rhe Authorship 
 
 of the 
 
 iDistie to the Heb 
 
 The Rev. A. Welch 
 
 
 ^r" 
 
 L^- 
 
 ' At' 
 
 ,' ft ''"riiu ',." 
 
 
 
 ^1 
 
 
 
 K^ 
 
 ':{:- 
 
 '.r'X':iiiid. 
 
 
^'2,0, 
 
 3xrxvx X\\t Stbrarg of 
 
 Sfqu^attyf b fan l^tm tn 
 
 tJ|p Etbrarg nf 
 
 Priitrrton (Jhrnlogtral ^rmtnarg 
 
 .W43 
 
The Authorship 
 
 of the 
 
 Epistle to the Hebrews 
 
 And other Papers 
 
The Authorship 
 
 of the 
 
 Epistle to the Hebrews 
 
 And other Papers 
 
 By / 
 
 The Rev. A. Welch 
 
 Minister Emeritus 
 Whitevale United Presbyterian Church, Glasgow 
 
 " Wee are often constrained to stand alone against the strength 
 of opinion, and to meet the Goliah and Gyant of Authority with 
 contemptible pibbles, and feeble arguments, drawne from the scrip 
 and slender stocke of our selves." 
 
 Brow^ne's Pseudodoxla Epidemica. 
 
 Edinburgh & London 
 
 Oliphant Anderson & Ferrier 
 
 1898 
 
PRINTED BY 
 
 MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED, EDINBURGH 
 
 FOR 
 
 OLIPHANT ANDERSON & FERRIER 
 
 EDINBURGH AND LONDON 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The aim of the following pages is to rescue from 
 error some important questions of scriptural inter- 
 pretation. The opinions expressed have not been 
 hastily formed. The subject of Melchizedek, for 
 example, has been before the writer's mind, more or 
 less, for over forty years. The elucidation of what 
 the author of Hebrews says on this subject has been 
 with him, during that period, an almost engrossing 
 passion. He has read extensively upon it ; and he 
 can say much of that reading was weary, profitless 
 work, — parrot-like repetition in most cases, — but 
 he was anxious to catch any hint that might help 
 him in his task. He does not think that the 
 words of the author of Hebrews are encompassed 
 with any insuperable difficulty, if they are approached 
 in a right spirit. The difficulty which is felt in 
 connexion with them is very much the outcome of 
 a false method of exposition. One of the plainest 
 and most natural canons of interpretation is, that 
 we must take words in theu' ordinary sense, unless the 
 writer indicates that he uses them otherwise. The 
 
VI 
 
 Preface 
 
 author of Hebrews nowhere hints that he uses words 
 about Melchizedek in an unusual sense. But this 
 simple canon has not been followed. It has been 
 assumed that words, in this case, are employed in 
 some tropical or unusual sense, and laborious efforts 
 have been made to show what this sense is. This 
 initial error has also led to the belief that the laws of 
 syntax and logic cannot be applied here ; and so there 
 have been ascribed to the sacred penman sentiments 
 which are enough to make him rise from his grave 
 in protest. We believe we have pointed out a better 
 way, though of that our readers must judge. 
 
 The author has to record his sincere obligations to 
 Trancis T. Barrett, Esq., of the Mitchell Library, 
 Glasgow, and his able assistants, for unfailing 
 courtesy and readiness to help him to find the books 
 which he wished to consult ; to the Eev. James 
 Kennedy, B.D., of the New College, Edinburgh, for 
 useful practical advice ; and to James Browning, Esq., 
 LL.D., for his kindness in going over the proof sheets. 
 
 A. WELCH. 
 
 4 Hermitage Terrace, 
 
 morningside, edinburgh. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 I. THE AUTHORSHIP OF HEBREWS . .' . . . 1 
 
 II. MELCHIZEDEK : HIS PEIESTHOOD AND PERSONALITY — 
 
 PART 1 34 
 
 PART II 52 
 
 PART III 69 
 
 III. Christ's object in preaching to the spirits in 
 
 PRISON 89 
 
 IV. the significance of BAPTISM IN RELATION TO OUR 
 
 SALVATION 144 
 
 V. BELIEVERS DEAD TO SIN, BUT RAISED TO LIFE WITH 
 
 CHRIST 158 
 
 VI. THINGS which MAKE SALVATION CERTAIN . . . 177 
 
 VII. OUR LORD TROUBLED AND TRIUMPHANT .... 184 
 
 VIII. THE GETHSEMANE CUP : WHAT WAS IT ? . . . . 194 
 
 IX. IS THE LAST CLAUSE OF JOHN III. 13 GENUINE ? . . 201 
 
 vii 
 
I 
 
 WHO WAS THE AUTHOR OF THE 
 EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS? 
 
 No one has been able hitherto to answer this ques- 
 tion with convincing success. Many, baffled in the 
 attempt, have settled down into the view, long ago 
 expressed by Origen, that the actual truth is, and can 
 be, known only to God. Jerome thought the question 
 of no importance, since the writer was evidently an 
 influential ecclesiastic. This feeling is largely shared 
 in these days. The canonicity of the Epistle is un- 
 questioned, but its authorship is believed to be undis- 
 coverable.^ To some minds, no doubt, such an attitude 
 is quite satisfactory, but there are others to whom it 
 is far from being so. They remember that canonicity 
 and apostolicity were always closely associated together 
 in the opinion of the early Church. They recall the 
 fact that the Gospels of Mark and Luke were accepted 
 as canonical, mainly, if not entirely, because they were 
 understood to proceed practically from Peter and Paul, 
 and to have had their imprimatur. 
 
 We believe that the persistent and laborious efforts 
 which have been made from time to time to settle this 
 much vexed question, which we have undertaken to 
 
 1 An Introduction to the N. T,^ by Marcus Dods, D.D., p. 177. 
 
 I 
 
2 The Authorship of the 
 
 discuss, have had their origin in the deep-rooted con- 
 viction that the early Church was right in its view of 
 what was necessary to invest any book, put forward as 
 Scripture, with canonical authority. It would be most 
 unjust to ascribe these efforts to mere idle curiosity. 
 Underlying them all there is evidently the conviction 
 that the settlement of this question would greatly 
 strengthen the faith of not a few. We readily admit 
 that there are many, perhaps ninety -nine out of every 
 hundred of the ordinary members of the Christian 
 Church, who do not reqube any such aid to their 
 faith. Their Christian instinct leads them to feel that 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews has come forth from the 
 heart of God, whoever the actual penman may have 
 been, and with this they are satisfied. They can 
 hardly understand why any one should wish for more. 
 The present writer has been constrained to investigate 
 the question, because he profoundly shares the views 
 of the early Christians on the subject of canonicity. 
 
 That those to whom the Epistle was addressed 
 knew the author, at least by name and reputation, 
 is indisputable.^ This knowledge seems, however, to 
 have been soon lost to the Church from some cause 
 or other. In the early Christian centuries we find 
 critics as much divided in opinion on the question of 
 authorship as they are now. Alford very justly says 
 that we are left, " unfettered by any overpowering 
 judgment of antiquity, to examine the Epistle for our- 
 selves, and form our own opinion from its contents."^ 
 This, as matter of fact, is what all critics now do. 
 
 It would be tedious in the extreme to attempt 
 anything hke a review of the different opinions which 
 have been promulgated on the question. There are, 
 
 1 Heb. xiii. 19. ^ Prolegomena, ch. i. 36, § I. 
 
Epistle to the Hebrews 3 
 
 however, two which seem to us to deserve a few words 
 of remark, if for no other reason, because of the emin- 
 ence of the men who have held them. 
 
 I. The opinion that the author was the Apostle 
 Paul. This has met with much favour both in 
 ancient and modern times. The arguments in support 
 of this view are mainly these — 
 
 1. The Epistle was often quoted by the early 
 Christians as the production of the Apostle of the 
 Gentiles. Thus Eusebius, in his Commentary on the 
 Psalms, cites it as the work of the Apostle — of the 
 holy A'postle — or, of the divine Apostle. But this is 
 not to be wondered at in the circumstances, and can 
 hardly be looked upon as of any critical weight. 
 When the author's name had been lost, what more 
 natural than that Paul, who stood so prominently forth 
 then as now, should have been thought to have written 
 it ? Apostolic authority seems to be stamped on every 
 verse which it contains. Most people will therefore 
 feel that this view was not unnatural in those early 
 days. 
 
 2. The Epistle contains many words and expres- 
 sions found in Paul's unquestioned writings. But 
 such an argument does not, after all, amount to much. 
 While such words and expressions occur, there are 
 others which are quite foreign to Paul's style, as has 
 been again and again forcibly pointed out in the course 
 of the controversy on the question. In fact, the whole 
 cast of the Epistle is un-Pauline. The argument in 
 favour of the Pauline authorship is usually carried 
 on in a very one-sided way. The expressions and 
 words which seem to coincide with this view are em- 
 phasised, while those which are inconsistent v/ith it are 
 ignored. We have a remarkable example of this in 
 
4 The Authorship of the 
 
 the work of the Eev. Charles Forster, B.D.^ Let any 
 one, with his eyes open, read over this writer's ponder- 
 ous volume, and we venture to think its one-sidedness 
 will cure him of all confidence in the belief that Paul 
 was the author of Hebrews. 
 
 But, speaking of this argument drawn from the use 
 of certain words and expressions, what more natural 
 than that men, taught by the same Spirit, and writing 
 in the same tongue on the same themes, should use 
 many of the same words and expressions ? Would it 
 not be strange if it were otherwise ? We venture to 
 assert that any one, taking the trouble to compare 
 what has been written by Dean Farrar and some other 
 like-minded writer on the subject of the wider hope, 
 will find many words and phrases, as well as argu- 
 ments, common to both. But would these coincidences 
 be any proof that both productions were from the same 
 pen ? The argument in question is no doubt useful, 
 within certain limits, but many who have used it have 
 certainly ridden it to death. Their conduct irresistibly 
 reminds us of the man who had a house to sell, and 
 who took a brick in his pocket for the satisfaction of 
 possible purchasers. Style is a far deeper and more 
 subtle thing than such an argument implies. It is felt 
 rather than measured. And all competent judges of 
 style say that it is simply impossible to believe in the 
 Pauline authorship of Hebrews. 
 
 But the argument which is best fitted to tell against 
 the idea of Pauline authorship is drawn from the words : 
 " How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation ? 
 which having at the first been spoken by the Lord, 
 was confirmed unto us by them that heard." ^ We 
 
 ^ The Apostolical Authority of the Epistle to the Hehreivs. 
 2 Heb. ii. 3. 
 
Epistle to the Hebrews 5 
 
 shall have occasion to retm-n to this passage again in 
 the coiu'se of our discussion, and to show that com- 
 mentators have hitherto misunderstood it. But mean- 
 time we may confidently ask : can any one acquainted 
 with the spunt by which Paul was actuated for a 
 moment beheve that such words ever fell fi'om his 
 pen ? Putting aside all mention of apostleship, can the 
 author of such words be the same person who wrote 
 — " But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which 
 was preached of me is not after men. For I neither 
 received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the 
 revelation of Jesus Christ "^ — " If ye have heard of the 
 dispensation of the grace of God which is given me 
 to you-ward : how that by revelation He made known 
 imto me the mystery " ? ^ If these words are to have 
 their natural meaning, we cannot see how the Pauline 
 authorship of Hebrews can be maintained. 
 
 II. The opinion that the author was ApoUos. 
 This view, first suggested by Luther, meets with much 
 favour in the present day. It is supported with much 
 ingenuity and ability by Alford in his valuable Pro- 
 legomena to the Epistle. It rests, however, on mere 
 conjecture; and mere conjecture in a case of this kind 
 can never be satisfactory. It is true that ApoUos is 
 called " an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scrip- 
 tures," ^ but we do not possess a particle of evidence 
 to show that he ever wrote anything. Westcott calls 
 the writer Paul's " fellow apostle," and " The unknown 
 apostle to whom we owe the Epistle to the Hebrews." * 
 If these words be well founded, Apollos is simply ruled 
 out of court. 
 
 As the other views which have been propounded 
 
 1 Gal. i. 11, 12. 2 Eph. iii, 2. ^ ^^^g^s xviii. 24. 
 
 ^ Introduction to his Epistle to the Hebrews, p. Iii, 
 
6 The Authorship of the 
 
 rest on no better foundation, we cannot stay to discuss 
 them. 
 
 The date of the Epistle is closely bound up with the 
 question of its authorship. On this subject Alford 
 says, " Almost all commentators agree in believing that 
 our Epistle was written hefore the destruction of Jeru- 
 salem" (a.d. 70). Lunemann uses these words: "That 
 supposition is thus the most natural one which places 
 the date of the Epistle's composition between the years 
 65 and 67."^ Westcott arrives at very much the 
 same conclusion when he says, " The letter may be 
 placed in the critical interval between a.d. 64, the 
 government of Gossius Florus, and 67, the commence- 
 ment of the Jewish War, and most probably just before 
 the breaking of the storm in the latter year." ^ Any 
 one of these dates, even the latest, is definite enough 
 for the purposes of our present argument. Let us 
 accept, then, the year 70. 
 
 This date — indeed any date usually given — has a 
 distinct bearing on the interpretation of the words in 
 ch. ii. 3 to which we have already referred, as will 
 immediately appear. To make this apparent it will 
 be necessary to quote the passage again, " How shall 
 we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which, 
 having at the first been spoken {ap')^r]v Xa^ovaa 
 XakeiaOai) by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by 
 them that heard (utto twv aKOvadvrwv eU r]fia(; 
 e^efiaicoOrj). Lunemann, referring to this passage, says, 
 " Here the author reckons himself among the number 
 of those who have received their knowledge of the 
 gospel, not immediately from the Lord Himself, but 
 only through the medium of the first disciples and ear- 
 
 ^ Introduction to his Handbook to Hehreivs (Eng. tr.), pp. 63, 64. 
 - Introduction to his Epistle to the Hehreivs, p. xlii. 
 
Epistle to the Hebrews 7 
 
 witnesses. He claims thus no equal rank with the 
 twelve apostles, but takes his place at the standpoint 
 of Luke (Luke i. 2).^ Alforcl is equally explicit, " The 
 author was not an apostle, nor in the strictest sense a 
 contemporary of the apostles, so that he should have 
 seen and heard our Lord for himself. He belongs to 
 the second rank, in point of time, of apostolic men, — 
 to those who heard from eye- and ear-witnesses. This 
 will follow from the consideration of the passage ch. 
 ii. 3." 2 Dr. William Lindsay expresses the same view 
 of the verse when he says, " The meaning undoubtedly 
 is, that the truth first received from the lips of the 
 Saviour was handed down by the apostles safe and 
 entire to posterity."^ We might quote the views of 
 many other commentators — Westcott, for example — 
 to the same effect. But this is unnecessary. The 
 quotations already made are sufficient to show what is 
 the universal interpretation of the passage in question. 
 On this interpretation we have the following criticisms 
 to offer : — 
 
 1. The date generally assigned to the Epistle places 
 its author within the apostolic age. Alford cannot be 
 justified, therefore, in saying that he was not in the 
 strictest sense a contemporary of the apostles. James, 
 the brother of John, was certainly dead, and, most 
 probably, Paul also ; but can these deaths be said to 
 terminate the apostolic age ? We know that John 
 was now living, and we have no warrant for saying 
 that all the other apostles were in their graves. 
 
 2. It is not necessary to suppose that the author 
 identifies himself with his readers when he uses the 
 words, was confirmed unto us. He may be referring to 
 
 1 Introduction, p. 11. ^ Alford, Proleg. ch. i. 157, § I. 
 
 ^ Epistle to the Hebrews, vol. i. p. 87. 
 
8 The Authorship of the 
 
 himself and others, and not to his readers at all. We 
 shall see by and by that there is force in this criti- 
 cism. 
 
 3. The expression apxw '^ci^ovaa is interpreted too 
 loosely when it is applied in a general way to our 
 Lord's public ministry. When used in connexion 
 with the origination of the gospel, as it is in the 
 passage under consideration, the word ap'^yv is strictly 
 confined to the very commencement of its announce- 
 ment, — " The beginnmg (apxv, the very commence- 
 ment) of the gospel of Jesus Christ." ^ " Even as 
 they deUvered them unto us, which from the begin- 
 ning (air apxn'^, from the very commencement) were 
 eye-witnesses and ministers of the word," etc. ^ 
 
 4. It is not a natural interpretation of e^e^atwOr) 
 to make it mean, as Dr. Lindsay does, was handed, down 
 hy the a]oostles safe and entire to 'posterity. Westcott, 
 however, attaches the same meaning to the word — 
 " Was brought unto us — into our midst — and con- 
 firmed to us." This is reading a meaning into the term, 
 not expounding - it. The word in its different forms 
 always conveys the idea of something which has been 
 in uncertainty but is now established. A few examples 
 may be adduced to illustrate our meaning : " Even 
 as the testimony of Christ was confirmed (e'ySe- 
 paimOri) in you." ^ " In the defence and confirma- 
 tion (/Se/SaLcoaec) of the gospel." ^ " For men swear 
 by the greater, and in every dispute of theirs the oath 
 is final for confirmation " (eh ^efiaiwo-Lv).^ In all 
 these three examples something is assumed to be 
 insecure or uncertain, but is afterwards established 
 or made certain. We shall see by and by how this 
 
 1 Mark i. 1. 2 l^^^q i. 2. ^l Cor. i. 6. 
 
 4 Phil. i. 7. 5 Heb. vi. 16. 
 
Epistle to the Hebrews 9 
 
 natural meaning of the word should be given to it in 
 the case in question. But — 
 
 5. The words in the fourth verse (which immedi- 
 ately follows that now under notice) cannot be natur- 
 ally interpreted in accordance with the traditional 
 exposition of the third verse. " God also bearing 
 witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and 
 by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Ghost, 
 according to His own will." Dr. Westcott under- 
 stands these words as describing what took place in 
 connexion with the gospel in post-apostolic tunes. 
 His words are : " This passage is of deep interest as 
 showing the unquestioned reality of miraculous gifts 
 in the early Church, and the way in which they 
 were regarded as co-ordinate with other exhibitions 
 of divine power." ^ We believe that this note is 
 founded on an entire misapprehension of the mean- 
 ing of the sacred penman. Do the inspired writer's 
 words look as if they were a record of what took 
 place in post-apostolic times ? Do they not rather 
 read as an account of the signs and wonders wrought 
 by our Lord in attestation of His divine mission ? 
 We do not deny that they may refer also to what 
 took place on the day of Pentecost, and to the 
 miraculous manifestations given in connexion with 
 the ministry of the apostles. But to make them 
 apply only to post-apostolic times, as Westcott does, 
 is (we do not hesitate to say it) to misread them. 
 We do not think Church history bears out the asser- 
 tion that such signs and wonders were wrought in the 
 Church after the days of the apostles. 
 
 What, then, do we consider the plain and natural 
 meaning of the two verses which we have been ex- 
 
 ^ Westcott, in loco. 
 
lo The Authorship of the 
 
 amining ? We answer, with some degree of confi- 
 dence, this : Our Lord, at the very commencement of 
 His public ministry, spoke to certain persons, evi- 
 dently a limited number, of the salvation which He 
 came to work out for men. These persons, and 
 some others associated with them, had evidently 
 been entertaining conjectures of this nature about 
 Him. When, therefore, the Lord had unequivocally 
 confirmed these conjectures, those who received this 
 welcome information hastened to convey it to their 
 circle of friends. And thus the truth was established 
 in the minds of all the company. It was more fully 
 established, as time went on, by the miracles and 
 gifts of the Holy G-host. Does this not seem a more 
 natural interpretation of these two verses than that 
 which is given in the traditional exposition ? 
 
 But can we point out the time when our Lord first 
 made mention of His great salvation ? and can we put 
 our hand upon those to whom this first mention was 
 made ? We can. There is a remarkable answer to 
 these questions in the first chapter of the Gospel 
 according to John. We quote the passage in full: 
 " Again on the morrow John was standing, and two 
 of his disciples; and he looked upon Jesus as He 
 walked, and saith. Behold, the Lamb of God ! And 
 the two disciples heard him speak, and followed 
 Jesus. And Jesus turned, and beheld them follow- 
 ing, and saith unto them. What seek ye ? And they 
 said unto Him, Eabbi (which is to say, being interpre- 
 ted, Master), where abidest Thou ? He saith unto 
 them. Come, and ye shall see. They came therefore 
 and saw where He abode ; and they abode with 
 Him that day : it was about the tenth hour. One 
 of the two that heard John {eU Ik tojv Bvo tcop 
 
Epistle to the Hebrews ii 
 
 aKova-dvTcov), and followed him, was Andrew, Sunon 
 Peter's brother. He findeth first his own brother 
 Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the 
 Messias (which is, being interpreted, Christ). He 
 brought him unto Jesus. Jesus looked upon him, 
 and said. Thou art Simon the son of John : thou 
 shalt be called Cephas (which is by interpretation, 
 Peter)." i 
 
 Seldom do we find one passage of Scripture so 
 completely explaining another as the verse in 
 Hebrews (ch. ii. 3), which we are striving to rescue 
 from misconception, explains that in John's Gospel. 
 We are surprised that its explanatory character should 
 hitherto have so entirely eluded the notice of inter- 
 preters. The words rcov aKovadvrwv, common to 
 both passages, seem to have been beckoning to one 
 another all these centuries to come near and give 
 mutual explanations. Who were the two disciples 
 who heard John the Baptist invite them to behold 
 the Lamb of G-od ? They were Andrew, Simon 
 Peter's brother, and John, the beloved disciple, the 
 author of the Gospel narrative fi^om which the above 
 incident has been extracted, though he modestly omits 
 his name. They were the first to hear from the lips 
 of Jesus the announcement of His great salvation. 
 No doubt they told Him their reason for following 
 and accosting Him, — John the Baptist had on the 
 previous day pointed out Jesus, either to these two 
 disciples or to others, as " the Lamb of God, which 
 taketh away the sin of the world ! " ^ But at all 
 events John's words, reaching these two brethren, had 
 excited their curiosity and set them a-thiuking, so 
 that on the first opportunity they resolved to make 
 
 1 John i. 35-42. 2 JqI^^ ^ 39^ 
 
12 The Authorship of the 
 
 the acquaintance of Jesus. They showed by their 
 conduct that a deep interest had been excited in their 
 minds ; and they would ask Him what John's words 
 meant. So that Jesus must have been naturally led 
 to speak of Himself as having come into the world to 
 save sinners. Is not this the natural explanation of 
 the words that the great salvation was first spoken hy 
 the Lord ? Andrew, overjoyed at the discovery which 
 he and his associate John had made, hastened to 
 convey the precious news to his brother Peter. The 
 same good news was, no doubt, conveyed to all their 
 godly companions. Is not this the natural explana- 
 tion of the remark that what Jesus had said was 
 confirmed to Peter and his friends by them who 
 heard ? The testimony of Jesus was further con- 
 firmed by signs and miracles. The aKovaavre^ of 
 Hebrews and of John's G-ospel are one and the same. 
 In John's Gospel prominence is given to what the 
 Baptist said; in Hebrews, to what was said by 
 Christ. 
 
 But we get more out of the passage from John's 
 Gospel than the correct exposition of a hitherto mis- 
 understood text in Hebrews. We actually get an 
 answer to the great question which we have under- 
 taken to investigate. It will be observed that in 
 this passage attention is specially directed to Peter. 
 He is made specially prominent as the person to 
 whom, in the first instance, the declaration made by 
 Jesus was conveyed. After the Baptist's first words 
 directing his disciples to Christ as the Lamb of God 
 appointed to take away the sin of the world, Peter 
 would naturally have his doubts and uncertainties. 
 All doubts and uncertainties were removed, and his 
 mind was confirmed by what had been told him by his 
 
Epistle to the Hebrews 13 
 
 brother Andrew. If, therefore, we are right in our 
 view of the two passages which we have brought 
 together and compared, then we have found the 
 author of Hebrews, not among the successors of the 
 apostles, but within the small circle of our Lord's 
 first disciples. And in this small circle, who could 
 it be but the Apostle of the Circumcision ? In fact, 
 the passage in Hebrews, on the elucidation of which 
 we have spent so much pains, if taken in connexion 
 with the quotation made from John's Gospel, points 
 out as distinctly as words can, that in Peter, and in 
 no one else, we are to find the long-lost author of 
 Hebrews ! 
 
 When we recognise Peter as the author of Hebrews, 
 we feel at once that an inequality which has hitherto 
 existed in our New Testament has been redressed. 
 The Apostle of the Cu'cumcision seems now to have 
 something like his due share of space assigned to him. 
 There may not be much in this, but one can hardly 
 help thinking of it. Does it not seem anomalous 
 that we should have only two small Epistles from the 
 pen of an apostle who occupied so unportant a posi- 
 tion during our Lord's public ministry, and figured so 
 prominently in connexion with the early organisation 
 of the Christian Chuixh ? We naturally expect him 
 to have relatively something like the same prominent 
 position in the New Testament that he occupied in 
 the early Church. What a contrast between the 
 space his writings occupy and that assigned to Paul ! 
 It is true that the Jews are in a small minority com- 
 pared with the Gentiles ; and we could hardly have 
 expected to find so much notice taken of them in 
 connexion with their apostle as is taken of the 
 Gentiles in connexion with theirs. Still, when we 
 
14 The Authorship of the 
 
 think of the prominence assigned to Peter by our 
 Lord, and of the high place which the Jews had in 
 the divine regards and purposes, we feel that there is 
 some incongruity when only two small Epistles are 
 assigned to the Apostle of the Cu'cumcision. It 
 almost looks as if the Church had conspired to rob 
 Peter of his rights, just because he was the Apostle of 
 the Chcumcision, in the same way as, in the dark 
 ages, the Jews were persecuted for the crime com- 
 mitted by their forefathers. Some even grudge him 
 credit for both of the Epistles which bear his name. 
 When we ascribe to him the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 we feel as if somehow something like justice were 
 done to him. The subjects discussed in that work 
 are just those with which the Apostle of the Circum- 
 cision might have been expected to deal. The 
 doctrine of the eternal priesthood of Christ is, 
 especially, such a subject as naturally belongs to 
 him ; and it receives full discussion only in the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 Support for the conclusion to which our investiga- 
 tions have brought us comes from many quarters. 
 And this support is all the more valuable because in 
 every case it is given unintentionally. The Eev. Ch. 
 Frid. Boehme writes, " It was long ago noticed by 
 New Testament interpreters that no small resemblance 
 of words and formulas exists between our Epistle 
 (Hebrews) and that which is regarded as the first of 
 Peter." ^ Kiehm declares that no New Testament 
 writer has such affinity with Peter as the author of 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews.^ The Eev. A. B. 
 Davidson, LL.D., says, " It is the opinion of many 
 
 1 Epist. ad Hehrceos Prefatio, p. 40. 
 
 2 Lehrhegriff des Hebrderbriefes, p. 855. 
 
Epistle to the Hebrews 15 
 
 writers who have bestwowed much attention on the 
 Epistle, that, though the first impression which it 
 produces is, that it strongly resembles the Pauline 
 Epistles, when more fundamentally examined its 
 deeper and real affinities are found to be with the 
 primitive apostolic teaching as exhibited in the early 
 speeches in the Acts, and in the Epistles of Peter and 
 James." ^ The Eev. Charles Foster, B.D., already 
 referred to, says that there is a close resemblance in 
 style between Hebrews and 1 Peter. 
 
 None of these writers, however, dream of ascribing 
 to Peter the Epistle to the Hebrews. All seem to 
 think it beyond his capacity. Why, were not all om- 
 Lord's apostles, with the exception of Paul, ignorant 
 and uncultured men ? Boehme thinks that the First 
 Epistle of Peter was written by Silas. He grounds 
 his opinion on ch. v. 12, when he finds the words, 
 " By Silvanus a faithful brother, as I conceive, I have 
 written unto you briefly." He attaches no importance 
 to the fact that Peter's name stands at the head of 
 the Epistle. He does not believe it possible that 
 Peter, who was a Jew and so long resident in Palestine, 
 could have written such elegant Greek as this Epistle 
 presents. This is a grievous error, as we shall see by 
 and by ; but Boehme is not the only one who has 
 been led into it. This writer also institutes a careful 
 comparison between similar phrases and words common 
 to Hebrews and 1 Peter, as if he meant to refute 
 thereby his own conclusion. He finds nearly forty 
 such cases, and some of them are very striking. As, 
 therefore, we cannot set aside the Petrine authorship 
 of 1 Peter, we claim all that Boehme has done to 
 show the affinity between Hebrews and 1 Peter as in 
 
 ^ Bible Handbook to the Epistle to (he Hebrews, p. 32. 
 
1 6 The Authorship of the 
 
 favour of the conckision to which we have been 
 brought. 
 
 The bulky vohime of the Rev. Charles Forster, B.D., 
 was written to establish the Pauline authorship of 
 Hebrews. The writer thinks that his attempt has 
 been successful. He finds the resemblance between 
 Hebrews and 1 Peter to be so striking that he infers 
 Peter must have borrowed from Paul, that is, from 
 Hebrews, copying many of his words and phrases. With 
 what singular persistency is everything like originality 
 or culture denied to the Apostle of the Circumcision ! 
 
 Mr. Forster appeals in support of his conclusion to 
 the words, " And account that the long-suffering of 
 our Lord is salvation ; even as our beloved brother 
 Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, 
 wi'ote unto you ; as also in all his Epistles, speaking 
 in them of these things ; wherein are some things 
 hard to be understood, which the ignorant and un- 
 steadfast wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, 
 unto their own destruction." ^ As Paul is mentioned 
 in this passage, Mr. Forster apparently thinks it 
 would greatly help his argument if he could show 
 that Peter's w^ords here point to some passage in 
 Hebrews. And so it would. He refers, at p. 511 
 of his work, to the following passages in Hebrews to 
 which he thinks Peter's words just quoted undoubtedly 
 refer, namely, chs. vi. 12, iv. 15, 16, ii. 17, 18, and 
 xii. 24. He wishes us to beheve that these passages 
 correspond in thought to the words, " The long-suffering 
 of our Lord is salvation." We have carefully examined 
 these passages and — not one of them suj)ports his 
 contention. 
 
