in his exaltation ; that is according to 
 this interpretation when he becomes rich. Riches are 
 not in themselves an evil ; they are not so antagonistic 
 to salvation that one cannot possess them without 
 endangering his soul ; it may be difficult, but it is not 
 impossible for a rich man to enter into the kingdom 
 of God. There have been many good men, many 
 who have been ornaments of the Church of Christ, 
 who have been men of wealth. " Abraham was very 
 rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold ; " yet his riches 
 did not weaken his faith, nor prevent him being one 
 of the purest saints of the Old Testament. Joseph of 
 Arimathsea was a rich man, and he used his riches 
 and influence in procuring an honourable burial for 
 his Lord. And there are in the present day numerous 
 
22 2 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 instances of men of wealth, and influence, and povver> 
 who are also men of piety, and faith, and devotion. 
 Voluntary poverty is no virtue ; to apply those words 
 of our Lord which were spoken in a particular 
 instance, " Go thy way, sell all that thou hast and 
 give to the poor," to all who profess to be the disciples 
 of Jesus, is part of monkish superstition. There is no 
 merit in poverty ; it is no recommendation to the 
 favour of God ; money may be redeemed from the 
 world, and deposited in the treasury of the Lord. 
 Riches then are a cause of thanksgiving to God ; but 
 they are only a blessing, when they relieve us from 
 corroding care. If by the increase of our riches, our 
 cares also increase ; if, so far from being less burdened,, 
 we become more burdened, then, of course, riches are 
 no blessing, are unproductive of benefit, and are not 
 conducive even to our earthly happiness. 
 
 Now the poor brother is permitted to rejoice when 
 he is thus exalted ; when he is relieved from the evils 
 of poverty and becomes rich. He is thus possessed of 
 greater means of usefulness, and is the better enabled 
 to promote the cause of Christ, and to relieve the 
 distresses of his brethren. He is also to be grateful to 
 God that he is free from earthly care, being raised 
 above the depressing feeling of want, and that he is 
 possessed of many worldly comforts and blessings. 
 In his prosperity he is to realise the hand of God, and 
 to thank Him for the many good things he enjoys. 
 Let the poor brother rejoice in his exaltation, in that 
 he is made rich ; but let him rejoice with trembling ; 
 
Exaltation of Poor — Humiliation of Rick. 223 
 
 for riches are a great trust committed to him and a 
 heavy responsibihty ; he is the mere steward of God's 
 bounty. 
 
 11. The Humiliation of the Rich. — "Lettherich 
 brother rejoice in his humiliation ;" that is, according to 
 this interpretation, when he becomes poor. Although 
 riches are not in themselves an evil, yet they are 
 undoubtedly a source of great danger. A rich man is 
 like one placed on the edge of a precipice, standing 
 in a most perilous position ; he must exercise con- 
 stant precaution, otherwise he may be precipitated to 
 the depths below. The dangers of the poor in being 
 exposed to dishonesty, discontent, drunkenness, forget- 
 fulness of God are often pointed out ; but these dan- 
 gers are small compared with the dangers to which 
 the rich are exposed. These latter are so great that 
 our Saviour says of the rich : " Verily I say unto you, 
 that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of 
 heaven. And again I say unto you, it is easier for a 
 camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a 
 rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (Matt. xix. 
 23, 24). These are strong expressions, so strong that 
 they filled the disciples with amazement, and called 
 forth the exclamation, " Who then can be saved ? " 
 Poverty is a far more favourable soil for the growth of 
 religious principles than wealth. The rich are strongly 
 tempted to seek their happiness in this world ; to 
 make the good things of the present the only portion 
 of the soul ; and thus to live in forgetfulness of God 
 and of the spiritual interests of their immortal souls. 
 
224 Exegetical Shidies. 
 
 There is more ungodliness and unbelief among the 
 rich than among the poor. We are not sufficiently- 
 sensible of the danger of riches to our soul's salvation. 
 We forget the solemn warning of our Lord, or tone it 
 down, or explain it away. The striving after riches 
 is the great evil of this age and nation ; men are 
 eager in their pursuit ; they strain every effort ; they 
 do all they can to increase their business and to out- 
 strip their rivals ; and in doing so they are often 
 tempted to have recourse to practices of doubtful 
 honesty. The world is the great rival of Jesus Christ 
 for the possession of the throne of the human heart. 
 It has the advantage of bestowing, or at least of promis- 
 ing to bestow immediate happiness ; the objects of its 
 enjoyments are all addressed to the senses ; and the 
 baits it holds out are most inviting. Whereas the 
 blessings which Jesus Christ confers are of a spiritual 
 nature, and are addressed to our faith and not to our 
 sight. And thus it often happens that the tempta- 
 tions of the world prevail and the soul is ruined, and 
 led to the commission of divers sins (i Tim. vi. 9). 
 
 Now, the rich brother is to rejoice in his humilia- 
 tion ; he is called upon to thank and to praise the 
 Lord when his money is taken from him, when he is 
 reduced from affluence to poverty, because he is thus 
 freed from the snares and temptations of riches. This 
 is indeed a high attainment in piety ; it is one of the 
 triumphs of grace over nature; but it is an attainment 
 which has been made by many Christians. Riches 
 are too frequently an obstacle to salvation ; and when 
 
Exaltation of Poor — Humiliation of Rich. 225 
 
 taken away believers may have abundant reason to 
 thank God that that obstacle has been removed. 
 Many who, when in the possession of riches were 
 worldly, proud, self-seeking, self-indulgent, striving to 
 keep up with the world, and living in forgetfulness of 
 God, have been rescued from this perilous condition 
 by their riches being taken from them ; so that what 
 they and others considered a heavy calamity was the 
 greatest blessing which God in His goodness had con- 
 ferred upon them. Many have been improved, and 
 benefited, and purified, and made noble characters, by 
 this discipline, like precious gold tried in the furnace. 
 Thousands now in glory, and thousands on their way 
 thither have come to bless God for failure, and dis- 
 appointment, and poverty, and to sing with the pro- 
 phet of old : "Although the fig-tree shall not blossom, 
 neither shall fruit be in the vines ; the labour of the 
 olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat ; the 
 flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be 
 no herd in the stalls : yet I will rejoice in the Lord, 
 I will joy in the God of my salvation " (Hab. iii. 
 17, 18). 
 
 Let it be our endeavour to solve the true problem 
 of life ; it is only when we do so that we have the key 
 to the solution of all those difficulties which at present 
 beset us. What is your life? This is the question 
 propounded. To this question St. James replies : " It 
 is even a vapour that appeareth for a little time and 
 then vanisheth away," — a mere smoke that is seen only 
 to vanish. And certainly such is life, considered as 
 
 Q 
 
2 26 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 limited to this world ; and from this also we may 
 infer, as St. James does, the vanity of all earthly 
 blessings. All that riches can do is only to make the 
 vapour a little more dense and discernible. But, 
 surely, this is not the true solution. Surely we were 
 not sent into the world to live mere animal lives — to 
 become a human machine — to make certain move- 
 ments until the machine is worn out — to eat, to drink, 
 to sleep, to wake, and to go through the same round 
 from day to day and from year to year, until life comes 
 to a stop. This cannot be the true solution of the prob- 
 lem of life. Life is a training, an education, a school, 
 a discipline. Man, the child of immortality, is sent 
 here to school, to learn those lessons which will be 
 useful for him in another state of being. And just as 
 a child learns to read, and to write, and to count, in 
 order that he may be enabled to perform his part in 
 after life, so are we taught by a process of discipline to 
 imbibe those principles, to form those habits, to pro- 
 duce that character which will fit us for the employ- 
 ments of the heavenly world. And hence it is that 
 God trains His children by a variety of discipline. 
 On some He bestows riches, by which various graces 
 may be exercised ; and on others He confers poverty, 
 which calls forth the exercise of other graces ; and 
 when God sees that this discipline is not productive 
 of good. He may reverse the process, and take away 
 the riches from the one and the poverty from the 
 other. 
 
 It becomes us to remember that our lots are 
 
Exaltation of Poor — Humiliation of Rich. 227 
 
 ordained by God. " Our times are in His hands." 
 Our riches or our poverty are the result of His Pro- 
 vidence. If we are rich, our riches are ultimately to 
 be traced back to Him as the Giver of every good ; 
 if we are poor, our poverty was the lot which God 
 assigned to us. Every man's life is " a plan of God ; " 
 a plan sketched out and marked by Him. This plan 
 may be marred by our folly and perversity, or it 
 may be promoted by our acquiescence in it ; by 
 learning and practising those virtues which are peculi- 
 arly called out in our particular conditions. Thus, 
 riches are favourable for the cultivation of the virtues 
 of generosity, compassion, and gratitude; and poverty 
 is no less favourable for the cultivation of the perhaps 
 still more important virtues of patience, resignation, 
 and submission. God will accommodate His grace 
 to our necessities : grace both to resist the tempta- 
 tions to which we are specially exposed, and to culti- 
 vate the virtues which we are specially called upon to 
 exercise. Our evident duty, in whatever condition we 
 are placed, is to cultivate a deeply religious spirit; to 
 keep near to God by prayer and holy communion ; to 
 employ those talents with which He has intrusted us 
 to His glory, and to seek by the avoidance of every- 
 thing approaching to what is wrong, to maintain a 
 close walk with Him. By doing so, we will be able 
 to maintain a thankful and even joyful spirit — to 
 bless God for prosperity, and to praise Him in 
 adversity ; " Let the lowly brother glory in his 
 exaltation, and the rich in his humiliation." 
 
EXPOSITION XIII. 
 
 THE INDWELLING SPIRIT LUSTETH TO ENVY. 
 
 James iv. 5. 
 
 Textus receptus. — -"H doxiTrs ort xivug ri yga<pr\ Xiyn' U^og 
 (pdovov sTi'TTodi? rb TViZiia Karw-KriGiv h ri/J^Tv, 
 
 Authorised Version. — Do ye think that the Scripture saith in 
 vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy ? (Marginal 
 reading : enviously.) 
 
 Revised Version. — Or think ye that the Scripture speaketh in 
 vain ? Doth the spirit which He made to dwell in us long unto 
 envying ? (Marginal reading : The spirit which He made to 
 dwell in us He yearneth for even unto jealous envy. Or, That 
 spirit which He made to dwell in us yearneth yi'r us even unto 
 jealous envy.) 
 
 There is a variation in the reading of the manuscripts, 
 
 which has an important influence on the meaning 
 
 to be attached to this passage. Instead of Karcp- 
 
 KT]aev (textiis recepttis), the aorist of the verb KaroiKeco, 
 
 to dwell, the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. have Karw- 
 
 Kia-ev, the aorist of the verb KaToiKL^co, to cause to 
 
 dwell, to implant, to place; the reading adopted 
 
 by Tischendorf, Lachmann, Tregelles, Alford, and 
 
 the Revisers, and which is better attested than 
 
 the reading of the textus receptus, though it also 
 228 
 
The Indwellmg Spirit Lzcsteth to E7wy. 229 
 
 possesses considerable authority. The Alexandrian 
 MS. has KarwKeLaeVy which is evidently an itacisvi, 
 that may have arisen from either of the two other 
 readings. 
 
 A few remarks are necessary with regard to the 
 verbal rendering of the passage. The translation 
 €7ri7rodel by lusteth — " the spirit that dwelleth in us 
 lusteth to envy " — is unfortunate. The verb frequently 
 occurs in the New Testament, and is elsewhere ren- 
 dered by "long after" (2 Cor. ix. 14; Phil. i. 8), 
 "desire" (i Peter ii. 2), " earnestly desiring " (2 Cor. 
 v. 2), and " greatly desiring " (2 Tim. i. 4). Perhaps 
 " to long for " is its most appropriate meaning. In 
 the other places, where it occurs, it is construed with 
 the infinitive (Rom. i. 1 1 ; 2 Cor. v. 2 ; i Thess. iii. 6), 
 or with the accusative of a thing (i Peter ii. 2), or of a 
 person (2 Cor. ix. 14 ; Phil. i. 8). Here it is con- 
 strued with the preposition 7r/309, and hence it may 
 signify " to have a desire towards," " to long towards," 
 as in the Septuagint of Psalm xli. (xlii.) i, where " so 
 panteth my soul after Thee, O God," is rendered oi5tco9 
 iTTLTToOel 7] 'y}rv)(i] /jUou Trpo'i ere, 6 0€O9 ; or the preposi- 
 tion and the noun which it governs may be taken as 
 an adverbial expression.^ Thus then 77/309 <p66vov 
 iiriirodel is to be rendered, " longeth towards efivy" 
 or, taken adverbially, enviously desireth. to irveviMa, 
 being neuter, may be considered either as the subject 
 or the object of the verb iirLTrodel ; as the subject, 
 the words are to be rendered, " the spirit longeth;" 
 ^ See Winer's Grammar, English translation, page 529. 
 
230 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 as the object, the meaning is, " He (God) longeth for 
 the spirit." If the better-attested reading, KartpKiaev, 
 be adopted, then the words are to be rendered as in 
 the Revised Version, " the spirit which He made to 
 dwell in us ; " and, consequently, what is here predi- 
 cated of the spirit must be good. 
 
 I. In considering the interpretation of this passage, 
 the first thing to examine is the meaning of the first 
 clause, " Do ye think that the Scripture saith in 
 vain ? " These words certainly appear to introduce 
 what follows as a citation from Scripture, ; but no 
 passage, either in the Old or in the New Testament, 
 can be found which expresses the subjoined senti- 
 ment. Various passages in the Old Testament have 
 been adduced as possibly referred to by the apostle, 
 such as, " My Spirit shall not always strive with man," 
 Gen. vi. 3 (Grotius) ; " The imagination of man's 
 heart is evil from his youth," Gen. viii. 21 (Beza) ; 
 " Neither be thou envious against the wicked," Ps. 
 xxxvii. I (Lange) ; " The soul of the wicked desireth 
 evil," Prov. xxi. 10 (Michaelis). Others suppose that 
 St. James refers to the New Testament — either to the 
 words of our Lord, " Ye cannot serve God and mam- 
 mon," Matt. vi. 24 (Benson) ; or to the exhortation of 
 St. Peter, to " lay aside all malice, and guile, and 
 hypocrisies, and envies," i Peter ii. i (Bengel). 
 Others find the reference in the " Wisdom of Solo- 
 mon (Wetstein), or in the apocryphal book called 
 " The Testimony of the Twelve Patriarchs (Semler), 
 
The Indwelling Spirit Lusteth to Envy. 231 
 
 or suppose that it is borrowed from a lost prophetical 
 book, or from some Jewish midrash. All attempts 
 have, however, completely failed to find a passage 
 similar in sentiment and expression to the statement 
 here made by St. James, 
 
 Accordingly, several eminent commentators ^ think 
 that the quotation cited is that contained in the next 
 verse, " God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to 
 the humble," which is almost an exact quotation of 
 Prov. iii, 34, according to the Septuagint. They sup- 
 pose that St. James had this passage in view, but that, 
 before adducing it, he interposed a parenthetical 
 remark, " The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to 
 envy, but He giveth more grace," and then returned 
 to the quotation. But this is a forced method of 
 removing the difficulty. The words are direct, and 
 there is no appearance of any interruption in the 
 course of thought. Others, in opposition to the testi- 
 mony of all authorities, suppose that the words, tt/oo? 
 ^QovQV iiriTToOel ro 'irvevfjua o KaTcpKrjaev ev rjfjilv ; [lei^ova 
 he SlScocrt x^P''^' ^^° ^^eyec, are not the words of St. 
 James, but a gloss which has been inserted into the 
 text.2 
 
 We are, therefore, constrained to conclude that 
 there is here no direct quotation from Scripture, or 
 from any other writing; that St. James does not allude 
 to any special passage either of the Old or of the 
 New Testament ; that the allusion is general, and not 
 
 1 So Wiesinger, Kern, Huther. 
 ' So Hottinger, Reiche. 
 
232 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 particular ; and that he gives what appears to him 
 the general scope or sense of Scripture on the subject. 
 Do you think that the Scripture saith in vain ? Are 
 its declarations made for no purpose ? Is there no 
 force in its assertions ? This may refer to the senti- 
 ment that follows : " the spirit that dwelleth in us 
 lusteth to envy." Or it may refer to what precedes : 
 "the friendship of the world is enmity with God;" 
 and may allude to the Scriptural denunciations against 
 worldly affections, and the indulgence of hatred and 
 envy. The special nature of the reference depends on 
 the meaning which we assign to the words which 
 follow. 
 