 There is not in any of Paul's Epistles (and certainly 
 
 1 2 Pet. iii. 15, 16. 
 
Epistle to the Hebrews 17 
 
 not in Hebrews) such a passage as Peter here refers to, 
 except one, namely, Eomans, " Or despisest thou the 
 riches of His goodness and forbearance and long- 
 suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God 
 leadeth thee to repentance ? " ^ The Eev. J. E. 
 Lumby, D.D., who writes the exposition of 2 Peter in 
 the Speaker's Commentary, says on ch. iii. 15, "The 
 passage in the writings of St. Paul which comes 
 nearest to the language of this verse is Eom. ii. 4, 
 which Epistle being written to the Jewish as well as 
 to the Gentile converts at Eome." We can get over 
 Peter's reference, if it is not to this passage in Eomans, 
 only by saying that it must point to some passage in 
 some letter that has now been lost. But neither will 
 that supposition help Mr. Forster. 
 
 The most effective support for our conclusion comes 
 from the Eev. Frederick Eendall, A.M. And this 
 support is all the more valuable that he never dreams 
 of Peter as the author of Hebrews, but infers that the 
 writer must be either a personal disciple of his, or a 
 diUgent student of his Epistle. He says, " Comparison 
 of the First Epistle of Peter reveals to us a closer 
 sympathy between our author and that apostle than 
 that which we have noted with the other great Apostle 
 of the Circumcision " (James).^ Further, " Again and 
 again we find in St. Peter's Epistle the germ of the 
 author's thought, or the exact form of expression." ^ 
 The following comparisons between the two Epistles 
 are taken exclusively from Mr. Eendall's work : — 
 
 Both regard the Christian Jiojpe^ and Christian 
 salvation^ as objective realities, and an eventful future 
 
 ^ Rom. ii. 4. ^ Theology of the Hebrew Christians, p. 42. 
 
 3 lUd. p. 43. 4 1 Pet. i. 3 and Heb. vi. 18. 
 
 5 1 Pet. i. 5-10 and Heb. i. 14, ix. 28. 
 
1 8 The Authorship of the 
 
 inheritance reserved till the second coming of 
 Christ. 
 
 Both regard faith as steadfast trust in an unseen 
 God which sustains His servants under temptation, and 
 secures them final inheritance of His promises.^ 
 
 Both regard righteousness as an upright life.^ 
 
 Both emphatically connect the sufferings of Christ 
 with our future glory as two co-ordinate parts of God's 
 scheme of redemption.^ 
 
 Both give the same prominence to Christ's fellow- 
 ship with us in suffering, and to the value of suffering 
 as a necessary disciphne.* 
 
 Both — and they are alone in this — make emphatic 
 mention of the hlood of sprinkling.^ 
 
 Both — and in this also they are alone — designate 
 the Lord as the Shepherd.'^ 
 
 Both call Christ Captain. Here, however, Hebrews 
 is compared with Peter's words in the Acts, not in 
 the Epistle."^ 
 
 Both — and they are alone in this also — insist on 
 our privileges as members of the house of God.^ 
 
 Both connect the possession of a good conscience 
 with good habits of life.^ 
 
 Both — and in this also they are alone — mention the 
 blessing pronounced by the ninth beatitude on those 
 who suffer for Christ's sake.^^ 
 
 1 1 Pet. i. 5-9, V. 9 and Heb. xi. 1. 
 
 2 1 Pet. ii. 24, iii. 14 ; Heb. vi. 10, x. 23, 24, xii. 1-3, 14. 
 
 3 1 Pet. i. 11 and Heb. ii. 10. 
 
 ^ 1 Pet. ii. 19-23, iv. 1, 13, and Heb. ii. 10-18, v. 7, 8, xii. 2-8. 
 
 5 1 Pet. i. 2 and Heb. xii. 24. 
 
 « 1 Pet. ii. 25, v. 3, and Heb. xiii. 20. 
 
 ' Acts iii. 15, V. 31 ; Heb. ii. 10, xii. 2. 
 
 8 1 Pet. ii. 5 and Heb. iii. 6. 
 
 9 1 Pet. iii. 16 and Heb. xiii. 18. 
 10 1 Pet. iv. 14 and Heb. xi. 26. 
 
Epistle to the Hebrews 19 
 
 Both Epistles end with a similar form of blessing.^ 
 
 Both Epistles are singular in having the expressions 
 iir io-'^cLTOv, X0709 ^wv, ava(^epetv dfjuaprla^, Overlap; 
 dvacpepeiv, avTiTViro^, evvoLaP' 
 
 After having called attention to such striking facts 
 as these, one's only wonder is, that Mr. Eendall was 
 unable to draw the only conclusion to which they 
 point. 
 
 We come now to the question of Peter's ability to 
 write such a treatise as the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 It has too long been the custom to represent our 
 Lord's apostles in general as rude, ignorant, ilKterate 
 men, and to speak of Paul as the only theologian of 
 the Christian faith, and the sole possessor of literary 
 attainments. We can to some extent sympathise 
 with the feeling which underhes this representation, — 
 the desire to magnify the grace of God in enabling 
 men of this stamp to accomplish such a spiritual 
 revolution in the world, — but it is a foul calumny, 
 all the same, whatever the motive which dictated it 
 may have been. It is not for us to measure the 
 potency of God's grace : we at once admit that God 
 might have used illiterate men to carry out His 
 gracious purposes. He might have employed them as 
 mere machines for the purpose of expressing His will 
 through them, though on such a supposition it does 
 not appear impossible to believe that He might for 
 this purpose have enabled Peter to write in the 
 cultured style which Hebrews exhibits. But — and 
 the remark is a trite one — He does not work miracles 
 unnecessarily. A good reason may be given why the 
 disciples were used as automata on the day of 
 
 1 1 Pet. V. 10, 11 and Heb. xiii. 20-22. 
 
 2 Theology of the Hebrew Christians^ pp. 43-45. 
 
20 The Authorship of the 
 
 Pentecost ; but the case is quite different when we come 
 to contemplate the apostles as men appointed to carry 
 the gospel to the ends of the earth. 
 
 The habit of regarding our Lord's apostles generally 
 as rude and unlettered men is, in large measure, due 
 to a misunderstanding of a passage in the narrative in 
 Acts iv. The words run thus : " Now when they 
 (the ecclesiastical authorities at Jerusalem before 
 whom Peter and Jolm had been brought) beheld the 
 boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that 
 they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled ; 
 and they took knowledge of them that they had been 
 with Jesus." Now, the fact that these brethren 
 awakened astonishment by the way in which they 
 spoke hardly consists with the idea that they were 
 ignorant and unlearned. The marvel was that they 
 were the very reverse. They spoke with a wisdom 
 and power which called forth the reluctant admii'ation 
 of their enemies. The wonder could be explained only 
 by the conviction that they had received their instruc- 
 tion from Christ. For the teaching of Christ had 
 struck all as possessed of commanding wisdom. Peter 
 and John had evidently received a portion of his 
 Spirit. And certainly they were ignorant and un- 
 learned only in the sense of making no use of 
 rabbinical formulas and illustrations. Their style of 
 speech was independent, through the liberty where- 
 with Christ makes His people free. They were not 
 trammelled by traditional forms. 
 
 But what we wish to call special attention to here 
 is the fact that the name of John is most closely 
 associated with that of Peter in this narrative, though 
 Peter figures as the principal speaker. There is not 
 the slightest hint that Peter was regarded as inferior 
 
Epistle to the Hebrews 2i 
 
 in cultui'e to John. The two are put together m the 
 same category. Xow, modern scholars are ready to 
 admit the cultui^e and Hterary ability of the author of 
 the Fourth Gospel. They place him, in this respect, 
 on a platform very much higher than that on which 
 the Apostle of the Gentiles stands. It is to insult 
 him to describe bim as an unlettered fisherman. Peter 
 seems to have been, socially and otherwise, very much 
 on a par with him. They both belonged to the same 
 locality. If, then, John could obtain a scholarly 
 education in his native place, why might not Peter 
 also ? 
 
 Let us now turn to the New Testament to see if 
 we can discover whether Peter is correctly described 
 when he is spoken of as unlettered. He comes before 
 us on several occasions in the Acts, and always as a 
 man possessed of singular mental alertness and pro- 
 found acquaintance with Scriptui'e. He is always 
 ready to make use of his knowledge in a way admir- 
 ably suited to the cncumstances. Then, take his 
 First Epistle, or even his Second, — and we see no 
 good reason for rejecting it, — is there any proof in 
 these of his unfitness for writing the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews ? Peter, with his feUow-apostles of Galilee, 
 has long been spoken of as illiterate without any 
 warrant whatever. Peter and John were certainly 
 not illiterate. 
 
 But, fiu'ther, this estimate of Peter, apart altogether 
 from the positive evidence which we possess in oppo- 
 sition to it, is totally inconsistent with all reasonable 
 probabihties. God has taught the modem Church 
 that it is vain to send into the foreign field any but 
 our ablest and best trained men. There was as much 
 need for such men in primitive times as now. Are 
 
22 The Authorship of the 
 
 we to believe that our Lord, in sending forth the 
 apostles, acted in a total dijfferent spirit from that 
 which He inculcates on us ? The idea is inconceivable. 
 We must, then, dismiss from our minds all thought of 
 Peter's inability to write that treatise of which we 
 have, we think, produced sufficient grounds for believ- 
 ing him to have been the author. To our mind it is 
 plain that Peter, in the providence of God, was pre- 
 pared for the work which he had to do as certainly 
 as was the Apostle of the Gentiles. He had a 
 subtle race to deal with in his kinsmen, and he was 
 chosen by our Lord for the work of propagating the 
 gospel among them, because, by natural endowments 
 and intellectual training, he was admirably fitted for 
 the task. And his Epistle to the Hebrews, if we are 
 right in ascribing it to him, as we do not now hesitate 
 to believe, entitles him to occupy no second place 
 when we speak of New Testament theologians. 
 
 We have thus finished the task we assigned to our- 
 selves, and might now lay down our pen. There are, 
 however, three subordinate inquiries, usually associated 
 with the main question, which must not be ignored. 
 
 1. To whom was the Epistle sent ? The answer to 
 this question does not seem to be attended with in- 
 superable difficulty, if we are willing to deal fairly 
 with the available facts. The passage on which we 
 mainly build is 2 Pet. iii. 15, "And account that the 
 long-suffering of our Lord is salvation ; even as our 
 beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom 
 given to him, wrote to you (vijlIv)." We have seen 
 that nowhere in Paul's Epistles, and certainly not in 
 Hebrews, is any passage to be fomid that can be 
 regarded as here referred to by Peter, if we except 
 Eom. ii. 4. That the Epistle in which was the 
 
Epistle to the Hebrews 23 
 
 passage pointed to by Peter has been lost, is too 
 violent a supposition to be seriously entertained. To 
 take refuge in such a theory would be too much like 
 a wilful closing of one's eyes to the light. We think, 
 therefore, that Peter's words justify the conclusion that 
 both the Epistle to the Eomans and the Second Epistle 
 of Peter were addressed to Christians at Eome. The 
 former was, of course, meant for Gentiles as well as 
 Jews. The latter, however, bears on the face of it that 
 it was intended for the Jewish section of the Church 
 only. This is a most important conclusion to have 
 reached. Indeed, it is of vital moment in connexion 
 with the question now under discussion. Let us keep 
 it firmly before our minds.. 
 
 Erom this vantage ground we are able to advance 
 another step. In 2 Pet. iii. 1 occur the words, " This 
 is now, beloved, the second Epistle that I write unto 
 you." That is to say, what we now call Peter's 
 Second Epistle is his second to the Jewish Christians 
 at Ptome. This is a somewhat startling conclusion, 
 but it seems impossible to escape from it. What we 
 call the First and Second Epistles of Peter do not 
 seem to have been intended for the same circle of 
 readers. The First Epistle is addressed to " the so- 
 journers of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia," etc. ; 
 the Second, " to them that have obtained like precious 
 faith with us in the righteousness of our God and 
 Savioui' Jesus Christ." These inscriptions are so 
 different that they naturally suggest that the Epistles 
 could not have been intended for the same class of 
 readers. This suggestion is confirmed by an examina- 
 tion of the contents of the Epistles. 
 
 The whole tone of First Peter is different from that 
 of Second. The First is more hortatory, the Second 
 
24 The Authorship of the 
 
 more admonitory. When writing his Second Epistle 
 the apostle evidently felt the need of putting forth 
 every possible effort to keep his readers in the right 
 way. He feels that the circle of readers to whom 
 that Epistle was addressed were more in danger of 
 falling away than those to whom his First Epistle was 
 sent. In short, he seems to have in his mind just 
 such a community as is pointed to in Hebrews. The 
 Judceo- Christians at Eome were just such a community 
 as both Epistles indicate. The Jewish Christians at 
 Eome were in special danger of apostatising. The 
 excitement produced there by the introduction of 
 Christianity placed them in a very trying position. 
 We may well believe that they were often tempted 
 to waver in theh faith, and to ask themselves the 
 question, whether the hostility excited against them 
 was not a punishment sent upon them for forsaking 
 their ancestral faith. 
 
 The early coming of Christ to rescue His people 
 from all the evils of their present condition was a 
 strong hope in the primitive Church. The delay of 
 this coming appears to have relaxed the faith of many. 
 There were scoffers who said, " Where is the promise 
 of His coming ? For, from the day that the fathers 
 fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the 
 beginning of the creation." This is so like the state 
 of things indicated in Hebrews that we have been con- 
 strained to conclude that both Epistles, that is, Hebrews 
 and Second Peter, were addressed to the Jewish section 
 of the Church at Eome. The inscription of Second Peter 
 seems to accord well with this idea. Just as there is no 
 direct indication of the parties to whom Hebrews was 
 addressed, so there is none in 2 Peter in the words, 
 " them that have obtained like precious faith with us 
 
Epistle to the Hebrews 25 
 
 in the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ." And the same reason, or reasons, which 
 operated in leaving the destination of Hebrews in- 
 definite, may well have operated also in connexion 
 with Peter's Second Epistle. To this point we shall 
 return again by and by ; but meanwhile, in view of 
 what has been said, we believe the three Epistles with 
 which we have been dealing should be classified other- 
 wise than at present in the New Testament. We 
 would arrange them thus — 
 
 (1) The Epistle of Peter to the converted Jews of 
 the Dispersion (1 Peter). 
 
 (2) The First Epistle of Peter to the converted 
 Jews at Eome (Epistle to the Hebrews). 
 
 (3) The Second Epistle of Peter to the converted 
 Jews at Kome (2 Peter). 
 
 The Epistle which we have placed first in this list 
 has all the appearance of a circular letter. If what 
 we call the Second Epistle of Peter had been addressed 
 to the same persons designated in the First, it is 
 strange that it was not inscribed in the same way. 
 
 In support of the conclusion that the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews was addressed to the Judeeo-Christians 
 at Eome is the strong evidence of ch. xiii. 24, 
 "They of {a-rro) Italy salute you," literally, "They 
 from Italy," etc. The idea is that these brethren 
 belonged to Italy but were now resident elsewhere, 
 and in the locaKty from which Peter was now writing. 
 We find in the New Testament many examples of the 
 same use of the preposition aTro. " Jesus from 
 (ttTTo) Nazareth of Gahlee." " Then there came to 
 Jesus from (otto) Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes." 
 " And certain of them from (aTro) Cilicia and Asia." 
 " And certain of the brethren from (aTro) Joppa." In 
 
26 The Authorship of the 
 
 all these passages the idea is that the persons spoken of 
 were at the time away from the places to which they 
 belonged. The Itahans, whose salutations Peter sent 
 to his readers, were at the time out of their own 
 country for some reason or other, possibly in the 
 pursuit of business, or because of the persecution to 
 which they had been exposed in the Eternal City. 
 Now, what more likely than that Christian Jews living 
 out of Italy should wish to send a kindly message to 
 their Christian kinsmen at Kome ? 
 
 That the Epistle was intended for the Christian 
 Jews at Eome is further supported by what we know 
 of its history. Our earliest notices of it are connected 
 with Eome. Clement, one of the earliest pastors of 
 the Chui'ch there, and who is generally believed to 
 have been the same Clement mentioned in Phil. iv. 3 
 as one of Paul's fellow-workers, manifests in his 
 Epistle to the Corinthians (as the Epistle sent by the 
 Church at Eome to the Church at Corinth is usually 
 called) a minute acquaintance with it.-^ Dr. William 
 Kay, in the Speaker's Commentary, tells us that 
 Clement of Eome, who wrote towards the end of the 
 first century, says, according to Eusebius, "He not 
 only borrows many thoughts from the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, but uses its very words." ^ He adds, " It is 
 certain, then, that before the end of the first century 
 this Epistle was held in the highest honour by the 
 Eoman Church, and was used with at least as much 
 deference as was accorded to Epistles of confessedly 
 
 ^ Reuss, Eist. of Christ. Thcol. in the Ajjost. Age, says Clement 
 •* frequently and very directly copies i^assages from the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews. Thus ch. xxxvi. is composed almost entirely of extracts 
 from that Epistle."— Eng. tr. vol. ii. p. 289. 
 
 2 E. H. iii. 38. 
 
Epistle to the Hebrews 27 
 
 apostolic origin." ^ It was the most natural thing in 
 the world that the pastor of a Church which had 
 received such an Epistle should be well acquainted 
 with its contents, and should display that acquaint- 
 ance in an Epistle which he is generally credited with 
 having written. 
 
 2. Was Peter personally acquainted with his 
 readers ? and had he been at Eome before this Epistle 
 was written ? Nothing can be inferred from the fact 
 that no persons are specially named as having had 
 salutations sent to them. The same reason or reasons 
 which induced him to refrain from inserting his name 
 in the body of the Epistle may have operated to keep 
 him from mentioning the names of others. The 
 question now under consideration turns very much on 
 the precise meaning which we attach to the word 
 aTTOKaraaTadcb in ch. xiii. 19, and which our trans- 
 lators render may he restored. " Pray for us, for we 
 are persuaded that we have a good conscience, desiring 
 to live honestly in all things. And I exhort you the 
 more exceedingly to do this that I may be restored to 
 you the sooner." If that rendering be accepted and 
 taken in its full natural sense, then we are compelled 
 to say Peter must have been at Ptome before this 
 Epistle was written. 
 
 Dr. A. B. Davidson says,^ " These words imply a 
 former residence of the writer among the Hebrews. 
 He contemplated a return to them, a return desired 
 by himself, and one which he assumes will be accept- 
 able to them — and he beseeches them to help it by 
 their prayers." Dr. Vaughan says,^ " The writer 
 
 ^ Introduction to Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 2. 
 2 Bible Handbook to Hebrews, in loco. 
 ^ Epistle to the Hebrews, in loco. 
 
2 8 The Authorship of the 
 
 stood in some established relation to them, at least of 
 acquaintance and intercourse, if not of pastoral super- 
 vision." 
 
 But, is it quite certain that the rendering of our 
 translators, which these scholars follow, fairly brings 
 out Peter's meaning ? Etymologically the word 
 dTTOKadio-TrjfiL merely conveys the idea of the transfer- 
 ence of a person or thing from one place to another, 
 or from one state to another. Thus, in the case 
 before us, the meaning seems simply to be that Peter 
 earnestly solicited the prayers of his readers that he 
 might be brought to them speedily. There was 
 evidently something, apparently Timothy's absence, 
 which stood in the way, and his request was that 
 they should pray God to remove the impediment. 
 
 Lexicologists refer us for the interpretation of the 
 word to Polybius. And in that author, as elsewhere, 
 the word no doubt means restore. But, instead of 
 going to Polybius for the meaning of this word, would 
 it not be more natural to apply to the LXX. ? Inter- 
 preters have pointed out again and again that the 
 writer of Hebrews uniformly relies on that venerable 
 translation. Now, the LXX. do not, by any means, 
 limit the meaning of the word to the sense assigned 
 to it by our translators. They use it in at least ten 
 different senses. 
 
 Nor is it indisputable that restore is always its 
 meaning in the New Testament. The word occurs in 
 Matt. xvii. 11: " And he answered and said, Elijah 
 indeed cometh, and shall restore (diroKaTaa-TTjcret,) all 
 things." Now, our contention is that the simple 
 etymological meaning is the proper sense here. We 
 do not need, of course, to say that our Lord by 
 Elijah here means John the Baptist. It is impossible 
 
Epistle to the Hebrews 29 
 
 for us to believe that John the Baptist brought all 
 things back to the condition in which they had 
 formerly been. Does the narrative of his ministry, 
 given us by the evangelists, convey any such idea ? 
 Cremer in his Lexicon, suh voce, makes an earnest 
 attempt to bring out of the passage the full idea con- 
 veyed by the word restore. He sets aside several 
 methods which have been suggested for secui^ing this 
 result, and at last finds rest in the thought that John 
 restored the operation of the Old Covenant ! What 
 this means, we confess we do not quite understand. 
 Does he mean to afikm that John by his ministry, in 
 any actual sense, re-established a state of things such 
 as ever previously existed among God's ancient people ? 
 If so, then he affirms as fact what never happened. 
 What John actually did was to prepare for Christ. 
 He was the Lord's herald — as he himself declared — 
 " the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Make ye 
 ready the way of the Lord, make His paths straight." 
 His ministry introduced that of Christ. It was 
 through John's instrumentality that oui' Lord's first 
 disciples were secured. He laid the train which led 
 to the establishment of Christianity. Arguing from 
 this instance of the use of the word under considera- 
 tion, it seems to us that all that Peter means in the 
 verse, the right meaning of which we are seeking to 
 establish, is that he hoped in answer to the prayers of 
 his readers he might be permitted to come and see 
 them, without its being implied that he had ever been 
 with them before. His wish was to be brought to 
 them — introduced to them. 
 
 Then there is that passage in the first chapter of 
 the Acts. Just before our Lord's ascension His 
 disciples asked Him the question, " Lord, doest Thou 
 
30 The Authorship of the 
 
 at this time restore {diroKaO LaTaveL^) the kingdom to 
 Israel ? " Here we are met with the same difficulty 
 as we encountered in connexion with the passage in 
 Matthew. What was to be restored ? Was it the 
 dominion which Israel had at one time enjoyed ? 
 That cannot be the meaning. The old kingdom was 
 not to be set up again. The kingdom of Christ is of a 
 totally different character. No one can escape from 
 this criticism by sapng that the disciples misunder- 
 stood the nature of the new kingdom. Our Lord, who 
 replied to their question, gives no hint that this was 
 the case. It seems to us that the sense here is, 
 " Dost Thou at this time introduce or convey the king- 
 dom back to Israel ? " 
 
 We have made these remarks simply in the 
 interests of sound exposition. We hold no brief from 
 the Chiu^ch of Eome in favour of their tradition that 
 Peter was for twenty-five years bishop of the Church 
 in the Eternal City. Our argument does not depend 
 upon the question whether Peter was ever actually in 
 Eome. It is, however, a persistent tradition that 
 Peter was for some time head of the Church in the 
 Eoman capital. What is stated in Hebrews is not 
 sufficient to confirm this tradition. It may all have 
 arisen out of Peter's expressed wish to \'isit the 
 brethren there. We know how legends of this kind 
 grow. 
 
 The words in ch. xiii. 23 seem most in harmony 
 with the idea that Peter, when he wrote his Epistle, 
 had no personal acquaintance with his readers. " Ye 
 know that Timothy hath been set at liberty" 
 {airoKekvfievov), or, as some render the word, " hath 
 been sent away : with whom, if he come shortly, I will 
 see you." Peter seems here to lean upon Timothy for 
 
Epistle to the Hebrews 31 
 
 some reason or other. Is not the natiu-al mference 
 that this was because Timothy was personally known 
 to the brethren at Eome, while Peter was not ? 
 Should Timothy be able to accompany Peter on his 
 proposed journey, he would greatly help his influence 
 with the brethren in the Eternal City. If Peter 
 needed a personal introduction to the Christians there, 
 Timothy could give it to him. We think, therefore, 
 we see a beautiful modesty in Peter's thus leaning on 
 Paul's companion. He seems to desire to do nothing, 
 and to say nothing, that might affect the place which 
 Paul had in the affections of the Church at Eome. 
 We are taking it for granted that Paul was dead at 
 this time. Westcott says Paul was martyred in the 
 year a.d. 65.-^ And Dr. A. B. Davidson says, "The 
 Epistle must have been written some time, and it is 
 usually thought only a very few years, after the 
 Neronic persecution," ^ which began in the year a.d. 64. 
 
 After Paul's decease, if doctrinal disputes or diffi- 
 culties arose among the Jewish converts at Eome, what 
 more natural than that Peter should be applied to ? 
 He must by this time have been well known through- 
 out the Church as the Apostle of the Circumcision. 
 He would therefore be looked upon as the proper 
 person to guide them now that Paul was no more. 
 We believe that he was thus appealed to, and that 
 this appeal accounts for the origin of the Epistle. 
 
 3. Why did Peter not append his name to this 
 Epistle if, as we believe, he wrote it ? And why did 
 he not specify the readers for whom it was meant ? 
 Several answers may be given to these queries. 
 
 (a) He may have had a shyness in putting his name 
 
 1 Introduction to Hehrevjs, p. 42. 
 
 - Introduction to Bible Handbook to Htbreus. 
 
32 The Authorship of the 
 
 to the Epistle, considering what Paul had been to his 
 readers. He may have wished to rely entirely on the 
 arguments which he could adduce from Scripture. 
 The form of the communication, as Steudel suggests, 
 may be accounted for ^by the supposition that the 
 author's first intention was to write a treatise as 
 a guide to the brethren in their perplexity, and 
 the more so that his want of personal acquaintance 
 with his readers made this appear the more seemly 
 course ; but, in the management of his argument, the 
 natural warmth of his disposition led him into the 
 epistolary mode. We are committed to the opinion 
 that Hebrews is an Epistle, for if we are right in 
 regarding what is now spoken of as Peter's Second 
 Epistle as having been addressed to the Jewish section 
 of the Church at Eome, then Hebrews was Peter's 
 First Epistle to these brethren there. And, if the 
 piece was not begun as an Epistle, though it fell into 
 the epistolary style, this is quite sufficient to account 
 for the omission of the name. 
 
 (iS) Peter was known to his readers by reputation at 
 least, and they were well aware who it was that was 
 writing to them. Might not Peter have omitted his 
 name for prudential reasons ? When this Epistle was 
 written, the Jews, and especially those of them who 
 had adopted the Christian faith, were in bad odoui' at 
 Eome. If it had become known that an Epistle had 
 come to the brethren there, or to a section of them, 
 from so well known a follower of Christ as Peter, this 
 would certainly have not only intensified the hostility 
 against them, but might have made the apostle's 
 position a dangerous one in the event of his fulfilling 
 his promise to visit them. There was evident need 
 for secrecy. It is easy to conceive how, in these 
 
Epistle to the Hebrews 33 
 
 circumstances, what was well known at the time to a 
 section of the Church gradually dropped out of sight. 
 In the troubles of the period even the destination of 
 the Epistle might be lost to view. 
 
 (7) The Epistle was intended only for a section of 
 the Church at Eome, not for the whole of it. This 
 may be the reason, and it seems a sufficient reason, 
 why the Epistle wants, not only the author's name, but 
 also any hint as to its destination. Peter, in his 
 modesty, may have meant his production to be re- 
 garded as very much of the nature of a private docu- 
 ment, for the immediate satisfaction of those who had 
 applied to him for counsel. 
 
II 
 
 MELCHIZEDEK— HIS PKIESTHOOD AND 
 PEKSONALITY 
 
 PAET FIRST 
 
 There is no subject within the whole compass of 
 biblical literature which interpreters have felt to be 
 more fascinating than than of Melchizedek, and there 
 is no other which has given rise to more discussion — 
 learned and otherv/ise. The books and treatises which 
 it has called forth would, if gathered together, form a 
 very extensive library. And almost every day the 
 mass of literature on the question is being added to. 
 There is at present an inquiry on foot, inspired by the 
 hope of being able to discover, in the vague realms of 
 archaeology, a race of priest-kings to which those pro- 
 secuting the inquiry believe Melchizedek belonged. 
 Of all the vain dreams which this subject has begotten, 
 we have no hesitation in saying this is the vainest. 
 Those who pay any attention to the way in which the 
 question is dealt with in Scripture can have no difficulty 
 in predicting that such an inquiry is a wild goose 
 chase, and can do nothing but bring ridicule upon 
 those who are pursuing it. Archaeology has its uses, 
 but not in this case. 
 
 Some curious results have emerged from the dis- 
 
 34 
 
Melchizedek's Priesthood and Personality 25 
 
 cussion of this subject. Some have been driven to 
 the conclusion that no satisfactory explanation is 
 possible, and that any one who meddles with the 
 matter is guilty of " rushing in where angels fear to 
 tread." In the opinion of such persons, any one who 
 is bold enough to undertake the exposition of the 
 matter must be afflicted with some form of insanity. 
 Some think they are warranted to treat the question 
 as fair game for ridicule and mirth, and are always 
 ready with the well-known story of Dr. Chalmers and 
 his unwelcome visitor. Others think we are guilty of 
 serious irreverence if we essay to apply the ordinary 
 rules of grammar and interpretation in this case. All 
 references which Scripture makes to Melchizedek must 
 be understood in a kind of slip-shod way. They are 
 too peculiar to be brought within the limits of sound 
 exegesis. You must deal with this subject as you 
 deal with no other in the sacred volume. As a rule, 
 however, such persons have no hesitation in delivering 
 their opinions with the utmost confidence. You would 
 expect them, in the circumstances, to avoid all dogmatic 
 utterances, and to merely hint at what they suppose 
 may possibly be the meaning of the sacred writer who 
 deals with the matter. This is by no means the 
 manner which they adopt. They decide the meaning 
 of every phrase with the most perfect assurance that 
 their dicta cannot be disputed. A fair example of this 
 class of interpreters is the present Dean of Canterbury 
 — Dr. Farrar. This popular writer and preacher, 
 in the Sunday Magazine for 1886, thus expresses 
 himself : " Scripture has undergone strange per- 
 versions at the hands of its interpreters, — perversions 
 which fill the minds of simple truth seekers, sometimes 
 with sadness, sometimes with indignation." This is 
 
36 Melchizedek : 
 
 the first sentence of the worthy Dean's paper, and is 
 intended to prepare the way for the condemnation of 
 all who differ from him on this question. He takes 
 the view, now generally prevalent, that Melchizedek 
 was a type of Christ. Farther on he indulges in this 
 ex cdthedra strain : " Apollos, — or whoever was the 
 author of this Epistle, — writing to show that the 
 Aaronic priesthood was annulled, chose another priest 
 — Melchizedek — the first man who in the Bible is 
 called * a priest ' — as the type of Christ's priesthood. 
 He seizes upon a partial analogy between him and 
 Jesus in saying that he was ' without father, without 
 mother, without descent, having neither beginning of 
 days nor end of life.' The phrase is a very simple and 
 very common figure of speech, found in all languages. 
 Beyond all question, it means nothing more than that 
 neither his father, nor his mother, nor his pedigree, 
 nor his birth, nor his death are anywhere recorded. 
 They are facts practically non-existent, because we 
 know nothing about them ; and, therefore, as he stands 
 on the page of Genesis, Melchizedek furnishes, even in 
 this respect, a fit type of the eternal Christ. ' Oh ! 
 but it is childish,' say the commentators, ' to think 
 that the sacred writer means no more than this.' It 
 is, I reply, not merely childish, but gratuitously 
 absurd, to interpret his conceptions by any other law 
 than those of the language which he used, and the 
 terms in which he wrote. It was the fashion of the 
 Alexandrian School to which he belonged to see 
 Allegories, and to attach mystical secondary meanings 
 to the slightest details, and even (as in this passage) 
 to the accidental silence of Scripture." Our view 
 traverses that of Dr. Farrar at every point, but we 
 confine ourselves here to one remark only. His 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 37 
 
 assumption that the author of " Hebrews " was of the 
 Alexandrian School is totally void of any supjjort 
 from the Epistle. It is simply the creation of his 
 own imagination, or rather of the imagination of 
 those whose opinions he submissively accepts. It is 
 an inference drawn from a certain interpretation jput 
 upon the exposition of the sacred writer in Heb. vii. 
 In that chapter, as we hope to be able triumphantly 
 to show, there is not a jot or tittle of the kind of 
 reasoning usually ascribed to the Alexandrian 
 School. 
 
 The views which have been held on the subject 
 under discussion range themselves in two groups. 
 Some have held that Melchizedek was a mere man. 
 Dr. Farrar, whose words we have just quoted, is an 
 example of this class. Others have regarded him as 
 a supernatural being. Within both groups there is a 
 considerable variety of opinion. We do not, however, 
 intend to enter into any examination of the modifica- 
 tions of opinion within these two groups. We limit 
 ourselves to the general question whether Melchizedek 
 was a mere man or a supernatural being. This is 
 really the essence of the controversy. If our inquiry 
 leads us to the conclusion that he was, and, of course, 
 in that case is still, a supernatural being, as we 
 expect to be able conclusively to show, it will be an 
 easy task to determine who this supernatural being 
 must be. 
 
 As we have already hinted, it is now almost 
 universally held that Melchizedek was a mere man, 
 and a remarkable representative of pure religion in 
 the midst of a heathen and idolatrous race. So deeply 
 rooted is this opinion, that we were recently told by a 
 Professor of Theology in one of our Colleges, that no one 
 
38 Melchizedek : 
 
 now ever thinks of calling it in question. All modern 
 writers treat the question as completely settled. We 
 regret deeply this state of matters, for we believe this 
 view is quite inconsistent with the statements and 
 arguments of Scripture. It is deeply dishonouring to 
 the word of God. It presents the writer of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews more in the light of a dealer 
 in rabbinical whimsicalities than as an inspired 
 exponent of divine truth. It really involves the 
 consignment to discredit of a very precious portion of 
 the word of God. This casuistical exposition, if it be 
 such, interpolated in the middle of a noble Epistle, is 
 the fly which spoils the whole apothecary's ointment. 
 If it be really a reproduction of what was in the mind 
 of the writer when he wrote that part of the Epistle 
 which relates to this subject, then the whole pro- 
 duction must be rejected as that of an unprincipled 
 sophist. The so-called reasoning which it presents is 
 an open insult to our intelligence. And this is really, 
 for the present writer at least, a most serious matter. 
 If there were no other way of explaining what our 
 author says of Melchizedek than that which the 
 commonly received view presents, he sees no alternative 
 before him but to reject the Epistle as uncanonical. 
 He is fully persuaded, however, that this view totally 
 misapprehends the meaning of the sacred writer, and 
 puts a violent and perfectly unnatural construction 
 upon expressions which are in themselves luminously 
 plain and easily understood. After a very prolonged 
 and careful study of the subject, he is thoroughly 
 convinced that the natural and unsophisticated con- 
 struction of all that the Bible says on the subject is 
 quite sufficient to vindicate the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 from all suspicion of sophistry, and to demonstrate 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 39 
 
 that it contains nothing which is inconsistent with 
 truth and soberness. 
 
 To show the bewildering effects produced upon 
 some acute minds by the acceptance of the commonly 
 received view, we shall here make two quotations. 
 They are from the pens of two authors of very different 
 schools of thought. The first is from Matthew 
 Arnold's Literature and Dogma, 2nd ed. p. 269: " The 
 7th chapter of Hebrews, again, is one tissue of clever, 
 learned trifling, such as we might have from the Bishop 
 of Gloucester, all based on the false assumption that 
 ' Thou art a priest for ever after the order of 
 Melchizedek' was really said to Jesus, whereas it 
 was not." There is quite a sufficiency of dogmatism 
 here ; but let that pass. If we accept the view of 
 Melchizedek now generally entertained, with all the 
 violence to language which it implies, it is impossible 
 to deny that the 7 th chapter of Hebrews is " a tissue 
 of clever, learned trifling." No other words could so 
 accurately describe the state of the case. Our other 
 quotation is from " Papers on Hebrews," by the Eev. 
 Prof. A. B. Bruce, D.D., in the Eo:]positor for 1889, 
 p. 9 7 : " He (the author of Hebrews) gets at the ideal by 
 laying stress on the silences as well as the utterances of 
 the narrative in Genesis. Whatever we may think of 
 his method of reasoning, there can be no doubt of the 
 fact that he does so reason, and the fact must be 
 frankly recognised, if we are to get at his real thought. 
 He finds, for example, that no mention is made of the 
 parentage or genealogy of Melchizedek, and he regards 
 that as significant." All who know Dr. Bruce admire 
 the fearless courage with which he declares what he 
 believes to be the truth. He honestly thinks that the 
 commonly received \iew of the personality of Mel- 
 
40 Melchizedek : 
 
 chizedek (which he accepts) is that of the author of 
 Hebrews, and he declares accordingly. He believes 
 that the truth is able to take care of itself. On the 
 other hand, we are satisfied that he, and all those 
 whose view he represents, misunderstand the author 
 with whom they deal, and, of course, unintentionally 
 betray the truth. He errs in thinking that the 
 warrant for calling Melchizedek parentless is taken 
 from the passage in Genesis. The author finds 
 authority for this and all those other expressions 
 which have occasioned so much difficulty in connection 
 with his exposition from Ps. ex., as we shall show by 
 and by. Dr. Bruce evidently thinks that his author 
 argues in a very questionable manner. Can he, 
 cherishing such an opinion, now whole - heartedly 
 accept the Epistle as inspired and canonical ? But 
 what can a plain unlettered Christian think, after 
 reading such words as those of Dr. Bruce ? He will 
 surely say, if that is a correct representation of what 
 the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says, I must 
 now discard that Epistle altogether as no longer 
 entitled by me to be called the word of God. 
 
 It is evident that in a discussion of this kind 
 very much depends upon the method of procedure. 
 If our method be faulty, in all probability the result 
 will be unsatisfactory. Three courses are open for 
 our choice. (1) We may begin, as Dr. Farrar and 
 Dr. Bruce do, with what is recorded in, or rather not 
 recorded in. Genesis, and, putting our own construc- 
 tion on what we do not find there, make all that is 
 elsewhere said bend to that construction. The un- 
 wisdom of this method is demonstrated by the 
 results attained. Besides, it is manifestly unscientific, 
 and opposed to the principles of sound interpretation. 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 41 
 
 It is taking an obscure passage — one admittedly 
 invested with mystery — and using that to explain 
 passages which have no mystery in them whatever. 
 
 (2) We may begin with what we find in Hebrews, 
 note what is said about Melchizedek there, and then 
 draw our inferences. This is certainly a much more 
 scientific method than that to which we have just 
 referred. This method has been adopted by some 
 more or less formally, and with results more or less 
 satisfactory. It has, however, its disadvantages. It 
 is like attempting to unravel a tangled clew of thread 
 without concerning ourselves about finding the end. 
 
 (3) We may, in thought, place ourselves in the 
 position in which our author was placed when he 
 began to deal with this subject, and may patiently 
 follow him as he develops, out of Genesis, and 
 particularly out of Ps. ex., all that is found in the 
 7 th chapter of Hebrews. This course should com- 
 mend itself to our readers. It will put us on a 
 pedestal from which we shall be able to survey the 
 whole field, and will enable us to perceive the 
 weakness of the arguments advanced in support of 
 the commonly received view. It will place us side 
 by side with our author, and enable us to see how he 
 proceeds. 
 
 But before entering upon the pursuit of this 
 method, which we shall adopt, we must attempt to 
 clear away some of the obstructive matter which has 
 gathered around the subject in the course of ages. 
 (1) It has been very persistently affirmed that the 
 author of Hebrews asserts that every high priest is 
 taken from among men. From this the inference is 
 drawn, that Melchizedek must have been a mere man. 
 The affirmation is supposed to be warranted by the 
 
42 
 
 Melchizedek : 
 
 words of ch. v. : " For every high priest, taken from 
 among men, is ordained for men in things pertaining 
 to God," etc. The Eevised Version reads, " Being 
 taken from among men." The original word is Xa/^- 
 ffav6fjL6vo<;. It may be translated as is done by the 
 Eevisers, or as by the Authorised Version, or by the 
 words " who is taken from among men." This last is 
 undoubtedly the meaning. The author of Hebrews 
 does not affirm that in every case a high priest is 
 taken from among men. He simply asserts that, 
 when this is done, he " is ordained for men," etc. 
 Surely no one is so blind as to be incapable of seeing 
 that this is a very different thing from saying that 
 " every high priest is taken from among men." It is 
 not true, as matter of fact, that every high priest is 
 taken from among men. Aaron and his sons were so 
 taken, and set apart by divine warrant and authority 
 to their sacred office. Their function was to offer 
 gifts and sacrifices for the sins of the people. Christ, 
 when appointed to the priestly office, was not taken 
 from among men, but was the eternal Son of God. 
 He became man, but it is quite incorrect to say that 
 He was taken from among men. The affirmation 
 which we are combating is a very dangerous one. If 
 we accept it, we shall have to deny the divine and 
 eternal high priesthood of Christ. It is clear, there- 
 fore, that no argument to prove that Melchizedek 
 was a mere man can be founded upon this passage. 
 It comes upon us as a galvanic shock that any 
 interpreter, and especially any evangelical interpreter, 
 should for a moment dream of putting forward such 
 
 an argument. 
 
 And yet this is only an illustration of the strange 
 expedients which have been adopted to explain away 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 43 
 
 the natural meaning of the statements which the 
 author of Hebrews makes regarding the eternal priest- 
 hood. In the 4th verse of this same 5 th chapter 
 it is said, " 'No man taketh this order to himself but 
 he that is called of God, as was Aaron." We must 
 bear in mind that all that is said in this Epistle was 
 intended for Jews. And we must try and put 
 ourselves in their place if we are fully to understand 
 its teaching. The quotation just made applies only 
 within the bounds of the Mosaic economy. When 
 high priests have been appointed in connection with 
 other religions, they have not received the divine 
 sanction, and have not been " called of God," as 
 Aaron was. If they have not appointed themselves, 
 they have been appointed by other men. As Aaron 
 was appointed to the high-priestly office by God, so w^as 
 Christ — " So Christ also (ver. 5) glorified not Himself 
 to be made a high priest, but He that spake unto 
 Him, ' Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten 
 Thee.' As He saith also in another place, ' Thou art 
 a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.' " In 
 addition to all that we have here said, we may add 
 that the affirmation that every high priest is taken 
 from among men is not only theologically, but also 
 grammatically, impossible. Aafi^avofxevo^ is not the 
 principal verb in the sentence, and does not convey a 
 definite proposition. 
 
 (2) It is affirmed that the subject of Melchizedek is 
 invested with impenetrable and insuperable difficulty. 
 And the inference is drawn, that it is hopeless to look for 
 anything like a satisfactory elucidation of the matter. 
 This affirmation is supposed to be warranted by the 
 words in Heb. v. 11: " Of whom we have many 
 things to say, and hard of interpretation, seeing ye are 
 
44 Melchizedek : 
 
 dull of hearing. For when by reason of the time ye 
 ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some 
 one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of 
 the oracles of God," etc. Now, assuming, for the sake 
 of argument, that these words refer to Melchizedek, 
 for the reference is by no means indisputable, is it 
 not clear on the very surface of the passage that the 
 difficulty is, by our author, ascribed, not to the subject 
 itself, but to the mental condition of the Jewish 
 converts ? If this is not so, then words have no 
 meaning. The reason assigned for the difficulty is 
 nothing in the nature of the case, but dulness of 
 hearing, that is, spiritual obtuseness on the part of 
 the author's readers. Those, therefore, who bring 
 forward this passage as a proof of the mystery 
 connected with the subject of Melchizedek, unwittingly 
 confess that they deserve the unflattering character 
 here ascribed to those to whom Hebrews was addressed. 
 Because the subject, for the reason assigned, presented 
 a difficulty to certain Jews, it does not follow that 
 every one must experience the same difficulty. It is 
 evident that the writer himself felt no such difficulty. 
 We have no right, certainly, to complain, if men 
 speak disparagingly of their own powers of under- 
 standing, but we protest against their using such 
 liberties with us. The Christians of our day are far 
 in advance of those converted Jews to whom Hebrews 
 was addressed, and they are unfairly treated when 
 this difference is overlooked. If the Jews in our 
 author's day found a difficulty in understanding what 
 was said about Melchizedek, that is no warrant for 
 saying that all Christians in our day must do the 
 same. If the minds of the Christian Jews addressed 
 in this Epistle had been in a proper state, they would 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 45 
 
 have had no difficulty in following every word which 
 our author uses. Is it not evident that, by interpret- 
 ing the passage now before us, as indicating an 
 inveterate and impenetrable mystery in the subject of 
 Melchizedek, we are writing ourselves down as in the 
 same unhealthy spiritual state as those converted 
 Jews whom our author so soundly rates ? According 
 to the argument of the sacred writer, we should have 
 no difficulty in understanding his words, if our minds 
 are in anything like a spiritually vigorous condition. 
 
 But has our author not kept something back ? 
 Has he not dealt with his readers as our Lord did 
 with His disciples when He said : " I have many 
 things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them 
 now " ? And has not this reticence occasioned the 
 difficulty which the subject now possesses ? There is 
 no evidence whatever that anything has been kept 
 back. 
 
 It would be a strange procedure to blame people 
 for dulness of understanding, and at the same time 
 keep back what was necessary to make the matter 
 plain. If our author has kept back anything 
 necessary to the understanding of the subject, then he, 
 and not his readers, is to be blamed for any difficulty 
 that is felt. He has simply befooled them — and us. 
 He has excited our curiosity, and then, tantalisingly, 
 has failed to satisfy it. But we cannot believe this. 
 And, if the mystery does not arise from what is 
 omitted, where is the warrant for suspicions about 
 omissions ? What our author has given us he must 
 have considered sufficient for explanation. If he has 
 kept back all that it would be difficult for us to under- 
 stand, and that can be the only conceivable reason 
 for omissions (if he has made any), there should be no 
 
46 Melchizedek : 
 
 difficulty at all about what he has given us. But the 
 truth is, such obstructions to interpretation as we are 
 trying to remove — for they do not deserve the name 
 of arguments — are far more difficult to deal with 
 than sound reasonings. There is sufficient haziness 
 about them to make them perplex and confuse the 
 reader. We cannot believe that our author has left 
 out anything from his exposition that was essential to 
 its completeness. Every point is fully, carefully, and 
 clearly argued. If readers do not understand our 
 author, the fault is certainly not his. 
 
 We have been arguing as if the reference in the 
 passage under consideration were to Melchizedek, and 
 not to Christ. We must now consider whether we 
 have been right in so arguing. Does not the relative, 
 of wliom (ov), refer to Christ, and not to Melchizedek ? 
 This is primarily a question of grammar, but it has also 
 a most important bearing upon the matter of exposi- 
 tion. The difficulty, both as to the grammar and 
 the meaning, arises from the fact that the name 
 of Melchizedek had to be mentioned at the end of the 
 10th verse. But the whole discussion in the pre- 
 ceding part of the chapter is about Christ. The 
 immediate object of the sacred writer is to establish 
 the truth that Christ was made a high priest by 
 divine appointment. Eeference is made to Ps. ex. to 
 confirm this pomt. And as in that reference the 
 word Melchizedek occurs immediately before the re- 
 lative, of ivhom, it is argued that this must be the 
 antecedent. This is to misapply the grammatical rule, 
 that the relative refers to its nearest antecedent. 
 Circumstances may obscure the application of this rule, 
 and such circumstances occur here. Commentators 
 have allowed their minds to become confused by the 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 47 
 
 writer's reference to what is contained in Ps. ex. 
 They have overlooked the fact that the application of 
 the grammatical rule is obscured by the mention of 
 Melchizedek's name, and have allowed themselves to 
 be persuaded into the belief that our author, at this 
 point in his Epistle, leaves the subject which he has 
 been discussing, and tui^ns aside to that of Melchizedek. 
 They confound the real with the seeming antecedent. 
 If the 10 th verse, which contains the reference to Ps. 
 ex., be included in brackets, for the sake of argument, 
 the construction will become perfectly clear. Then 
 we read, taking with us the 8 th and 9 th along with 
 the 10th verse for the sake of connexion, "Though 
 He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things 
 which He suffered ; and having been made perfect, 
 became to all them that obey Him the author of 
 eternal salvation (named of God a high priest after 
 the order of Melchizedek), of lohom we have many 
 things to say, and hard of interpretation, seeing ye 
 are dull of hearing." Thus read, the antecedent to 
 of whom (ov) is ' the author of eternal salvation." 
 Unless, indeed, we conclude that our author here, on 
 purpose, mixes up Melchizedek and Christ in the 
 relative of whom (ov). The former idea is preferable. 
 Either one or other view, however, is in harmony 
 with what follows : " For when, by reason of the time, 
 ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again," etc. 
 To interpret the words in question otherwise than of 
 Christ, or, at all events, so as to exclude Christ, is to 
 overlook the drift of the writer's reasoning, and to 
 assume that, at this point, he goes off at a tangent. 
 It is easy to imderstand why the converted Jews 
 should be blamed for their spiritual backwardness in 
 matters connected with Christ, but it is difficult to 
 
48 Melchizedek : 
 
 understand why they should be censured for their 
 inability to comprehend statements about Melchizedek, 
 and, especially so, if he was a mere man. What, in 
 that case, could Melchizedek have to do with their 
 spiritual advancement ? The author of the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews was angry with them because they were 
 backward in understanding about Christ. 
 
 There is in the 7 th verse of this same chapter 
 a construction exactly like that which we have been 
 trying to make plain. Here also the application of 
 the grammatical rule is obscured by the quotation of 
 the oracle in Ps. ex. : " Who in the days of His flesh, 
 having offered up prayers and supplications with 
 strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to 
 save Him," etc. Here the nearest antecedent to who, 
 if the passage is carelessly read, seems to be Mel- 
 chizedek at the end of the 6 th verse, which contains 
 the quotation from Ps. ex. All interpreters now 
 admit that, notwithstanding the closest proximity of 
 the relative to Melchizedek, the real antecedent is not 
 Melchizedek, but Christ. This is an exact grammatical 
 parallel to the case we have dwelt upon so long. In 
 both cases the application of the grammatical rule is 
 obscured precisely in the same way. This should be 
 strongly corroborative of the view we have taken of ver. 
 11. But the matter is so clear that we hardly think 
 any of our readers will seriously dispute our position. 
 
 We admit that the subject of Melchizedek is sur- 
 rounded with some difficulty. The matter is not so 
 simple that it can be taken in at a glance. After the 
 keen controversy which it has excited, it would be 
 absurd to assert the contrary. But, as we have 
 abeady pointed out, the difficulty arises more from 
 human infirmity or perversity than from the state- 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 49 
 
 ments of the sacred writer. The subject is not in- 
 superably difficult, as we hope to be able to show, if 
 we allow our minds patiently to follow the course of 
 thought pursued by our author. His whole exposi- 
 tion of the matter in question arises beautifully and 
 naturally out of the materials with which he has to 
 work. He has his text, or rather his two texts, and 
 he keeps closely by them. No preacher in the 
 present day could expound his texts more faithfully, 
 or more logically. His exposition is a masterpiece of 
 compact reasoning. 
 
 Before passing from introductory niatter, there is 
 one other point to which we must call attention. 
 One of the main objects of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 is to establish, in a way to satisfy the Jewish converts 
 of the time, the eternal priesthood of Christ. In no 
 other part of the word of God does this important 
 subject receive formal discussion. And in no other 
 part of the New Testament is the word ]oriest applied 
 to our Lord. His atonement and work are referred 
 to elsewhere, but it is only here that He receives His 
 official title of priest This indicates the vital import- 
 ance of what is here advanced. The preciousness of 
 this part of Scripture becomes further apparent when 
 we consider that all our hopes of eternal life hang 
 upon the doctrine of Christ's priesthood. And it was 
 surely to be expected that the Spirit of God would 
 take care to see that this doctrine was established 
 upon a firm and immovable foundation. It would 
 appear that the Jewish converts of the time had very 
 loose and imperfect notions on the subject. They did 
 not clearly understand that the sacrifices and priests 
 under the Law pointed to the one sacrifice of Chiist 
 and His priestly functions. They had been brought 
 4 
 
50 Melchizedek : 
 
 up under the Mosaic economy, which had been ap- 
 pointed by God, and wliich they beheved to be perfect 
 and unalterable — a system never to pass away or be 
 disannulled. It is easy to understand how, in these 
 circumstances, they found it difficult altogether to 
 abandon views which they and their fathers had 
 cherished for long generations, and how, after they 
 became Christians, they should hanker after their 
 earlier sentiments. It was to be expected that they 
 would require careful and convincing arguments to 
 overcome the effects of their early training and habits. 
 Human reasonings, apart from the plain declarations 
 of the word of God, or some direct communication 
 from heaven such as was received when the Law was 
 inaugurated, could not be accepted as possessed of 
 any weight. What divine authority had sanctioned, 
 divine authority alone could set aside. Apart from 
 the miracles which were wrought in attestation of 
 Christian truth, no extraordinary intimation of the 
 mind of heaven was necessary, provided explicit state- 
 ments could be found in their own Scriptures bearing 
 on the subject. It would not be enough for any one 
 to claim that he was inspired of God to make known 
 to them a change in the divine methods. At least, 
 this would not be so satisfactory as the production of 
 explicit evidence from their own Scriptures on the point. 
 And that evidence must be put before them in a well- 
 reasoned form. Our author being a Jew himself, and 
 well aware of the feelings of his kinsmen regarding 
 the Law and the Levitical priesthood, and being an 
 intelligent follower of Christ and fully satisfied in 
 his own mind regarding all the doctrines of the 
 Christian faith, he was also well aware of the steps 
 which he required to take in order to establish young 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 51 
 
 Jewish converts in this cardinal doctrine of Chris- 
 tianity. To any one who has felt the difficulty of 
 shaking off early religious opinions and of contending 
 against commonly received beHefs, the discussion of 
 this subject of Christ's eternal priesthood must be 
 possessed of intense interest. 
 
 In this doctrine, then, our author seeks to establish 
 the minds of his readers. These were haunted with 
 the fear that they were doing wrong in ignoring the 
 priests under the Law. In seeking to remove this 
 haunting fear from their minds, our author adopts 
 a course similar to that which Paul adopts in the 
 Epistle to the Galatians when seeking to establish 
 the doctrine of justification hy faith. He finds a 
 priesthood spoken of in Genesis long prior to the insti- 
 tution of the Levitical priesthood, and, in the Book of 
 Psalms, written long after the institution of the 
 Levitical priesthood, an oracle constituting Christ a 
 priest according to the order mentioned in Genesis. The 
 whole Mosaic system, including the Levitical priest- 
 hood, was a mere temporary arrangement devised by 
 God for the training of His people. When they 
 came out of Egypt, they were quite unfit to appreciate 
 the divine method of salvation, and it was found to be 
 necessary to embed the truth in a setting of rites and 
 ceremonies, out of deference to their spiritual and 
 intellectual weakness. In the course of time this 
 system of rites and ceremonies became an intolerable 
 burden, as the nation became more and more en- 
 lightened and passed out of its childhood state. The 
 oracle in Ps. ex., given long after the institution of the 
 Levitical priesthood, must be regarded as setting that 
 priesthood aside, and as re-establishing that mentioned 
 in the Book of Genesis. And this is what our author 
 
52 Melchizedek : 
 
 seeks to prove in Heb. vii. He carefully elaborates 
 the comparison which is made in that Psalm between 
 Melchizedek and Christ. 
 
 PART SECOND 
 
 We can hardly appreciate the argument in Heb. vii. 
 without first trying to realise for ourselves the position 
 in which its author was placed when he commenced 
 the discussion there presented, and without keeping 
 distinctly before our minds the materials with which 
 he had to work. There was, first of all, the narrative 
 in Gen. xiv. It will hardly be questioned that, if we 
 had had no other information than is found there, we 
 would have unhesitatingly concluded that Melchizedek 
 was simply an extremely pious, God-fearing man who 
 lived in the midst of an ungodly race, and held forth 
 the banner of truth in the worship of the one living 
 and true God. But our method of viewing that 
 narrative has been materially affected by what we 
 find recorded in other parts of Scripture. Our eyes 
 have been thereby opened to perceive that there is 
 an air of mystery about it which a cursory reading 
 of it does not at first disclose. Melchizedek appears 
 on the scene suddenly, and then disappears as sud- 
 denly. We are told that he was a priest of the 
 Most High God, or rather, the ^ priest of the Most 
 High God. He blesses Abraham, and that patriarch 
 pays tithes to him. The mystery about this personage 
 deepens when we realise that not one word is given 
 
 ^ The article used in Heb. vii. 1 before MeXxtcre5e/c applies not only 
 to that Avord, but also to ^a<n\evs and iepevs. 
 
His Priesthood and Personality ^^ 
 
 us indicating further intercourse between him and the 
 patriarch. If he were an earthly monarch and a 
 mere human priest, such as the narrative seems primd 
 facie to indicate, how is it that we do not read that 
 Abraham took up his abode within his dominions ? 
 And how does it come about that the kings who 
 attacked Lot did not make an inroad on his kingdom ? 
 Such a peaceful sovereign must have presented strong 
 temptations to plunder for a company of heathen 
 marauders. But, confining our thoughts to the Jews, 
 the respect and deference which Abraham showed to 
 Melchizedek must have induced the Jews to look 
 upon him with no small measure of reverence and 
 awe. They must have said to themselves. He could 
 be no ordinary man who thus assumed superiority 
 over the friend of God, and from whom the great 
 head of the Hebrew race accepted a blessing. 
 
 This mystery continued for many generations un- 
 relieved by any ray of light from heaven. During 
 that period, no doubt, the imagination of God's ancient 
 people often tui'ned towards the personality of Mel- 
 chizedek in the endeavour to fathom its mystery. 
 Some would form one conjecture regarding him, some 
 another. Then came the oracle in Ps. ex. But the 
 author of that psalm does not entirely remove the 
 mystery left around the subject by the narrative in 
 Genesis. He, however, gives us a little more light 
 in a particular direction. He brings more vividly 
 before our minds Melchizedek's priestly office. He 
 does not tell us definitely who Melchizedek was, but 
 he presses upon our notice the fact that his priesthood 
 is eternal. " Thou art a priest for ever after the 
 order of Melchizedek." This is a distinct addition 
 made to our knowledge. It enables us to think of 
 
54 
 
 Melchizedek : 
 
 him more definitely than we could have done had 
 not the information in Genesis been supplemented in 
 this way. It is true that it is not the immediate 
 object of the sacred writer in this oracle to satisfy 
 our curiosity about Melchizedek. We get this addi- 
 tional information regarding him in an indirect way. 
 The immediate purpose of the Spirit is to disclose 
 and declare the eternal priesthood of Christ, but this 
 is done in such a way as to make it plain that what 
 is true of the priesthood of Christ is also true of that 
 of Melchizedek. If Melchizedek is not a priest for 
 ever, neither is Christ. The order of Melchizedek's 
 priesthood is distinct from, and superior to, that of 
 Aaron ; the one is eternal, the other is merely tem- 
 poral. The duration which is ascribed to the priest- 
 hood of Christ is by the terms of the oracle ascribed 
 also to that of Melchizedek. Both belong to the 
 same order, and any peculiarity which belongs to the 
 one belongs also to the other. Special attention is 
 now in Ps. ex., for the first time, called to this order, 
 but it has existed from all eternity. 
 
 The perfect correspondence between the priesthood 
 of Melchizedek and that of Christ, as declared in this 
 psalm, has been very generally overlooked by com- 
 mentators. The oracle has been read as if the 
 priesthood of Melchizedek were inferior to that of 
 Christ, as the type is inferior to the Archetype. For 
 this idea there is not a shadow of a shade of warrant. 
 Not a single word is used to convey the idea that 
 Melchizedek was inferior to Christ. The two stand 
 on a footing of perfect equality. We are not now 
 concerning ourselves about any consequences to which 
 the recognition of this fact may lead. We are follow- 
 ing the strictly scientific method of first getting at 
 
His Priesthood and Personality ^^ 
 
 the facts before making any attempt at drawing con- 
 clusions. We cannot allow the progress of our 
 inquiry to be interrupted by any objections that may 
 arise as to how there can be said to be, or seem to 
 be said to be, two eternal priests. We must take 
 words in their plain and natural meaning. We are 
 not warranted in setting aside a plain and natural 
 sense till we find that by following it we involve 
 ourselves in absurdity. We are quite aware of the 
 objection which presents itself to some minds at this 
 point, but we shall cross the bridge when it is neces- 
 sary, not before. Meanwhile, we pursue the even 
 tenor of our way. One thing at a time is a very 
 good rule in most cases. 
 