 II. Having come to the conclusion that the words, 
 "Do you think the Scripture saith in vain?" do not 
 introduce any particular quotation, but merely adduce 
 the general sense of Scripture, we now proceed to the 
 consideration of the more difficult part of the exposi- 
 tion, the meaning of the subjoined statement, rendered 
 in our version, " The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth 
 to envy." 
 
 Some critics^ unite the words 7rpo9 <J306vov with 
 Xeyei, and render the verse : " Do you think the 
 Scripture speaketh in vain concerning envy ? " or, 
 taking tt/jo? ^dovov as an adverbial expression, " Do 
 you think the Scripture speaketh uselessly and 
 enviously ? " But such an interpretation may at 
 once be dismissed as undoubtedly incorrect. It 
 
 ' Gebser. 
 
The Indwelling Spiril Lusteth to Envy. 233 
 
 furnishes no proper, or at least no important, meaning. 
 If the words Trpo? <^Qovov are to be understood adver- 
 bially, it is difficult to see what sense can be attached 
 to the question, " Do you think the Scripture speaketh 
 enviously?" Besides, such an interpretation is lin- 
 guistically incorrect ; for if tt/jo? (jidovov, like Kev6!)<;, is 
 to be referred to Xiyei, it would require to precede 
 the verb, and eTniroOet would be left without qualifying 
 words to complete its sense. 
 
 III. The interpretation given in the Authorised 
 Version requires more consideration. According to 
 it the meaning is, that the Scripture declares that 
 our depraved nature is given to envy. By irvevfxa is 
 here meant the natural spirit of man, — that depraved 
 state of heart and feeling with which we are born, or 
 what St. Paul calls, "the carnal mind." Do you think 
 that the Scripture has no meaning, when it tells us 
 that man's nature is prompted to envy — that these 
 bad passions, envy and worldliness, are inherent in 
 fallen humanity? And in agreement with this 
 meaning are the words which follow : " But God 
 giveth more grace," — grace to overcome these natural 
 inclinations, and to rise superior to them : " Wherefore 
 he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to 
 the humble."^ Now it is admitted that this affords 
 a good meaning to the whole passage. It has, indeed, 
 been objected, that the assertion that our corrupt 
 nature tends toward envy is a mere truism, and 
 
 ^ This meaning has been adopted by Beza, Grotius, and Winer. 
 
234 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 therefore wholly unimportant But we do not think 
 this objection of any force ; for the assertion suits 
 the apostle's argument against worldliness and envy. 
 The friendship of the world is enmity against God ; 
 that is the tendency of human nature ; the declara- 
 tions of Scripture on this point are plain ; but, to 
 counteract this tendency, God gives more grace. 
 But the great and insuperable objection is, that the 
 apostle speaks not of the spirit simply, but of " the 
 spirit that dwelleth in us," and this is a strange expres- 
 sion, if by it is meant the human spirit. It rather 
 suggests a spirit different from the human, not our 
 own spirit, but " another spirit that dwelleth in us." 
 Nor do we remember that irvevfia by itself is ever 
 employed to denote the corrupt nature of man. Of 
 course,if we adopt the better attested reading, /caTw/ctcrei/, 
 "the spirit which He made to dwell in us," a good 
 principle must be meant, and not the human spirit in 
 its natural condition. Accordingly, the above inter- 
 pretation has been relinquished by all our best recent 
 critics. 
 
 In order to avoid the objection arising from the 
 words, " the spirit which dwelleth in us," some 
 suppose that the spirit of evil or Satan is meant. 
 According to this view, the line of argument would 
 be as follows : If you are worldly-minded, you are 
 the enemies of God, you are actuated by the spirit of 
 evil ; for envy, which is the essence of worldly- 
 mindedness, is of the devil ; this is the meaning of 
 Scripture — that the evil spirit that dwelleth in us 
 
The Indwelling Spirit Lust elk to Envy. 235 
 
 tends toward envy ; but God gives more grace to 
 resist his temptations ; therefore " submit yourselves 
 to God, Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." 
 Here, also, a good sense is afforded ; there is nothing 
 in this meaning which militates against the context. 
 Still, however, such an expression as " Satan dwelling 
 within us " is hardly permissible ; it is not a Scriptural 
 representation of our natural state. Besides, the 
 words which follow " He giveth more grace," would 
 require " God " to be inserted as the subject to express 
 the contrast. If the corrected reading KarcpKia-ev be 
 adopted, all reference to Satan is entirely precluded. 
 
 IV. We consider, then, that by to irvevfxa KarrnKfjaev 
 (or KarcpKiaev) iv tj/jllv is meant a principle of good ; 
 either the Holy Spirit who takes up His abode in the 
 hearts of the regenerate, or the human spirit as sancti- 
 fied by the Spirit of God. But, as already remarked, 
 irvevfia, being a neuter noun, may be considered either 
 as the object or the subject of the verb eTnTrodel. 
 If it is considered as the object, then the verb has no 
 expressed subject ; if it is the subject then the tran- 
 sitive verb eTriirodel has no object. 
 
 Several critics of high standing suppose that to 
 TTvevfxa is in the accusative as the object of the verb 
 iirtirodel ; and they give the following translation to 
 the words : " He (God) jealously desireth the spirit 
 which dwelleth in us," or, according to the other 
 reading, " the spirit which He hath implanted within 
 us." They give to the words tt/jo? ^66vov an adverbial 
 
236 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 meaning, and render them jealously. They think that 
 the metaphor introduced in the fourth verse, " Ye 
 adulterers and adulteresses," is still carried on. God 
 is jealous of your love : He will not permit you to 
 devote it to the world ; He will not admit of a rival 
 in your affections ; you are already His by right of 
 property ; He jealously longs after the spirit which 
 He Himself has implanted within you.^ Thus Kern 
 says, " God longs after the spirit which He has made 
 to dwell within us ; that is, God will be the exclusive 
 possessor of the spirit of the Christian, rendered 
 capable of His fellowship/' So Wiesinger says, " The 
 love of God jealously desires, as an object, your love/' 
 Huther renders the whole passage as follows : " Or 
 think you that the Scripture saith in vain ? — rather 
 God enviously desires the spirit which He has made 
 to dwell in us, but He gives the greater grace — where- 
 fore it says, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to 
 the humble/' And Dean Scott : " Or think ye that 
 all that the Scripture saith of this relation (that of 
 marriage) of God to man is unmeaning ? Passionately, 
 aye, with passion that is even terrible, He yearneth 
 for the entire possession of the spirit which He 
 Himself gave to dwell in us/' 
 
 Now, although this meaning is supported by such 
 learned exegetes it appears open to some objections. 
 I. The words Trpo? (pOovov certainly admit of the 
 adverbial meaning ; they are not, however, to be ren- 
 
 ^ This is the meaning adopted by Kern, Wiesinger, Huther, Theile, 
 and Dean Scott. 
 
The Indwelli7ig Spirit Ltisteth to Envy. 237 
 
 dered Jealoicsly but enviously, as indeed is done by Hut- 
 her. To express jealously the phrase would require to 
 be 7r/309 ^r]\ov. That God jealously desires our love is a 
 Scriptural statement ; but to say that God enviously 
 desires our love, appears to us to be too anthropo- 
 morphic, especially as the word <^66vo'^ is always used 
 in Scripture in a bad sense. 2. According to the 
 above interpretation, " God desireth the spirit that 
 dwelleth," or " that He has made to dwell in us," is 
 an obscure expression. So far as we can understand 
 it, it can only denote the human spirit as sanctified 
 by the grace of God ; but if this be its meaning, it is 
 certainly a strange and unusual circumlocution. If 
 it were the subject of the verb it would denote the 
 Holy Spirit, but being the object it can only denote 
 the sanctified human spirit. 
 
 V. Thus we are led to consider ro irvev/jia as the 
 subject of the verb, and if so, then it denotes the 
 Holy Spirit. " The Spirit that dwelleth in us " is a 
 familiar Scriptural expression for the indwelling of 
 the Spirit in the hearts of the righteous. " Ye are not 
 in the flesh but in the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of 
 God dwell in you " (Rom. viii. 9). — We have yet to 
 explain the last clause ; what is meant by the state- 
 ment, " The Holy Spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to 
 envy " ? 
 
 Some render the words, "The Spirit lusteth against 
 envy." They suppose them equivalent to the expres- 
 sion of St. Paul : " The flesh lusteth against the 
 
238 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh" (Gal. v. 17). 
 According to this view 7rpo9 <f)66vov iTmroOelv is 
 equivalent to Kara ^Oovov eTnirodeiv. This is the 
 meaning adopted by Luther in his German Bible : 
 " Den Geist gelustet wider den Neid." ^ But it is 
 an insuperable objection to the adoption of this 
 interpretation, that it does not give the true meaning 
 to the preposition Trpo?; it uses it in the sense of 
 Kara. It is true that there are passages in which 
 •7r/)09 with the accusative admits of the sense against. 
 This, however, is only when connected with verbs or 
 phrases denoting hostility (Luke xxiii. 12 ; Acts vi. i) ; 
 but not with such a verb as iimroOdv. 
 
 VL The most approved interpretation in recent 
 times is the following : " The Spirit that He (God) 
 implanted in us jealously desireth us as His own."^ 
 This meaning is in accordance with the representation 
 of God given us in the Old Testament, as " the jealous 
 God," jealous of the love of His people; and it con- 
 tinues the figure introduced by the apostle in the 
 fourth verse. " We are married to one, even God, who 
 has implanted in us His Spirit; and He is a jealous 
 God, who will not suffer us to be friends of His 
 enemy and His friends at the same time. The 
 apostle is speaking of the eager and jealous love of 
 God toward those whom He has united, as it were, in 
 
 1 So also Bengel, Stier, and Lange. 
 
 ' This meaning is adopted by De Wette, Ewald, Eriickner, Erdmann, 
 Alford, Basset, Farrar, and Plumptre. 
 
The Indivelling Spirit Lttsteth to Envy. 239 
 
 the bond of marriage with Himself" (Alford). The 
 objection that ^66vo<; does not denote jealousy, but 
 envy, and is always used in Scripture in a bad sense, 
 is thus ingeniously met by Dean Plumptre in his 
 suggestive commentary : " The thought implied is, 
 that the strongest human affection shows itself in a 
 jealousy which is scarcely discernible from envy. We 
 grudge the transfer to another of the affection which 
 we claim as ours. We enz'}' the happiness of that 
 other. In that sense, St. James says that the Spirit, 
 implanted in us, yearns to make us wholly His, and 
 is satisfied with no divided allegiance. He simply 
 treats the Greek word for 'envy' as others treated the 
 word 'jealousy,' which, though commonly viewed as 
 evil, was yet treated at times as a parable of the 
 purest spiritual affection (2 Cor. xi. 2; Gal. iv. 17, 18). 
 The root-idea of the passage is accordingly identical 
 with that of the jealousy of God over Israel as His 
 bride (Jer. iii. i-ii ; Ezek. xvi. ; Hosea ii. 3) ; of His 
 wrath when the bride proves faithless. Those who 
 had been addressed as ' adulteresses ' (ver. 4) were 
 forgetting this. All that they had read of the love 
 or jealousy of God was to them as an idle tale." 
 
 The meaning thus given is beautiful, suggestive, 
 and Scriptural ; and the reason advanced for the 
 removal of the objection arising from the words 7rpo<{ 
 <f)96vov is plausible, but it is not conclusive. If the 
 apostle meant jealousy, why did he not use the 
 familiar word, ^^Xo?? Certainly, to ascribe ^96vo<i, 
 a word always used in a bad sense, to God, would 
 
240 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 lead to misconception, and be repulsive to the minds 
 of his readers. Besides, in order to bring out the 
 above meaning from the text, the words " us for His 
 own" have to be added. The apostle's statement 
 simply is : " The Spirit enviously desireth." If we 
 give an adverbial signification to Trpo? (f)66vov, there is 
 no object to the verb. There is here an arbitrary 
 supplement which the words do not warrant, and 
 which, as we shall see, are not necessary to complete 
 the sense. 
 
 VII. That which seems on the whole the best inter- 
 pretation, and the one freest from difficulties, is to sup- 
 pose that there are here two distinct questions : " Do 
 you think that the Scripture saith in vain ? Does 
 the Spirit that dwelleth in us tend toward envy ? " 
 According to this rrrvevfia is the Holy Spirit ; and 
 7rpo9 (j)66vov is not used adverbially, but expresses 
 the direction of the longing ; and the twofold question 
 of the apostle is entirely in accordance with the lively 
 style of the Epistle. This interpretation admirably 
 suits the context, both what precedes and what 
 follows. Do you think the Scripture speaketh in 
 vain ? Are its denunciations against worldliness, 
 and strife, and envy, a mere empty sound ? Does 
 the Spirit that dwells in us long toward envy? Is 
 this the tendency of His influence on your hearts ? 
 Does He encourage such worldly affections? Are 
 the fruits of the Spirit envy, strife, worldliness, and 
 not rather love, joy, peace? God will communicate 
 
The Indwelling Spirit Lusteth to Envy. 241 
 
 His grace to overcome these evil passions, if we 
 humbly implore it. Wherefore He saith, God 
 resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.^ 
 
 According to this interpretation, the words, Do you 
 think the Scripture saith in vain ? refer, not to what 
 follows, but to what precedes ; to the statement that 
 "the friendship of the world is enmity against God ;" 
 and hence to the declarations in the Old Testament 
 against worldliness and envy. 
 
 The interpretation of both clauses of the verse 
 given by Calvin accords with that at which we have 
 arrived. We conclude our exposition by an extract 
 from his commentary. 
 
 " Do you think ? He seems to adduce from 
 Scripture the next following sentence. Hence inter- 
 preters toil much, because none such, at least none 
 exactly like, is found in Scripture. But nothing 
 hinders the reference to be made to what has been 
 already said, that is, that the friendship of the world 
 is adverse to God. Moreover, it has been rightly 
 said, that this is a truth which occurs everywhere in 
 Scripture. 
 
 " The Spirit, or Does the Spirit ? Some think that 
 the soul of man is meant, and therefore read the 
 sentence affirmatively, and according to this meaning 
 — that the spirit of man, as it is malignant, is so 
 
 ^ Such is the meaning adopted by Doddridge, Whitby, Macknight, 
 Bishop Wordsworth, Professor Johnstone in his recent exegetical 
 lectures on the Epistle of James, and the Revised Version of the 
 New Testament, The verse is also thus punctuated by Griesbach and 
 Scrivenir in their critical editions. 
 
 R 
 
242 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 infested with envy, that it has ever a mixture of it. 
 They, however, think better who regard the Spirit of 
 God as intended ; for it is He that is given to dwell 
 in us. I then take the Spirit as that of God, and 
 read the sentence as a question ; for it was the 
 apostle's object to prove, that because they envied, 
 they were not ruled by the Spirit of God ; because He 
 teaches the faithful otherwise ; and this he confirms 
 in the next verse by adding that He giveth more 
 grace." 
 
EXPOSITION XIV. 
 
 THE SPIRITS IN PRISON. 
 
 I Peter iii. 18-20. 
 
 Textus reccptus. — &avaruh!g ft^h ffa^x/, ^woto/'/j^s/j di rul 
 rrvsdfjLarij h w xal roTg h (pvXa/ifj Tvsv/jja'Si 'xopsudsig sx-/}^u^sv, 
 a'XiiQrieaei tots, on cl'Tra^ i^sds^iro t] tou Qiov /juaz^o6uf/Lia h 
 ijfiigaig Nw£. 
 
 Aiithorised Version. — Being put to death in the flesh, but 
 quickened by the spirit : by which also He went and preached 
 unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when, 
 once the long-sufifering of God waited in the days of Noah. 
 
 Revised Versio7i. — Being put to death in the flesh, but 
 quickened in the spirit ; in which also He went and preached 
 unto the spirits in prison, which aforetime were disobedient, 
 when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah. 
 
 St. Peter, in his Second Epistle, observes, in refer- 
 ence to the Epistles of his brother apostle Paul, that 
 " there are in them some things hard to be under- 
 stood " (2 Pet. iii. 16), a statement which must appear 
 undeniable to every one who is in the least acquainted 
 with the writings of the great apostle of the Gentiles. 
 There are in his Epistles many difficult passages 
 which have puzzled expositors, and given rise to- 
 endless diversities of interpretation. There are 
 
 243 
 
244 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 revelations of divine mysteries, such as predestina- 
 tion, election, and free will, which transcend the 
 capacities of the human intellect. There is a 
 certain obscurity of style, an involved train of 
 thought which it is often difficult to disentangle. 
 And there is a mode of reasoning which, although 
 intelligible to Orientals, appears strange to our 
 Western minds. But the observation not only holds 
 good with regard to St. Paul's Epistles, it is no 
 less true with regard to the writings of the apostle 
 who made the remark. In St. Peter's Epistles there 
 are also " things hard to be understood." Our text 
 is a notable instance ; hardly any passage in the 
 New Testament is more difficult of comprehension, 
 or has given rise to a greater diversity of mean- 
 ings. These obscurities in Scripture are an exercise 
 to our faith ; we are to walk up to the light which 
 we have, and to practise trust when the light fails 
 us. They are also a valuable exercise to our intel- 
 lectual faculties, an incitement to the study of the 
 Scriptures, and to the endeavour to find out the 
 true meaning of the word of God. And they teach 
 us humility, showing that there is much in revelation 
 which we do not comprehend, and that there are 
 boundaries to human knowledge in the word as well 
 as in the works of God. 
 
 There are two changes in the reading of our pas- 
 sage which are undoubtedly correct, and are admitted 
 by all critics. The article r&J before irvev^iaTi is omitted 
 in all the best MSS. ; and instead of the unsupported 
 
The Spirits 211 Prison. 245 
 
 reading aira^ e^eSe^ero (probably a conjecture of 
 Erasmus), the MSS. and versions have aTre^eSe^ero. 
 
 With reference to the translation, the Revised is 
 here to be preferred to the Authorised Version. 
 7rvev/u,aTt, is m spirit ; iv w, is in wJdch ; ttotc, is afore- 
 time or perhaps rather formerly ; aTre^eSix^ro is not 
 " once waited," but was waiting. So that the passage 
 is to be rendered : " Being put to death in flesh, but 
 quickened in spirit ; in which also He went and 
 preached unto the spirits in prison, which were 
 formerly disobedient, when the long-suffering of God 
 was waiting in the days of Noah." 
 
 The meaning of the context is obvious. St. Peter 
 is exhorting believers to endure suffering for the 
 sake of religion with patience, and even with a 
 certain degree of cheerfulness. "If," says he, "ye 
 suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye." To 
 you belongs the beatitude which the Lord conferred 
 on those who are persecuted. " Be not afraid of their 
 terror, neither be troubled." If you have a good 
 conscience toward God, if the cause for which you 
 suffer is a righteous cause, you have no reason to be 
 ashamed, but rather to glory in your afHictions. " It 
 is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for 
 well doing than for evil doing." And as an encourage- 
 ment to them to hold out and not to despond amid 
 their sufferings, he adduces the example of Christ : 
 "for Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just 
 for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being 
 put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit."' 
 
246 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 He like you suffered for well doing, the just One for 
 the unjust ; but His death was succeeded by life, 
 although He was put to death as regards the flesh, 
 He was quickened as regards the spirit. And then 
 follow the words which form our exposition, which are 
 appended as a statement of what Christ did in the 
 spirit, in which He was quickened : "In which (spirit) 
 also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison, 
 which were formerly disobedient, when the long- 
 suffering of God was waiting in the days of Noah." 
 
 The exegesis of the passage is as follows : — There 
 is an antithesis between the two datives aapici and 
 TTvevixarL ; an antithesis which is elsewhere frequently 
 found in Scripture (Rom. i. 3, 4 ; Col. ii. 5 ; i Tim. 
 iii. 16; I Pet. iv. 6). They can only be understood 
 adverbially ; they " mark the sphere to which the 
 general predicate is to be thought of as restricted." ^ 
 As regards His flesh Christ was put to death, but as 
 regards His spirit He was quickened. Hence the 
 words can only admit of the translation, "put to death 
 in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit." It is also to 
 be observed that the words aapKi and irvev^iari are 
 without the article, and are therefore to be understood 
 generically not specifically. " Quod ad caniein" ob- 
 serves Alford, " the Lord was put to death ; quod ad 
 spiritum, He was brought to life. His flesh was the 
 subject, recipient, vehicle of inflicted death; His 
 Spirit was the subject, recipient, vehicle of restored 
 
 ^ Winer's Grammar of the New Testament, p. 270, Moulton's Transla- 
 tion. 
 
The Spwits in Prison. 247 
 
 life. What is asserted is not that the flesh died, and 
 the Spirit was made alive ; but that quoad the flesh 
 the Lord died, quoad the Spirit He was made alive. 
 He, the God-man, Christ Jesus, body and soul, ceased 
 to live in the flesh, began to live in the Spirit ; ceased 
 to live a fleshly mortal life, began to live a spiritual 
 resurrection life." Most recent expositors understand 
 by irvevixan the human spirit of Christ ; that whilst 
 Christ's flesh was in the grave. His spirit in a disem- 
 bodied state went to Hades and preached to the spirits 
 in prison. Others interpret it of His divine nature. 
 Christ was put to death in the flesh, in His human 
 nature; but quickened in Spirit, in His divine nature. 
 His human nature {crap^) rendered Him capable of 
 suffering and death ; His divine nature {irvevixa) was 
 the source and sphere of His eternal life.^ The word 
 quickened (^(ooTroLTjOeh) does not mean preserved or 
 remained alive, but made alive, the antithesis to being 
 put to death ; some refer it to the existence of the 
 spirit of Christ in a state of separation from the body, 
 others to His resurrection life (John v. 21 ; Rom. iv. 
 17). 'Ev w, in zvhich — i.e., iv Trvevfiari, namely, in the 
 same spirit in which He was quickened, whether, 
 according to some expositors, His human spirit, or, 
 according to others. His divine nature. Kal, also or 
 
 ^ It is to be observed that the resurrection of Christ is uniformly 
 ascribed in Scripture not to Christ's human spirit, but to the power or 
 Spirit of God (Acts ii. 4 ; Rom. iv. 24 ; vi. 4 ; viii. 1 1 ; .x. 9 ; i Cor. 
 vi. 14 ; XV. 15 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4 ; xiii. 4 ; Gal. i. i ; Eph. i. 20 ; Col. ii. 
 12 ; I Thess. i. 10 ; i Peter i. 12 ; even Rom. i. 3, 4, admits of this 
 meaning). 
 
248 Exegetical Studies, 
 
 even, or the simple copulative and. Uopevdeh, He 
 went; this may denote an actual transference from one 
 place to another — an actual journey of Christ, or, as 
 is quite defensible, it may be used for the sake of em- 
 phasis, as when St. Paul says, "He came and preached 
 peace" (Eph. ii. 17). And preached {eKrjpv^ev) ; the 
 word denotes the office of a herald — "He proclaimed." 
 The subject of His preaching or proclamation is not 
 stated ; but it cannot be doubted that it was the 
 Gospel — the message of peace : for in this sense only 
 can the word cK^pv^ev be used in connection with 
 Christ ; indeed, it is almost of the same import with 
 evrjyyeXiaaro. To the spirits, (rot? nrvevixaaC) ; here 
 evidently disembodied spirits, as in Heb. xii. 23. 
 I?i prison {ev (^vkaKfi). The word here denotes a state 
 of detention or confinement, in which these disem- 
 bodied spirits are kept awaiting their doom. Which, 
 namely these spirits in prison. Were formerly (jrore) 
 in a former state, when in the body. Disobedient 
 {dTrecOija-acrl), impenitent and unbelieving. JVhen (ore) 
 the period or time of their disobedience. The long- 
 suffering of God, His patience or forbearance toward 
 sinners, was ivaiting in the days of Noah, during those 
 hundred and twenty years (Gen. vi. 3), " when the ark 
 was a-preparing," and when Noah went about this 
 earth as a preacher of righteousness (2 Pet. ii. ^J- 
 
 So much for the rendering of the passage. The chief 
 difficulties are to understand who are " the spirits 
 in prison " {TOi<^ iv <^v\aKrj irvevfjuaa-i) ? and what is 
 meant by the spirit in which Christ preached {irvev/jbaTC 
 
The Spirits in Prison. 249 
 
 eV w eKtjpv^ev) ? The spirits are further described as 
 limited to those who "were formerly disobedient, 
 when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of 
 Noah." The purport of the preaching may well be 
 understood to be the Gospel or message of peace ; 
 but the effect of the preaching is not stated — whether 
 these spirits repented, or continued in their disobedi- 
 ence. The other difficulty is, In what spirit Christ 
 preached to them, whether immediately in His own 
 human spirit, or mediately in His Spirit or divine 
 nature ? in other words, whether Christ Himself 
 descended to prison — to hell or Hades, and preached 
 there ; or whether the reference is merely to what He 
 did in the Spirit in the days of Noah in His pre- 
 incarnate state. Accordingly very different and even 
 opposite views have been taken of this passage, and, 
 indeed, the subject is so involved in obscurity, that all 
 dogmatism and positive assertion as to its precise 
 meaning ought perhaps to be avoided. 
 
 Before adverting to the various interpretations 
 given to these verses, it may be proper to remark 
 that this is one of those passages by which the 
 article of the Apostle's Creed, " Christ's descent into 
 hell," has been supported. In the Articles of the 
 Church of England, as first published in the reign 
 of Edward VI., this passage is incorporated. The 
 third article reads as follows : — " That the body of 
 Christ lay in the grave until His resurrection ; but 
 His spirit, which He gave up, was with the spirits 
 which were detained in prison, or in hell, and preached 
 
250 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 to them, as the place in St. Peter testifieth."^ This 
 descent of Christ to Hades is directly stated by St. 
 Peter in his address on the day of Pentecost, when he 
 says, that " His soul' was not left in Hades, neither His 
 flesh did see corruption" (Acts ii. 31), intimating 
 that on His death His body was laid in the grave, 
 there preserved from corruption, and His soul went 
 to Hades.^ The word Hades is unfortunately rendered 
 hell in Scripture, and in the Apostles' Creed ; it does 
 not denote the place of punishment for which another 
 word, Gehenna, is employed ; but the place or abode 
 of separate spirits — the intermediate state. Now the 
 soul of Christ, during the three days which inter- 
 vened between His death and resurrection, was in 
 Hades ; His aap^ was in the grave ; His -^vyj) was in 
 the place of disembodied spirits. It would appear from 
 several statements in Scripture, that there are two 
 distinct regions in Hades ; that the souls of the 
 righteous inhabit the region of the blessed, called 
 Paradise (Luke xxiii. 47), whilst the wicked are con- 
 fined to the region of the condemned, called Tartarus 
 (2 Pet. ii. 4), or in our text <})v\aK^. 
 
 In discussing the different interpretations given to 
 this passage, perhaps the best method is to commence 
 
 ^ This clause, it is said, was omitted out of deference to the views 
 of Calvin. The subject was stated at greater length and with even 
 more precision in the " Church Catechism," published in the same 
 reign. 
 
 * Here the word is \pvxv not irvevfia. 
 
 ^ St. Paul appears to allude to the same descent into Hades in Eph. 
 iv. 9, 10. 
 
The Spirits in Prison. 251 
 
 with those which we have no hesitation in rejecting, 
 and then to proceed to the consideration of the more 
 plausible, 
 
 I. It has been supposed that the text alludes to 
 tJie preaching of the apostles to the unbelieving world. 
 " The spirits in prison " is considered to be a metaphor- 
 ical phrase, used to denote either Jews or Gentiles, or 
 both, who were in a state of spiritual bondage ; and 
 by Christ's preaching in spirit to them is meant the 
 preaching of the Spirit of Christ through the apostles.^ 
 The Gospel, it is observed, is frequently represented 
 as an announcement of deliverance to captives con- 
 fined in a prison. Thus in the prophecies of Isaiah it 
 is said, " I will give thee for a covenant to the people, 
 for a light to the Gentiles ; to open the blind eyes, to 
 bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them 
 that sit in darkness out of the prison house " (Isa. xlii. 
 6, 7). " The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, to pro- 
 claim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the 
 prison to those that are bound" (Isa. xli. i). And 
 whereas it is objected that there is no mention of 
 preaching to either Jews or Gentiles, but only to those 
 who were disobedient in the days of Noah, it is 
 replied that the mention of the disobedient in the 
 time of Noah is adduced merely by way of sample or 
 type of the disobedient in all ages ; the preaching of 
 
 1 This opinion was maintained by Socinus, Hensler, Grotius, Bishop 
 Burnet, in his exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles, Dr. John Brown 
 of Edinburgh, and is mentioned as an alternative meaning by Bishop 
 Leighton. 
 
252 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 Noah before the flood was a type of the preaching of 
 the apostles before the judgment, on which St. Peter 
 specially discourses. 
 
 We have no hesitation in rejecting this interpreta- 
 tion ; indeed, it hardly merits consideration. Such a 
 meaning given to the passage is not to explain the 
 words, but to explain them away ; not to interpret, 
 but to misinterpret them — to avoid a difficulty by a 
 most violent expedient. Surely to affirm that Christ 
 went in Spirit and preached to the spirits in prison 
 would be a most extraordinary mode of expressing 
 the simple fact that Christ was preached by the 
 apostles to the Gentiles. 
 
 II. Some think that the meaning of the passage is 
 that Christ zuent in His disembodied state to hell to 
 announce to the wicked confined there, as in a prison, 
 their condemnation. According to this view, the spirit 
 is the human spirit of Christ in a disembodied state, 
 and the subject of preaching or proclamation is not 
 the Gospel, but the sentence of condemnation on 
 impenitent spirits. This opinion is supported only 
 by a few critics, and these not of great eminence.^ 
 The reason for its adoption is because it is supposed 
 that the passage must mean that Christ preached to 
 the spirits in hell, and as it was considered to be con- 
 
 ^ As Calovius, Aretius, Flacius, Zezschwitz, Schott. Holiaz, quoted 
 by Huther, remarks : " Fuit praedicatio Christi in inferno non evangelica 
 quce hominibus tantum in regno gratice annunciatur, sed legalis, elen- 
 chthica, terribilis eaque turn verbalis, qua ipsos seterna supplicia pro- 
 meritos esse convincit, turn realis, qua inunanem terrorem iis incussit. ' ' 
 
The Spi7'its in Prison. 253 
 
 trary to Scripture to suppose that He preached the 
 Gospel to them, it could only mean that He pro- 
 nounced sentence of condemnation upon them. 
 