 We do not here enter upon any inquiry as to the 
 date of Ps. ex. The object we have in view does not 
 require us to do so. Suffice it to remember that it 
 was in existence when the author of the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews undertook his task. It had probably 
 been in existence for many generations, and its con- 
 tents pretty well known by the Jewish people. Its 
 statements being well known, through being often 
 sung, would help to prepare the people's minds for 
 the use which our author makes of one of its verses. 
 The authorship of this psalm is, by our Lord, ascribed 
 to David, when He says to the Pharisees (Matt. xxii. 
 41—45), "While the Pharisees were gathered together, 
 Jesus asked them a question, saying, What think ye of 
 Christ ? whose son is He ? They say unto Him, The son 
 of David. He saith unto them. How then doth David 
 in spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto 
 My Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, till I make 
 Thine enemies Thy footstool? If David then call 
 Him Lord, how is He his son ? " An important help 
 
5 6 Melchizedek : 
 
 in connection with our present discussion is furnished 
 by this passage which we have quoted from the Gospel 
 narrative. It satisfies us that Ps. ex. is Messianic, 
 and that, Matthew Arnold notwithstanding, the words 
 in ver. 4 were really said to Christ. These words, 
 as we have already seen, declare that Melchizedek 
 is a priest for ever, and that Christ is a priest of 
 the same order. This point cannot be too strongly 
 emphasised. If the oracle had merely said that 
 Christ was a priest for ever, this would not have so 
 fully met the necessities of the case. It would not 
 have shown the inferiority of Abraham to Melchizedek, 
 and the inferiority of the Aaronic priesthood to that 
 of Melchizedek, and, consequently, to that of Christ. 
 The object was to prepare for the setting aside of the 
 Aaronic priesthood as well as to establish the eternal 
 priesthood of Christ. The peculiar mental attitude 
 of the Jews seems to have rendered it necessary to 
 put the oracle in this way. 
 
 All the materials, then, with which our author had 
 to work were taken from these two sources — the 
 narrative in Genesis and Ps. ex. He introduces into 
 his discussion in Heb. vii. not one thought which is 
 not perfectly warranted by his authorities. His whole 
 argument there clearly and logically arises out of the 
 narrative in Genesis, along with the words of the 
 oracle in Ps. ex., especially the latter. And he founds 
 no argument on silence. He finds clear and positive 
 evidence in his authorities for everything he says. This 
 may sound strange to some ears, but it is a fact not- 
 withstanding. And it is to us a most surprising 
 circumstance that this peculiarity has been so im- 
 perfectly realised throughout this controversy. It 
 has been either entirely overlooked, or only in part 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 57 
 
 apprehended. The usual way of looking at the matter 
 is to credit the author of Hebrews with originating, by 
 a fertile imagination, certain ideas out of the narrative 
 in Genesis. These ideas are negative, as they are sup- 
 posed to originate in that narrative, but by a kind of 
 intellectual legerdemain they become 'joositive, and are 
 dealt with in the same way as documentary e^ddence. 
 How this transformation is accompHshed we, at least, 
 are utterly unable to conceive. Suppose coimsel in a 
 court of law were to endeavour to manipulate his evi- 
 dence, or rather want of evidence, in this way, who can 
 doubt that the judge would make short work with him ? 
 We may safely say, no counsel would be so foolish as 
 to make the attempt. And how writers can reconcile 
 themselves to the thought that men, under the 
 guidance of the Spirit, could reason in this way, 
 baffles our comprehension. If the argument for the 
 eternal priesthood of Christ were by our author built 
 up in this way, it would rest on a foundation of sand. 
 If a Jew were to understand that the oracle in 
 Ps. ex. meant that the priesthood of Melchizedek 
 was sui generis, having no predecessor and no successor, 
 and that, therefore, Christ's priesthood is for ever, we 
 could hardly expect him to look upon such an argu- 
 ment with much respect. And, instead of such an 
 argument tending to confirm him in the Christian 
 faith, it would have a precisely opposite effect. It 
 could appear to him in no other light than as a piece 
 of barefaced sophistry. 
 
 The connexion between Heb. vi. and \di. is very 
 close. This connexion is indicated by the use of the 
 conjunction /or {"yap). And as our author reproduces 
 in a particular order the w^ords of the oracle in 
 Ps. ex. which he quotes at the close of ch. vi., it 
 
58 Melchizedek : 
 
 will conduce to clearness if, before going farther, we 
 give a translation of the last paragraph of that 
 chapter, together with two or three words at the 
 beginning of ch. vii. : " For men assuredly swear 
 by the greater, and with them an oath for confirma- 
 tion puts an end to all dispute. In view of this, 
 God, wishing to show more abundantly to the heirs 
 of the promise the immutability of His purpose, con- 
 firmed it with an oath, so that by two immutable 
 things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we 
 might have a powerful encoiu-agement — we who have 
 fled for refuge — to lay hold of the hope set before 
 us, which we have as an anchor of the soul, a sure 
 and steadfast one, and which has entered into that 
 within the veil, whither as a forerunner for our sakes 
 has entered Jesus, who, according to the order of 
 Melchizedek, has become a high priest for ever (et? tov 
 aloiva). For this Melchizedek," etc. 
 
 Our object in so carefully translating this paragraph 
 is twofold. (1) We wish to show the close connexion 
 between chs. vi. and vii. (2) We wish to call attention 
 to ^the particular manner in which our author quotes 
 the oracle in Ps. ex. The order of the words as they 
 stand in Ps. ex. is, " Thou art a priest for ever after 
 (or according to) the order of Melchizedek." Here 
 the order is, " Who according to the order of Mel- 
 chizedek has become a high priest for ever." The 
 words are evidently arranged in this order for the 
 purpose of leaving it without dispute that the phrase, 
 "According to the order of Melchizedek," means 
 the same thing as the other phrase, " A priest (or a 
 high priest) for ever." This careful collocation of 
 words, which our author has adopted, is not indicated 
 in either the Authorised or the Eevised Version. In 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 59 
 
 the psalm, the clause, "According to the order of 
 Melchizedek," stands last. Our author in the instance 
 now under consideration puts it first, though in all 
 other cases he follows the arrangement of the psalm. 
 Now, what can his object be in making the quotation 
 in this way on this occasion ? For, that he has an 
 object, no intelligent student of Scripture can doubt. 
 The words, as they stand in the psalm, possess a 
 certain measure of obscurity. They make it plain 
 that Christ is a priest for ever, but they do not make 
 it so plain that Melchizedek is a priest for ever. By 
 the manner in which our author arranges the words, 
 as quoted at the close of ch. vi., this obscurity is 
 entirely removed. They now bring out the idea that 
 Christ is a priest for ever, because He belongs to the 
 order of Melchizedek. That is, in this instance the 
 fact is made prominent that Melchizedek is a priest 
 for ever. The priesthood of Melchizedek and the 
 priesthood of Christ are both qualified by the words 
 for ever. All this is perhaps plain enough ; but, be- 
 cause of the importance of the subject, let us try and 
 illustrate the point further by a supposed example. 
 Eleazar was, according to the order of Aaron, a mortal 
 priest. If we met with a statement of this kind, 
 what conclusion would we be entitled to draw from 
 it ? Most assuredly, that the one was a mortal priest 
 as much as the other, no less, and no more so. The 
 inference is irresistible. No sane man would dream 
 of calling it in question. It is true, we know that 
 Aaron was mortal, but we would have been entitled 
 to draw the same conclusion if we had known nothing 
 about him beyond what is stated in the illustration 
 used. Our author, in arranging his words in the 
 order to which we have called attention, lays an 
 
6o Melchizedek : 
 
 immovable foundation for everything in ch. vii., 
 which distinguishes Melchizedek from mere men, and 
 which has caused so much perplexity to commentators. 
 If the expression for ever is, in the case of Christ, a 
 true and proper attribute of eternity, it is so also in 
 that of Melchizedek. The way in which our author 
 quotes the words of the oracle in Ps. ex. renders it 
 necessary that we should so understand it. He for- 
 bids us, as it were, to limit its meaning when applied 
 to Melchizedek, while at the same time taking it in 
 its full sense when applied to Christ. We would only 
 observe, before lea\dng this point, that our author 
 uses the term high spriest, instead of simply priest, 
 because he has been speaking of Christ passing within 
 the veil in allusion to the high priest going into the 
 holy of holies on the great day of atonement. 
 
 Our author having thus removed all ambiguity 
 from the oracle in Ps. ex. by his manner of 
 quoting it, now gathers up into one long sentence 
 (ch. vii. 1-3) all that he finds in his two texts, at 
 least all that is necessary to his purpose. " For this 
 Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High 
 God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter 
 of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham 
 di^dded a tenth part of all — being first, by interpre- 
 tation, King of Eighteousness, and then also King of 
 Salem, which is King of Peace — a person without 
 father, without mother, without genealogy, having 
 {since he has) neither beginning of days nor end of 
 life, but resembling {since he resemUes) the Son of God, 
 abideth a priest continually." Here the statement, 
 This Melchizedek abideth a priest continually — eU to 
 hrjveich, first claims our attention. This is the 
 truth which our author wishes now to bring into 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 6i 
 
 prominence. And it was for this purpose that he 
 quoted the words of the oracle in Ps. xc. in 
 the order in which we find them at the close of 
 ch. vi. The words now before us are an assertion 
 founded on Ps. ex., that the priesthood of Melch- 
 izedek is, like that of Chiist, eternal. The expression 
 et? TO Bcr)V6Ke<; is synonymous with the phrase et? rov 
 altava. They both mean for ever. If anyone is 
 inclined to tliink that the priesthood of Melchizedek 
 is inferior to that of Christ, he should now be fidly 
 disabused of his false impression. Xot only the fact 
 that the words under consideration are, on the face 
 of them, an inference gi'oimded on the words of the 
 psalm, and formally introduced by the word/o?' — <ydp 
 — but also the expression employed, should be sufficient 
 completely to banish from any one's mind all idea of 
 Melchizedek's inferiority to Christ. 
 
 The phrase eU rb 8i7)veK6<; is evidently used instead 
 of eh TOP alSiva simply for the sake of elegant variety. 
 Its j)recise meaning must be determined by the context 
 in which it occurs. It is used other three times in this 
 Epistle: ch. x. 1, "For the law, having a shadow of 
 good things to come, not the very image of the things, 
 they can never with the same sacrifices, year by year, 
 which they ofifer continually, — et? to Bir)veK6<;," etc. 
 In the same chapter, ver. 12, "But He, when He had 
 offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, — et? to BLrjueKe^; 
 — sat down," etc. In ver. 14 of the same chapter we 
 read, " For, by one offering He hath perfected for ever 
 — ek TO Bc7]v6Ke<i — them that are sanctified." After 
 these examples, it will be difficult to maintain that 
 the words eh to BirjveKe^; are used by our author in 
 any sense that means less than fo7' ever. We would 
 merely remark further here : Qui' author's word is 
 
62 Melchizedek : 
 
 ahideth, not abode. Melchizedek is a priest now, and 
 will continue a priest /or eve7\ Nothing is said about 
 Melchizedek bringing forth bread and wine, for the 
 obvious reason that this was in no way necessary to 
 his argument. It is to be observed, also, that every 
 particular mentioned here is used in the subsequent 
 part of the chapter to establish our author's position. 
 This is a fact which deserves to be noticed with 
 particular emphasis. The full force of this fact has 
 not hitherto been felt, because the peculiar construc- 
 tion of the sentence has not been apprehended. If 
 that construction be carefully followed, as we have 
 endeavoured to indicate it in our translation, every 
 thing at once becomes luminous and plain. 
 
 The key to the meaning of every thing in the sen- 
 tence lies in the participles having (e^cwz^) and resenibling 
 {a(l)Q)/jLOLa)/j,evo<;). Any one who carefully reads over 
 the sentence will, on coming to the word having, 
 feel that there is a peculiar tiu^n given to the con- 
 struction at this point, and which arrests the mind. 
 So much force is there in this remark that many, 
 whose minds are imbued with the ordinary view, 
 cannot read the sentence correctly, but must treat it 
 as if it ran thus : " Without beginning of days or end 
 of life." Even some of those who otherwise take 
 what we regard as the correct view of the personality 
 of Melchizedek fall into the same manner. It may 
 be said, indeed, that it is no uncommon thing to find 
 people misquoting passages of Scripture. It is to be 
 observed, however, that there is something special in 
 this case. The misquotation is always made in the 
 same way. This surely points to a common mis- 
 apprehension of our author's meaning. And had our 
 author intended to convey the sense which the 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 6 2 
 
 ordinary ^dew presents, he would naturally have 
 employed the pln^aseology of his niisquoters. 
 
 It is not enough to say that the word having intro- 
 duces an agreeable variety into the construction. If 
 that is all oui' author's object in thus varying his phrase- 
 ology, the variety is not only not agreeable, but is the 
 very reverse. The pleasant flow of thought is rudely 
 interrupted. The effect is like that produced upon a 
 horse when it is suddenly reined in. 
 
 We have very much pleasiu'e in referring, in this 
 connection, to the words of Bishop Westcott. He denies 
 that it is possible to regard the remarkable variation of 
 our author's language, which occurs at this point, as due 
 to mere rhetorical ornament.^ When we came across 
 this declaration, we confess that our heart began to 
 beat somewhat quickly, We imagined, for the 
 moment, that this acute and accomplished scholar 
 had stumbled upon a discovery which we had hitherto 
 thought was all oui' own. This discovery we made 
 while a student well-nigh forty years ago. As we con- 
 tinue, however, to read what Dr. Westcott has to say, 
 we soon learned that we had not been forestalled. His 
 statement, which caused us so much temporary ex- 
 citement, came to notliing. He has failed to perceive 
 the reason for the change of construction. On the 
 very point of making what we claim to be a most 
 important discovery on this absorbing subject, this 
 learned and acute bishop failed to see the whole length 
 
 As we have abeady said, on the supposition that 
 Melchizedek was a mere man, this construction arrests 
 the easy and natural flow of thought and language, 
 and altogether looks like an uncouth stumbling-block 
 
 ^ The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text, with Notes and 
 Essays, 1889, p. 173. 
 
64 Melchizedek : 
 
 in the reader's way. Admitting, for argument's sake, 
 the correctness of the common or typical \dew of the per- 
 sonality of Melchizedek, with how much more pleasure 
 would we have read: " Without father, without mother, 
 without genealogy, without beginning of days or end 
 of life " ! There must be some other explanation of 
 this change in our author's phraseology than that which 
 refers it to variety of style. Perhaps some of our 
 readers have already been inclined to call in question 
 our quotation of our author's words, and to say to 
 themselves. Does not the author of Hebrews actually 
 write without beginning of days or end of life ? 
 
 We venture to say that no satisfactory explanation 
 of this admittedly striking construction is to be found, 
 unless we regard having and resembling as causal 
 participles, assigning the reason why Melchizedek is 
 described as " without father, without mother, without 
 genealogy." We have an example of a similar con- 
 struction in the well-known passage 1 Tim. iv. 8, 
 " Godliness is profitable for all things, ha\dng (since 
 it has) promise of the life that now is, and of that 
 which is to come." But we hardly required to quote 
 an example of such a construction. Every grammarian 
 knows that examples of such a construction are abun- 
 dant. Our only sui'prise is that scholars have not 
 long ago discovered that the two participles referred 
 to are causal. To our mind the thing is self-evident. 
 
 The importance of this interpretation of the two 
 participles in Heb. vii. 3 will, we trust, be clearly 
 seen by our readers. We have, however, had some 
 difficulty in convincing some of our friends on the 
 point, and in getting them to admit that, even if they 
 are interpreted as we say they should be, this con- 
 tributes anything to the elucidation of the subject. 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 6^ 
 
 We wish to point out with all the emphasis at our 
 command that, when we so take these participles, we 
 are at once directed to our author's authority for all 
 those statements which he makes concerning Mel- 
 chizedek, and which interpreters have found to be 
 so difficult to account for. We then perceive that he 
 does not evolve those statements out of the silence of 
 Scripture. We discover warrant in Ps. ex. for all his 
 expressions which are deemed peculiar. It is here 
 that we find the positive evidence appealed to in the 
 words, " Of whom it is witnessed that he liveth." 
 We discover that this is, in fact, documentary evidence 
 such as would be admitted to be irrefragable in a 
 court of law. It is just such evidence as Jews were 
 bound to admit to be satisfactory. 
 
 Moreover, this interpretation of the participles in 
 question gives a force and compactness to our author's 
 words which they cannot in any other way be shown 
 to possess. We are sanguine, therefore, that this 
 part, at least, of our contribution to the literature 
 of Melchizedek will meet with the approval, not only 
 of the general reader, but also of scholars. Observe 
 the clearness and consistency of all our author's state- 
 ments about Melchizedek when we read the participles 
 in question as causal. Melchizedek resembles Christ 
 in being without father, without mother, without 
 genealogy, because both are without beginning of 
 days or end of life. They are coeternal. We have 
 nothing to do with objections in the meantime. All 
 that we have to do at this point is to note facts. 
 The removal of objections will come in due time. 
 The Alpha privative in the words airdrayp, dfMTjrcop, 
 dyevea\6yr]To<; indicates what is absolutely true. We 
 must not let our minds here be confused with the 
 5 
 
6G Melchizedek : 
 
 ideas of God being the Father of Christ as respects 
 His divine nature, and Mary His mother as respects 
 His human nature. If we do so for a moment, we 
 are at once confronted with the fact that, as regards 
 His human nature, our Lord had a genealogy. Christ 
 is without father, without mother, without genealogy, 
 as the eternal, coeternal Son of the Father. We must 
 not allow our minds to think of Christ as the Son of 
 the Father in the same sense as a mortal man is his 
 father's son. Christ is not the Son of the Father in 
 that sense. Melchizedek, whoever he was (for we 
 are not now discussing his personality), was in all the 
 respects we have mentioned perfectly like Christ. 
 We are not to think of Christ as having become a 
 priest at His incarnation, or even from the time when 
 the oracle in Ps. ex. was pronounced, for that was 
 merely the declaration of a fact already existing. 
 Christ was a priest from all eternity. Equally so 
 Melchizedek is declared to be such a priest. We 
 cannot evade this conclusion without twisting words 
 out of their natural meaning. This is the one point 
 of resemblance upon which our author dwells, for it 
 is the only one on which he is warranted by Ps. ex. 
 to dwell. He exhibits this point in various lights. 
 It is because interpreters have not clearly appre- 
 hended this fact that they have fallen into so much 
 confusion. When our author's exposition is fully 
 understood, it turns out to be a beautiful, logical 
 discourse, founded on his two texts, particularly the 
 oracle in Ps. ex. If Melchizedek was really a mere 
 man, as the typical view represents him to have been, 
 we cannot acquit our author of dishonesty in saying 
 that he was without father, without mother, and with- 
 out genealogy, for, as man, he must have had all three. 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 67 
 
 If he had no posterity, he must, at least, have had 
 ancestors. It is not honest to argue that he had no 
 father, etc., because these are not recorded in Scripture, 
 or in genealogical tables. 
 
 The writer of these pages claims the credit of 
 ha\dng discovered the true character of the participles 
 in Heb. vii. 3, which totally changes the whole com- 
 plexion of the Melchizedek controversy. He hopes 
 his sense of the importance of his discovery will be 
 accepted as his excuse for making this claim. He had 
 never in the whole com^se of his reading met with the 
 faintest hint that the participles should be so taken, 
 when the idea occurred to him. Some may be 
 inclined to call in question the validity of this claim 
 when they read the following sentence in the pub- 
 lished Lectures of the late William Lindsay, D.D., 
 Professor in the United Presbyterian Divinity Hall, 
 vol. i. p. 323: ''Having is certainly causal, but not 
 in respect of the other members, all being on a level, 
 and all causal of abideth!' He means by memhers, 
 undoubtedly, members of the long sentence beginning 
 with ver. 1 and ending with ver. 3. We shall 
 explain immediately how this sentence comes to be 
 printed in the Lectures at all, but meanwhile we have 
 to remark — (1) Dr. Lindsay's words, though they at 
 first sight appear to be a statement of our view, really 
 mean something very different. He admits, it is true, 
 the causal nature of having, but he immediately 
 explains away that admission. It is, he says, no 
 more causal than any other clause in the sentence. 
 We really find it exceedingly difi&cult to make sense 
 out of the Professor's words. But they seem to 
 amount to this, that every clause in a sentence is 
 causal of the main proposition. This may be true, 
 
68 Melchizedek : 
 
 but it is not the idea which grammarians attach to 
 the phraseology when they speak of a causal participle. 
 But (2) instead of Dr. Lindsay having forestalled us 
 in the discovery that the participles in question are 
 causal (he mentions only the one — having, — but the 
 use of the particle he indicates that the other — reseml- 
 ling — must be put in the same category), we can prove 
 that the word was suggested to him by ourselves. We 
 are sorry that he got hold of the word without being 
 able to grasp what the word implies. As one of his 
 students, it was our good fortune to listen to most of 
 his lectures on Hebrews. As he approached the 
 subject of Melchizedek, and seemed inclined to accept 
 the erroneous typical view, as we even then regarded 
 it, we ventured, privately, to ask him whether taking 
 having and, consequently, resembling as causal par- 
 ticiples did not put a new complexion on the words 
 of the author of Hebrews, and throw a desirable light 
 on the whole controversy about Melchizedek. The 
 Professor replied to our view in the class-room, but 
 without mentioning our name, in the spirit of the 
 sentence which we have quoted, and with considerable 
 elaboration of argument. We felt the reply to be 
 exceedingly unsatisfactory, in fact we failed to follow 
 him, but had not at the time the courage to say 
 so, and allowed the matter to drop. Our readers 
 will notice that the words of the sentence bear on 
 their face that they are meant as a reply to some one. 
 This is clear from the word certainly. Moreover, the 
 sentence has a look somewhat foreign to the context 
 in which it occurs. These circumstances satisfy us 
 that they are intended as a reply to our view. When 
 the Lectures were published after the Professor's death 
 under the editorship of his friend the late Eev. George 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 69 
 
 Brooks, M.A., minister of the United Presbyterian 
 Church, Johnstone, near Paisley, we were very eager 
 to find out how the matter as to the sentence in 
 question stood. To make assurance doubly sure, and 
 to discover whether the Professor had really been 
 before us, even in applying the word causal to the 
 participles in question, or either of them, we wrote to 
 his learned editor, asking if the sentence referred to 
 was in the body of the Lectures as originally prepared, 
 or was an interlineation, or if there was any evidence 
 that it had been written after the Lectures had been 
 composed. We were very promptly favoured with 
 the following reply : — " Dear Sir, — I have to report 
 that the sentence you quote was certainly added after 
 the Lectures were composed, and is hurriedly written 
 on the blank page. — Yours truly, George Brooks." 
 
 PART THIRD 
 
 It is not essential to our object to enter upon a com- 
 plete exposition of Heb. vii. We are not writing a 
 commentary. Our author's object was to bring into 
 prominent view every point in which Melchizedek's 
 priesthood was superior to that of Aaron. Our object, 
 on the other hand, is simply, in the first instance at 
 least, to establish the eternal character of Melchize- 
 dek's j)riesthood in the strict and proper sense of the 
 word. We must therefore pass over much in this 
 chapter which the commentator is bound to notice. 
 Thus we pass over the argument founded on the fact 
 that Abraham j)aid tithes to Melchizedek, as that 
 argument is present in the paragraph w. 4-7 in- 
 
yo Melchizedek : 
 
 elusive. We would here merely repeat the remark, 
 which we have already emphasised, that there is not 
 in this paragraph which we pass over, any more than 
 in any other part of the chapter, the slightest hint 
 that either Melchizedek or his priesthood was in the 
 least respect inferior to Christ or His priesthood. 
 Abraham was inferior to Melchizedek, but Melchizedek 
 is never mentioned as inferior to Christ. The asser- 
 tion of the contrary is one of the most glaring defects 
 of the commonly received view. 
 
 We come to the words in ver. 8 : " And here 
 men that die receive tithes, but there he receiveth 
 them of whom it is witnessed (or testified) that he 
 liveth." There is here, first, a contrast as to time ; 
 the period referred to in Genesis is contrasted with 
 the period at which our author was writing. But 
 there is, secondly, this far more important contrast — 
 that between Melchizedek and the Levitical priests. 
 There is this essential difference between the latter 
 and the former — they die, but he lives ; they are 
 mortal, but he is immortal. Earnest attempts have 
 been made to elude the force of our author's statement 
 here, but in vain. No amount of sophistry can ex- 
 plain away the natural meaning of his words. It will 
 not do to say that the meaning is, that Melchizedek 
 is living, because we have no account of his death. 
 We are not in the custom of reckoning those of whose 
 death we have no account as still living. Above all, 
 we never think of contrasting such persons with 
 mortal men, as if they belonged to a better and nobler 
 race of beings. Where, on such an exposition, is there 
 any semblance of an argument for the eternal priest- 
 hood of Christ ? If those whom our author was seek- 
 ing to establish in this doctrine understood him in this 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 71 
 
 sense, would they not have treated his words with 
 contempt ? And would they not have been justified 
 in so treating them ? Do men who use arguments of 
 this kind never think how ridiculous they must appear 
 in the eyes of infidels. Nor will it do to read the 
 words as if the reference were to Christ and not to 
 Melchizedek. Such an interpretation is completely 
 excluded by the reference to the historical fact that 
 Abraham paid tithes to the person here indicated. 
 There is more plausibility about the argument founded 
 upon what our Lord said to the Sadducees about the 
 resurrection, " Now, He is not the God of the dead, but 
 of the li^dng." Some would argue that our author's 
 meaning is that Melchizedek lives, simply in the sense 
 that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob now live with God. 
 That is, as they now live in glory, so does Melchizedek. 
 If that were the idea, there could be no propriety in 
 contrasting Melchizedek with mortal men ; for Abra- 
 ham, Isaac, and Jacob were mortal men, just as cer- 
 tainly as any one else of the human race. And they 
 are not the only sons of Adam who are now inheriting 
 eternal life. Was our author such a fool as to lead an 
 argument of this kind ? No, there is no way of ex- 
 plaining the words in question but that which assigns 
 to them their plain and natural meaning. Whoever 
 we make out Melchizedek to be, our author's assertion 
 is, that he is living now ; at least, he was living 
 when this Epistle was written. And, if he was living 
 when our author wrote, we need have no difficulty in 
 accepting the words before us in the absolute sense, 
 and saying that he is living now. Thousands of 
 years elapsed between the days of Abraham, to whom 
 Melchizedek appeared, and the time when Hebrews was 
 written, and at that time Melchizedek was living. 
 
72 Melchizedek : 
 
 But our author appeals to some luitness in favour of 
 his position that Melchizedek is now living. " Of 
 whom (or concerning whom) it is witnessed, that he 
 liveth." This is surely something very different from 
 the assertion that we have no evidence of his death. 
 There are a good many people mentioned, both in 
 Scripture and elsewhere, of whose death we have no 
 account. But we do not, for that reason, say that 
 it is witnessed concerning them that they are still 
 living. It is one thing to say that we have no evi- 
 dence for or against any point, and quite another thing 
 to say that we have positive evidence for it. To our 
 mind, it is quite inconceivable how any one can con- 
 found the two things. In a court of law the differ- 
 ence which they imply is all - important. Let us 
 suppose a case. A question arises as to whether any 
 particular person is alive. The succession to, and 
 administration of, an estate depends upon the settle- 
 ment of this question. Evidence is led to the effect 
 that the person was living as an adult at a certain 
 date, say one hundred and fifty years ago. No trace 
 of him can be found subsequent to that date. Here, 
 then, is a mixture of positive and negative evidence. 
 But the negative evidence becomes absolutely positive 
 when we remember that no one in modern times has 
 been known to live, say one hundred and seventy 
 years, for we have been supposing that the person was 
 an adult at the time for which positive evidence of his 
 existence was produced. Would a court of law have 
 any difficulty in deciding that the man is now dead ? 
 There could be no question of the fact after such a 
 lapse of time. If a legal heir came forward, there 
 would be no difficulty in his securing possession of the 
 estate. According to the reasoning of some in con- 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 73 
 
 nection with the question of Melchizedek, the lawful 
 heu", in this case, could not enter upon possession, 
 because there is no positive evidence of the former 
 owner's death. Would any lawyer in the land have 
 ingenuity enough to formulate out of the facts of the 
 case this legal position, Of whom it is witnessed that he 
 liveth ? We have only to look at the matter in this 
 plain, common-sense way to see the absurdity of the 
 argument e silentio. 
 
 If Melchizedek was a mere man, we did not require 
 to be told that he died, for all men die ; but if he was 
 not a mere man, though he assumed mortal flesh for a 
 temporary purpose, it was necessary to make us aware 
 of this by telling us that he did not die — that, in fact, 
 he is living now. An attempt has been made to escape 
 from the natural meaning of our author's words by 
 saying that there may be a reference to some state- 
 ment in some book now lost. We do not see how this 
 can in the slightest degree affect the question. If 
 Melchizedek was a mere man, he is now as certainly 
 dead as any other man who ever lived. It cannot, 
 therefore, be maintained of him that he is living. But 
 here, as again and again throughout the whole of this 
 discussion, we are confronted with questions as to the 
 divine authority of this Epistle, and as to the founda- 
 tion on which the eternal priesthood of Christ rests. 
 We cannot conceive of any testimony furnished by any 
 book, lost or existing, which could warrant our author 
 in saying that a mortal man, supposing Melchizedek 
 to have been such, is now living. Can we suppose 
 that the Holy Spirit has rested the great fundamental 
 doctrine of the eternal priesthood of Christ on such a 
 basis ? What must unbeHeving Jews of the present 
 day think of such an argument ? 
 