 Such an interpretation may also be at once rejected, 
 as inconsistent with the words of the passage, and 
 with the benevolent spirit of our Lord, The word 
 cKijpv^e, in connection with Christ and His apostles, 
 can only denote the preaching of the Gospel. Such a 
 condemnatory announcement would be superfluous to 
 spirits already in a state of condemnation ; and it is 
 highly derogatory to our Lord to suppose that, in the 
 hoyr of His triumph, He should exult over the misery 
 of the lost Besides, the context forbids such a 
 meaning. The words are in the midst of a passage 
 intended to convey consolation to Christians under 
 the sufferings to which they were exposed from per- 
 secution, by announcing the blessed consequences of 
 our Lord's sufferings and death, and, therefore, are not 
 to be forced to mean an announcement, not of bless- 
 ing, but of wrath. 
 
 HL Rejecting these interpretations as perversions 
 of the passage, we proceed to one more plausible, 
 and supported by higher authorities. It is sup- 
 posed that the passage alludes to t/ie preaching of 
 the Gospel by Christ in Hades to the spirits of the 
 just zvho died before our Lord's advent in tJie flesh, 
 and especially to the saints of the Old Testament} 
 
 ^ This appears to have been the opinion adopted by Irenasus (iv. 
 27, 2), Justin Martyr {Dial. c. Tryph.), Hippolytus [de Antichr. c. 26), 
 
254 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 " I have no doubt," observes Calvin, " that Peter 
 speaks generally, that the manifestation of Christ's 
 grace was made to godly spirits, and that they were 
 thus endued with the vital power of the Spirit." ^ An 
 obstacle to this interpretation lies in the word (pvkaKr]^ 
 which seems to express a place of penal confinement. 
 Hence Calvin supposes that the word does not here 
 denote a prison, but a watch-tower (Hab. ii. i, LXX.) : 
 " It seems to me that (f>v\aKr] rather means a watch- 
 tower, in which watchmen stand for the purpose of 
 watching ; and the meaning would be very appro- 
 priate, that godly souls were watching in the hope of 
 the salvation promised them, as though they saw it 
 afar off. Nor is there a doubt that the holy Fathers in 
 life, as well as after death, directed their thoughts to 
 this object." So also Bishop Horsley softens the 
 meaning to be attached to the word prison by observ- 
 ing that " the invisible mansion of departed spirits, 
 though certainly not a place of penal confinement to 
 the good, is, nevertheless, in some respects a prison : 
 it is a place of unfinished happiness, consisting in rest, 
 security, and hope more than enjoyment." " The 
 original word imports merely a place of safe keeping ; 
 for so this passage may be rendered with great exact- 
 
 and TertuUian (de Anima, vii. 55, among the Fathers; and by Calvin and 
 Zwingli among the Reformers, and by most of the Roman Catholic theo- 
 logiansjin conformity with their notion of the Limbus Patrum. It has 
 also been defended in an able sermon by Bishop Horsley. 
 
 * It must be confessed that Calvin's words are ambiguous ; indeed, 
 it is difficult to say whether he believed in Christ's descent into Hades 
 at all. " The opinion," he observes, " is common that Christ's descent 
 into hell is here referred to ; but the words mean no such thing." 
 
The Spirits in Prison. 255 
 
 ness : ' He went and preached to the spirits in safe 
 keeping.' " What Christ preached to those Old Tes- 
 tament saints is considered to be the announcement 
 of His victory over sin and death, which would give 
 them the assurance of a glorious resurrection and 
 complete salvation.^ 
 
 Such an interpretation is liable to grave objections. 
 Not only is it not permissible to soften down the word 
 (pvXaKT), or to adopt the poetical sense watch-tower ; 
 but the interpretation is completely refuted by the con- 
 sideration that the spirits in prison are not the spirits 
 of the just, but the spirits of the disobedient. Horsley 
 endeavours to avoid this objection by saying that they 
 were indeed once disobedient, but were recovered from 
 that disobedience, and before their death had been 
 brought to repentance and faith in the Redeemer to 
 come ; which is merely an attempt to explain away 
 the statement of the text. Calvin, on the other hand, 
 is constrained to admit that the Greek construction is 
 at variance with the meaning which he assigns to the 
 
 ^ Similarly, Dante : — 
 
 ..." I was new to that estate, 
 When I beheld a puissant One arrive 
 Amongst us, with victorious trophy crowned. 
 He forth the shape of our first parent drew, 
 Abel, his child, and Noah, righteous man ; 
 Of Moses, lawgiver for faith approved ; 
 Of patriarchal Abraham, and David king ; 
 Israel, with his sire and with his sons, 
 Not without Rachel, whom so hard he won, 
 And others many more, whom He to bliss 
 Exalted. 
 
 " Hell" Canto iv. 50-59, Gary's Translation. 
 
256 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 passage ; but, in a most extraordinary and uncritical 
 manner, he attributes this to a confusion in the apostle's 
 language, and supposes that those who were disobe- 
 dient in the days of Noah are different from the spirits 
 in prison to whom Christ preached. " I allow," he 
 observes, " that the Greek construction is at variance 
 with this meaning, for Peter, if he meant this, ought 
 to have used the genitive absolute. But as it was not 
 unusual for the apostles to put one case instead of 
 another, and as we see that Peter here heaps together 
 many things, and no other suitable meaning can be 
 elicited, I have no hesitation in giving this explana- 
 tion of this intricate passage; so that the readers may 
 understand that those called unbelieving are different 
 from those to whom he said the Gospel was 
 preached ; " which is certainly not to explain the 
 words of the apostle, but to force them, contrary to their 
 grammatical construction, to agree with the meaning 
 which Calvin had adopted. The preaching, whatever 
 it is, is not to believers, but to unbelievers ; and the 
 spirits in prison are not godly souls in a separate state, 
 but those who are kept in the place of the departed 
 awaiting their doom. 
 
 A modified form of the above interpretation is 
 adopted by some critics, who suppose that the spirits 
 here mentioned are those who repented at the deluge. 
 Not to all the spirits of the just was the Gospel 
 preached, but to those who were disobedient in the 
 time of Noah ; and not to all of them, but to those 
 who repented at the last moment when the flood was 
 
The Spirits in Prison. 257 
 
 upon them.^ This opinion was adopted by Bengel to 
 escape the difficulties attached to the opinion of 
 Calvin. " It is probable," he observes, " that some out 
 of so great a multitude repented when the rain came ; 
 and though they had not believed while God was 
 waiting and while the ark was building, afterwards 
 when the ark was completed, and punishment assailed 
 them, they began to believe ; and to them and to all 
 like them Christ afterwards presented Himself as a 
 preacher of grace." The disobedience is mentioned, 
 because it continued almost to the last. The passage, 
 however, Avill not bear this interpretation. It is suffi- 
 cient to say that it is a gratuitous assumption ; the 
 disobedience of the spirits in prison is stated, but there 
 is no mention of their repentance. 
 
 IV. The interpretation now most generally adopted 
 is that Christ went in person to Hades, and preached the ^ ^ ^^ 
 Gospel there to the spirits in prison — to those who in the -^ w<_<^-e^ 
 days of their flesh were disobedient and unbelieving. ^^ ..c£;:^ 
 Some suppose that He preached to all the disembodied 
 spirits ; others limit it to those who were disobedient 
 in the days of Noah. They suppose that Christ 
 preached the Gospel to them, with what effect is not 
 stated ; but it is generally supposed that the disem- 
 bodied spirits, who were disobedient when on earth, 
 had another offer of salvation made to them, and that 
 those who embraced it were rescued from hell and 
 
 1 So Suarez, Estius, Bellarmine, and, according to Bengel, Luther 
 shortly before his death. Bishop Horsley also admits this view. 
 
 S 
 
 u 
 
 L\.yC^ 
 
258 Exegetical Studies, 
 
 admitted into heaven.^ " With the great majority of 
 commentators, ancient and modern," observes Alford, 
 " I understand these words to say that our Lord, in 
 His disembodied state, did go to the place of deten- 
 tion of departed spirits, and did there announce His 
 work of redemption, preach salvation in fact, to the 
 disembodied spirits of those who refused to obey the 
 voice of God when the judgment of the flood was 
 hanging over them." " Christ," observes Bishop 
 Wordsworth, " who before had preached on earth to 
 men in bodily presence, now, after His removal from 
 them by death, preached also to human spirits in the 
 region under the earth, in the time between His death 
 and resurrection." "After death," observes Canon 
 Cook, " our Lord in His own human spirit went forth 
 and preached to the spirits in prison, that is, to certain 
 spirits, specified afterwards, who, when He thus came 
 and preached to them, were not in bonds or penal 
 durance as condemned criminals, but in custody, as 
 prisoners awaiting their doom." Most expositors- 
 suppose that the time when Christ preached to the 
 spirits in prison was between His death and resur- 
 rection, the same descent into Hades being alluded 
 to as that mentioned by St. Peter in his address 
 at Pentecost. Others, referring the word ^<oo7roL7)6eh 
 to His resurrection, place it after that event. " He was 
 
 ^ This opinion, with various modifications, is adopted by almost all 
 our great modern critics ; by Huther, De Wette, Briickner, Fornmliller, 
 and Wiesinger among the Germans, and by Alford, Wordsworth, Cook, 
 Farrar, and Plumptre among our English divines. 
 
 2 Bengel, Schmid, Lechler, Fornmiiller, Alford, and Wordsworth. 
 
The Spirits in Prison. 259 
 
 put to death in the flesh ; " He laid aside for ever His 
 o-a/jf; "but he was quickened in the spirit;" He entered 
 upon His spiritual resurrection life ; He received a 
 spiritual body/ It is also generally supposed that 
 those in the time of Noah are mentioned as an 
 example of a like gracious work on others,^ or for 
 some reason concealed from us. In the days of Noah 
 they were disobedient ; they died in disobedience ; 
 they became the spirits in prison ; but now Christ 
 having accomplished His great work of redemption by 
 dying on the cross, the efficacy of His great sacrifice for 
 sin extended to them ; He Himself descended ; He 
 preached the Gospel to them ; He opened their prison 
 gates ; He led captivity captive ; He triumphed over 
 Satan by His cross, and set the captives free. 
 
 It is maintained that the true sense of the passage 
 must proceed on these lines : that words could not 
 more plainly assert that Christ in His human spirit 
 Avent and preached the Gospel to disembodied spirits in 
 prison.^ Christ's spirit between His death and resur- 
 rection was in Hades, and during that period He was 
 actively engaged in saving the souls of those who had 
 died before His advent in the flesh, who had never 
 heard His name, and to whom no offers of salvation 
 
 "^ So Schott, Bruckner, De Wette, Wiesinger, Zezschwitz, and 
 Huther. "This passage," observes Huther, "says nothing as to 
 Christ's existence between His death and resurrection." 
 
 "So Farrar. 
 
 ^ " If language has any meaning, this language means that Christ, 
 when His spirit descended into the lower world, proclaimed the 
 message of salvation to the once impenitent dead." — Farrar's Early 
 Days of Christianity, vol. i. p. 140. 
 
2 6o Exegetical Studies. 
 
 had been made. And this opinion is supposed by 
 many to receive confirmation in the remarkable words 
 of St. Peter in the fourth chapter of this Epistle : 
 " For, for this cause was the Gospel preached also 
 to them that are dead, that they might be judged 
 according to men in the flesh, but live according to 
 God in the spirit" (i Pet. iv. 6). 
 
 It must be admitted that there is much plausibility 
 in this view of the subject, and that the authority of 
 the distinguished divines, by whom it is supported, 
 invests it with importance. Still, however, it is not 
 free from objections, (i.) There is no mention else- 
 where in Scripture of Christ going to the place of 
 punishment — to the prison of the disobedient. The 
 article in the Apostle's Creed : " He descended into 
 hell," ^ does not imply this. The Hades, into which 
 He descended, was not Tartarus, the prison of impeni- 
 tent spirits ; but Paradise, the abode of the spirits of 
 just men made perfect. " To-day," said our Lord to 
 the impenitent thief, "shalt thou be with Me in 
 Paradise." (2.) The idea that Christ preached to the 
 disobedient after their death appears to be at variance 
 with the analogy of Scripture. It would seem that 
 this present life is represented as the only state of 
 probation, and that the next life is the state of retri- 
 bution ; ^ and therefore, in accordance with the rule 
 that difficult passages of Scripture are to be inter- 
 
 ^ This article was added to the creed at a late period, about the be- 
 ginning of the fifth century. It is first mentioned by Ruffinus. 
 - Luke xvi. 26 ; Heb. ix. 27. 
 
The Spirits in Prison. 261 
 
 preted according to the analogy of faith, the above 
 interpretation, though in seeming accordance with the ' 
 sense of the words, is to be rejected. To both of 
 these objections Huther rephes : " That isolated ideas 
 are to be found expressed here and there in Scrip- 
 ture, and that the reconciliation of the idea of a 
 salvation offered to the spirits eV ^vkaicfj with the 
 other doctrines of Scripture, can at most be termed a 
 problem difficult of solution ; nor must it be forgotten 
 that the eschatological doctrines comprehend within 
 them very many problems." 
 
 V. The interpretation formerly considered as the 
 orthodox one, and, though rejected by most recent 
 expositors, adopted by the majority of former exposi- 
 tors, is that i/ie preacJiing here mentioned is the preach- 
 ing of Christ, not in person, hit in Spirit, through 
 the instrumentality of Noah, to his contemporaries} 
 According to this view, the irvevixa is not the human 
 spirit of Christ, but His divine Spirit. Christ 
 preached in Spirit, that is, not in His human but in 
 His divine nature ; not personally, as in the days of 
 His flesh, but through the instrumentality of others. 
 
 ^ This opinion has been adopted by Augustine, Tliomas Aquinas, 
 Beza, Scaliger, Leighton, Doddridge, Macknight, Whitby, Bishop 
 Pearson, and recently by Besser, Wichelhaus, Hofmann, Schweizer, 
 and Professor Salmond of Aberdeen. Beza thus paraphrases the pas- 
 sage : " Christ, whom I have already said to be vivified by the power 
 of the Godhead, formerly in the days of Noah, not in a bodily form, 
 but by the self-same power by which He rose from the dead, and by 
 inspiration whereof the prophets spoke, preached to those spirits who 
 now suffer deserved punishment in prison, as having formerly refused 
 to listen to the admonitions of Noah." 
 