74 Melchizedek : 
 
 Who, then, is the witness to whom our author 
 refers ? Those who have followed our argument up 
 to this point hardly require to be told. Our author's 
 witness is the Spirit of God, speaking by the mouth of 
 the author of Ps. ex. We would say of David, but 
 the higher critics have such strange ways of dealing 
 with such matters that we are afraid to speak our 
 mind. We do not wish to come into collision with 
 such champions. If Melchizedek is a priest for ever, 
 then he must be living, for we do not say a person is 
 a priest after he is dead. When we read the words 
 having and resembling in Heb. vii. 3 as causal parti- 
 ciples, we see clearly that our author's witness is the 
 writer of Ps, ex. It is to our mind a convincing proof 
 that, down in the depths of the Christian heart, there 
 lies the conviction, that the absurd argimients which 
 the learned men who have written on the subject of 
 Melchizedek have used do not express the mind of 
 the Spirit, that this Epistle has not been long ago 
 treated as forming no part of God's revealed will. 
 
 We pass on to the paragraph vv. 15-17: "And 
 the matter is still more abundantly evident, if after 
 the likeness of Melchizedek there ariseth another 
 priest who hath been made, not according to the law 
 of a carnal commandment, but according to the power 
 of an endless life, for the testimony (or witness) is, 
 Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of 
 Melchizedek." Here some of our author's expressions 
 may seem a little unusual, but the meaning is clear 
 enough. There is, on the surface of his words, an 
 evident anxiety to avoid, if possible, the danger of 
 being misunderstood. The variety of statement which 
 he employs reminds us of St. Paul's words in Ephesians, 
 where he states the manner of a sinner's salvation in 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 75 
 
 four different ways: " By grace are ye saved through 
 faith ; and that not of yourselves : it is the gift of 
 God : not of works, lest any man should boast." As 
 in this quotation from Ephesians, the different clauses 
 in the paragraph with which we are now dealing ex- 
 plain one another. Our author begins by speaking of 
 Christ as a priest according to the order of Melchize- 
 dek. Then he explains this language, first, negatively, 
 and then positively. (1) To be "a priest after the like- 
 ness of Melchizedek" does not mean, to be a priest 
 " after the law of a carnal commandment," that is, 
 such an arrangement as is suited to the case of mortal 
 men. These are not permitted to remain in the 
 priestly office by reason of death. There must in this 
 case be an arrangement for a succession of priests. 
 The law of the Levitical priesthood made men priests 
 who die, and, therefore, required others to succeed 
 them. Christ did not become a priest under such a 
 law. (2) To be a priest "after the likeness (or order, 
 or style) of Melchizedek " means, to be a priest " ac- 
 cording to the power of an endless life," that is, by 
 virtue of an arrangement which subsists for ever and 
 ever. The priesthood of Melchizedek belongs to im- 
 mortals. Melchizedek has an endless life; and, as 
 Christ is a priest of the same order. He too has an 
 endless life and priesthood. There is much meaning 
 in our author's word povjer. It conveys the idea that 
 Christ is a priest according to another arrangement 
 than that which made the sons of Aaron priests. That 
 law was, by its very nature, unsuited to Him ; and 
 His eternal divinity exalted Him far above it. The 
 law of the Levitical priesthood was a mere temporary 
 arrangement, and belonged to a mere temporary 
 priesthood. Christ has been a priest from all eternity. 
 
76 Melchizedek : 
 
 and is " the Lamb that hath been slain from the 
 foundation of the world." Here again, as throughout 
 the whole discussion of His priestly office, Christ is 
 viewed, not as a mere man, but as the eternal and 
 immortal Son of God. As the eternal Son of God He 
 never died, and could not die. As the sacrifice for the 
 sins of the world. His humanity, which He had assumed 
 for the purpose, died ; though after a time restored to 
 life again : as the sacrificing priest. He did not, and 
 could not, die. 
 
 The words, " after the likeness of Melchizedek," 
 deserve further notice. Some have affirmed that our 
 author teaches that Melchizedek was made like 
 Christ, but not that Christ was made like Melchizedek. 
 Such a remark can arise only from the grossest 
 carelessness. It is apparently sanctioned by the 
 ambiguous translation of acj^cofjuoicofievofi in ver. 3. 
 This word, strictly interpreted, means simply resem- 
 bling, as we have rendered it in our translation of the 
 paragraph in which it occurs. It has been erroneously 
 taken by the Eevisers of 1611, and their successors of 
 1881, as intended to convey the idea that Melchizedek 
 was divinely appointed to be a type of Christ. The 
 words now under consideration completely refute this 
 idea. They warrant us in saying that, if the words 
 in ver. 3 give any one ground for asserting that 
 Melchizedek was divinely appointed to be a type of 
 Christ, then the phrase, " after the likeness of 
 Melchizedek," would equally give ground for saying 
 that Christ was divinely appointed to be a type of 
 Melchizedek. The phrase Kara rr^v ofjLOiorrjTa (after 
 the likeness, or, according to the likeness) means 
 precisely the same thing as d(j)cofjLOL(o/jLevo<; (resembling, 
 or being made like). Both phrases arise out of the 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 77 
 
 oracle in Ps. ex. By the terms of that oracle, 
 Melchizedek is declared to be like Christ, and Christ 
 is declared to be like Melchizedek. The resemblance 
 is mutual and complete. 
 
 There is yet another expression to be noted with 
 emphasis before we leave this paragraph. We refer 
 to the words, " The testimony (or witness) is. Thou 
 art a priest for ever according to the order of 
 Melchizedek." These words make it plain that 
 the witness referred to in ver. 8, and upon which 
 we have commented at some length, is the oracle of 
 the Spirit by the mouth of the writer of Ps. ex. The 
 word for " the testimony (or witness) is," in this 
 paragraph, is fjuaprvpelTai ; that used in ver. 8 is [lap- 
 TvpovfjLevo<;. It is impossible to escape from the force 
 of such an argument. The positive documentary 
 evidence for the statements which our author makes 
 about Melchizedek, when these statements seem to be 
 remarkable, is Ps. ex. Why cannot the indisputable 
 fact be admitted ? We do not need to go to archae- 
 ology for any explanation of our author's words. 
 
 We have now seen that the resemblance between 
 Melchizedek and Christ, as brought out in this 
 discussion, is mutual and complete. We have not 
 found one item of proof to justify us in saying that 
 the one is in any respect inferior to the other, or to 
 encourage any one to think that the one is a type of 
 the other. We can claim that the method of inquiry 
 which we have pursued has been scientific throughout. 
 
 What are we now to make of the result of our 
 somewhat lengthened inquiry ? We have come to the 
 question. Who is this who is represented as bearing 
 so complete a resemblance to Christ, feature for 
 feature ? The idea of certain of the early Christians, 
 
78 Melchizedek : 
 
 as Epiphanius tells us, was, that he was some great 
 power, superior to Christ, and who is now exalted to 
 places not to be named. This theory seems to have 
 been founded, so far, on the scientific method, but has 
 been exploded long ago. Hierax and others, also in 
 early Christian times, thought Melchizedek was the 
 Holy Ghost, because it is said that " the Spirit maketh 
 intercession for us with groanings that cannot be 
 uttered." The Holy Spirit is never, however, called 
 a priest A priest is one who offers sacrifices, but 
 it is never affirmed in Scripture that the Spirit 
 sacrifices. There remains only the other possible 
 opinion, that Melchizedek was Christ Himself. This 
 is the opinion to which we have been compelled to 
 give our assent. This opinion is mentioned by 
 Epiphanius as having been held by some in very early 
 Christian times. It has been assented to in different 
 periods of the Church's history by some of the most 
 scholarly and acute minds which Christianity has 
 known. We believe this view would have commanded 
 imiversal acceptance long ago if the argument had 
 been presented in anything like a complete form. To 
 complete this argument two missing links have 
 hitherto been awanting. These we have endeavoured 
 to supply. (1) The careful and rigid exhibition of 
 the comparison between Melchizedek and Christ, as 
 that is presented in Ps. ex., and (2) the proof 
 that €')((Dv (having) and d(f>o)jjLOL(o/jb6vo<; (resem- 
 bling) are causal participles. By so regarding these 
 participles we obtain positive warrant for the words 
 airarcop, a/jLijrcop, ayepea\6yr)T0<i, and all the other 
 expressions which have proved such stumbling-blocks 
 to interpreters hitherto. These all arise, with perfect 
 logical justness, out of the oracle in Ps. ex. 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 79 
 
 Our argument here must of necessity assume an 
 inferential form. Our object is different from that of 
 the writer of Hebreivs. His great aim was to 
 establish the eternal priesthood of Christ. He does 
 so by proving that it is precisely of the same 
 character as that of Melchizedek. He did not require 
 to go farther. On the other hand, our object is to 
 determine the personality of Melchizedek. Our 
 author wished the Jews to cease hankering after the 
 Levitical priesthood, as an old and effete institution 
 which had served its day. He finds a solid founda- 
 tion for his argument in the eternal priesthood of 
 Melchizedek. He did not require, for the purposes of 
 his argument, to say who Melchizedek was. Our 
 object takes us beyond the point at which he stops. 
 In this pursuit we do not act inconsistently with the 
 spirit of his argument. Nor are we seeking to be 
 wise beyond what is written. We believe that oiu^ 
 inference is thoroughly well founded. In this part of 
 our discussion we are but following the course which 
 our author has pointed out. He has spread out 
 before us the materials essential for the decision of 
 the point. He has led us by the hand up to the 
 sublime height of Christ's eternal priesthood. There 
 he has left us, flushed with the curiosity which his 
 words have irresistibly begotten within us, to pursue 
 to its logical termination the pathway along which he 
 has so far led us. 
 
 (1) Our first argument for the identification of 
 Melchizedek with Christ is founded on the peculiar 
 form of words used in Heb. vii. 1 : Ovro^ yap 6 
 MeX'^caeBeK, (3aaL\ev<; SaXijfju, tepeu? rod ©eov rod 
 yy^la-Tov. Our position here is, that the article o 
 must be taken as belonging, not only to MeX^io-eSe/c, 
 
8o Melchizedek : 
 
 but also to ^aaiXev^i and lepeix;. That is, Melchizedek 
 is here declared to be Kar i^o^VJ^, the priest of the 
 Most High God. Unless we take the article in this 
 way, no difference is made to appear between 
 Melchizedek and Abraham, who, as the head of his 
 family, was a priest of the Most High God. And one 
 of the main objects of our author is to show 
 Melchizedek's superiority over the old patriarch. 
 There is a grammatical parallel in 1 Pet. v. 8, 'O 
 dvrlScKo^ vfiMv, StaySo\o9, which our Eevisers render, 
 " Your adversary, the devil." 
 
 (2) Our second argument is drawn from the fact 
 that an eternal priesthood is ascribed to both. There 
 cannot be two eternal priests, according to all the 
 teaching of the New Testament. One of the duties 
 of a priest is to mediate between God and man, but 
 the Scripture tells us, " There is one Mediator between 
 God and men, the man Christ Jesus." No created 
 being, how exalted soever, can be co-mediator with 
 Him. We have no doubt that our author was fully 
 aware of the identity of Melchizedek with Christ, 
 but apparently there was some reason for his not 
 saying so. 
 
 (3) Our third argument is drawn from the fact, 
 which we have noted several times, that our author is 
 at pains to show that the resemblance between 
 Melchizedek and Christ is complete. He has taken 
 care not to write one w^ord calculated to convey the 
 idea that Christ is in anyway superior to Melchizedek. 
 This is very significant. Let us endeavour to bring 
 out a little more distinctly the force of this fact. 
 We find descriptions given of two apparently different 
 persons. These descriptions perfectly correspond, 
 letter for letter. We happen to be perfectly 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 8i 
 
 acquainted with the one person. As we compare the 
 descriptions, and perceive that it is impossible to 
 detect any feature of dissimilarity, we say to our- 
 selves, Why, these descriptions belong to one person, 
 and not to two ! They are accounts of my friend by 
 two different individuals ! We must either admit 
 that Melchizedek is Christ, or confess that there must 
 be two eternal priests. 
 
 (4) Our fourth argument is drawn from the fact 
 that our author is at pains to translate the names 
 assigned to Melchizedek, rendering them King of 
 Righteousness and King of Peace. We can see no 
 other object which he could have in \dew in doing so, 
 than to provide his readers with an argument in 
 favour of the identity of the two persons. The 
 translation of the words does not affect his main argu- 
 ment in the slightest degree. It would not be a suffi- 
 cient reply to our reasoning here to say that names 
 mentioned in Scripture are sometimes very significant. 
 We are speaking of the translation of significant 
 names. The writer who translates a name must 
 always have an object in so doing. It must either 
 be for the instruction of those who do not understand 
 the language to which the name belongs, and do not 
 in consequence see its appropriateness or significance ; 
 or to throw some new light upon what is being said. 
 Now, this Epistle was addressed to Jews, who may be 
 supposed to have had some acquaintance with the 
 Hebrew language to which the words Melchizedek and 
 Salem belong. Why, then, should our author have 
 burdened a long sentence with the translation of 
 Hebrew names, if he did not wish to give his readers 
 and us hints intended to carry us farther than the 
 purpose of his own argument required him to take 
 6 
 
82 Melchizedek : 
 
 us ? The most natural explanation of this translating 
 
 of the names in question is to be found in the fact 
 
 that these names are given to our Lord in the Old 
 
 Testament. Jesus is called by Jeremiah the Lord our 
 
 Eighteousness, and Isaiah speaks of Him as a King 
 
 who should reign in righteousness. By the same 
 
 prophet He is also called the Prince of Peace. These 
 
 names of Christ, taken in connection with our author's 
 
 translations, King of Eighteousness and King of Peace, 
 
 are surely very significant. We are really unable to 
 
 see any reason why our author translated the names 
 
 referred to, except to lead his readers to identify 
 
 Melchizedek with Christ, without doing this himself 
 
 in express terms. We think, as we shall see 
 
 immediately, that there was a reason for his not 
 
 proceeding to the actual step of identification. But 
 
 there is another point, not without its significance, to 
 
 be noted before we leave this argument. Why does 
 
 our author use the words first and afterivarcls ? 
 
 " Being first by interpretation," etc. Is this not to 
 
 indicate the order of experience in the sinner's heart 
 
 when Christ and His truth are received ? There is, 
 
 first, repentance, or the craving for righteousness, and 
 
 then the peace which passeth all understanding. " The 
 
 work of righteousness shall be peace ; and the effect 
 
 of righteousness, quietness and confidence for ever." 
 
 Surely there is some designed coincidence in all this. 
 
 The fact that Christ appeared on several occasions 
 in different characters in Old Testament times is 
 a very powerful confirmation of those arguments 
 which we have just advanced. All sound theologians 
 admit that Christ did so appear. For example, He 
 appeared to Abraham as the Judge of all the Earth, 
 in connection with the destruction of Sodom. He 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 83 
 
 seemed to rejoice in the habitable parts of the earth, 
 and to have His delights with the sons of men. Why- 
 should men stumble at the idea that Melchizedek was 
 an Old Testament Christophany ? If he appeared in 
 other characters, why might He not have appeared as 
 the priest of the Most High God. Besides, what 
 satisfactory explanation can be given of the conduct 
 of Abraham towards Melchizedek, unless we believe 
 that he regarded Him as a divine person ? He could 
 hardly have treated a mere man as he treated Him. 
 Can we believe that he who had the promises, and in 
 whom all the families of the earth were to be blessed, 
 could bestow such honour as the narrative in Genesis 
 shows Melchizedek to have received, upon a mere 
 Canaanitish prince, however worthy he might have 
 been, belonging as he did to an accursed race ? This 
 would be tantamount to showing such honour to the 
 whole race represented by their prince. Can we 
 believe that the solemn interview which the patriarch 
 had with Melchizedek was with a mere man ? 
 
 It has been made evident by the whole course of 
 this discussion, that the oracle in Ps. ex. gives us 
 fuller information concerning Melchizedek than that 
 supplied by the narrative contained in Genesis. We 
 could never have thought of Melchizedek as an 
 eternal priest, if the oracle had not so described him. 
 This oracle also gives us a fuller revelation concerning 
 Christ than has hitherto been received. This is quite 
 in harmony with God's method of revelation. He has 
 given His Church a fuller and fuller revelation of His 
 will as time advanced. But, if we are right in identi- 
 fying Melchizedek with Christ, the question naturally 
 arises. Why was the oracle in Ps. ex. put in the 
 form in which we find it ? Why not simply declare 
 
84 Melchizedek : 
 
 that Christ is a priest for ever ? There are several 
 answers which may be suggested to such a question. 
 First of all, we must allow God to reveal His will in 
 His own way. Then there is the evident advantage 
 in favour of the form in which we find the oracle, 
 that it maintains the law of continuity. What is 
 said in Genesis becomes a stepping-stone to what is 
 declared in the psalm. Besides, the oracle in Ps. ex. 
 connects the eternal priesthood of Christ with a priest 
 to whom Abraham showed the greatest reverence, and 
 from whom he accepted a blessing, thus admitting 
 Melchizedek to be greater than himself ; for without 
 all contradiction the inferior is blessed by the superior. 
 And by paying tithes to Melchizedek, Abraham, as the 
 father of the Hebrew race, was practically, for the 
 Levitical priests, paying tithes to the same person. 
 That is, when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, 
 the Levites practically paid tithes. All this showed 
 the superiority of Melchizedek's priesthood over the 
 Levitical, and prepared the way for the setting aside 
 of the latter. Then, further, I think we may safely 
 assume that there was some reason in the mental 
 attitude of the Jews that prevented them from being 
 able to accept a plain didactical revelation regarding 
 the eternal priesthood of Christ. Some device had to 
 be fallen upon to induce them to accept this truth. 
 We can see how this was effected through the instru- 
 mentality of the oracle in Ps. ex. The Holy Spirit, 
 seeing beforehand the way in which they would 
 become prejudiced in favour of the Levitical priest- 
 hood, fell upon the expedient of uttering this oracle. 
 By putting it in a psalm it was made certain that the 
 people would become well acquainted with it. Then, 
 the Jews clung tenaciously to what their Scriptures 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 85 
 
 contained. All classes, as we see from the Gospel 
 narratives, held themselves bound to abide by all that 
 could be proved out of the Scriptures. The wisdom 
 of putting the oracle in the form in which we find it 
 is then, we think, manifest. 
 
 But is this form of the oracle not of doubtful 
 character ? Or rather, is our whole view of it not 
 somewhat suspicious ? Can we point to anything 
 parallel to this way of speaking of a person, as if 
 he were not one, but two. We follow something 
 like the same course every day. We receive a photo- 
 graph of some individual. We make ourselves ac- 
 quainted with the features there pictured to us. Then, 
 we meet with an individual whom we have never seen 
 before. For the time being the photograph and the 
 individual represent two persons. But we proceed to 
 compare the features in the photograph with those of 
 the individual standing before us. We find that the 
 features of the two exactly correspond, and we come 
 to the conclusion that we have before our view only 
 one and the same person. We do this all the more 
 quickly and all the more confidently if, in the case 
 supposed, the features are very prominently marked. 
 Melchizedek is, as it were, a photograph of Christ. 
 
 The same method of revelation adopted in the 
 oracle of Ps. ex., is adopted in Kev. i. 12: "And I 
 turned to see the voice which spake with me. And, 
 having turned I saw seven golden candlesticks ; and, 
 in the midst of the candlesticks, one like unto the Son 
 of Man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and 
 girt about at the breasts with a golden girdle. And 
 his head and his hair were white as white wool, white 
 as snow ; and his eyes were as a flame of fire ; and 
 his feet like unto burnished brass, as if it had been 
 
86 Melchizedek : 
 
 refined iii a furnace ; and his voice as the voice of 
 many waters. And he had in his right hand seven 
 stars ; and out of his mouth proceeded a sharp, two- 
 edged sword; and his countenance was as the sun 
 shineth in his strength." When this vision was 
 vouchsafed to John, he was in much the same position 
 as the reader of Ps. ex. before our author expounded 
 the meaning of the oracle. He had in his mind two 
 pictures — Christ, and some one like Him. He was 
 able to see that the two pictures were one, only when 
 Christ Himself so taught him. 
 
 If the line of argument which we have pursued 
 throughout the whole of the discussion be in harmony 
 with the mind of our author, there can be no force in 
 the objection taken to our view long ago by Epi- 
 phanius, and made so much of by subsequent writers, 
 that a man cannot be said to be like himself. This 
 likening of Christ to Melchizedek, and of Melchizedek 
 to Christ, arose out of the necessities of the case. It 
 was the result of the form in which the oracle was 
 given. Nor can any weight be attached to the objec- 
 tion that the word order makes it necessary that we 
 should hold Melchizedek and Christ to be two different 
 persons. We are not sure that the word may not be 
 employed to describe a priesthood, even though only 
 one individual belongs to it. But tliis objection is 
 really the former one in another form. The word 
 order seems to be used because the oracle, for the 
 sake of revelation, had to be worded as if there were 
 two eternal priests, and not merely one. 
 
 We hope we have succeeded in removing from this 
 Epistle the reproach which certain commentators have 
 brought upon it. And w^e wish to say that our study 
 of this subject has wonderfully deepened our admira- 
 
His Priesthood and Personality 87 
 
 tion of the intellectual subtlety and theological grasp 
 of our author. We no longer believe that Paul is 
 the only theologian of the New Testament, if, as 
 we believe, he was not the writer of this Epistle. 
 Many books, as we have said, have been written 
 upon the subject which we have endeavoured to 
 discuss. There is one which we have made many 
 unsuccessful efforts to secure, Borgesii, Historia Critica 
 Melchizedeci, Berne, 1706. This book is referred to 
 by many writers, but whether all who refer to it have 
 seen it is another question. Dr. Kitto refers to it in 
 his Biblical Cydopcedia under the name Borger. The 
 late Dr. W. L. Alexander, who edited the Gydoiocedia, 
 slavishly copies the title of this book as given by 
 Kitto, thus showing that he had never seen it. We 
 have written to the author of the article on Melchize- 
 dek in the Schaff-Hertzog Cydo]ocedia (who mentions 
 the book at the close of his article), asking him if he 
 could give us any information where the book could 
 be seen, or bought. Several months have elapsed, but 
 we have received no reply to our most courteous note. 
 The only inference we can draw is that, like Dr. 
 Alexander, he has never seen the work, but thought 
 fit to append its title to his article to give it the 
 appearance of erudition. If anyone can favour us 
 with a sight of the book, we will esteem it an especial 
 kindness. 
 
 Note. — Since writing the above we have had the 
 opportunity of examining this much - referred - to 
 volume. We came upon a copy m the Eoyal 
 Library at Berlin in the summer of 1897. The 
 book has deeply disappointed us. It professes to 
 discuss all the questions which have been agitated 
 
88 Melchizedek's Priesthood and Personality 
 
 in connection with Melchizedek. The author's 
 management of these questions is by no means (Such 
 as to entitle him to be quoted as the great authority 
 on the subject. He takes the view which is now 
 popular, and against which we have written. The 
 only reason we can see why his work is so frequently 
 referred to in articles on the subject of which it treats 
 is to be found in its pretentious title. It is some- 
 what suspicious that while it is so much referred to 
 by those who write about Melchizedek, it is very 
 seldom quoted. Indeed, its statements are hardly 
 worth quoting. It would be easy to mention works 
 in which the views which the author holds are both 
 better expressed and better defended. It is time that 
 theologians ceased to refer with deference to a book 
 which has really so little to recommend it. But till 
 we had seen it we had the uneasy feeling that it 
 might contain something which we ought not to 
 overlook. 
 
Ill 
 
 CHRIST'S OBJECT IN PREACHING TO 
 THE SPIRITS IN PRISON 
 
 An Exegetical Study 
 
 "On Kal XptCTOs aTra^ irepl a/xapriQv eiraOe, dcKaios virep ddiKCJU, 
 'iva, i]iJ,ds vpoaaydyr} tQ Oe($, davaroideU p-ev aapKi ^ojoiroiTjOeh 5^ 
 irvevfxaTi., iv y Kal rots iv <pv\aKy 7rpevfxa<n iropevdeis iKrjpv^ev, 
 d-rreidrjaaa-i ttotc, 6're dire^edex^TO i] rod QeoO fiaKpodvfJiia iv ij/xepais 
 Nwe, Karaa-Keva^ofMivrjs ki^utov, els ^v oXiyoi, tout' ^(Xtiv oktC) yj/vxo-'h 
 8ie(r(i}dT)<Tav 5t' vdaTOS' 6 Kal vfids dvTLTvxop vvv crw^et. 
 
 " Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the 
 unrighteous, that He might bring us to God — put to death because 
 of the flesh, but restored to life because of the spirit. Wherefore 
 {literally, In which) He even went and preached to the spirits in 
 prison, who were at the time disobedient, when the long-suffering 
 of God was continuing to wait in the days of Noah, while the ark was 
 a preparing, into which few, that is, eight souls, were brought safely- 
 through water. And this also is now saving you an antitype." 
 —1 Pet. iii. 18-21a. 
 
 ExposiTOES generally have pronounced the passage 
 before us to be one of great di£[iculty, and the various 
 and conflicting interpretations which have been given 
 of it bear out this testimony. It would be a very 
 hard task to have to mention two commentators of 
 any eminence who explain it exactly in the same way, 
 or who are agreed as to what it teaches. If all that 
 has been written upon it were brought together, it 
 
90 Christ's Object in Preaching 
 
 would make a library of considerable extent, and form 
 a mass of literature as perplexing as has ever been 
 produced on any subject. 
 
 There are some who profess to think lightly of its 
 alleged difficulties. But these are not generally men 
 whose expositions are the most satisfactory to others, 
 how much soever they may seem to be so to them- 
 selves. The meaning can be determined only by the 
 most careful exegesis. Mere dash, or assumption of 
 confidence, will not give satisfaction to the thinking 
 reader. We beheve, however, that the day is not far 
 distant when the alleged difficulties will be no longer 
 felt, and when it will be matter of astonishment that 
 these should ever have occasioned perplexity. Let 
 the pious learning of the Church of the present day 
 take the matter up in thorough earnest, and if it 
 follow faithfully the principles of sound exegesis we 
 shall soon see this result. 
 
 Many learned men have attempted an exposition. 
 Why is it still left in obscurity ? For this simple 
 reason : its would-be interpreters have persisted in 
 following a theory of construction which leads to 
 results, not only perplexing, but in sharp contrast 
 with the plainest teaching of Scripture elsewhere. 
 The construction which they accept is by no means 
 necessary, and the results which it leads to should be 
 enough to prove that it is erroneous. Yet no other 
 has hitherto been thought of. Some one in early 
 times gave the passage a false twist, and all subse- 
 quent writers have followed his lead with ludicrous 
 persistency. This is all the more to be wondered at, 
 since another mode of construction yields a sense at 
 once simple, natural, and scholarly, and in line with 
 the great fundamental doctrines of revelation. We 
 
To the Spirits in Prison 91 
 
 propose to show that this construction brings out the 
 true meaning of the apostle. 
 
 There are some who look upon any attempt to ex- 
 pound such a passage as that now before us as 
 presumptuous and improfi table. Against such an idea 
 we most earnestly protest. It is a reflection upon 
 the wisdom of God, and is dishonouring to His word. 
 It is a practical rejection of a portion of divine truth. 
 Whatever God has been pleased to write for us in the 
 Scriptures, it is our duty diligently, earnestly, and 
 lovingly to study, and with the conviction that it is 
 calculated to promote our edification. To treat any 
 portion of Scripture as those to whom we refer would 
 have us treat that now before us, is to strike at the 
 root of the great truth, that " all Scripture is profit- 
 able." Some pious minds can indeed rest contented 
 without giving themselves any concern about difficult 
 passages, but with others it is different. They must 
 try and get at the root of the matter, and must form 
 some opinion regarding their teaching. The history 
 of the past abundantly demonstrates this. It is 
 therefore the sacred duty of every one who thinks 
 he can explain any passage of the Bible which has 
 hitherto been regarded as encompassed with insuper- 
 able difficulty to bring forward his light for the benefit 
 of the Church. He who shall have the privilege to 
 settle the interpretation of the passage before us will 
 have done a work worth living for. What a benefit 
 would such a service be to the cause of truth ! 
 
 So wild and contradictory have been the opinions 
 which some have built upon this portion of God's 
 word that many have become settled in the convic- 
 tion that no satisfactory solution of the difficulties 
 which it presents can ever be found. Can we regard 
 
92 Christ's Object in Preaching 
 
 such a conviction as sound or intelligent ? Does it 
 not rather savour of scepticism ? At least, this is 
 not a view of the matter with which we ourselves 
 have any sympathy. When expositors fail to make 
 any portion of the word of God clear, the fault is to 
 be assumed as resting with them, not with the Bible. 
 In some minds there seems to be a vague impres- 
 sion that the apostle has here fallen into inextricable 
 confusion. The popular idea regarding the ignorance 
 of the apostles lends some colouring to this impres- 
 sion. If they were the ignorant men which some 
 take them to have been, what more natural than that 
 they should have sometimes fallen into confusion ? 
 But with this popular idea regarding the apostles we 
 are at complete variance. Their writings prove them 
 to have been the very reverse of ignorant. And the 
 more one studies these writings the deeper becomes 
 the conviction of the accuracy and appropriateness of 
 the words which they employ. There was no confu- 
 sion of thought in their minds when they wrote. And 
 this is not to be wondered at when we remember that 
 they wrote under divine inspiration. In his Second 
 Epistle our apostle speaks of " the unstable and un- 
 learned " in a way which shows that he, at least, did 
 not regard himself as belonging to this class. It is 
 very significant that the writers of Scripture never 
 call themselves ignorant. Had they so spoken, they 
 would have reflected upon God, for He taught them ; 
 and they would most effectually have robbed themselves 
 of all confidence, and justly so. When Peter and John 
 were brought before the Sanhedrim for preaching the 
 gospel, the members of that august assembly were 
 astonished at the wisdom of their answers, though 
 they were, in their estimation, unlearned and ignorant 
 
To the Spirits in Prison 93 
 
 TTien, that is, not men absohitely such, but men who 
 had not been trained under recognised Jewish rabbis. 
 The conduct of the apostles on that occasion proves 
 that they were anything but ignorant in the ordinary 
 sense of the word. No one who is intelligently ac- 
 quainted with his Bible can hold by the opinion that 
 Peter fell into hopeless confusion in the passage 
 before us. 
 
 In that part of the Epistle in which the words 
 which we propose to examine occur, the apostle is 
 exhorting his readers to patience in the endurance of 
 any sufferings which they might be called upon to 
 bear. They seem to have been subjected to serious 
 trials and persecutions. To induce them to bear these 
 cheerfully, the apostle reminds them of what Christ 
 has done for men. Nothing so soon reconciles Chris- 
 tians to the trials laid upon them as this. 
 
 In interpreting the words before us, it is necessary 
 to realise and remember the object which the apostle 
 had in view when he wrote them. No exposition can 
 be correct which does not make this object prominent, 
 and of which this object does not form the animating 
 souL We say this all the more confidently, when we 
 observe that the apostle, after writing this contro- 
 verted passage, which, properly speaking, extends to 
 the end of the chapter, resumes his exhortation by 
 saying in the first verse of next chapter, "Foras- 
 much then as Christ has suffered because of the flesh, 
 arm yourselves likewise with the same mind," or 
 thought, or purpose. These words seem to leave no 
 room for doubting that all between them and the 
 beginning of our text bears on the same point. In 
 this verse (iv. 1) he commences a new branch of his 
 exhortation, though in the same general strain. 
 
94 Christ's Object in Preaching 
 
 Ver. 18a. '^Otl koX Xpto-ro? aira^ irepl dfjuapTccov 
 eirade — " Because Christ also suffered for sins once." 
 The Eevisers of 1881 tell us that many ancient 
 authorities read died instead of suffered. This reading 
 in no way affects the sense, but it serves as a kind of 
 commentary, for the meaning evidently is that Christ 
 suffered unto death for sins. This clause describes the 
 penal character of Christ's sufferings. He bore on 
 the cross the consequences of man's transgressions. 
 Sm is the cause of all suffering. Had our first 
 parents remained sinless we would have been exempt, 
 it may be supposed, from all pain and sorrow. And 
 Christ would not have required to assume our nature, 
 and endure the accursed death of the cross, 
 
 Ver. 18&. AUaLo<^ virep aBUcov — " The righteous for 
 the unrighteous!' This clause describes the vicarious 
 character of Christ's sufferings. He had no sin of His 
 own, but, having become man's substitute, He suffered 
 in his stead. He was dealt with as if He had been a 
 sinner. The perfect spotlessness of Christ makes a 
 world-wide difference between Him and mere men. 
 There seems nothing peculiar in mere men suffer- 
 ing, for transgression and punishment are naturally 
 associated. The wonderful thing is to see a sinless 
 being enduring suffering. the love of Christ, that 
 could induce Him, though in no sense liable to pimish- 
 ment for personal acts, to endure the penalty of sin 
 in our stead ! 
 
 Ver. lSc."Iva rj/jid^ Trpoaaydyr] rw ©ew — "That He 
 might bring us to God." This clause expresses the 
 ultimate object aimed at by the sufferings of Christ. 
 (1) Christ died to secure for us forgiveness with God. 
 The existence of sin is the great bar in the way of 
 communion and confiding friendship with God. When 
 
To the Spirits in Prison 95 
 
 we know that sin is forgiven we can look towards 
 Him without alarm. Christ's death secures the for- 
 giveness of all who put their trust in His atoning 
 sacrifice. He fully satisfied the demands of the divine 
 law, and rendered it possible for God to be just while 
 justifying him who believeth in Jesus. (2) Christ 
 died to reconcile us to God, to take away the enmity of 
 our hearts against Him. The sinner naturally hates 
 God, and continues to do so till he sees how his sin 
 may be put away. The death of Christ is the great 
 means employed by God to subdue the sinner's op- 
 position to Him. The love manifested in the cross 
 melts the hard and impenitent heart, and makes men 
 love Him who first loved them. (3) Christ died to 
 prejMre its for fellowship vAth God. The sanctification 
 of the believer, as well as his justification, springs 
 from Christ's atoning death. The Bible tells us of 
 the covenant made in His blood; and it is through 
 the truth of the Bible and by the Spirit that we are 
 sanctified. The Holy Spirit uses the word for the 
 purification of our spirits ; but if Christ had not died, 
 neither the word nor the Holy Spirit would have 
 been given. 
 
 But how Christ by His death brings us to God, the 
 apostle explains in the next clause, which is expository 
 or epexegetical of that on which we have just been 
 commenting. And it is interesting to notice that the 
 four clauses of this verse go in pairs, and explain each 
 other. The second clause explains the first, and 
 shows how Christ was called upon to endure suffer- 
 ing ; the fourth, as we have said, explains the third, 
 and shows how Christ brings men to God. 
 
 Yer. 18d. OavarcodeU /lev aapKl, ^(ooTTOirjdeU Be 
 irvevjxaTi — " Put to death because of the flesh, but restored 
 
g6 Christ's Object in Preaching 
 
 to life because of the spirit." The nouns flesh and 
 spirit stand, in the Greek, in the dative case, without 
 any preposition before them. In translating into 
 Enghsh it is necessary to supply one. What shall it 
 be ? The version of 1611 uses in before flesh and 
 by before spirit. Modern scholars condemn this as 
 grammatically unsound, and say that whatever pre- 
 position, or prepositional phrase, we use in the one 
 case we must use also in the other. Carrying out 
 this theory, the Eevisers of 1881 use in before both 
 nouns. We venture to call this theory in question 
 Its soundness would have been unimpeachable, if it 
 had been certain that both datives are of the same 
 character. As we regard them, this is not so. We 
 have here a double clause, the two members of which 
 are contrasted, as the particles fiiv — Be indicate. And 
 the construction and translation depend entirely upon 
 the light in which we view these two members, and 
 particularly the two nouns which they contain. We 
 take crapKi as a dativus incommodi and Trvevfiari, as 
 a dativus commodi. The true nature of these two 
 datives has not been perceived by interpreters ; hence 
 they have failed to understand the passage. Such 
 datives are not uncommon in the New Testament. 
 Winer gives us the following examples. (1) Oidativi 
 ^?^com??^otZ^, Matt, xxiii. 31,''/2o-Te /xapruperre eavTolf; otl 
 vloi e'crre rwv (poveva-dvTcov tou9 7rpo(j)riTa<; — " Where- 
 fore ye witness to (or against) yourselves that ye are 
 the sons of them that slew the prophets." Jas. v. 3, 
 'O ')(^pv(rb<s v/jucov, Kal 6 dpyvpo<; KaTicdrai, Koi 6 lb<; 
 avTMV et9 fjbaprvpLov v/xlv ecrrat — " Your gold and 
 silver are rusted ; and their rust shall be a testimony 
 against you." Heb. vi. 6, ^ Ava<jTavpovvTa<i eavroU 
 TOP vlov Tov 0€ov — " Seeing they crucify to them- 
 
To the Spirits in Prison 97 
 
 selves the son of God afresh." Eom. xiii. 2, 01 Be 
 dvOearrjKOTef; eavrol^ Kplfia Xtj^jrovraL — "And they 
 that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment/' 
 (2) Of dativi commodi. John ill. 26,*i(2 av fjuefiapTvp- 
 7jKa<; — "To whom thou barest witness." Luke iv. 22, 
 Kal 7rdvT6^ i/jLapTvpovv avro) — " And all bare Him 
 witness." Eom x. 2, MapTvpco yap avToh — "For I 
 bear them witness." 2 Cor. ii. 1, "EKpLva he ifiavr^ 
 TovTo — " But I determined this for myself." The use 
 of such datives by the sacred writers cannot therefore 
 be disputed. In fact, many such datives are used by 
 the sacred penmen. The only peculiarity in this 
 case is that here in this douUe clause we assert that 
 we have both a dativus incommodi and a dativiis 
 commodi. But can that be any argument against the 
 view we take ? If they occur separately, what hinders 
 that they should occur together ? There is no other 
 case in the New Testament, so far as we know, where 
 such an example of their conjunction occurs ; but 
 neither is that any argument against our view. In 
 translation we might have used in the one instance 
 the preposition against and in the other /or. These 
 really express the meaning. But such a translation 
 might not be considered very elegant EngHsh. And 
 so we fall back upon the longer and more colourless 
 prepositional expression, and try to bring out the differ- 
 ence in our exposition. We may add that in Eom. iv. 2 5 
 we have a similar thought to that expressed, in this 
 clause, though the grammatical form is different. ''O? 
 irapehoOr] hid rd irapairTOifJiaTa r]pLMv, Kal r)yep67) hid 
 Tr)v hiKalwaiv '^ficbv — " Who was delivered for our 
 offences, and was raised for our justification." Compare 
 also 1 Cor. v. 5, where there is a somewhat similar 
 thought with again a different grammatical form. 
 7 
 
98 Christ^s Object in Preaching 
 
 It is hardly necessary, in these days, to expose the 
 inaccuracy of the rendering of this double clause in 
 the version of 1611. But that rendering will not bear 
 a close examination. Being put to death in the flesh 
 seems strangely unsuitable language to apply to Christ. • 
 It would seem to imply that something else than His 
 body died. It does not really express the death of 
 His body at all, though those unaccustomed to the 
 accurate use of language may think it strange that we 
 should say so. This part of our text, as it stands in 
 our authorised translation, strictly and grammatically 
 means that Christ in some sense died while in the 
 flesh, that is, while still living. A translation of a 
 portion of Scripture involving such a contradiction as 
 this cannot be accurate. If Peter's desire was to 
 convey the idea that Christ died, what need was there 
 for the words in the flesh ? Quickened hy the Spirit is 
 a translation equally objectionable, but for a different 
 reason. It makes the Holy Spirit the agent in our 
 Lord's resurrection. This is clear from their writing 
 the word Spirit with a capital letter. Such an idea 
 occurs nowhere else in Scripture. The Father is 
 spoken of as raising up Christ from the dead, and He 
 is spoken of as rising Himself ; but this work is never 
 ascribed to the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Our rendering is exposed to no such objections. It 
 complies with the rules of Greek syntax, and, as we 
 shall see, brings out a scriptural and consistent sense. 
 But the apostle happily delivers us from all possibility 
 of doubt as to the proper preposition to employ. 
 He has put on record proof that he uses the two 
 words flesh and spirit as expressive of intention or 
 purpose, which everyone in the slightest degree 
 acquainted with the peculiarities of Greek grammar is 
 
To the Spirits in Prison 99 
 
 aware may be translated by such a phrase as we have 
 used. The evidence that the apostle uses the two 
 words referred to in the way we have already men- 
 tioned is very clear and convincing. That evidence 
 we find in the 1st verse of the fourth chapter of this 
 Epistle, which we have already quoted— " Forasmuch 
 then as Christ has suffered because of the flesh, arm 
 yourselves likewise with the same purpose " — evvoiav. 
 The Ee^T-sers use the term mind and put in the 
 margin thought. But whatever word we employ the 
 essential idea is the same. — It is to be observed 
 that the apostle in the first clause of this verse (iv. 1) 
 reduplicates upon the first half of that clause, the 
 meaning of which we are now seeking to determine. 
 He uses the word flesh in the same way as it is em- 
 ployed in that clause. Now, we think there cannot be 
 any doubt that he uses it to express a purpose. How 
 otherwise could he say, "Arm yourselves likewise 
 with the same mind,'' or thought, or purpose ? These 
 words can have no relevance unless you suppose the 
 first clause to express a purpose. And how can it be 
 viewed as doing so, if you translate in any other way 
 than as we have done ? We shall by and by speak 
 of this purpose, but meanwhile our business is with 
 the correct translation of the apostle's words. 
 
 This double clause, the translation of which we 
 have thus determined, contains, as we apprehend, the 
 greatest difficulty in connection with this long-contro- 
 verted passage. The interpretation of this clause once 
 settled, all else will be found to be comparatively 
 simple. Our translation puts its teaching in a 
 different light from that of any previous exposition, 
 so far as we know. No one accepting our translation 
 could ever conclude that flesh and spirit apply to 
 
lOO Christ's Object in Preaching 
 
 Christ. They must apply to men. In this respect, 
 which is certainly a very vital one, our interpretation 
 is new. Had interpreters sought to expound the 
 clause in the direction of our translation, the whole 
 difficulties of the passage would have disappeared long 
 ago. But, persisting as they have done in applying 
 the words flesh and spirit to Christ, it is not to be 
 wondered at that their expositions have proved un- 
 satisfactory. The clause bears on the face of it evi- 
 dence that the words referred to were never meant to 
 apply to Christ. It is a participial and parenthetical 
 clause, added, as we have already observed, to explain 
 how men are brought to God. It is therefore a 
 distorting of it from its plain intention to regard all 
 its meaning as absorbed in a reference to Christ. 
 
 The words flesh and sinrit as appUed to men are 
 capable of two explanations. (1) In the first place, 
 they may be understood as denoting the two great 
 parts of human nature, the material and the spiritual. 
 The following passages are examples of such a use of 
 the words : — " The sijirit indeed is willing, but the 
 flesh is weak." ^ " To dehver such a one unto Satan 
 for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be 
 saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." ^ (2) In the 
 second place, they may be understood as denoting 
 man's corrupt and renewed natures respectively. The 
 following passages furnish examples of such a use of 
 the words : — " For they that are after the flesh do 
 mind the things of the flesh ; but they that are after 
 the sjoirit the things of the spirit." ^ " For he that 
 soweth to his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corrup- 
 tion, but he that soweth unto the spirit shall of the 
 siiirit reap eternal life." * " But ye are not in the 
 1 Matt. xxvi. 41. ^\ Cor. v. 5. ^ Rom. viii. 5. ^ Gal. vi. 8. 
 
To the Spirits in Prison loi 
 
 flesh, but in the spirit ; if so be that the Spirit of 
 God dweUeth in you."^ "But I say, Walk by the 
 spiritj and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 
 For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the sioirit 
 against the flesh : for these are contrary the one to 
 the other." ^ Some may be inclined to hesitate before 
 admitting that the word sjpirit in these passages, 
 where written with a small initial letter, means the 
 renewed nature of man. Many such passages as those 
 we have quoted are read by some with a kind of 
 confused idea that the word means the Holy Spirit. 
 The way in which it is contrasted with flesh, however, 
 shows that the sense which we have attached to it 
 is the correct one. The passages which we have 
 quoted become much more intelligible when we so 
 interpret it. But we do not wish to delay the reader 
 by any further defence of this meaning of the word 
 spirit. All good interpreters admit that the words 
 fl^sh and spirit are used in the New Testament in the 
 manner we are now insisting on. And this is enough 
 for our purpose. 
 
 The second explanation of the words flesh and 
 spirit, that, namely, which regards them as denoting 
 Brian's corrupt and renewed natures, is that which first 
 presented itself to our mind after we had determined 
 the translation of the clause in which they occur. And 
 all our subsequent study has tended to deepen our 
 conviction of the accuracy of this view. The tenor of 
 the two parts of the clause indicates with sufficient 
 clearness how the purpose is to be formulated in either 
 case. Besides, we have the apostle's own words to 
 guide us to the first half of the clause, as we have seen. 
 In ch. iv. 1, 2 we read, "Forasmuch, then, as Christ 
 
 1 Rom. viii. 9. ^ ^^1. y. 16, 17. 
 
I02 Christ's Object in Preaching 
 
 has suffered because of the flesh, arm yourselves like- 
 wise with the same purpose (or mind, or thought) 
 — for he that hath suffered because of the flesh hath 
 ceased from sin,^ — with the view no longer to live the 
 rest of your time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but 
 to the will of God." We have translated from the 
 text of Westcott and Hort. The last part of this 
 quotation furnishes the explanation of the purpose 
 mentioned in the first part. That purpose is the 
 mortification of man's corrupt nature. It is to this 
 that the believers to whom Peter wrote the Epistle 
 were exhorted. As Christ suffered for the same purpose, 
 the apostle's words indicate the proper formulae to be 
 employed in our exposition of the clause now before us. 
 1. Christ was put to death for the conquest and 
 destruction of the corrupt nature of man. In one of its 
 
 ^ This clause, which we have punctuated with dashes, is evidently 
 parenthetical. It is meant to strengthen the exhortation which the 
 apostle addresses to his readers, to arm themselves with the same 
 purpose which Christ had in view in suffering. He is in haste to 
 state that purpose, as it ought to take shape in the minds of his 
 readers. He is hurrying on with his old natural impetuosity, and he 
 throws out this hint as it were just by the way. The idea is that if 
 his readers will obey his exhortation they will reach entire deliverance 
 from sin. Let them look to Christ their great pattern. He once had 
 connexion with sin as our substitute, but He has no longer such a 
 connexion. He has obtained the reward consequent upon the carry- 
 ing out of His purpose. He is now in glory, far beyond all the suffer- 
 ings and sorrows of earth. To the same blessed reward and enjoyment 
 all who obey the exhortation of the apostle will attain. It is signifi- 
 cant that Christ is not here said to have died to sin ; He was never 
 alive to it. His connexion with it was as a sufferer, but that connex- 
 ion has now ceased. Mere men do not cease from sin till they are 
 admitted to glory. "While here they are imperfect, and exposed to 
 suffering. The jjrivilege of perfect deliverance from sin and all its 
 consequences is the great encouragement which the apostle holds out 
 to his readers to carry out in their lives the same purpose which 
 Christ had in His sufferings. 
 
To the Spirits in Prison 103 
 
 aspects the great change which takes place in man 
 at conversion is called a death. It is a death to sin. 
 His past life of disobedience to God is regarded as a 
 thing with which he has no more connexion than a 
 dead man has with this life. The figure is very- 
 expressive, for, of course, the language is not literal, 
 but figurative. If the language were anything but 
 figurative, we would expect converted men to be 
 perfectly holy. One of the great purposes for which 
 Christ died was to lead men to die to sin, in order to 
 their being brought to God. Christ's death is opera- 
 tive upon the believer to this end at the time of his 
 conversion, but it continues to be so also during his 
 whole life on earth. He dies daily unto sin as well as 
 becomes dead to it when he is born again. Nothing 
 can destroy sin in man but the death of Christ. It is 
 the exhibition of Christ, and particularly of His atoning 
 death, to the soul, which leads a man to mortify the 
 flesh with its affections and lusts. " For what the law 
 could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, 
 God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful 
 flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that 
 the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us 
 who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit." ^ 
 2. Christ was made alive for the vivification and 
 enfranchisement of the renewed nature of man. The 
 accuracy of this formula follows as a necessary conse- 
 quence from that suggested by the apostle for the 
 exposition of the first part of the clause now before 
 us. The change which takes place in the sinner at 
 conversion has a twofold aspect, a negative and a 
 positive. The one aspect is related ethically to the 
 death of Christ, the other ethically to His resurrec- 
 
 ^Rom. viii. 3. 
 
I04 Christ's Object in Preaching 
 
 tion. As the sinner dies to sin, so he becomes alive 
 to righteousness. This twofold aspect of conversion 
 helps to explain such a verse as, " Testifying both to 
 Jews and to Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith 
 toward our Lord Jesus Christ."^ That one of the 
 purposes of Christ's resurrection was to lead men to a 
 new life, the Scriptures abundantly testify. " We 
 were buried with Him through baptism into death, 
 that like as Christ was raised from the dead through 
 the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in 
 newness of life." ^ " Buried with Christ in baptism, 
 wherein ye were also raised with Him through faith 
 in the working of God, who raised Him from the 
 dead." ^ As there is a power in connexion with the 
 death of Christ to lead to the mortification of the 
 flesh, so there is a power in connexion with the 
 resurrection of Christ to lead to the vivification of the 
 spirit. And as the power of Christ's death is felt, not 
 only at conversion, but also throughout the whole of 
 the believer's life, so the power of Christ's resurrection 
 is felt during the whole of the believer's pilgrimage 
 here. 
 
 That the ethical relations of Christ's death and 
 resurrection are such as we have described, the 
 Epistles everywhere attest. In addition to the 
 passages already quoted, we may adduce the follow- 
 ing : — " If ye died with Christ from the rudiments of 
 the world, why, as though living in the world, do ye 
 subject yourselves to ordinances ? " * " If ye then 
 were raised together with Christ, seek the things that 
 are above, where Christ is, seated on the right hand of 
 God." ^ " For if we have become united with Him 
 
 1 Acts XX. 21. 2 j>ojji, yi 4^ 3 QqI ii, 12. 
 
 4 Col. ii. 20. 5 Col. iii. 1. 
 
To the Spirits in Prison 105 
 
 by the likeness of His death, we shall be also by the 
 likeness of His resurrection ; knowing this, that our old 
 man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might 
 be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage 
 to sin." ^ 
 
 In the relations of which we are speaking, we have, 
 as we have pointed out, an exhibition of the ethical 
 effects of Christ's work for men. We see how that 
 work influences the mind, and draws men to the 
 acceptance of its benefits. This feature of the 
 mediatorial work of Christ is different from that 
 on which we generally dwell, namely, its sacrificial 
 character. In the preceding clauses of this verse the 
 apostle has been speaking of Christ's work as a 
 sacrifice made to God's justice, so that men might be 
 brought to God. We see the process of bringing men 
 to God in the moral influences of the atonement 
 exhibited in the double clause at present before us. 
 And this clause naturally follows the others. Satisfac- 
 tion must be rendered to God's law by Christ's work 
 before men can be affected by it. This view of the 
 matter is borne out by the evidently explanatory 
 nature of this clause. It bears on the face of it 
 that it is added to throw some additional light on 
 what has gone before.^ 
 
 1 Rom. vi. 5. 
 
 2 Ch. iv. 6 has always been felt to be a difficult passage. As 
 its phraseology closely resembles that of the clause now under con- 
 sideration, we are compelled to look at it with some care. It uses 
 the words flesh and spirit in the same way as they are used in that 
 clause. We render it thus: "For, for this reason was the gospel 
 preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged after 
 the manner of men because of the flesh, but might live in a Godlike 
 manner because of the spirit." In the 5th verse the apostle seeks to 
 encourage his readers in the pursuit of holiness by the consideration 
 that Christ will on the great day judge all men, as well those who 
 
io6 Christ's Object in Preaching 
 
 The exposition which we have now given of this 
 verse invests it with a unity and consistency which 
 it does not possess when otherwise viewed. The great 
 design of the verse is to point out the purpose of 
 
 shall then have died as those who shall then be found alive. The 
 great test on the great day for those who have heard the gospel will 
 be the way in which they have treated it. Hence the apostle is led 
 to declare in the 6th verse that all such who have already died had 
 the gospel preached to them to prepare them for the great day. Of 
 course the apostle's words are to be understood as liaving reference 
 only to whose who have heard the gospel. The heathen, who have 
 never heard the joyful sound, will be tried by a different standard 
 from that used in the case of those who have enjoyed a revelation of 
 the divine will. 
 
 The preaching of the gospel institutes, as it were, a preliminary 
 trial. The reception or rejection of it will determine the sentence 
 pronounced on that day. God mercifully seeks to prepare men for 
 the judgment day by offering them mercy through Christ, and seeking 
 to induce them to live as becomes the gospel. The apostle illustrates 
 this by the case of those who had heard the gospel in the past, but 
 were now dead. 
 
 1. The gospel -was preached to those who were then dead, that 
 they might be judged as men, that is, as sinners. It examines the 
 state of men's hearts, and lays bare all the impurity and sin which 
 lurk there. It puts a man through a process similar to that which 
 he undergoes when he is tried in a court of law, and it finds him 
 guilty. Then it sentences the flesh to death. The corrupt nature 
 must be mortified and destroyed. The word judged then expresses 
 both the sifting and condemnatory offices of the gospel. The word 
 is beautifully appropriate. 
 
 2. But the gospel performs another function in men besides those 
 mentioned. It condemns the flesh — the old nature, to destruction, 
 but it gives us also a new nature. It kills, but it also gives life. 
 And this life is according to the divine pattern. It is a life of 
 holiness— like God's. The purpose for which the gospel is preached 
 is not fulfilled in man unless this result is secured. The new nature 
 with its impulses prompting us to live in a Godlike manner is 
 imparted to us to lead us to life in the spirit, — that holy obedience 
 and purity which the word spirit as opposed to flesh implies. The 
 idea of the last clause of this verse is clearly seen when we speak of 
 the life in a Godlike manner as the new nature, and the s])irit as the 
 manifestation of that new nature. 
 
To the Spirits in Prison 107 
 
 Christ's mediatorial work, namely, to bring men to 
 God. The last clause shows how by the ethical 
 influences of His death and resuiTection He accom- 
 plishes this. Our exposition, if correct, strikes at 
 the root of all the speculations in which men have 
 indulged, in connection with this passage, about what 
 Christ did in His disembodied state. The verse, as 
 we view it, is silent about Christ's state or action 
 between His death and resurrection. 
 
 But oiu' exposition of this verse is not complete 
 till we animate it with the spirit of the apostle's 
 purpose in wi'iting the passage. That purpose was 
 to lead his readers to a patient endurance of the 
 sufferings to which they were subjected. Now, how 
 admirably does this verse further this purpose ! If 
 Christ suffered all that He did endure, though innocent, 
 for us, should we not be ready to suffer for Him ? 
 It is one of the most incumbent duties of Christians 
 to bear suffering even unto death for His sake, if 
 necessary. Then, we are brethren of Christ and 
 devoted to His interests : should we not be willing to 
 suffer if, through our sufferings, others may be led to 
 God ? We may well do so, since the sufferings which 
 Christ endured have secured for us exemption from 
 all pain in the world to come. 
 
 The late Dr. John Brown, of Edinbui^gh, in his 
 Expository Discourses on this Epistle, translates the 
 last half of the clause of this verse, " being quickened 
 in the spirit," which he interprets to mean q^uicheTied 
 spiritually} " A consequence," says he, " of our 
 Lord's penal, vicarious, expiatory sufferings was, that 
 
 ^ "We quote his words because he is a good example of a certain class 
 of expositors. And quite recently in The Expository Times, a pro- 
 minent Edinburgh clergyman has warmly endorsed Dr. Brown's view. 
 
io8 Christ's Object in Preaching 
 
 He became spiritually alive and powerful in a sense 
 and to a degree in which He was not previously, and 
 in which, but for these sufferings, He never would 
 have become — full of life to be communicated to 
 dead souls, mighty to save." This at first sight seems 
 beautifully ingenious ; but, unfortunately for its sound- 
 ness, the word translated in our Authorised Version 
 of the passage, quickened, never means, in the New 
 Testament, having a larger measure of life communi- 
 cated. Wherever it occurs in the New Testament 
 it means made alive, and refers either to the com- 
 munication or restoration of natural life, or to the 
 communication of spiritual life — the implantation of 
 the new nature. The word quickened does mean in 
 the English language what Dr. Brown's view requires ; 
 but when such a sense is attached to it, it is not a 
 correct translation of the Greek word used in the 
 New Testament. It would be easy to prove this if it 
 were necessary. But let us suppose, for the sake of 
 argument, that the word has, in this passage, the 
 meaning for which Dr. Brown contends. Christ 
 must have been quickened either in His divine or 
 in His human nature. Dr. Brown does not mean 
 in His divine nature, for he pronounces such an idea 
 " obviously absurd and false, as implying that He who 
 is ' the life,' the living one, can be quickened either in 
 the sense of, restored from a state of death, or endowed 
 with a larger measure of vitality." He must mean, 
 therefore, that it was Christ's human nature that was 
 quickened. But here the objection comes in with 
 unanswerable force, that Christ does not, as man, but 
 as God, bestow eternal blessings upon men. It is as 
 God-man that He bestows upon us repentance and 
 forgiveness. 
 
To the Spirits in Prison 109 
 
 These remarks just made dispose of the view of 
 those who think the last clause of this verse teaches 
 that Christ's body was put to death while His spirit 
 was kept alive. The Greek word, ^cooTroLeco, has never 
 in the New Testament this meaning. And the 
 passage cited from the Septuagint in Poole's /Synopsis 
 — 1 Sam. xxvii. 9 — to prove that it means there 
 to keep alive, does not contain the word at all, but 
 ^(ooyoveo). But even though fifty passages could be 
 named in which ^(ooTroceo) might be alleged or proved 
 to mean to keep alive, this would not meet the difficulty 
 that the contrast in the clause before us renders such 
 a sense inadmissible here. Such a sense attached to 
 the word would imply the possibility of Christ's spirit 
 being put to death — an idea which is certainly incorrect, 
 whether we make the possibility apply to our Lord's 
 human soul or to His divine nature. But we have 
 already shown that every view which refers the words 
 flesh and s'pirit to Christ is made inadmissible by the 
 language of the apostle. We need not therefore 
 argue further against such views. Turn we now to 
 the next verse. 
 
 Ver. 19<x. 'Ev o5 koX roh iv (jivXaKrj Trvev/maat 
 iTopevdeU iKrjpv^ev — " Wherefore (literally. In which) 
 He even went and preached to the spirits in prison." 
 The first point requiring our attention here is the 
 expression in which, which we translate freely where- 
 fore. What is the antecedent to which ? To what 
 does it refer ? It is a question of grammar ; and in 
 dealing with such a point we must take the literal, 
 not the free translation. Those who take a certain 
 view of the passage say that spirit, in the preceding 
 verse, is the antecedent to which. And we are told 
 that, by the inexorable laws of grammar, we can come 
 
no Christ's Object in Preaching 
 
 to no other conclusion. This is the great argument 
 in favour of the view that Christ in His disembodied 
 spirit preached to disembodied spirits. This view 
 rests on the assumption that spirit in the preceding 
 verse means Christ's disembodied spirit. We trust 
 our exposition of that verse proves that this is by no 
 means self-evident, nay, that it is utterly inadmissible. 
 But even supposing that the word spirit had the 
 meaning alleged, we deny that the laws of grammar 
 would render it necessary that we take spirit as the 
 antecedent to which. The antecedent to a relative is 
 sometimes to be gathered out of a preceding sentence 
 or statement. Of this the Apostle Paul's words in 
 the Epistle to the Galatians furnish a remarkable 
 example : " For it is written, that Abraham had two 
 sons ; the one by a bond maid, and the other by a free 
 woman. But he who was of the bond woman was 
 born after the flesh ; but he of the free woman was by 
 promise — which things are an allegory." The relative 
 here is compound, but this does not affect its value 
 as a grammatical example in point. This is the rule 
 which applies in the present case. It is the object 
 which Christ had in view in dying, namely, to bring 
 men to God, which is the antecedent to the relative 
 which: in which object, that is, with which object in 
 view, He even went and preached to the spirits in 
 prison. Every scholar knows that there are hundreds 
 of examples in classical writers of relatives referring, 
 not to the nearest word, but to a whole clause. 
 