262 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 In like manner as St. Peter had formerly said that 
 the Spirit of Christ was in the prophets (i Pet. i. 1 1) ; 
 so the Spirit of Christ was in Noah when he preached 
 to the inhabitants of the world before the deluge. 
 " Every announcement of salvation," observes Hof- 
 mann, "which preceded His incarnation was a 
 preaching of Christ, who had come in Spirit to man, 
 and those who were not obedient to the same fell 
 into a condition similar to criminals who are kept 
 in prison awaiting their doom." Those to whom 
 Christ was preached were the spirits now in prison, 
 confined in chains under darkness, and who were 
 formerly (Trore), when in the world, disobedient when 
 the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah. 
 The period of the preaching was the age before the 
 flood, the hundred and twenty years when the ark 
 was a-preparing, during all which period the long- 
 suffering of God waited. The direct preacher was 
 Noah ; not that Noah preached of himself, but that 
 he was inspired by the Spirit of Christ, so that his 
 preaching was in fact a preaching of Christ in the 
 Spirit. Just in the same manner as St. Paul affirms 
 that Christ came and preached peace to the Ephesians 
 who were afar off and to those that were nigh (Eph. 
 ii. 17), though He did not preach in person but in 
 Spirit by His apostle ; so it may be said that Christ 
 preached in Spirit to the antediluvians by Noah.^ 
 
 1 Professor Salmond states the matter somewhat differently: "The 
 preacher," he observes, "must be understood to be Christ Himself, not 
 Noah, or Christ speaking by Noah. What is affirmed, therefore, is a 
 gracious activity on the part of the pre-incarnate Christ, a preaching in 
 
The Spirits in Prison. 26 
 
 o 
 
 According to this interpretation the whole passage 
 may be thus paraphrased : Christ in the Spirit, 
 by the inspiration granted to Noah, went and 
 preached to those spirits who are now in prison 
 waiting the execution of their final sentence, and 
 who formerly in this world were disobedient when 
 the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah. 
 Many objections have been brought against such 
 an interpretation. i. It is affirmed that "not a word 
 is indicated by St. Peter on the very far-off lying 
 allusion to the fact that the Spirit of Christ preached 
 in Noah ; not a word, here, on the fact that Noah 
 himself preached to his contemporaries " (Alford). 
 But St. Peter elsewhere informs us that Noah was 
 " a preacher of righteousness " (2 Pet. ii. 5) ; and the 
 spirits in prison are the same as those who were 
 formerly (Trore) disobedient in the days of Noah ; and 
 therefore, combining these two points, it is at least a 
 possible solution of the difficulty to suppose that the 
 allusion is to the preaching of Noah by the Spirit of 
 Christ to his contemporaries. Why the disobedient 
 in the days of Noah are alluded to may be inexplic- 
 able ; but it is a difficulty which accompanies every 
 other interpretation. 2. It is asserted that the above 
 interpretation is opposed to the exegesis of the 
 passage ; nrvev^iaTi is used generically, without the 
 article, and opposed to aapia, and therefore can only 
 mean the human spirit of Christ, not the Holy Spirit, 
 
 the divine warnings of the time, the spectacle of the building of the ark, 
 &c." — Schaff's Popular Covtmentary, hi loco. So also Schweizer. 
 
2 64 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 nor the divine nature of Christ. To this it is replied 
 that irvevixan must refer to the whole Christ ; that as 
 the whole Christ was put to death crap/cl, so the whole 
 Christ was made alive irvev/xaTL ; and what is meant 
 is that Christ preached, not in a bodily, but in a pneu- 
 matical condition. 3. " The same subject, ^|0to-TO9, 
 runs through the whole without a hint that we are 
 dealing with historical matter of fact, when it is said 
 that He suffered, was put to death, and was quickened, 
 and with recondite figure when it is said that He 
 went and preached " (Alford). This depends on the 
 meaning assigned to Trvev/na ; " in Spirit He went and 
 preached." If by irveufia is meant Christ's divine 
 nature, then the words may refer to a preaching of 
 His in His pre-incarnate state. 4. The particle fiozc 
 has to be inserted to support the above interpreta- 
 tion, as if the words had been roi<; vvv ev (pvXaKfj 
 TTveu/jiaa-i ; ^ whereas the words describe the local con- 
 dition of the spirits at the time when the Gospel was 
 preached to them (Alford). And this undoubtedly is 
 a difficulty ; nor can it be removed by connecting, 
 ^vith Hofmann, Troxe with iropevOel'i ^Krjpv^ev, " He 
 formerly went and preached to the spirits in prison," 
 as the words will not admit of such a transposition. 
 Still, however, it is replied that the words may only 
 indicate the local condition of the spirits at the time 
 that Peter wrote. 5. It is also asserted that if the 
 clause had stopped with eKrjpv^ev, and if there had 
 been no reference to the disobedient in the days of 
 
 ^ " Nunc in caixera." — Beza. 
 
The Spirits in Prison. 265 
 
 Noah, we would have been constrained to adopt the 
 interpretation that Christ actually went and preached 
 to disembodied spirits. But to this objection the 
 answer is obvious, that such a reference has been 
 made by the apostle. 
 
 On the whole, it must be admitted to be difficult to 
 arrive at. any satisfactory conclusion ; the passage is 
 one from which all dogmatism must be excluded. 
 We have rather indicated those views which are to be 
 rejected, than asserted that view which we regard as 
 correct. Every interpretation is beset with difficulties. 
 It is, however, to be observed that although the passage 
 is obscure to us, it was not necessarily obscure to those 
 to whom St. Peter wrote. They might have had 
 information on this point which is wanting to us. 
 St. Peter introduces the subject without any intima- 
 tion that he was referring to an incident in the life of 
 Christ with which his readers were unacquainted. 
 [_The key to the interpretation is to be found in the 
 meaning assigned to nrvevyucC] If by this is meant the 
 human spirit of Christ, then we must seek the sense 
 on the lines of the fourth interpretation, that Christ 
 preached to the spirits in the prison of Hades ; but if 
 by it is meant His divine nature, then some meaning 
 in accordance with the last interpretation appears to 
 be the freest from difficulties ; that the preaching of 
 Noah, by the Spirit of Christ, to his contemporaries 
 is alluded to. According to the one view, Christ 
 preached immediately in His human spirit in the 
 realms of the dead ; according to the other view. 
 
266 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 Christ preached mediately in His divine Spirit by 
 Noah. The analogy of Scripture is in favour of the 
 latter interpretation. 
 
 The opinions of the early Fathers on the point 
 under discussion are conflicting, but their general 
 idea seems to have been that Christ preached in 
 Hades to the saints of the Old Testament. The fol- 
 lowing are some of their most remarkable utterances : 
 Justin Martyr and Irenaeus quote a saying from Jere- 
 miah, which they assert was expunged by the Jews, 
 but which was found in some copies in the syna- 
 gogues. Thus Justin Martyr says : " From the say- 
 ings of the same Jeremiah there have been cut out, 
 ' The Lord God remembered His dead people of 
 Israel who lay in the graves ; and He descended to 
 preach to them His own salvation ' " {Dial. Ixxii. ; 
 see also Irenaeus, Adv. Hcsr. iv. 22). Clement of 
 Alexandria says : " Wherefore, that He might bring 
 them to repentance, the Lord preached also to those 
 in Hades. But do not the Scriptures declare that 
 the Lord has preached to those that perished in 
 the deluge, and not to these only, but to all that are 
 in chains, and are kept in the ward and prison of 
 Hades ? " {Strom, vi. 6). And Tertullian writes : 
 " With the same law of His being He fully complied, 
 by remaining in Hades in the form and condition of 
 a dead man ; nor did He ascend into the heights of 
 heaven before descending into the lower depths of the 
 earth, that He might there make the patriarchs and pro- 
 phets partakers of Himself" {De Aiiiina, chap. vi.). 
 
EXPOSITION XV. 
 
 CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 
 
 I John iii. 9. 
 
 Textus receptus. — Ylag b yiyivvr]iMivog ix rou Qsov, a/o.a^r/ai' ov 
 croiiT, on crip/xa avrov h aurtZ /j^imr xai oh dvnarai aju^a^rdvin, 
 or/ SK roij &BOU yeysvvrjrai. 
 
 Authoi'ised Version. — Whosoever is born of God doth not 
 commit sin ; for his seed remaineth in him : and he cannot sin, 
 because he is born of God. 
 
 Revised Versioft. — Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no 
 sin, because his seed abideth in him : and he cannot sin, 
 because he is begotten of God. 
 
 By " whosoever is born or begotten of God," is meant 
 he who is regenerated — who has a new nature 
 implanted within him. Believers are throughout 
 this Epistle designated as the children of God. Of 
 such a one it is said that " he doth not commit sin," 
 or more literally, " doeth no sin ; " a statement 
 which must be taken with some modification or 
 explanation, and the full meaning of which we shall 
 afterwards consider. The reason of this non-com- 
 mission of sin is because " his seed remaineth in him." 
 Some ^ refer both the him and the his to God : 
 " because the seed of God abideth in God." " His 
 
 ^ Bengel, Lange, and Bishop Alexander. 
 
 267 
 
268 Exegetical Sitidies. 
 
 holy seed continues in abiding and vital union with 
 Him" (Bishop Alexander);^ so that airep/xa aurov 
 is equivalent to reKvov avrov, and ev avrco to iv 6ew ; 
 a meaning which is wanting in simplicity. Others - 
 suppose that by the seed of God is here meant the 
 word of God. This, it is alleged, is in conformity 
 with the symbolic language of Scripture, as in the 
 parable of the sower, and where St. Peter says: "Being 
 born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, 
 by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for 
 ever" (i Pet. i. 23); and St. James: "Of His own 
 will begat He us with the word of truth, that we 
 should be a kind of first-fruits of His creatures " 
 (James i. 18). But the word of God is not the seed 
 itself or the germ of the divine life, but the instrument 
 by which it is communicated to, or implanted in, the 
 soul.^ By " his seed remaining in him " is rather to 
 be understood the divine nature implanted in the 
 soul by the Spirit of God ; the principle, or germ of 
 the divine life, infused into the hearts of the regener- 
 ate ; or, as the Scriptures express it, " Christ in you, 
 the hope of glory ; " in other words the spirit or the 
 renewed nature, as contrasted with the flesh or the 
 corrupt nature. " That which is born of the flesh is 
 flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit i^ Spirit " 
 (John iii. 6).^ The apostle next repeats and emphasises 
 
 1 " Semen Dei, i.e., is qui natus ex Deo, manet in Deo." — Bengel. 
 ' Augustine, Grotius, Whitby, Macknight, Besser, Ewakl, Alford. 
 ' This is evident from the two passages above quoted ; and in the 
 parable of the sower, the reference is to the seed of plants. 
 
 * So Calvin, Beza, Neander, De Wette, Ebrard, Braune, Huther. 
 
Christian Perfection. 269 
 
 the assertion which he had made, " and he cannot sin ;" 
 words which are not to be weakened as meaning, " he 
 can with difficulty sin," but which express the direct 
 antagonism between committing sin and being born 
 of God : " because he is born or begotten of God." 
 
 There are certain expressions in this Epistle of St. 
 John which, taken literally without regard to the con- 
 nection, and without being qualified or modified by other 
 expressions in this Epistle and elsewhere in Scripture, 
 would seem to assert the doctrine of absolute perfec- 
 tion, — that believers do or may attain to a state of 
 freedom from sin. Such assertions are the following : 
 " Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not ; " " Whoso- 
 ever sinneth hath not seen Him, neither known Him ;" 
 " Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin ; for 
 his seed remaineth in Him, and he cannot sin, because 
 he is born of God." " We know that whosoever is born 
 of God sinneth not ; but he that is begotten of God 
 keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him 
 not" (i John iii. 6, 9 ; v. 18). But such assertions are 
 modified or limited by other expressions in this 
 Epistle. In no other writing of the New Testament is 
 the doctrine of the universality of sin and its preva- 
 lence in the regenerate more strongly and emphati- 
 cally stated. It is affirmed that if a man assert his 
 perfection, he not only deceives himself, but actually 
 makes God a liar. " If we say that we have no sin, 
 we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If 
 we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to for- 
 give us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unright- 
 
2 JO Exegetical Studies. 
 
 eousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make 
 Him a liar, and His word is not in us" (i John i. 
 8-10). And with this agrees the language of Scrip- 
 ture. There we are told not only that all men sin, 
 but that even the most holy are not free from sin ; 
 that absolute perfection is not attainable in this life. 
 St. Paul says that " the flesh lusteth against the 
 spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, and these are 
 contrary the one to the other" (Gal. v. 17) ; and that 
 when we would do good, evil is present with us (Rom. 
 vii. 21). And St. James affirms that "in many things 
 we offend all " (James iii. 2). The experience of the 
 saints agrees with these declarations of Scripture. All, 
 Avithout exception, are declared to be sinners. St. 
 Paul is continually bewailing his sins and imperfec- 
 tions, and is eager to press forward to higher attain- 
 ments. The Lord Jesus Christ is represented as the 
 only sinless character who ever trod this earth — as One 
 who, living in this world, was separate from sinners ; 
 who belonged to a higher and sinless order of beings. 
 There are some, however, who, whilst they admit 
 that these expressions of St. John do not imply the 
 attainment of absolute perfection, yet think that they 
 teach the doctrine of possible perfection. They assert 
 that there is a higher life, a state of Christian perfec- 
 tion, attainable in this life, and which it is the duty 
 of all Christians to strive after. A believer, by con- 
 stantly exercising faith in Christ — by drawing out of 
 His infinite fulness even grace for grace, by abiding 
 in Christ, and relying upon Him — may keep himself 
 
Christian Perfection. 271 
 
 free from all sin. There is ample sufficiency in 
 Christ to preserve him from evil, and to enable him 
 effectually to resist temptation. Christ Himself will 
 keep him ; the grace of resistance will be granted 
 him when required. He has only to trust, not to his 
 own endeavours, but in Christ, and he will attain to 
 moral perfection. Christ is our sanctification as well 
 as our justification. And this, according to them, is 
 the meaning of those words of St. John : " Whosoever 
 is born of God doth not commit sin ; for his seed 
 remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is 
 born of God." 
 
 Now, in this and similar statements, the error lies 
 in a perversion of the truth. This error may be so 
 stated in connection with precious Gospel truths, and 
 in such evangelical language, and may be so glossed 
 over, as to appear plausible ; but it is no less a snare 
 and a delusion. It is admitted that it is the duty of 
 every believer to aim after moral perfection, to seek 
 to be perfect even as our Father in heaven is perfect. 
 It is admitted that there is a sufficiency of grace in 
 Christ Jesus, and that, if our faith were constant and 
 perfect, that grace would preserve us from sin. But 
 it is denied that moral perfection has been attained, 
 or is attainable, by any believer on this side of the 
 grave. The words of St. John, so much insisted on, 
 do not assert it. The argument would prove too 
 much. If these words are to be taken apart from 
 their connection, and from other declarations by the 
 same writer, they do not merely assert that it is 
 
272 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 possible for a believer to attain to perfection, but 
 that every believer — every one who is born of God, be 
 the state of his spiritual life what it may — is perfect ; 
 that he not only does not commit sin, but that he is 
 absolutely impeccable, — that he cannot sin ; that, 
 for him to commit sin is an impossibility ; that, 
 in short, this state of moral perfection is not merely 
 attainable by a few believers who have reached what 
 is termed " the higher life," but that it is attained by 
 every believer. The very fact that he is born of God 
 prevents the commission of sin, — an assertion which 
 none but the most extreme fanatics have affirmed, 
 and which, in the age of the Reformation, gave rise 
 to the grossest licentiousness and the wildest excesses. 
 So far from moral perfection being attainable in 
 this life, an increasing sense of personal sin is an 
 essential feature in the character of the believer ; so 
 that in the same proportion in which the believer 
 grows in grace, he grows in the knowledge and feeling 
 of his sinfulness. So long as a man is in an uncon- 
 verted state, he is comparatively insensible to his 
 sins ; but no sooner is he quickened into a new life by 
 the Spirit of God, than a deep sense of sin is awakened 
 within him. The light of truth discloses the corrup- 
 tion of his moral nature. And this conscigusness of 
 sin, so far from diminishing, is a growing feeling. As 
 the believer grows in grace, he discerns more of the 
 holiness of God's nature, and of the extent and 
 spirituality of His law ; and thus comparing himself 
 — his feelings and conduct — with God's holiness and 
 
Christian Perfection. 273 
 
 the law's extent and spirituality, he is led to discern 
 his unholiness, his failures, and innumerable short- 
 comings in duty — the vast distance which there is 
 between him and the holiness of God as manifested in 
 the character of Christ Jesus. So, also, the more he 
 attends to the state of his own heart and scrutinises 
 his actions, the more does he discern his want of 
 faith, and love, and spirituality — the more he sees the 
 evils which are within him, the worthlessness of his 
 best services. A sense of sinfulness is also felt in his 
 efforts after moral purity, while he aims, as best he 
 can, to live a more holy life, and yet finds a carnal 
 mind within him opposing all his endeavours, and 
 baffling all his efforts after holiness. So far from 
 experiencing any feeling of satisfaction in having 
 attained to the higher life, he takes his seat with Job 
 in his school of morality, and exclaims, " I have 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." 
 