 The interpretation wliich we have just given to the 
 expression under consideration is a corollary from our 
 exposition of the preceding verse. And from the way 
 in which we have grounded that exposition, we would 
 be perfectly warranted in holding that the expression 
 
To the Spirits in Prison 1 1 1 
 
 now before us can be interpreted only in the manner 
 we have just mentioned. But we have no desire to 
 give ourselves even the appearance of dogmatising on 
 any point. Can we gather no principle for our 
 guidance out of the manner in which the apostle uses 
 the expression elsewhere ? Every writer has his 
 favourite expressions, which he often uses in some 
 particular way. We call this a peculiarity of style. 
 Now, the apostle uses this expression in other three 
 passages of this Epistle outside of our text : it does not 
 occur in his Second Epistle at all. He has thus given 
 us sufficient means of observing whether he uses it in 
 any peculiar way. We shall be able to show that he 
 never uses it in such a way as to make the immediately 
 preceding noun the antecedent to ' which.' To put the 
 matter in another form, to bring out the full meaning 
 of the expression in which as used by Peter, we must 
 supply matter, odject, concern, thing, or some such word 
 — terms, in short, corresponding to the Greek XPVf^^ 
 and the Latin negotium or res. If we can prove this, 
 everyone can see how powerfully it will confirm our 
 interpretation of the preceding verse, and how strongly 
 it will militate against the view of those who think spirit 
 in the preceding verse is the antecedent to which. We 
 shall take the passages in which the expression occurs 
 in the order in which they are found in the Epistle. 
 
 1. The first example is in ch. i. 6, where the 
 expression is rendered in our Authorised Version, and 
 in the Eevision as well, ivherein. To make the matter 
 clear, it is necessary to quote the context : " Blessed 
 be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, 
 according to His great mercy, begat us again unto a 
 living hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from 
 the dead, unto an inheritance incorruptible, and unde- 
 
112 Christ's Object in Preaching 
 
 filed, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven 
 for you, who by the power of God are guarded through 
 faith unto a salvation, ready to be revealed in the last 
 time, wherein {literally, in which) ye greatly rejoice, 
 though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heavi- 
 ness through manifold temptations." The question to 
 be determined here is this : Is the antecedent to 
 which the immediately preceding word time, or the 
 whole matter of the preceding context which we have 
 quoted ? Against the former alternative there occui's 
 the damaging objection that men cannot be said to 
 rejoice in what is still in the future. They may 
 rejoice in the hope of it, but this is not what the 
 apostle afiQrms. And the word rejoice is in the 
 present tense ; it is not will rejoice. To meet this 
 difficulty, we are told that the present tense is used 
 here in the sense of the futui'e. But does not such a 
 principle as this, resorted to at pleasure, tend to throw 
 an air of uncertainty around the whole word of God ? 
 If we interpret this passage by such a principle, why 
 not others ? Give us leave to use such a licentious 
 principle, and we undertake to overthrow the most 
 precious teachings of the Bible. We are therefore 
 compelled to adopt the latter alternative of our 
 question, and to conclude that the antecedent to which 
 is to be gathered out of the preceding context which 
 we have quoted. The apostle is there speaking of 
 some of the privileges of God's people. These he 
 gathers all together into a unity in the expression 
 under consideration, and views them as one matter — 
 " in which matter ye greatly rejoice," etc. Is not 
 such a peculiarity of style the dashing, impetuous 
 Peter all over ? for, as has been observed, a man's 
 style is himself. The rejoicing which the apostle 
 
To the Spirits in Prison 1 13 
 
 ascribes to his readers is not inconsistent with 
 temporary depression and sorrow. He is speaking 
 of what is habitual with all God's people, not of what 
 is merely casual. The believer habitually rejoices in 
 his privileges, though he may experience occasional 
 distress. The child of God has every reason for 
 being a happy man, though he may at times be over- 
 whelmed with grief and gloom. 
 
 2. The second example of the apostle's use of the 
 expression before us occurs in ch, ii. 12, where it is 
 translated in our Authorised Version whereas, and 
 in the Eevision wherein. As before, we quote the 
 context : " Dearly beloved, I beseech you, as strangers 
 and pilgrims, to abstain from fleshly lusts, which war 
 against the soul ; having your behaviour honest among 
 the Gentiles : that, wherein {literally, in which or what) 
 they speak against you as evil-doers, they may by 
 your good works, which they behold, glorify God in 
 the day of visitation." There can be no question here 
 that the antecedent to which or what is not any word 
 in the preceding context. No interpreter has ever 
 maintained that such an antecedent can be found. 
 The antecedent is to be gathered out of the preceding 
 context. And it is to be found in the matter of con- 
 duct there referred to. Peter is exhorting his readers 
 to continue to cultivate a holy life, so that, in what 
 respect, or in that respect in which their enemies spoke 
 against them as evil-doers (because, as the apostle, as 
 we shall see, elsewhere affirms, the Christians would 
 not run riot in every kind of iniquity with their 
 heathen fellow-men), they might, by their good works, 
 glorify God in the day of visitation. Those who were 
 now opposed to them would see their good works and 
 glorify their Father in heaven, 
 
 a 
 
114 Christ's Object in Preaching 
 
 3. The third and last example, beyond our text, of 
 the apostle's use of the expression referred to is found 
 in ch. iv. 4, where it is translated in both versions 
 wherein. We quote the context as before : " For the 
 time past may suffice to have wrought the desire of 
 the Gentiles, and to have walked in lasciviousness, lusts, 
 wine - bibbings, revellings, carousings, and abomin- 
 able idolatries, wherein {literally, in which) they 
 think it strange that you run not with them into the 
 same excess of riot, speaking evil of you." Here 
 again the antecedent to which cannot be any word 
 in the preceding context. The immediately preceding 
 word is in the plural number, whereas which is in the 
 singular. We must gather the antecedent, therefore, 
 from the general sense of what goes before. That 
 refers again to the matter of conduct. The apostle 
 gathers together into a unity all the different features 
 of conduct there mentioned, and says, " in which, that 
 is, in which matter of conduct, they think it strange," etc. 
 
 These three examples of the apostle's use of the 
 expression under consideration furnish, apart altogether 
 from our interpretation of the preceding verse, a strong 
 presumption, to say the very least, that he uses it 
 according to the same principle in this 19 th verse, 
 and that spirit in the 18th verse is not the ante- 
 cedent to which in this. 
 
 The conjunction even (kuI) tallies with this ex- 
 planation of the expression under consideration, and 
 confirms it. When we read of Christ even having 
 gone and preached to the spirits in prison, we are 
 forced to infer that He has been represented as having 
 done something else. We do not find this inference 
 satisfied by the statement that Christ was quickened 
 in the spirit or hy the spirit. The verb there is 
 
To the Spirits in Prison 115 
 
 passive, representing Christ as having had something 
 done to Him, not as having done something, as the 
 inference requires. We are carried away back, there- 
 fore, to the statement that Christ died to bring men to 
 Grod. This meets the necessities of the case. Christ 
 died to bring men to God : with the same object in view 
 He even went and preached to the spirits in prison. 
 
 But we must now say a few words on the accuracy 
 of our free translation of the expression under con- 
 sideration. Here our object will be gained by quoting 
 a passage in which the expression occurs in the sense 
 which we have assigned to it. Thus we find in Heb. 
 vi. 17, "For men swear by the greater; and in every 
 dispute of theirs an oath is final for confirmation. 
 Wherefore {literally, in which) God, being minded to 
 show more abundantly unto the heirs of the promise 
 the immutability of His counsel, interposed with an 
 oath." Here clearly the expression can mean only 
 what we have rendered it in our free translation. 
 This sense of the expression is not frequent, but it is 
 enough that we can point to one passage where it 
 occurs — a passage in which Winer says it is used in 
 the sense we have assigned to it. 
 
 The next question to be considered is, who were 
 the spirits in prison to whom Christ preached ? The 
 answers which have been given to this question 
 naturally range themselves into two classes. (1) The 
 Eoman Catholic one, which has been adopted, with 
 certain modifications, by many Protestants. This 
 answer is that Christ went after His death, and in 
 His disembodied state, and preached to disembodied 
 spu'its who had not committed mortal sin, but were 
 at that time in prison in Purgatory. This answer, 
 with all its Protestant modifications, goes directly in 
 
ii6 Christ's Object in Preaching 
 
 the face of that great truth lying upon the surface of 
 the Bible throughout its whole extent, that after death 
 there is no change in the relation which a man bears 
 to God. " It is appointed unto men once to die, but 
 after this the judgment."^ "We must all be made 
 manifest before the judgment - seat of Christ, that 
 each one may receive the things done in the body, 
 according to what he hath done, whether it be good 
 or bad." ^ This doctrine is entirely superseded, if we 
 are taught to believe that our eternal state after the 
 final judgment will depend, not only upon the deeds 
 done in the body, but upon those done by our dis- 
 embodied spirits as well. If any man holds that 
 Christ preached for their salvation to disembodied 
 spirits who had not had the opportunity of receiving 
 the truth in this world, he must hold, to be consistent, 
 that there are others besides those to whom Christ 
 preached who receive the offer of salvation after death, 
 or show reason to the contrary. In short, such an 
 idea opens the door to some of the wildest and most 
 unscriptural dogmas of Eomanism. If it be correct, 
 then we are warranted to pray for the souls of the 
 dead, that they may be enabled to receive the truth 
 when it is presented to them in the intermediate state, 
 for we cannot tell whether God will regard the light 
 any one has enjoyed as having been sufficient for his 
 conversion. And, as the probability is that the 
 circumstances in which spirits will find themselves in 
 another world will be more favourable for the recep- 
 tion of the truth than those in which they are placed 
 here, with such an idea we have nothing to stop us 
 from falling into universalism. But, besides, if it 
 be true that sinners who have not had an opportunity 
 1 Heb. ix. 27. 2 2 Cor. v. 10. 
 
To the Spirits in Prison 117 
 
 of embracing the gospel in time, will have such an 
 opportunity afforded them after death, all motive to 
 prosecute the missionary cause, or even to preach the 
 gospel to the ignorant among us, is taken away. Nay, 
 must not the preaching of the gospel to any man be 
 regarded as cruelty ? Better far that we all remained 
 ignorant of it, if we are to have the offer of it in 
 another state, which will in all probability be more 
 favourable to our reception of it. 
 
 Bishop Horsley is one of the most prominent Pro- 
 testant theologians who have adopted a modification of 
 the Eoman Catholic view. His interpretation claims 
 special notice, not only because of his great learning, 
 but also because of the influence which he has exer- 
 cised over subsequent theological writers. That in- 
 terpretation we find in a sermon on the passage we 
 are now considering. The object of the sermon is to 
 vindicate the clause in the so-called Apostles' Creed 
 which speaks of our Lord's descent into hell. This 
 descent we are told was "an action performed by 
 Him after He was dead and buried, and before He 
 rose again." Hell, we are fui'ther told, "must be 
 some place below the surface of the earth." Calvin's 
 idea, that our Lord descended to the place of torment, 
 is rejected with horror. " The word (hell), in its 
 natural import, signifies only that invisible place 
 which is the appointed habitation of departed souls 
 in the interval between death and the general resur- 
 rection." The New Testament writers "divide this 
 central mansion of the dead into two distinct regions, 
 for the separate lodging of the souls of the righteous 
 and the reprobate." " He (Christ) descended to hell, 
 properly so called, — to the invisible mansions of de- 
 parted spirits, and to that part of it where the souls 
 
1 1 8 Christ's Object in Preaching 
 
 of the faithful, when they are dehvered from the 
 burden of the flesh, are in joy and felicity." Such, 
 in brief, and in his own words, is Horsley's interpre- 
 tation of the clause in the so-called Apostles' Creed. 
 He then proceeds to support this interpretation by a 
 reference to certain texts of Scripture. And these 
 texts he strives, with no doubt the most honest in- 
 tention, to bend to his purpose. 
 
 He cites, first, our Lord's words to the penitent 
 robber, Lk. xxiii. 43, " To-day shalt thou be with Me 
 in paradise." Paradise " was not heaven ; for to 
 heaven our Lord after His death ascended not till 
 after His resurrection, as appears from His own words 
 to Mary Magdalene." Paradise " could be no other 
 than that region of repose and rest where the souls 
 of the righteous abide in joyful hope of the consum- 
 mation of their bliss." 
 
 Horsley's next proof text is the quotation which 
 Peter made from the Psalmist on the day of Pente- 
 cost. Acts ii. 27, "Thou wilt not leave my soul in 
 hell, neither wilt Thou suffer Thy Holy One to see 
 corruption." His inference here is that Christ's soul 
 must have been in hell. 
 
 The next proof adduced is Eph. iv. 9, "Now that 
 He ascended, what is it but that He descended first 
 into the lower parts of the earth." " This text," he 
 says, " expressly affirms a descent of Christ's Spirit 
 into hell." 
 
 Having thus carefully prepared his way, the good 
 Bishop turns with some degree of confidence to the 
 words of our apostle. He says Peter's meaning turns 
 on the sense we assign to the phrase the spirits in 
 prison. He translates the clause in which the phrase 
 occurs thus : " He went and preached to the spirits in 
 
To the Spirits in Prison 119 
 
 sa/e keejnng." He thinks Peter means that Christ 
 preached to the spirits in the interval between His 
 death and resurrection. The exact rendermg, there- 
 fore, of the apostle's words would be : " Being put to 
 death in the flesh, but quick in the spirit " ; that is, 
 surviving in His soul the stroke of death which His 
 body had sustained ; " by which," or rather, " in which," 
 that is, in which survivmg soul, " He went and preached 
 to the souls of men ui prison, or in safe keeping." ^ 
 
 To this view there are several obvious and serious 
 objections — 
 
 1. It represents paradise as under the surface of 
 the earth. The other two passages where the word 
 occurs do not correspond with such an idea. Paul in 
 2 Cor. xii. speaks of being caught u;:* into paradise. 
 In Kev. ii. 7 we read, " To hun that overcometh will 
 I give to eat of the tree of life which is m the midst 
 of the paradise of God." Is that consistent with the 
 learned Bishop's view ? Is it a thhag to be desired 
 that we be sent, after overcommg, to a place of safe 
 keeping under ground? Is the tree of life there? 
 Is the paradise of God there ? 
 
 2. The passages which Horsley adduces about Christ 
 descending to the lower parts of the earth simply 
 mean that He died and entered into the state of the 
 dead. The same is true of the quotation from the 
 Psalmist which Peter makes. Christ did not remain 
 in the state of the dead till His body underwent 
 decomposition. 
 
 3. The word quick, or living, is not a correct render- 
 ing of the original Greek term ^(ooiroirjOeL^. Made 
 alive or restored to life is the only possible translation. 
 This is clear from the contrast stated in the clause. 
 Christ was put to death by wicked men, but was 
 
I20 Christ's Object in Preaching 
 
 restored to life by the Father. The Greek word for 
 qiiich is ^oiv. The term occurs in 2 Tim. iv. 1 and 
 in 1 Pet. iv. 5, where, in both cases, it is contrasted 
 with veKpo^. 
 
 4. The idea of Christ preaching to the spirits in 
 safe keeping between His death and resurrection is 
 excluded from the passage by the fact that His 
 preaching is not mentioned till after His resurrection. 
 For, of course, as we have just pointed out, the word 
 ^(oo7roL7]d6L<; refers to our Lord's resurrection. 
 
 There are other objections which might have been 
 stated to this view, but we have said enough to show 
 that it is untenable. Notwithstanding, however, the 
 glaring objections to which it is exposed, it is largely 
 accepted in the present day. Among those who 
 adhere to it are men like the late Dean Plumptre and 
 the present Dean of Canterbury, Dr. Farrar. 
 
 Those who take sjnrit in ver. 18 to mean Christ's 
 disembodied spirit, seem to think that the close con- 
 nexion between vv. 18 and 19 renders it necessary 
 to conclude He preached to disembodied spirits. His 
 preaching is mentioned after His death. But it is 
 overlooked that it is mentioned also after His resur- 
 rection. Many minds seem to become confused here. 
 If we keep in view the apostle's purpose in writing 
 this passage, we shall see that the connexion between 
 vv. 18 and 19 is not chronological, but logical 
 The fact that Christ's preaching, in the case under 
 consideration, is mentioned after His death and resur- 
 rection, can be accounted for on the ground that it 
 supplies one of the best illustrations which the apostle 
 could give of Christ's desire to bring men to God. 
 He was not required to give His illustrations of such 
 a point in the chronological order. Nay, the order 
 
To the Spirits in Prison I2I 
 
 He followed was that which any Christian going 
 over the same ground might naturally follow. He 
 began with the great means which Christ employed to 
 bring men to God, and then spoke of another effort put 
 forth, though used many ages before. The case of the 
 antediluvians was special. It was necessary to take 
 measures to separate the righteous from the wicked, 
 otherwise the human race would have become extinct. 
 No other such crisis has ever occurred in the history 
 of the world calHng for such special interference. 
 That our Lord acted as He did at the time, shows how 
 intensely He is in earnest in seeking to bring men to 
 God. But we anticipate. 
 
 (2) The Protestant answer to the question, Who 
 were the spirits in prison to whom Christ preached ? 
 is, that they were those who lived on the earth im- 
 mediately before the Flood, and that Christ preached 
 to them while they were in the flesh, and not after 
 they died. This is our view. But why are they 
 called spirits ? It is hardly necessary to remark that 
 we are not under any necessity to suppose that when- 
 ever this word occurs it means disemhodied spirits. It 
 has not this meaning in these passages, for example : 
 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your 
 spirit." ^ " For who among men knoweth the things 
 of a man, save the spirit of the man which is in 
 him." 2 In our own language we call men spirits. 
 We say such a man was the master spirit of his age, 
 and we speak of turbulent men as unruly spirits. As 
 the spirit is the most important part of man, it is 
 naturally employed to describe the whole. We must 
 not be astonished, therefore, to find the word so used 
 by the apostle. He seems to have been prompted to 
 
 1 Philem. 25. ^ i Cor. ii. 11. 
 
122 Christ^s Object in Preaching 
 
 its use here by the remembrance of having used it in 
 the preceding verse. 
 
 So far is the word spirits from necessarily meaning 
 disemhodied spirits, that, according to the Bible use of 
 language, spirits in prison must be understood to mean 
 men in the flesh. The following quotations seem to 
 estabhsh this : — " I the Lord have called thee in 
 righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep 
 thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for 
 a light of 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 " (ef 
 oXkov <pvXaK7](})} " Bring my soul out of prison " 
 (^E^dyaye e/c (j)v\aKrj^ rrjv '^V')(r}v fJbov)} The Greek 
 here quoted is that of the LXX., which, as everyone 
 knows, has so largely influenced that of the New 
 Testament. The allusion in these two passages is not 
 to disemhodied spirits, but to men in the flesh. This is 
 so clear that we do not need to insist upon it. But 
 another remark is suggested by these quotations. The 
 word prison naturally gives rise to the thought that 
 those who are confined in such a place are in danger. 
 Some charge has been brought against, and they are 
 more or less in peril. They may be in prison, pre- 
 vious to their execution. It needs no argument to 
 show that some such idea is connected with both 
 passages. The first evidently is a prediction concern- 
 ing Christ. And the idea is that He is appointed to 
 bring light and deliverance to those, whether Jews or 
 Gentiles, who sit in the prison-house of darkness and 
 sin. The words quoted from Ps. cxlii. are expressive 
 of distress and the consciousness of danger. The 
 Psalmist felt that from one cause or another his soul 
 1 Isa. xlii. 7. 2 pg. cxlii. 7. 
 
To the Spirits in Prison 123 
 
 was in peril. We are therefore to infer that those 
 spirits in prison to whom Christ is represented as 
 having preached in the days of Noah are so described 
 because their lives were in special danger. And it is 
 not their bodies that are here regarded as in prison, but 
 their spirits. Christ came, not to emancipate men's 
 bodies, but their spirits. The spirit of man is, in a 
 figurative sense, in prison; it is enthralled by sin. 
 Those, therefore, referred to in the quotations which 
 we have made from Isaiah and the Psalms are 
 accurately described when we call them spirits in 
 prison. And it would seem that Peter, in describing 
 those who lived immediately before the Flood, borrowed 
 his language from such passages as these. The ex- 
 pression, then, sinrits in prison, describes the state of 
 all men by nature. But there is an additional reason 
 why those to whom Christ preached immediately before 
 the Flood should be called spirits in prison. They are 
 differentiated from other men by the character ascribed 
 to them, and by the peculiar circumstances in which 
 they were placed. They were under the special con- 
 demnation of God, and were like men condemned for 
 a crime, and awaiting in prison their punishment ; so 
 that they were in a very special sense spirits in prison. 
 This disposes of the view of those who understand 
 Peter to mean that Christ preached to men luhose 
 spirits are now in prison. 
 
 An attempt has been made to prove that the ex- 
 pression, " the spirits in prison," means Noah's family 
 shut up in the ark. This is a revival of the opinion 
 first broached by Lord Barrington, the grandson of 
 Caryl, the commentator on Job. It seems to find a 
 kind of verbal warrant from 2 Pet. ii. 5, "If God 
 spared not the old world, but kept in safety (icfyvXa^e) 
 
124 Christ*s Object In Preaching 
 
 Noah," etc. To understand the force of the argument 
 founded upon this word, it is necessary to know that 
 its cognate noun, (jivXaKj), is used in our text, and is 
 translated prison. So that it seems the ark must 
 be the prison spoken of in our text. But such a 
 view is manifestly inadmissible. (1) Those to whom 
 Christ preached are said to have been disohedient at 
 the time of His preaching. This could not be affirmed 
 of Noah's family, for they obeyed the divine warning, 
 and found safety in the ark. (2) The apostle tells 
 us Christ's preaching took place while the ark was heing 
 prepared, not after it was built. (3) The passage 
 bears on the face of it that Noah's family were saved 
 because they listened to the divine warning. But 
 this view destroys all connection between the preach- 
 ing and the preservation. (4) The apostle speaks of 
 fetu being saved. This expression is evidently used 
 in contrast to those who perished, who were many. 
 A few believed the preaching, namely, Noah's family 
 — many were disobedient. 
 
 The verb (fivXda-aco and its cognate noun have 
 difiPerent shades of meaning. They may be used of 
 a prison, and be associated with the idea of trial and 
 punishment ; or they may be used of an asylum of 
 safety. The same writer might, with propriety, use 
 the words in the one sense at the one time, and in 
 the other at another time. This is just what Peter 
 has done. The context determines the sense. 
 
 The Unitarian version of the New Testament, 
 published by the Socinians in 1808 to vindicate their 
 heretical doctrines, has the following note on the 
 passage before us : " He preached, not to the same 
 individual persons, but to men like them, in the same 
 circumstances ; to the race of the Gentiles, to the 
 
To the Spirits in Prison 125 
 
 descendants of those who had formerly been dis- 
 obedient, and refused the call of the Spirit in Noah's 
 time." As those who rejected the truth before the 
 Flood were all swept away, it is difficult to see how 
 they could have had any descendants. 
 
 But the question arises, How did He preach ? in 
 person ? or, by proxy ? Our Authorised translators 
 seem to have had the idea that He preached through 
 Noah by His Holy Spirit. But if our view of the 
 passage be correct, the Holy Spirit is not referred to 
 in it at all. We cannot resist the conclusion that 
 the expression, " He went and preached," implies that 
 in some sense He preached in person. This expres- 
 sion is like one which occurs in Eph. ii. 17, "He 
 came and preached peace to you that were far off, 
 and to them that were nigh." This passage is quoted 
 to prove that His preaching in our text was not per- 
 sonal. But it is far from satisfactory as a proof of 
 such a position. Nay, it proves the very reverse. 
 He did come into the world and preach the gospel. 
 The meaning of the passage is that He preached a 
 gospel which was for Jews and Gentiles alike. No 
 one contends that He preached to all men ; but He 
 personally preached a gospel which was for all men. 
 " How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salva- 
 tion ; which having at the first been spoken by the Lord, 
 was confirmed unto us by them that heard ? " ^ Now, 
 as the language in Ephesians so closely resembles the 
 phraseology of that verse on which we are now com- 
 menting, and as it means that Christ personally 
 preached peace, so our text must be interpreted to 
 mean that He preached personally to the spirits in 
 prison. If we can show that He preached personally 
 1 Heb. ii. 3. 
 
126 Christ's Object in Preaching 
 
 to Noah, this will be as much personal preaching to 
 the spirits in prison as was His preaching while in 
 the flesh, to them that were afar off, and to them that 
 were nigh. If, then, we tiu^n to Genesis and read 
 the instructions which Noah received regarding 
 the ark, we shall come to the conclusion that he 
 received a personal visit from a divine person. Such 
 visits were common in early patriarchal times. It is 
 now a settled point among all sound divines that, on 
 all such occasions, it was the Second Person of the 
 Godhead who appeared — our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 Christ, then, appeared to Noah, and warned him that 
 the Flood was coming upon the world for its ungodli- 
 ness. This was preaching personally, and for all then 
 living. That Noah carried out the wishes of Christ, and 
 made known to an ungodly world the communication 
 which he had received, is evident from the fact that he 
 is called by this same apostle " a preacher of righteous- 
 ness." And this expression implies that he was not 
 content with words of warning. He must have told 
 his contemporaries of God's love and readiness to 
 accept all workers of righteousness. It does not 
 meet the requirements of the case to say merely that 
 Christ preached by His Spirit. His preaching was 
 directed towards " the spirits in prison " through 
 Noah, as the words may be imderstood to mean, 
 and Noah received the personal communication. So 
 that the whole truth about Christ's preaching in 
 Noah's time is, that He preached personally, first to 
 Noah, and then through him to all men then living. 
 
 Ver. 20a. Those to whom Christ preached are de- 
 scribed as " at that time disobedient " {aireidrjo-aaL 
 TTore). The expression refers to the time when the 
 heavenly communication was made to them. They 
 
To the Spirits in Prison 127 
 
 regarded the words of Noah as the outcome of a 
 heated unagmation. While he was preparing the 
 ark, they would mock and insult him. They re- 
 sembled that generation of Jews who lived when our 
 Lord was incarnate. All generations of those to 
 whom the gospel is preached, cannot be called dis- 
 ohedient in the same sense as those who lived imme- 
 diately before the Flood ; but, alas ! the language is in 
 some measure applicable to all men. The preaching 
 of Christ in the days of Noah was, it seems, attended 
 with small results. 
 
 Ver. 2 Oh. "Ore aTrefeSe^^ero 77 tov Geov iMaKpoOvixta, 
 iv r)^epai<i Na>€ — " When the long-suffering of God was 
 continuing to loait in the days of Noah." God showed 
 great patience with the antediluvians. He gave them 
 special warning of the punishment which He was 
 about to bring upon them in the event of their con- 
 tinuing impenitent. It is thought by some that the 
 passage, " My Spirit shall not always strive with man, 
 for he also is flesh : yet his days shall be an himdred 
 and twenty years," — it is thought that this passage 
 expresses the length of time during which God con- 
 tinued to wait after the announcement made to Noah 
 that He was about to bring a flood on the earth. If 
 so, how remarkable was God's long-suffering, and what 
 opportunities had the men of that time of fleeing 
 from the wrath to come ! 
 
 Ver. 20c. The time when those disobedient spirits 
 had the truth preached to them is still further speci- 
 fied as " while the ark was leing prepared " {KaraaKev- 
 a^o/jiivr]'; kl/Bcotov). It seems that the apostle is 
 nervously anxious to show that the spirits in prison 
 were those who lived just before the Flood. All the 
 time during which the ark was being built, those wicked 
 
128 Christ's Object in Preaching 
 
 men had the opportunity of repenting of their sin and 
 obtaining God's favoui', and all that time did righteous 
 Noah plead with them, so far as we know, in vain. 
 
 Ver. 20d. Et? rjv oXiyat, tovt6(7tlv oktoj, ^/ru^al 
 BLe(Tco67](Tav Bl vSaro^ — "Into which a few, that is, 
 eight souls, were carried safely through water." Noah 
 and his family, eight souls in all, were all, apparently, 
 who availed themselves of the divine warning, and 
 sought safety in the ark. All the rest perished in 
 the waters of the Flood. They were saved from a 
 watery grave. It was not the water that saved them. 
 They were really saved /rom it. The version of 1611 
 says they were saved hg, that of 1881 that they were 
 saved through, water. The meaning is the same in 
 both. Both represent water as the means of salvation. 
 But, as every intelligent reader sees, it was the water 
 of the Flood that was the source of danger. Noah 
 and his family were saved from it ; the others perished 
 hy means of it. The Eevisers of 1881 are forced 
 to put in the margin — " carried safely through water " ; 
 but they evidently hanker after the idea that the 
 apostle meant that in some sense water here is to be 
 regarded as seeming salvation from death. The narra- 
 tive in Genesis effectually disposes of such a notion. 
 