 But whilst we thus modify the assertion of St. John, 
 affirming that it does not and cannot teach the 
 doctrine either of absolute or of possible perfection ; 
 yet, on the other hand, we must not so tone down the 
 apostle's language as to weaken the force of his words. 
 For this reason we consider that the words mean 
 something more than merely that the believer can- 
 not sin deliberately and intentionally.^ Thus Calvin 
 
 ^ Such is the meaning given to the words by Calvin, Hopkins^ 
 Doddridge, Ebrard, Macknight, and Bishop Wcrdsworth. 
 
 T 
 
274 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 remarks : " What the apostle contends for stands 
 unalterable, that the design of regeneration is to de- 
 stroy sin, and that all who are born of God lead a 
 righteous and holy life, because the Spirit of God 
 restrains the lusting of sin." " The interpretation," 
 observes Bishop Hopkins, " which I judge to be most 
 natural and unforced is this : He that is born of God 
 doth not commit sin ; that is, he doth not sin in that 
 malignant manner in which the children of the devil 
 ■do ; he does not make a trade of sin ; nor live in the 
 constant practice of it. There is a great difference 
 between regenerate and unregenerate persons in the 
 very sins that they commit. Their spot is not the 
 spot of His children. And as they differ in the com- 
 mitting of sin, so much more in the opposing of it." 
 Now, all this is true ; and the words of our text pre- 
 .suppose and affirm it. Believers are eminently a holy 
 people ; sin has no longer dominion over them ; the 
 new nature, which is implanted within them, strives 
 against sin. There can be no communion between 
 Christ and those who continue in sin. Hence it is 
 that whenever a man is born of God, he breaks off 
 his sinful courses ; he gives up those evil practices 
 which formerly without much scruple he performed ; 
 his whole life is one continued oppositio/i to sin ; 
 however far short he may be of perfection, yet it is 
 his aim to avoid every known sin, and to perfornni 
 every commanded duty : he that is born of God 
 does not continue in the practice of sin. But all 
 this does not come up to the full meaning of the 
 
Christian Perfection. 275 
 
 apostle ; he does not merely assert that whosoever 
 is born of God does not continue in sin, or does not 
 sin deliberately and intentionally, but that he does 
 not commit sin at all, moreover, that he cannot sin, 
 because he is born of God. 
 
 Nor, again, are the words to be merely understood 
 of deadly sin — that whosoever is born of God cannot 
 commit mortal sin. Such is the explanation of the 
 Romanists. And in support of this opinion they 
 appeal to a similar expression of the apostle in 
 another part of this Epistle. The apostle is there 
 speaking of the unpardonable sin, and he asserts that 
 he who is born of God cannot commit it : " If any 
 man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, 
 he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that 
 sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death : I do 
 not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness 
 is sin : and there is a sin not unto death. We know 
 that whosoever is born of God sinneth not ; but he 
 that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that 
 wicked one toucheth him not" (i John v. 16-18). It 
 is argued that it is evident from the connection that 
 St. John does not teach absolutely that he that is 
 born of God sinneth not, but that he does not com- 
 mit the sin unto death. Now, certainly this also is 
 true, and is doubtless included in the statement of 
 St. John. The true believer cannot commit the 
 unpardonable sin, because his seed, the new nature, 
 abides in him, and he cannot so sin because he is 
 born of God. But the words of our text go beyond 
 
276 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 this : they affirm not only that whosoever is born of 
 God does not commit the unpardonable sin, but 
 that he does not commit sin — sin generally, without 
 distinction or hmitation. 
 
 Further still, the words are not to be explained so 
 as to signify merely that a believer cannot fall from 
 a state of grace. " The apostle says," observes Calvin, 
 " that those sin not who do not wholly fall away from 
 the grace of God." Now, certainly, the perseverance 
 of the saints is here taught us. When a man is born 
 of God, the divine principle implanted within him 
 cannot be destroyed. The examples of true believers 
 falling into sin, given us in Scripture, both as a warn- 
 ing to those who stand and as an encouragement to 
 those who have fallen, are numerous. But although 
 believers fall, they cannot fall away : they are pre- 
 served in Christ Jesus ; " His seed remaineth in 
 them." Still, however, even this does not come up to 
 the full import of the apostle. It is not merely said 
 that " His seed remaineth in him," but this is given 
 as the reason why he that is born of God does not 
 commit sin. In other words, the permanence of the 
 divine seed is affirmed not in the principal, but in 
 a subordinate clause. 
 
 In order to the ascertainment of the true meaning 
 of the words of the apostle, it is to be observed that 
 St. John is speaking in a great measure of the ideal 
 state of the Christian. The nature that is implanted 
 in him is antagonistic to sin ; it is holy, and 
 manifests itself, not in the commission of sin, but in 
 
Christian Perfection. 277 
 
 struggling against it ; so that if the believer were 
 always to follow the inclinations of that new nature, 
 he would not commit sin. He is raised above the 
 power of many of the temptations to evil, and even 
 when he does fall into sin, it is, so to speak, against 
 his nature. Just as we say of an upright, conscien- 
 tious man that he cannot lie, or cheat, or deceive, 
 such things being contrary to his nature ; so we may 
 say of him that is born of God that he cannot sin, 
 because sin is contrary to the new nature implanted 
 within him. As darkness is opposed to light, so there 
 is a similar opposition between the commission of sin 
 and being born of God. At the same time, it must 
 be remembered that there are remaining corruptions 
 in the heart of the regenerate ; and these remaining 
 corruptions manifest themselves in sinful actions and 
 feelings. Still, however, the great difference between 
 the regenerate and the unregenerate is that in the 
 regenerate the will is on the side of good — they sin 
 contrary to their inclinations ; whereas in the unre- 
 generate the will is on the side of evil — they sin in 
 accordance with their inchnations. It is this direc- 
 tion of the will towards holiness and God that makes 
 the great distinction between believers and unbe- 
 lievers; and to this, and not to any imaginary per- 
 fection, do the words of St. John refer : " Whosoever 
 is born of God doth not commit sin : for His seed 
 remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is 
 born of God." 
 
 What, then, the apostle here teaches, is that the 
 
278 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 new nature — the seed that remaineth in him who is 
 born of God — is incompatible with sin ; that there is 
 as great an antagonism between it and sin as there is 
 between light and darkness. There is within the 
 believer two natures, called by St. Paul the flesh and 
 the spirit ; the flesh is the carnal or sinful disposition 
 which, though weakened, is not destroyed ; and the 
 spirit is the new nature implanted within him by the 
 Spirit of God, called here, " His seed which remaineth 
 in him." The flesh is the source of all that is evil, 
 and the spirit is the source of all that is good. The 
 flesh can do nothing but commit sin ; the spirit cannot 
 sin, — proceeding as it does from God it is perfectly 
 holy. And hence it is that St. Paul, in describing 
 the conflict between the flesh and the spirit, makes a 
 manifest distinction between them. " Now it is no 
 more I " — the new man, the spiritual mind, the 
 Christian Ego — " that do it, but sin ; " the carnal 
 mind "that dwelleth in me" (Rom. vii. 17). Sin is 
 directly opposed to this spiritual life, as poison to 
 our bodily life ; the two act as opposites ; every sin 
 which the believer commits acts prejudicially to the 
 life of the spirit within him. If the believer were 
 actuated entirely by the new nature, if there were 
 no remains of corruption within him, Jie would 
 certainly be perfectly holy : " whatsoever is born of 
 God cannot sin ; " but as these remains of cor- 
 ruption exist within him until death, it is evident 
 that perfect holiness cannot be attained on this side 
 of the grave. With the spirit he serves the law of 
 
Christian Perfection. 279 
 
 God ; but with the flesh the law of sin. As St. 
 Ignatius well expresses it: " Let no man deceive you. 
 They who are carnal cannot do the things that are 
 spiritual ; nor can they who are spiritual do the 
 things that are carnal. Faith cannot do the works 
 of unbelief, nor can unbelief do the works of faith." 
 
 The interpretation, which we have assigned to our 
 text, is thus well stated by Besser : " Every one that 
 abides in Christ, to whom He once belongs, does not 
 sin, but says * No ' to sin, which belongs to the old 
 man, and resists its alien power. A Christian does 
 not do sin, but suffers it. His will, his Christian Ego, 
 is not at one with sin. Hatred of sin is the common 
 mark of the children of God ; love of sin the common 
 property of the children of the devil." 
 
 The words of St. John so interpreted, far from 
 extenuating or softening sin, impress us with a deep 
 sense of its extreme malignity. The apostle uses 
 strong and severe expressions to denote its intrinsic 
 evil : " Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also 
 the law : for sin is the transgression of the law. 
 Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not : whosoever 
 sinneth hath not seen Him, neither known Him. In 
 this the children of God are manifest, and the child- 
 ren of the devil ; whosoever doeth not righteousness 
 is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother " 
 (i John iii. 4, 6, 10). All sin is of the devil; all who 
 live in the habitual commission of sin are the children 
 of the devil ; nay, even the sins of the believer arise 
 from yielding to the temptations of the devil; his carnal 
 
28o Exegetical Studies. 
 
 nature is the nature of the devil. Sin is utterly and 
 completely incompatible with the new life. In pro- 
 portion, then, as we yield to sin, we affiliate ourselves 
 to him who is the source of all evil ; in proportion as 
 we strive against sin and cultivate holiness we are 
 the children of God. And thus it is that St. John 
 divides all men into two classes — the children of God 
 and the children of the devil; he recognises no middle 
 class ; where evil prevails there is satanic agency ; 
 where good prevails there is the divine agency. On 
 the one hand, " He that committeth sin is of the 
 devil, for the devil sinneth from the beginning ; " and, 
 on the other hand, " Whosoever is born of God doth 
 not commit sin, for His seed remaineth in him, and 
 he cannot sin because he is born of God." 
 
 We have here, then, a great incitement to holiness. 
 Holiness is essential to our Christian life ; to produce 
 it within our hearts was the purpose for which Christ 
 came into the world ; the salvation which He came 
 to confer is a deliverance from sin ; the new nature 
 which He implants is antagonistic to sin ; it cannot 
 sin. And this holiness manifests itself not in self- 
 satisfaction, as if we had already attained to the 
 higher life, or a state of perfection, but in an unceasing 
 conflict against all unrighteousness. " A child of 
 God," observes Luther, " in this conflict receives, 
 indeed, wounds daily ; but he never throws away his 
 arms, or makes peace with his deadly foe." If we 
 have the seed of God, the divine nature, abiding in 
 us, sin may sometimes assail us, but will never 
 
CIiristia7i Perfection. 281 
 
 prevail against us. Let us remember that we are the 
 children of God — that we are born from above — and 
 let us walk worthy of our high position and calling ; 
 let us regard sin as a deadly enemy to be resisted. 
 He that is born of God has become, from being 
 a servant of sin, a servant of righteousness; and 
 although he feels a constant and increasing con- 
 sciousness of personal sinfulness, yet he aims at 
 spiritual perfection, and seeks to bring every thought 
 and feeling into subjection under the law of Jesus 
 Christ ; he seeks, by the cultivation of the spiritual 
 mind, to become more and more the child of God, 
 and by the mortification of the carnal mind to be less 
 and less the child of the devil.^ 
 
 ^ The following list of meanings to these words " He cannot sin " is 
 given by Farrar, Eai-ly Days of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 434. 
 
 He cannot commit mortal sin (Romanists). 
 
 He cannot sin deliberately and intentionally (Ebrard). 
 
 He cannot sin in the way of hating his brother (Augustine, Bede). 
 
 It is alien from his nature to sin (Grotius). 
 
 His nature and habit resist sin (Paulus). 
 
 He does not zvish to sin, or ought not to sin (various Commentators). 
 
 He cannot be a sinner {aii.apT6.veLv) (Wordsworth and so Didymus). 
 
 He docs not sin, but only suffers sin (Besser ; comp. Rom. vii. 17). 
 
 So far^as he remains true to himself, he does not sin (Augustine). 
 
 So long as he is a child of God, he cannot sin (Others). 
 
 Several of these, however, are not different, but the same interpreta- 
 tion, differently expressed. 
 
EXPOSITION XVI. 
 
 THE THREEFOLD TESTIMONY. 
 
 I John v. 6-8. 
 
 Texhis recepttis. — Cures Igtiv I sXdojv hi udarog xal aifiarog, 
 ^iTjffoug 6 X^iffrog • oux Jv rw udari fiuvov, dXX' sv ruj vdari xai rw 
 a'l'fiari ' xa) to Uvsv/J^a ssri ro /Jbaprv^ouv, on ro Ilviu'Md sdriv 7\ 
 akridiia, on r^iTg iiffiv o'l fia^ru^ovvrig h rw ouoavSJ, 6 Uoctyip, 6 
 Aoyog, xoci to" Ayiov Uviv/xa' xal ovtoi o'i TPiTg h Biffi. xaT T^iTg 
 ilaiv o'i fj^a^Tv^ovvTsg h Tff yfi, to rrvsv/za, xai to 'JSwo, xal to 
 aJfia • xoci o'l TosTg slg to 'iv siffiv. 
 
 Authorised Version. — This is He that came by water and 
 blood, even Jesus Christ ; not by water only, but by water and 
 blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the 
 Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, 
 the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost : and these three 
 are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the 
 spirit, and the water, and the blood : and these three agree 
 in one. 
 
 Revised Version. — This is He that came by water and blood, 
 even Jesus Christ ; not with the water only, but with the water 
 and with the blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, 
 because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three who bear 
 witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood ; and the three 
 agree in one. 
 
 This is undoubtedly one of the most difficult passages 
 of Scripture : the mere perusal of it will at once con- 
 vince us of its obscurity. What is meant by this 
 282 
 
The Threefold Testimony. 283 
 
 threefold testimony ? Especially, what is meant by 
 the water and the blood ? What is the object of their 
 testimony ? On what point do they agree ? These 
 are questions to which it is difficult to give an intelli- 
 gent answer. Nor is the passage one of acknow- 
 ledged difficulty only ; it is also one of much critical 
 controversy in the Church, and that in consequence 
 of the clause referring to the heavenly witnesses, the 
 genuineness or spuriousness of which has been much 
 debated, — a controversy, however, which may now be 
 considered as brought to a close.^ It is to be 
 observed that the doctrine of the Trinity does not 
 in the least depend on the genuineness of the clause, 
 inasmuch as that doctrine was asserted and main- 
 tained independently of it, the Nicean Fathers never 
 having appealed to it. " If," observes Dr. Bentley, 
 " the fourth century did not know that text, then 
 Arianism in its height was beat down without the 
 help of that verse ; and let the fact prove as it will, 
 the doctrine is unshaken." Nor, on the supposition of 
 its spuriousness, can it be considered as a deliberate 
 forgery inserted by the orthodox for the purpose of 
 giving support to the doctrine of the Trinity, but 
 rather as a gloss, generally adopted by the Fathers, in 
 explanation of the three witnesses — the Spirit, the 
 water, and the blood — which, at first written on the 
 margin, found its way into the text. 
 
 The following words in the passage kv rut ovpava, 
 
 ^ The best modern defender of this passage is Bishop Burgess, in 
 his Tracts on the Divinity of Christ. 
 
284 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 o Ilarrjp, o \6709 koI to "Aytov Tlvevfia' koX ovtol ol 
 rpet'i ev €L<7t' KaX rpel<i elaiv ol fiaprvpovvre^ iv ttj ryfj — 
 ("in heaven the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; 
 and these three are one. And there are three that bear 
 witness on earth ") — are so destitute of all critical 
 authority that they are now in general relinquished. 
 They are rejected by all our eminent modern critics 
 ■ — by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Huther, 
 Tregelles, Alford, Wordsworth, Westcott, and Hort ; 
 though they have been defended by Bishop Burgess, 
 and retained by Mill and Bengel. The external 
 evidence is preponderantly against them. They are 
 omitted in all the uncial MSS. They are contained 
 in none of the cursive MSS. before the sixteenth 
 century. Only three, or at the most four, recent 
 MSS. have them, and in them the words appear to be 
 a translation of the Vulgate. Among these is the 
 Codex 34, or Codex Britannicus, from which Eras- 
 mus inserted the clause in his edition. They are 
 found in no ancient version except the Vulgate, and 
 even the most ancient MSS. of that version omit 
 them. They are quoted by no Greek Father before 
 the fifth century, and were nevqr appealed to by the 
 Nicean Fathers in their controversy with the Arians. 
 There are supposed to be allusions to them in the 
 writings of the Latin Fathers, Tertullian and Cyp- 
 rian ; but even these are extremely doubtful. Thus 
 Tertullian, in commenting on John xvi. 15, observes : 
 " Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and 
 of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent 
 
The Threefold Testimony. 285 
 
 Persons, the one distinct from the other. These three 
 are one (essence), not one (Person), as it is said, 
 ' I and my Father are one ' " {Adv. Praxean, 25). And 
 again : " The Church itself is properly and chiefly 
 the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the one 
 Divinity — Father, Son, and Holy Ghost " {De Pudic, 
 21). But in neither of these passages is there a refer- 
 ence to the disputed words. The language of Cyprian 
 is more important. His words are : " He who 
 gathereth elsewhere than in the Church scatters the 
 Church of Christ. The Lord says, ' I and my Father 
 are one ; ' and again it is written of the Father, and of 
 the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, ' And these three are 
 one ' " {De Unit., sect. 6). Here there undoubtedly 
 appears to be a direct reference to the words in dis- 
 pute ; but the language of Cyprian is explainable on 
 the supposition that he had only in view the words, 
 " the spirit, and the water, and the blood," which, 
 according to the patristic explanation, referred to the 
 Trinity. The first undoubted reference to the words 
 is by Vigilius Thapsensis, towards the close of the 
 fifth century. Nor is the internal evidence in favour 
 of their retention. Their insertion disturbs the unity 
 of the context by the introduction of irrelevant matter, 
 whilst their omission gives a connected meaning, 
 whatever the interpretation may be. The words were 
 omitted in the two first editions of Erasmus' Greek 
 Testament, but were admitted into the third, on the 
 authority of the Codex Britannicus. Luther never 
 admitted them into his version. 
 
2 86 Exe^'etical Studies. 
 
 &>' 
 
 Omitting this disputed clause, the translation of the 
 passage presents no great difficulty, and is tolerably 
 accurately given in our Authorised Version. The 
 preposition hia, rendered by, denotes " that with which 
 some one is furnished, the circumstances and rela- 
 tions amid which he does something — by means of." ' 
 The ordinary meaning of the other preposition, eV, 
 171, rendered in the Authorised Version by, and in the 
 Revised Version with, may be retained. In the 
 Authorised Version, also, there is an unnecessary 
 variation of the same word, rendered beareth witness 
 in the sixth verse, and bear record in the eighth. 
 The words literally rendered are as follows : " This is 
 He that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ ; 
 not in the water only, but in the water and in the 
 blood ; and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, 
 because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three 
 who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the 
 blood : and the three agree in one." 
 
 In the context, St. John is speaking of the believer's 
 victory over the world by faith ; and he observes 
 that the great object of this victorious faith is the 
 divine Sonship of Jesus Christ — a firm belief in Jesus 
 as the Son of God : " Who is he that overcometh the 
 world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of 
 God" (i John v. 5). And in our passage he proceeds 
 to state the testimonies or proofs on which this divine 
 Sonship is founded. It does not rest merely on 
 apostolic testimony, but on the testimony of other 
 
 ^ Winer's Grammar of the Greek Testament, pp. 474, 475. 
 
The Threefold Testimony. 287 
 
 witnesses, here designated the Spirit, the water, and the 
 blood. The truth, then, to which these witnesses bear 
 testimony is that Jesus is the Son of God, and that 
 we have victory through Him ; in other words, the 
 efficiency of Christ's power for our salvation. This 
 is He ; the reference being to Jesus, the immediate 
 antecedent, not to the " Son of God " (Huther), 
 because what follows is not an assertion, but a proof 
 of His divine Sonship. That came, a participial sub- 
 stantive — 6 ikOcbv — alluding not to Christ's coming 
 into the world — to His incarnation, but to His open 
 manifestation in the world ; to His coming as the 
 Messiah, the Saviour of men. Hence he is called 
 o ipxofievo^, the Coming One. ^7 water and blood ; 
 that is, by means of {hia) water and blood. These, 
 as we learn from the eighth verse, are two of the 
 witnesses of His coming as the Saviour — two of the 
 testimonies to His divine Sonship ; for the meaning 
 of the words " water and blood " in the sixth verse 
 must be the same as in the eighth verse. Eveji Jesus 
 CJirist — Jesus the Christ, the Son of God and the 
 Saviour of the world ; a solemn reassertion of our 
 Lord's person and office. Not in the water only, but in 
 the water and in the blood : and it is the Spirit that 
 bearetJi witness — that co-operates with the above two 
 testimonies, because the Spirit is the truth. There are 
 thus three witnesses and a threefold testimony. First 
 there is the water and the blood, and to these is added 
 the Spirit. Accordingly, these three witnesses are 
 stated together : For there are three that bear witJiess, 
 
288 Exegetical Shidies. 
 
 the Spirit, mid the water, and the blood: ajid the three 
 agree in one. There is a unity — an agreement in their 
 testimony. 
 
 Such is the context and general import of the 
 passage. The chief difficulty lies in the meaning to 
 be assigned to the water and the blood. Accord- 
 ingly, very different interpretations have been given 
 to these terms. We shall first enumerate some mean- 
 ings which we judge to be obviously erroneous, and 
 then proceed to consider those which are more plaus- 
 ible. Some ^ understand the water as the emblem of 
 the purity and innocence of Christ, and the blood as 
 the emblem of His death, being that of a martyr to 
 the truth of His doctrine. Others ^ suppose that the 
 water represents regeneration and faith, and the blood 
 knowledge. And others^ understand the water as 
 the emblem of purity, holiness, and sanctification, and 
 the blood as the emblem of expiation, forgiveness, or 
 justification ; so that in the water and in the blood 
 we have complete salvation, deliverance from the 
 power as well as from the guilt of sin. Calvin, on 
 the other hand, supposes that in the water and in the 
 blood we have a reference to the rites and ceremonies 
 of the Jewish law, which were chiefly comprised in 
 the washing with water and in the shedding of blood. 
 " I doubt not," he observes, " that by the words water 
 and blood the apostle alludes to the ancient rites of 
 the law. The comparison, moreover, is intended for 
 
 * Socinius, Grotius. ' Clemens Alexandrinus. 
 
 ^ Doddridge. 
 
The Threefold Testimony. 289 
 
 this end, not only that we may know that the law of 
 Moses was abolished by the coming of Christ, but 
 that we may seek in Him the fulfilment of those things 
 which the ceremonies formerly typified. And though 
 they were of various kinds, yet under these two the 
 apostle denotes the whole perfection of holiness and 
 righteousness ; for by water was all filth washed 
 away, so that we may come before God pure and 
 clean, and by blood was expiation made, and a 
 pledge given of a full reconciliation with God ; but 
 the law only shadowed forth by external symbols 
 what was to be really and fully performed by the 
 Messiah." 
 
 A much more plausible opinion than any of these 
 is that the water and the blood signify the tivo sacra- 
 ments of the New Testament. By the ivater is 
 meant baptism, that being the element employed in 
 this ordinance, and "the washing with water" being 
 a usual mode of expressing baptism. And by the 
 blood is meant the Lord's Supper, as it was the aton- 
 ing death of Christ that was represented by it : " This 
 cup is the new testament in My blood." In baptism 
 our regeneration or purity is signified, and in the 
 Lord's Supper our forgiveness.^ Now, it must be 
 admitted that there is considerable plausibility in this 
 view. It invests the sacraments with peculiar import- 
 ance, as being the continued attestations to the divine 
 Sonship of Christ, and to the living power which 
 
 ^ This opinion, with some variations, is adopted by the Roman 
 Catholic divines, and by Besser, Macknight, and Bishop Alexander. 
 
 U 
 
290 Exegctical Studies. 
 
 resides in His person. But the water and the blood, 
 by which our Lord came, must point to some histori- 
 cal facts in His life, and cannot be interpreted sym- 
 bolically : " This is He who came by water and 
 blood ; " whereas in these sacraments Christ is only 
 represented ; He comes in them only in a figurative 
 and symbolical manner. And, besides, the third 
 testimony, that of the Spirit, is here overlooked ; for 
 the sacraments are two, not three. Some critics, to 
 remove this objection, suppose that by the Spirit a 
 third sacrament, that of absolution, is intended, — a 
 supposition which has nothing to commend it. 
 
 It is a common supposition that by v^wp and aiy.a 
 St. John in his Epistle refers to the fact, to which 
 he bears witness in his Gospel, that blood and water 
 flowed from the wounded side of Jesus when He 
 hung dead upon the cross : " But one of the soldiers 
 with a spear pierced His side, and forthwith came 
 thereout blood and water. And he that saw it bare 
 record, and his record is true ; and he knoweth that 
 he saith true, that ye might believe " (John xix. 34, 
 35). That John had in his mind this incident in the 
 •death of Christ, which made such a deep impression 
 upon him, when he wrote these words of our text, is 
 possible ; but the words can have no direct reference 
 to them. The effusion of blood and water from the 
 side of Christ was no proof of his divine Sonship, 
 but the evidence of the reality of His death ; and we 
 are not at liberty to put an allegorical meaning into 
 that which is a statement of fact. And, besides, the 
 
The Threefold Testimony. 291 
 
 addition of the words, " Not in the water only, but in 
 the water and in the blood," would be unintelligible, 
 as in this historical fact there is no antithesis between 
 the water and the blood ; nor did any one suppose 
 that only water flowed from the pierced side of 
 Jesus. 
 
 Having thus stated what we judge are erroneous 
 interpretations of the terms the water and the blood, 
 we now come to consider the true meaning. It is to 
 be observed that the apostle is speaking of the mode 
 of the coming, the open manifestation of Jesus : " He 
 came by water and blood." There is not much diffi- 
 culty in the meaning of the blood, as applied to Jesus. 
 This must refer to His death, to the shedding of His 
 blood on the cross. His blood was poured out for 
 our sakes ; and it is by reason of this that He is con- 
 stituted our Saviour. " We have redemption through 
 His blood, even the forgiveness of sins" (Col. i. 14). 
 Jesus came by blood, when He died for us. And as 
 the blood constituted the close, so the water was the 
 commencement of His public ministry. By this is 
 probably meant His baptism. His solemn consecra- 
 tion to His Messianic office. His inauguration as the 
 Saviour of the world. He was thus set apart as the 
 Christ, the Messiah. Jesus, then, came by water 
 when He was baptised by the Baptist in the Jordan. 
 His public ministry commenced with His baptism, 
 and closed with His death. Thus the pouring out of 
 His blood was the completion of His baptism. He 
 underwent a twofold baptism — a baptism by water. 
 
292 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 which inaugurated His ministry, and a baptism by 
 blood, which closed it ; and hence, in reference to 
 His death, He said : " I have a baptism to be baptised 
 with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished !" 
 (Luke xii. 50).^ 
 
 To these witnesses — the water or the baptism of 
 Christ, and the blood or His death — is added a third, 
 the Spirit : " And it is the Spirit that beareth wit- 
 ness." By the Spirit is obviously intended the Holy 
 Spirit, and by the witness of the Spirit is meant His 
 testimony to Jesus as the Son of God. We accord- 
 ingly dismiss at once all those interpretations which 
 give to the term Spij'it a different meaning, as being 
 inadequate and unnatural. Thus, for example, Augus- 
 tine explains it of the spirit which Jesus, when dying, 
 commended to God, saying, " Father, into Thy hands 
 I commit my spirit ; " Wetstein, of the whole human 
 nature of Christ, which He offered up as a sacrifice 
 on the cross ; Grotius, of the divine power by which 
 Christ performed His miracles ; Carpzovius, of the 
 doctrine of Christ ; others, of His resurrection, and 
 others of the spiritual man. It is also to be observed 
 that the witness of the Spirit is distinct and separate 
 from that of the water and the blood, and must not be 
 confounded with them. There are not two, but three 
 who bear witness. For this reason, we must not, with 
 Macknight, interpret the testimony of the Spirit as 
 consisting in His descent on Christ at His baptism, 
 
 ^ Such, with some variations, is the interpretation given by Neander, 
 Lange, Liicke. Briickner, Huther, Braune, and Alford. 
 
The Threefold Testwiony. 293 
 
 which is the testimony of the water ; nor as being 
 specially concerned with the death of Christ, who, 
 through the eternal Spirit, offered Himself with- 
 out spot to God, which is the testimony of the 
 blood. 
 
 It was an opinion common among the Fathers^ 
 that by these three witnesses — the Spirit, the water, 
 and the blood — the three Divine Persons in the 
 sacred Trinity are meant, — an opinion apparently 
 favoured by Bishop Wordsworth : " First, the Spirit, 
 who begins the work of regeneration by applying all 
 quickening grace to man ; secondly, the water, the 
 symbol and instrument of the new birth derived from 
 God the Father, who is the original well-spring and 
 fountain of all life and grace to man ; and, thirdly, 
 the blood, symbolising the incarnation and passion of 
 God the Son, through whom all grace descends from 
 the Father by the Holy Spirit. These three Persons 
 are joined consubstantially into one Godhead ; and 
 their witness is the witness of God " (Wordsworth). 
 Similarly, Bishop Andrews observes : " Water denotes 
 creation by the Father ; blood, redemption by Christ ; 
 and the Spirit, unction to complete all. There is the 
 baptism of water, the work of creation by the Father ; 
 the baptism of blood, the work of redemption by the 
 Son ; and the baptism of fire, the work of purification 
 by the Spirit." The supposition is ingenious, but it 
 appears extremely fanciful. It puts a meaning into 
 the words of Scripture which they do not naturally 
 
 ^ So Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine. 
 
294 Exegetical Stitdies. 
 
 bear, and it is an evident departure from the literal 
 into the mystical interpretation, which all exegetes 
 should carefully avoid. 
 
 Such, then, aVe the three witnesses to the truth that 
 Jesus is the Son of God — the water, the blood, and 
 the Spirit, who are mentioned together in a different 
 order in the eighth verse : " For there are three that 
 bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood." 
 Let us consider the testimony of each of these wit- 
 nesses to the Divine Sonship of Christ. 
 
 I. The Testimony of the Water. — " This is He 
 that came by water ;" that is, as we have interpreted the 
 expression, the testimony to Christ's Divine Sonship 
 given at His baptism. We have the testimony of the 
 Baptist himself to this effect : " And John bare record, 
 saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like 
 a dove, and it abode upon Him. And I knew Him 
 not ; but He that sent me to baptise with water, the 
 same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the 
 Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same 
 is He which baptiseth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw 
 and bare record that this is the Son of God " (John 
 i. 32-34). But there was present at the baptism of 
 Jesus a greater witness than that of John. We have 
 not merely the testimony of John, but the testimony 
 of God Himself; for we read that " Jesus, when He 
 was baptised, went up straightway out of the water : 
 and, lo, the heavens were opened unto Him, and He 
 saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and 
 
The TJireefold Tcstiniony. 295 
 
 lighting upon Him : and lo a voice from heaven, say- 
 ing, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well 
 pleased" (Matt iii. 16, 17). Thus, at His baptism, 
 Jesus was declared to be the Son of God. And this 
 testimony of the water to His Divine Sonship was not 
 transient, but is continued in the Christian Church by 
 the institution of the sacrament of baptism. We are 
 baptised into Christ ; that is, into the belief of His 
 Divine Sonship, and into the consecration of ourselves 
 to His service. 
 
 11. The Testimony of the Blood. — "This is He 
 who came by blood ; " that is, as we have interpreted 
 the expression, the testimony to Christ's divine Sonship 
 given at His death. In the peculiar nature of His 
 sufferings and death we have the fulfilment of all 
 those ancient prophecies which predicted the sufferings 
 of the Messiah. He Himself, both before Caiaphas 
 and Pontius Pilate, avowed His Sonship. Before 
 Caiaphas He expressly admitted that He was the 
 Christ the Son of God ; and before Pilate He wit- 
 nessed a good confession, when He declared Himself 
 to be the King of Truth. There were other notable 
 testimonies at His death. The centurion, who at- 
 tended upon His crucifixion, avowed his conviction 
 that this was the Son of God. God Himself bore 
 witness to His Son. He caused all nature to mourn ; 
 the sun veiled its countenance, and the earth gave 
 forth groans. But especially the resurrection of 
 Christ, which quickly followed His death, was the 
 
296 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 crowning testimony to His Sonship. The cross by 
 itself may be regarded as the emblem of weakness, 
 but by the resurrection it was constituted the emblem 
 of victory and triumph ; for although He was cruci- 
 fied through weakness, yet He liveth by the power of 
 God, and was thus declared to be the Son of God, 
 with power, by His resurrection from the dead. On 
 all these accounts, it may well be affirmed, that Christ 
 came attested as the Son of God by blood as well as 
 by water. And this testimony of the blood also is 
 not transient, but continued. It is on account of the 
 efficacy of the death of Christ that sinners are par- 
 doned, rescued from sin and Satan, and restored to 
 holiness and God. The death of Christ is the pro- 
 curing cause of the salvation of every one who is 
 admitted into heaven. It is because they have washed 
 their robes and made them white in the blood of the 
 Lamb, that they appear before God in glory. " The 
 blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all 
 sin" (i John i. 7).^ 
 
 The apostle puts a certain emphasis on the blood : 
 " Not in the water only, but in the water and in the 
 blood." This is evidently inserted not as a mere 
 observation, but for some special purpose. Some 
 suppose that a preference is here given to the blood 
 as the greater witness of the two, inasmuch as the 
 death of Christ was more important and efficacious 
 than His baptism. He then finished the great work 
 
 ^ So also this testimony of the blood is continued in the Christian 
 Church by the celebration of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. 
 
The Threefold Testimony. 297 
 
 which was given Him to do ; He then accompUshed 
 our salvation. Others think that there is here a 
 reference to the baptism of John — John's baptism was 
 only a baptism of water. " I indeed," he says, " bap- 
 tise you with water unto repentance : but He that 
 Cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes 
 I am not worthy to bear : He shall baptise you with 
 the Holy Ghost, and with fire" (Matt. iii. 11). The 
 baptism of Jesus was not only one of water, but of 
 blood. John was the forerunner ; he preached the 
 baptism of repentance, as a preparation for the king- 
 dom. Christ was the Messiah Himself, the Founder 
 of the kingdom. John was the mere voice, " Prepare 
 ye the way of the Lord ;" Christ was the Lord Him- 
 self. John pointed to the way ; Christ Himself was 
 the Way. John came by water only ; Christ came 
 both by water and blood. But the words seem rather 
 to have a polemic import. St. John's Epistle was 
 especially directed against those who denied that 
 Jesus Christ came in the flesh. It is generally 
 admitted that Cerinthus had at this time published 
 his heresy. He distinguished between Jesus and the 
 Christ. He supposed that the Christ, the divine Aeon, 
 descended upon Jesus, a holy but mortal man, at 
 His baptism ; but that at His death the Christ with- 
 drew to heaven, whilst only the man Jesus suffered ; 
 in short, that Christ came in the water, but not in 
 the blood. Now, this severance of Jesus Christ the 
 apostle utterly repudiates. Jesus Christ came not 
 only in the water, but in the water and in the blood ; 
 
298 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 not merely at His baptism, but at His death, He 
 was declared to be the Son of God. He came in the 
 flesh, and He suffered in the flesh. 
 
 HI. The Testimony of the Spirit. — "And it is 
 the Spirit that beareth witness;" that is, as we have inter- 
 preted the expression, the testimony to Christ's divine 
 Sonship given by the Spirit. It is the peculiar ofiice 
 of the Holy Spirit to bear witness to Christ. " When 
 the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you 
 from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which pro- 
 ceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of Me" 
 (John XV. 26). And again, " He shall glorify Me : 
 for He shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto 
 you" (John xvi. 14). The glory of Christ is the great 
 aim of all the Spirit's manifestations. He inspired 
 the ancient prophets to foretell the sufferings of Christ 
 and the glory that should follow. He endowed the 
 apostles with the power of working miracles to be 
 the preachers of Christ's Gospel and the propagators 
 of His religion to the world. He convinces the world 
 of the righteousness of Christ, that He is exalted as 
 King among the nations. He reveals to believers the 
 glory of Christ, as the Son of God and the Saviour of 
 men. He works in them faith in Christ, and thus 
 brings them into living fellowship with Christ. He 
 inspires them with loyalty and affection to Christ, and 
 thus converts them into the devoted servants of Christ. 
 He fills them with zeal for Christ's cause, and for the 
 diffusion of Christ's Gospel ; and He displays to them 
 
The Tlwcefold Testimony. 299 
 
 the riches of Christ's grace, that in Him dwelleth 
 all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. The character 
 also which the Spirit forms in the heart of believers is 
 the character of Christ; that same spirit of forgiveness, 
 which was displayed by the Lord on the cross, causes 
 them to forgive their enemies ; that love, which 
 induced Him to descend from heaven to earth, 
 inspires them to seek the salvation of their erring 
 brethren ; that devotion, which caused Him to spend 
 whole nights in prayer, is seen in their prayers and 
 watchings ; that resignation, which He exhibited in 
 the dark hour of His agony, is dimly reflected by them 
 in all their trials and sufferings ; and so they become 
 living epistles of Christ, known and read of all men. 
 Thus does the Spirit, in all His operations, testify of 
 Christ ; He displays to us the efficacy of His blood, 
 the prevalence of His intercession, and the power of 
 His grace and love. And this testimony is a continued 
 and abiding testimony ; the Spirit is given to the 
 Church to abide with it for ever. 
 
 The apostle adds, " Because the Spirit is the Truth." 
 The Holy Spirit is called by our Lord the Spirit of 
 Truth (John xv. 26; xvi. 13). He is the Absolute 
 Truth ; and what He testifies must be true ; indeed, 
 it is the testimony of that God who cannot lie. And 
 in this consists the importance and infallibility of this 
 testimony. As the Spirit of Truth, it is His great 
 office to guide into all truth. 
 
 Such, then, are the three testimonies or witnesses. 
 " For there are three that bear witness." There is 
 
300 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 thus a sufficiency in the testimony, according to the 
 requirements of the law : " In the mouth of two or 
 three witnesses every word may be estabhshed " 
 (Matt, xviii. i6). " The Spirit, the water, and the 
 blood." The Spirit is here mentioned first, because 
 He is the most important and living witness. He it 
 is who imparts life and efficiency to the other two, 
 the water and the blood. He it is whose office it is 
 to apply the work of Christ to our salvation. He it 
 is without whose divine operation and countenance 
 all other operations are in vain. He it is whose pre- 
 sence in the soul is the life of the believer, and whose 
 permanence in the world is the life of the Church. 
 He is the Truth, and, unless enlightened by Him, we 
 will fall into confusion and error. Such are the 
 three witnesses — tJie Spirit, the Third Person of the 
 blessed Trinity ; the water, the baptism of Christ, 
 His consecration to His ministry ; and tJic blood, the 
 death of Christ — that great sacrifice which He offered 
 up for sin. Jesus Christ came by zvater, when He 
 entered on His ministry ; by biood, v.dien He expired 
 on the cross ; and by the Spirit, when in heaven He 
 pours out the influences of His Spirit upon believers. 
 The agreement of the testimony of these three wit- 
 nesses is stated : " And the three agree in one." The 
 point on which they agree is that Jesus is the Son of 
 God. We have seen this agreement when we con- 
 sidered the respective testimonies. At His baptism 
 not only the Baptist, but God Himself declared that 
 Jesus was the Son of God ; at His death, accom- 
 
The Threefold Testimony. 301 
 
 panied by His resurrection, the same declaration was 
 made (Rom. i. 4) ; and the pecuHar work of the Spirit 
 is to glorify Christ by proclaiming a belief in His 
 Sonship. Nor is this a mere testimony borne at 
 definite periods, but a perpetual witness to Christ's 
 Sonship in the Church, even to the end of time. The 
 Spirit, the water, and the blood still bear witness in 
 the Church ; their testimony is a present testimony. 
 The testimony of the Spirit is seen in every sinner 
 who is turned from sin to God, and in every believer 
 who by a holy walk adorns the Gospel of Christ. 
 The testimony of the water is seen in every adminis- 
 tration of the holy sacrament of baptism, whereby 
 we are solemnly dedicated to Christ, and incorporated 
 into His Church. And the testimony of the blood is 
 seen in the efficacy of the atonement, in the forgive- 
 ness of our sins, in our restoration to the favour of 
 God, and at length in our admission into heaven. 
 " This, their one testimony," observes Dean Alford, " is 
 given by the purification in the water of baptism into 
 His name (John iii. 5) ; by the continual cleansing 
 from all sin which we enjoy in and by His atoning 
 blood ; by the inward witness of His Spirit which He 
 hath given us." 
 
 Such is the explanation of this somewhat difficult 
 passage. It may, we think, be briefly paraphrased 
 as follows : We have abundant reason to believe 
 that Jesus is the Son of God ; for this Jesus is 
 He who came and was manifested by water, when 
 at His baptism He was declared by an audible 
 
302 Exegetical Studies. 
 
 voice from heaven to be God's own Son ; and by 
 blood, when at His death He witnessed a good con- 
 fession ; and at His resurrection was demonstrated 
 to be the Son of God. Not in the baptism of water 
 only, as some who deny that Jesus Christ came in 
 the flesh affirm, but in the water and in the blood. 
 And, besides these two, there is the witness of the 
 Spirit, who testifies to the glory of Christ, and whose 
 witness is the Truth. Thus, then, there are three who 
 bear witness to the truth of Christ's Sonship — the 
 Spirit, the water, and the blood ; and these three agree 
 in one, bear the same testimony, and mutually sup- 
 port and confirm each other. 
 
 LORIMER AND GILLIES, PRINTERS, 3I ST. ANDREW SQUARE, EDINBURGH. 
 
T. and T. Clark's Pitblications. 
 
 WORKS BY PATON J. GLOAG, P.P. 
 
 In crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d., 
 
 THE MESSIANIC PROPHECIES 
 
 (Being the ' Baird Lecture ' for 1879). 
 
 'We regard Dr. Gloag's book as a valuable contribution to theological 
 literature. We have not space to give the extended notice which its intrinsic 
 excellence demands, and must content ourselves with cordially recommending 
 ii.'— Spectator. 
 
 'For its thoroughness it is a perfect pleasure to get hold of such a book; 
 and amid the shallow scepticism which prevails, we hail its appearance as a 
 much needed antidote, and a strong and convincing demonstration of the 
 faith once delivered to the saints.' — English Independent. 
 
 In demy 8vo, price 12s., 
 
 INTRODUCTION TO THE PAULINE EPISTLES. 
 
 ' This introduction to St. Paul's Epistles is a capital book, full, scholarlj^ 
 and clear ; ... no difficulty is shirked or overlooked, but dealt with fairly 
 and in an evangelical spirit. To ministers and theological students it will be 
 of great value.' — Evangelical Uagazine. 
 
 'A safe and complete guide to the results of modern criticism.' — Literary 
 Churchman. 
 
 ' Altogether it is one of the most satisfactory books we have on the themes 
 it discusses.' — Freeman. 
 
 In Two Volumes, demy 8vo, price 21s., 
 
 A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 
 
 ' The Commentary of Dr. Gloag I procured on its first appearance, and have 
 examined it with special care. For my purposes I have found it unsurpassed 
 by any similar work in the English language. It shows a thorough mastery 
 of the materia], philology, history, and literature pertaining to this range of 
 study, and a skill in the use of this knowledge which (if I have any right to 
 judge) place it in the first class of modern expositions.' — H. B. Hackett, D.D. 
 
 ' Dr. Gloag's work is very acceptable. . . . The volumes are scholarly, 
 earnest, trustworthy, and supply materials for the refutation of the specula- 
 tions of the critical school.' — British Quarterly Review. 
 
T. and T. ClarJcs Publications. 
 
 PROFESSOR GODET'S WORKS. 
 
 In Three Volumes, 8vo, price 31s. 6d., 
 
 COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF 
 ST. JOHN. 
 
 By F. GODET, D.D., 
 
 PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, NEUCIIATEL. 
 
 'This work forms one of the battle-fields of modern inquiry, and is itself 
 so rich in spiritual truth, that it is impossible to examine it too closely ; and 
 we welcome this treatise from the pen of Dr. Godet. We have no more com- 
 petent exegete ; and this new volume shows all the learning and vivacity for 
 which the author is distinguished.' — Freeman. 
 
 In Two Volumes, 8vo, price 21s., 
 
 COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF 
 ST. LUKE. 
 
 TRANSLATED FKOM THE SECOND FRENCH EDITION. 
 
 ' Marked by clearness and good sense, it will be found to possess value and 
 interest as one of the most recent and copious works specially designed to 
 illustrate this Gospel.' — Guardian. 
 
 In Two Volumes, 8vo, price 21s., 
 
 A COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO « 
 THE ROMANS. 
 
 'We prefer this commentary to any other we have seen on the subject. 
 . . . We have great pleasure in recommending it as not only rendering 
 invaluable aid in the critical study of the text, but affording practical and 
 deeply suggestive assistance in the exposition of the doctrine.' — British and 
 Foreign Evangelical Review. 
 
 ' Here indeed we have rare spiritual insight and sanctified scholarship.' — 
 Weekly Review. 
 
 I 
 
 Just published, in crown 8vo, price 6s., 
 
 DEFENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. 
 
 TRANSLATED BY THE HON. AND REV. CANON LYTTELTON, M.A., 
 RECTOR OF HAGLEY. 
 
 'There is trenchant argument and resistless logic in these lectures; but 
 withal, there is cultured imagination and felicitous eloquence, which carry 
 home the appeals to the heart as well as the head.' — Sword and Trowel. 
 
n^^i- 
 
 f-C vs 
 
Date Due 
 
 ^P 4 -*38 
 
 
 
 
 CLlLii 
 
 
 
 
 mMit 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _j 
 
 $) 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 *«Ni»f 
 

 BS2341.G562C.2 
 Exegetical studies... 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00055 0899