 But we must put the soul of the apostle's purpose 
 into our exposition of vv. 19 and 20 to complete 
 our work. The great leading peculiarity of these 
 verses is that they describe Christ's anxiety to bring 
 sinners to God. He is unwilling that any should 
 perish. He waited long, and went personally to 
 preach to the wicked men in Noah's time, and all to 
 save eight souls. And let us exercise the same 
 patience under suffering as He did under the opposi- 
 tion manifested to Him while on earth, how 
 
To the Spirits in Prison 129 
 
 precious is a soul! If by our example of patient 
 submission to the divine will we can save one from 
 perdition, we shall on that great day be greeted by 
 the welcome, " Well done ! " 
 
 An Excursus on Ver. 21a 
 
 Ver. 21a. ^O koI viia<; avrirvirov vvv aco^et — " Which 
 also is now saving you an antitype." Or, as we have 
 translated above — " And this also is now saving you 
 an antitype." The voluminous controversy which this 
 and the following clause have occasioned has not led 
 to a satisfactory settlement of its exegesis. We have 
 never met with any explanation of the apostle's words 
 here which we could accept. We propose an exposition 
 which commends itself to our own mind, and which 
 we humbly hope students of the New Testament will 
 consider not unworthy of attention. We proceed upon 
 the assumption which we have hitherto followed in 
 these papers, that what an apostle has written was 
 intended to be intelligible ; and we argue that if there 
 is confusion in our interpretation of his words, the 
 fault must be ours, not his. If we hold less than this, 
 how can we enter upon the study of his writings with 
 any degree of confidence ? This part of the passage 
 which we have undertaken to expound is not, strictly 
 speaking, connected with any question about the spirits 
 in prison, but it is the conclusion of the sentence in 
 which this expression occurs ; and that sentence is not 
 entirely occupied with this knotty subject. The great 
 object of the apostle in the sentence, which is a long one, 
 is to show how intense is Christ's desire to bring men 
 to God. That desire is still dwelt upon in this clause. 
 
 9 
 
130 Excursus on i Pet. iii 21a 
 
 Let us look for a little at a few of the interpreta- 
 tions of this clause which have been offered. And 
 we need do little more than quote certain translations 
 which have been given. These will indicate with 
 sufficient accuracy for our purpose the views founded 
 upon them. 
 
 It seems to have become very early a settled belief, 
 that in this clause the apostle wished to compare 
 baptism with something mentioned in the immediately 
 preceding verse, and all interpreters have laboured 
 since that time to make this comparison clear. No 
 one hitherto appears to have been disposed to call in 
 question the accuracy of this established belief. We 
 hope to be able to prove that there is no comparison 
 here made between baptism and anything mentioned 
 in the preceding verse. This may seem a bold asser- 
 tion, but we speak advisedly, and we hope the remain- 
 ing portion of our paper will justify this boldness. 
 But, meanwhile, let us make our proposed reference 
 to published translations. The Vulgate rendering is, 
 " Quoad et vos nunc similis formce salvos facit hap- 
 tisma." This is simply imintelligible. Erasmus was 
 justified, after quoting this version, in adding, " Grceca 
 'plus hdbent lucis." Zeger translates, " To which a 
 similar baptism also now makes us safe." Not to 
 mention other objections to this translation, it im- 
 plies that a baptism of some kind or other has already 
 been spoken of. But no one requu-es to be told that 
 no such subject has been mentioned in the preceding 
 context. CastaKo's translation is intelligible, but is 
 not a correct version of any Greek text extant : 
 " Consimili forma nunc quoque babtisma vos servat." 
 KnatchbuU reads the last two words of the preceding 
 verse along with our text thus : " By water also 
 
Erroneous Views of the Verse 131 
 
 baptism, which is the antitype (of the ark of Xoah, 
 wherein eight souls were saved), doth now save us." 
 But this translation would imply that it had been said 
 in the preceding verse that Noah and his family were 
 saved hy water. This would not be so, either in sound 
 or sense, if you removed the expression in question from 
 the preceding verse and prefixed it to the 21st. But, 
 further, the words hC vharo^, whatever meaning we 
 assign to them, belong so evidently to Bieacodrjaav, that 
 it would be an act of violence to read them in any other 
 connexion. But, once more, this translation makes 
 baptism the antitype of the ark. Grammatically, this 
 is impossible ; but how can the resemblance between 
 the two be made out logically ? Dr. John Brown says, 
 " The words may be rendered with perfect accuracy, 
 which was a type or figure of the baptism which saves 
 us." We cannot admit the accuracy of such a rendering. 
 It is exposed to several serious objections. No Greek 
 text ever heard of warrants such a translation. It 
 arbitrarily alters the collocation of the apostle's words, 
 as well as makes havoc of the rules of syntax. It 
 reads baptism as in the genitive case, and calls in 
 from the region of fancy another which, in order to 
 complete a fictitious sense. If we are permitted to 
 take such liberties as this with the word of God, we 
 may make it teach anything we please. Alford's 
 translation is as little intelligible as any we have yet 
 mentioned : " Which, the antitype (of that) is now 
 saving you also." If any of our readers can make 
 sense out of this, or can construe it according to the 
 rules of English syntax, all we can say is, that we 
 envy them their ability. Our Eevisers do not make 
 the sense any plainer by the rendering : " Which also 
 after a true likeness {margin, in the antitype), doth 
 
132 Excursus on i Pet. iii. 11 a 
 
 now save you." What is the comparison here ? Is 
 it in the fact of saving ? Or is it between the water 
 of the Flood and that of baptism ? When we try to 
 think out the meaning of our Eevisers, we become 
 involved in hopeless perplexity. We have shown at 
 length that water in the preceding verse is viewed 
 as an element of danger, not as securing salvation or 
 preservation. Is it possible that correct expositions 
 can be built upon such translations ? 
 
 The question of textual criticism must be disposed 
 of before we proceed fui'ther. What are the actual 
 Greek words which we have to expound ? What did 
 Peter write ? It is plain that we can make no satis- 
 factory progress till this question is settled. A good 
 deal of the diversity of translation exhibited in the 
 preceding paragraph is due to variation of text. Did 
 Peter write or w, and vfjua^i or ?7/ia? ? These are the 
 alternative readings upon which we have to decide. 
 There is a great preponderance of authority in favour 
 of 0. No editor now ever dreams of accepting any 
 other reading. There is more doubt whether we 
 should read u^a? or 97/^^9. It is gratifying, however, to 
 think that, whichever of these we accept, the meaning 
 is not materially affected, nor is the grammatical con- 
 struction interfered with. The three best codices, 
 however, — the Sinaitic, the Vatican, and the Alexan- 
 drine, — read vfia^i. We accept the text of West- 
 cott and Hort. This is the text accepted by such 
 men as Lachmann also, and Buttmann and Tischen- 
 dorf. There is hardly any room for suspecting its 
 perfect accuracy. We read, then, as follows, giving, 
 however, for reasons which will afterwards appear, 
 another than the ordinary punctuation : o kol vfid^; 
 avrlrvTrov vvv aco^et. We regard this as the end of 
 
The Question of Punctuation 133 
 
 the sentence, and translate accordingly, " And this 
 also is now saving you an antitype." 
 
 Our readers will observe that this translation is, in. 
 some respects, new. It is made to contain an asser- 
 tion not hitherto ascribed to the apostle. Our render- 
 ing is, however, quite literal, and our only wonder is 
 that it should never have been thought of before. We 
 have been compelled to adopt the above punctuation, 
 in order to make it possible to translate without 
 violating the rules of Greek syntax. The construc- 
 tion of the clause is naturally completed with the 
 word aco^ec, and with that word the sentence must of 
 necessity terminate. A new subject is introduced by 
 the immediately succeeding word fidirTKrixa. The 
 hitherto received mode of punctuation used in this 
 verse can lead to nothing but confusion, for it seeks to 
 construe two distinct sentences with two distinct 
 subjects, as if they were only one. We need hardly 
 say that the punctuation of our Bibles is not of 
 inspired authority. Every interpreter feels himself 
 free to punctuate in such a way as he thinks will give 
 the most natural, clear, and consistent sense to the 
 words which he has to explain. 
 
 The first question raised in connexion with the 
 exposition of the clause before us is, What is the 
 antecedent to which ? What is it that saves, accord- 
 ing to the apostle's assertion ? This question has 
 received various answers, as our brief review of opinions 
 has shown. Some say, the ark. But this is plainly 
 inadmissible, either grammatically or logically. Which 
 is neuter in Greek, and ark is feminine. Then how 
 can the ark save now ? The great body of inter- 
 preters answer the question now before us by saying, 
 water is the antecedent. And they show great dili- 
 
134 Excursus on i Pet. iii. 21a 
 
 gence in attempting to explain how ivaier saves. It 
 is not ivater per se, but water as used in baptism which 
 secures this result — Which water as the antitype hap- 
 tism now saves you, or, as the Eevisers put it, Which 
 also, after a triie likeness (margin, in the antitype), doth 
 now save you. Every one hitherto has assumed that 
 baptism is here said to save. Those who believe in 
 baptismal regeneration find this belief quite to their 
 purpose. But many interpreters think the apostle no 
 sooner wrote down this thought than he perceived it 
 was too strong, and proceeded to qualify it by the 
 language of the subsequent part of the verse. The 
 plain English of this is, that the apostle made a 
 clumsy job of it in attempting to say how baptism 
 saves, and was compelled to make an explanation 
 which involves the whole matter in hopeless confusion. 
 This is certainly not very complimentary to Peter's 
 command of Greek, not to mention his inspiration at 
 all. But as this is the commonly received interpreta- 
 tion, we must subject it to a rigid scrutiny. It is 
 exposed to several fatal objections. These objections 
 we can state in answering the question. What is the 
 antecedent to which ? 
 
 1. If we make water the antecedent, we require to 
 establish a new doctrine of the relative. The hitherto 
 received doctrine on this subject is, that the relative 
 gathers up and repeats the idea of its antecedent. It 
 includes nothing more and nothing less. It certainly 
 does not include something totally different. But 
 the view we are refuting overturns this doctrine. 
 According to it, the relative and its antecedent repre- 
 sent two radically distinct thoughts. The water of 
 the antecedent had destructive, the water of the 
 relative has saving, properties. If the antecedent in 
 
The Antecedent to "which" 135 
 
 this case is water, then it is the water of the Flood 
 which is meant, and it is the idea of this water which 
 the relative ought to repeat. It is not any kind of 
 water, but, specifically, the water of the Flood. So 
 that the apostle's meaning must be — " which w^ater of 
 the Flood also now saves you." How such a doctrine 
 accords with Scripture, we are not skilful enough 
 to demonstrate. How could this water be obtained, 
 even if we were persuaded of its saving efficacy ? We 
 are aware that those against whom we write do not 
 understand the apostle's words thus ; but we must 
 have a new doctrine of the relative to read them in 
 any other way, if we are to make water the ante- 
 cedent. 
 
 2. If we make vjater the antecedent, we must 
 go further, and make it synonymous with baptism. 
 This is done by those against whom we write. But 
 this is to confound things that differ. Water is 
 used in Christian baptism ; but water is not baptism. 
 We might as well say that bread and wine are the 
 Lord's Supper. We must not confound the elements 
 used in the Christian sacraments with the sacraments 
 themselves. We speak of a baptism of blood; but 
 who would ever think of saying, baptism is blood ? 
 We read of the baptism of the Spirit ; but who would 
 ever think of saying that baptism is the Spirit ? We 
 read of a baptism of fire ; but who would ever dream 
 of saying, baptism is fire ? Alford seems to have felt 
 the force of this objection when he wrote : " Even 
 baptism (not the water of baptism) — the parenthesis 
 following is a kind of protest against such a rendering 
 — but water, in the form of baptism, becomes to us 
 baptism." Does this explanation make our readers 
 any wiser ? For our own part, it is a piece of logical 
 
136 Excursus on i Pet. iii. 21a 
 
 legerdemain, which we confess ourselves unable to 
 follow. How does water, in the form of baptism, 
 become to us baptism ? When does w^ater ever take 
 the form of baptism ? Alford's words are useful, 
 however, as showing how vain is the attempt to 
 identify water with baptism. In fact, the view which 
 Alford adopts puts which, antitype, and baptism all in 
 apposition, and makes them all synonymous with 
 wate7\ It is impossible to construe the first clause of 
 the verse in any other way in accordance with the 
 view which we condemn. Alford cannot escape from 
 this impossibility by tagging on baptism to the end of 
 the clause as a kind of appendix. 
 
 3. If we make ivater the antecedent, we confound the 
 distinction between type and antitype, as these terms 
 are used by theologians. Water, according to the 
 ordinary view, is both type and antitype. Alford and 
 others try to get over this confusion by saying that 
 the water to which the relative refers is not the water 
 of Noah's Flood, but water generally, the common term 
 between type and antitype. This ingenious refine- 
 ment, or desperate shift, as we ought rather to call it, 
 has no warrant from the apostle's words. The water 
 referred to by which, if water is the antecedent, is the 
 water of Noah's Flood, and can be no other. The 
 established laws of grammar are nothing, if this is 
 not so. And if the water is the same in both cases, 
 then type and antitype become identical. 
 
 4. If we make water the antecedent, we destroy 
 the logical connexion of the apostle's words. This 
 objection is the most overwhelming of all. It was 
 urged long ago by Piscator. The water of the Flood, 
 he pointed out, did not preserve anyone, but destroyed 
 very many ; but here mention is made of preservation. 
 
What led to Noah's Preservation 137 
 
 This objection is unanswerable. If you speak of the 
 water of baptism as now saving, this implies that it 
 has been spoken of before as saving. But every one 
 knows that this is not the case. The water spoken of 
 in the preceding verse drowned all the antediluvians 
 excepting Noah and his family, who were preserved 
 by special means. Entering the ark, they were 
 carried in safety through the water, — Bieacodrjaav Bl 
 uSaro?, — which would otherwise have drowned them 
 also. How, then, can water be said to save now also ? 
 But some try to escape from this objection by saying 
 that it is baptism, as the antitype of the water of the 
 Flood, which saves. Now, granting, for the sake 
 of argument, that water and baptism are sjTionymous, 
 does the explanation offered mend the matter much ? 
 The type and the antitype are not contrasts, but differ 
 from one another only as the seal differs from the 
 impression. They bear the very closest resemblance 
 to one another. But how can there be any resem- 
 blance, as to effects at least, — and this is the matter 
 to be attended to, — between the water of the Flood 
 and the water of baptism ? They point in opposite 
 directions. The water of the Flood is associated with 
 destruction, the water of baptism with salvation. 
 
 We hope we have taken our readers along with us 
 up to this point, and that they agree with us in 
 thinking that the antecedent to which cannot be water. 
 The question of the antecedent may now be resolved 
 into this other. What did Peter regard as leading to 
 the preservation of Noah and his family ? The 
 answer which we obtain to this question will point 
 out to us what is the antecedent to which. Our text 
 expressly declares that what led to the salvation in the 
 one case leads to salvation in the other. The apostle's 
 
138 Excursus on i Pet. ili. 21a 
 
 words are, " which also now saves," etc., clearly show- 
 ing that what saves now also preserved Noah and his 
 family long ago. Now, what led to the preservation 
 of Noah and his family ? 
 
 Was it the preaching of Christ referred to in 
 the 19th verse? There cannot be the slightest 
 doubt that, but for the Eedeemer's warning words to 
 them, they would have shared in the general cata- 
 strophe. Steiger is forced to admit the influence 
 which Christ's preaching had in securing the preserva- 
 tion of Noah and his family, though his view other- 
 wise is far from sound. His words are : " What 
 brought deliverance never was the water alone, but 
 the word of God, which they believed, bringing them 
 through the water." It is certainly in accordance 
 with the narrative in Genesis to account for the 
 deliverance of Noah and his family by the warning 
 words which were received. At first sight it seems 
 as if here we had found the answer which our ques- 
 tion requires. But a moment's thought dissipates the 
 illusion. The preaching of Christ to Noah and his 
 contemporaries was preaching for those times, not for 
 all ages. We cannot say that it is the warning which 
 was addressed to the men of that time which saves 
 us. The message then delivered was not the gospel, 
 properly so called. Then, again, if you understand 
 Peter to say that the preaching of Christ to Noah and 
 his family led to their preservation, and if you thus 
 make this preaching the antecedent to which, you 
 destroy the structural unity of the sentence, which 
 begins with the 18 th verse and ends with the 
 first clause of the 21st. Now, what is the 
 leading idea in that sentence ? A glance at it will 
 show that its aim is to illustrate the operation of 
 
The true Antecedent to "which" 139 
 
 Christ's deske to bring men to God. To say the very 
 least, you obscure that aim if you ascribe the preserva- 
 tion of iN'oah and his family, and our salvation, to 
 Christ's preaching to the antedilu\-ians. The unity of 
 thought in the sentence must be maintained. The 
 apostle's thinking is clear, logical, and precise. 
 
 2. The true antecedent to ivhich, is Christ's desire, 
 as expressed in His preaching to the spirits in prison, 
 and, especially, in His death and resiuTection, to bring 
 men to God. It was this which led Him to become 
 our Substitute and die for us. It was this which led 
 to the salvation of Xoah and his family, and it is this 
 which leads to our salvation now. This view main- 
 tains the structiu'al imity of the sentence, and brings 
 out a clear, consistent, and scriptiu'al sense. This we 
 shall endeavoiu' to show as briefly as possible. In order 
 to do this, we must first try to point out the piu'pose 
 for which Peter wrote this sentence. Those whom the 
 apostle addressed were exposed, it apjjears, to very con- 
 siderable trials. These trials, the apostle reminds them, 
 were sent upon them in accordance with the divine 
 will. They were appointed to them for a good and 
 wise purpose, and if they would submit to them, much 
 benefit would accrue to the cause of rehgion. The 
 sufferings of the saintS; promote God's glory — " the 
 blood of the martyi's is the seed of the Church." Let 
 them be animated -svith the desne to bring men to 
 God, even though, in carrying out that desii-e, 
 they might be called upon to suffer even to death. 
 To enforce his appeal, the apostle iniroduces the 
 example of Christ, and shows how He, in carrying 
 out His desire to bring men to God, died on the cross, 
 preached to the antediluvians, and now saves His 
 people. Peter's sentence contains three main mem- 
 
140 Excursus on i Pet. iii. 21a 
 
 bers, each of which exhibits an illustration of Christ's 
 desire to bring men to God. And these members 
 stand to one another in the closest logical relation. 
 Christ died to bring men to God ; in pursuance of 
 which object or desire He even — iv S Kai — preached 
 to the antediluvians of Noah's day ; which object, or 
 desire, or purpose, also — o Kai — now saves men. Is it 
 because this construction is so simple that it has 
 hitherto evaded the notice of interpreters ? 
 
 We do not require any elaboration of argument to 
 prove that the salvation of men is due to Christ's 
 desire to bring them to God. This desire has been at 
 the foundation of all the gracious arrangements which 
 have been made for the good of our race. This 
 desire our Saviour is carrying out in connexion with 
 the special appliances of the gospel. These appliances 
 are all saturated with His intense love to our souls. 
 So that we can say, it is the Lord who adds daily to 
 the Church such as shall be saved. 
 
 The use of the word antitype by the apostle shows 
 that the preservation of Noah and his family in the 
 ark is to be regarded as typical of the salvation of 
 sinners from the wrath to come. One of the great 
 fundamental principles of the relation between the 
 type and the antitype is, that the series of ideas con- 
 nected with the latter occupies, as it were, a higher 
 platform than that occupied by the former. Thus 
 Abraham and David were types, Christ is the anti- 
 type. And while all the points in which these Old 
 Testament saints resemble Christ are foimd in them 
 in an imperfect form, in Him they are found in per- 
 fection. This principle is illustrated in the present 
 case. The mere statement of the points of resem- 
 blance is all that is necessary to show this. In the 
 
The Construction of avrlrviTov 141 
 
 case of Noah and his family, the blessing secured was 
 bodily preservation ; in the case of those saved through 
 the appliances of the gospel, it is the eternal well- 
 being of the soul ; — in the case of Noah and his 
 family, the preaching to which they listened was con- 
 nected with the coming Flood ; in the case of those 
 whose souls are saved now, it is the message of the 
 gospel ; — in the case of Noah and his family, the 
 preaching was adapted to that age only ; in the case 
 of those who hear now, it is adapted to all who live 
 under the New Testament dispensation ; — in the case 
 of Noah and his family, only eight persons were saved 
 from destruction ; the ransomed of the gospel dispensa- 
 tion constitute a multitude which no man can number. 
 We construe the word antitype as in apposition 
 with the pronoun you. Are we justified in doing so ? 
 Our right can hardly be disputed. All grammarians 
 admit that the appositive word naturally, and very 
 generally, follows the main noun or pronoun. But it 
 may be said. How can yoii and antitype be in apposi- 
 tion, for the one word is singular and the other 
 plural ? Here we must apologise for being elementary, 
 but our excuse is that we are anxious to carry every 
 one of our readers along with us. It is a well-known 
 rule in grammar, that while words in apposition must 
 be in the same case, they need not be of the same 
 number. 'AvtItvttov may be either in the nominative 
 or accusative case, so far as its form is concerned ; but 
 it makes confusion, as we have already shown, to read 
 it as a nominative, and construe it in apposition with 
 which. The construction which we follow is easy and 
 natural. The following examples of plurals and 
 singulars in apposition are given by Winer : " There- 
 fore, my brethren, dearly beloved and longed for, my 
 
142 Excursus on i Pet. iii. 21a 
 
 joy and my crown!' " And hath made us a kingdom " 
 — the true reading of Eev. i. 6. We are pleased to 
 have the support of Dr. Hort here. He says, Westcott 
 and Hort's Greek Testament, vol. ii. Appendix, p. 102 : 
 " The order of the words renders it impossible to take 
 avTVTvirov with ^dimaiia, whether in apposition to 
 or to the sentence, as though it were either avrurvTrov 
 6v or avTLrvTTQ)^." So far we are glad to agree with 
 so distinguished a scholar, but we must protest in the 
 most strenuous manner against what follows : " Accord- 
 ingly, seems to be a primitive error for w, the force 
 of which may be hidden by the interposition of koI 
 vfjLd<; before avrlrvTrov ; this deviation from the more 
 obvious order is justified by the emphasis on koI 
 vfjLd<;" This is conjectural emendation with a ven- 
 geance ! Where will such a mode of criticism land 
 us ? The MSS. are quite decisive against Dr. Hort's 
 suggestion. And the reading which he suggests is 
 exposed to the mass of objections which we have 
 stated above. 
 
 We have not ventured to express any opinion as to 
 the eternal state of those who perished in the Mood, 
 or as to the way in which those who have never had 
 the opportunity of hearing the gospel, or whose oppor- 
 tunity has been insufficient from one cause or another, 
 will be judged. To have done so would have been, 
 in our opinion, an impious interference in a matter 
 which God has not been pleased to reveal. We are 
 quite satisfied to leave the judgment of all men in 
 God's hands. " Shall not the Judge of all the earth 
 do right ? " We dare not speak of the possibility of 
 a state of probation in another world. The passages 
 we have quoted in our exposition of clause 196» forbid, 
 we believe, the entertainment of such a thought. We 
 
The Case of the Heathen 143 
 
 regard much of what has been written about the so- 
 called Wider Hope as neither fitted to promote God's 
 glory nor to advance the interests of religion. Surely 
 we may leave it to the mercy of God to dispense to 
 the heathen, and to those who have never been in a 
 position to receive the gospel, the benefits of Christ's 
 atoning sacrifice, if He thinks proper. We have no 
 right to pronounce dogmatically one way or other. 
 We think the feeling of true devoutness is to say, all 
 this matter is safe in the hands of a just and righteous 
 God. 
 
IV 
 
 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BAPTISM IN 
 KELATION TO OUR SALVATION 
 
 An Exegetical Study 
 
 'BdirTicrfia ov crap/cos diroOecns piirov dXXa avvetb-qaeois dfadrjs iirepu)- 
 TTjfia ei's Qeop di dvaardcrews 'ItjctoC 'Kpiarov, 6'j iariv iv de^iq. toO Qeov, 
 iropevdels els ovpavov, virorayevTuu avT<^ dyyeXuv Kai i^ovaidv Kal 
 dvvdfxeuv. 
 
 "Baptism is not a putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the 
 request of a good conscience towards God, through the resurrection of 
 Jesus Christ : who is on the right hand of God, having gone into 
 heaven ; angels, and authorities, and powers, being made subject unto 
 him."— 1 Pet. iii. 21&-22. 
 
 In the preceding paper we have shown the impossi- 
 bility of construing BdirrLa-fia along with avriivTrov 
 in the first clause of ver. 21. The collocation of 
 words, as well as the confusion and unintelligibility of 
 thought thereby produced, forbids such a construction. 
 The clause reaches its natural termination with the 
 verb aco^ei. The question is one quite as much of 
 grammai and punctuation as of exegesis. And, of 
 course, no one claims infallibility for the punctuation 
 in either the Greek or the English New Testament. 
 Every scholar has the right to accept the punctuation 
 which brings out the best and most consistent sense. 
 
 144 
 
Relation of Baptism to our Salvation 145 
 
 One wonders why a simple glance at the order of the 
 words has not been considered sufficient to settle the 
 matter long ago. There they are : '^O koI vfid^j avri- 
 Tvirov vvv aco^ec. That is, " Which you an antitype 
 now saves." Or, in more elegant and correct English, 
 "And this also is now saving you an antitype. 
 Is that not sufficiently intelligible ? We have shown 
 in our preceding paper that that brings out a good 
 and consistent sense, and in harmony with the fore- 
 going context. Those to whom the apostle wrote 
 were an antitype or copy of those saved in the ark 
 from the destructive waters of the Flood. And these, 
 again, were saved because of Christ's desire to bring 
 men to God. 
 
 Our belief is that if the clause had not received a 
 twist from some interpreter in early Christian times, 
 no one would have dreamt of construing it otherwise 
 than as we do. And we further think that if Sacra- 
 mentarian ideas had not blinded the minds of modern 
 expositors, the traditional construction would long ere 
 this have been abandoned. The meaning of the clause 
 when ^aTTTLG-fjia is read along with it is involved in 
 hopeless confusion. To read it so is forced and un- 
 natural. This may not be admitted in so many words, 
 but there is abundant evidence of the fact in the 
 interpretations which have been attempted. In these 
 interpretations, as Dr. Hort shows, the rules of Greek 
 syntax are violently set aside. We may add that 
 they also outrage common sense. To force ^dirTLdfia 
 into the construction is hke attempting to mix oil 
 and water together. But the worst of it all is that, 
 when this violence is used, though the clause is 
 thereby made, to careful thought, ungrammatical and 
 unintelligible, yet, to superficial examination, it seems 
 10 
 
146 The Significance of Baptism 
 
 to teach, on the subject of baptism, a doctrine nowhere 
 else found in Scripture. 
 
 Of course, there are always the ignorance and 
 literary deficiency of the apostle to fall back upon, if 
 any one complains that the clause, as usually construed, 
 is unintelligible. He was so little able, poor man, to 
 write intelligible Greek that he made sad blunders in 
 his efforts to express himself. It is a pity his inter- 
 preters have been born so late. Had they lived in 
 his day, they would have put hun right. For, of 
 course, they have no doubt that Peter wished to say 
 that there is a saving efficacy in baptism. And 
 their wisdom finds in his words what he failed clearly 
 to express. But seriously, we humbly think that our 
 apostle was quite as well able to convey his meaning 
 as his learned critics. And we are sure he would 
 repudiate their method of construing his words in this 
 clause of which we have been speaking. 
 
 Grammarians are here the primary offenders. The 
 division of our Bibles into verses has helped to per- 
 petuate their offence. How easy would the work of 
 the exegete have been, if a period had been put after 
 o-ft)fet ! By correcting the punctuation, w^e have been 
 able to give a new turn to the apostle's words, and to 
 bring them into harmony with what is said in Scrip- 
 ture elsewhere. And to make the matter more 
 emphatic, we have resolved to take a new paper to 
 discuss this second clause and those others that 
 remain in this and the following verse. 
 
 This clause stands in the Greek without any verb. 
 In such a case the simple expedient is to supply earl 
 after ^dirTcafjia. The substantive verb is often 
 omitted by Greek writers in propositions, and must, of 
 course, be applied when translating into English, for 
 
In Relation to our Salvation 147 
 
 the genius of our language is different from that of 
 Greek. No scholar will say that we use any violence 
 in supplying the substantive verb here. We go 
 further, and say that they must admit that the sense 
 requires it. The words, " not the putting away of the 
 filth of the flesh," are admittedly used with regard to 
 baptism. They are, in fact, the predicate of a sentence 
 in which the subject is baptism. And the scholarly 
 expedient is to connect the subject and predicate with 
 the copula ea-ri. 
 
 But let us, for the sake of argument, admit that 
 IScLTTTocr/jLa may be construed as part of the preceding 
 clause. How does this affect the sense of this clause 
 now before us ? It becomes decapitated. It contra- 
 dicts, besides, the preceding clause. That clause, with 
 ^aTTTLa/jLa taken into it, says that baptism saves ; the 
 clause now before us, that it does 7iot put away the 
 filth of the flesh, that is, does not save. A more com- 
 plete contradiction could hardly be conceived. It is 
 of the very essence of salvation that it puts away the 
 filth of the flesh — the corruption of our fallen nature. 
 This corruption constitutes the danger of our fallen 
 state. If we are not delivered from this danger we 
 perish. How the Sacramentarians can escape from 
 this dilemma we cannot tell. We are thankful that 
 we run no danger of being impaled by it. And 
 observe, we do not make this difficulty ; it is made by 
 those whom we are seeking to refute. Can any 
 believer in inspiration suppose that Peter is the author 
 of this absurdity ? And if this absurdity does not 
 logically arise out of the construction to which we 
 object, all we can say is, then language must have 
 been invented to confound thought ! We do not 
 expect to be thanked in certain quarters for these 
 
148 The Significance of Baptism 
 
 criticisms, but truth is more precious to us than any 
 man's approval. 
 
 But perhaps some one may say we are putting 
 too strict a meaning upon the word saves — crw^ei. 
 To meet this objection it is enough to point out that 
 the verb to save and its cognate salvation always pre- 
 suppose the idea of danger, either physical or spiritual. 
 They are used in connexion with disease. When 
 our Lord is represented as healing a diseased person, 
 the individual is said to be saved. When the words 
 are used in connexion with the soul, the danger of 
 perdition is presupposed. The verb and its cognate 
 are never used in the Bible in the sense which Sacra- 
 mentarians assign to them. Nor are they ever used 
 there as synonymous with conversion, as in the current 
 theology of the present day. It would be simply a 
 waste of time to prove this. 
 
 But before attempting anything like a formal ex- 
 position of the words before us, we must face the 
 question. Why does Peter introduce the subject of 
 baptism at all ? If this ordinance was not suggested 
 to his mind by the water of the Flood, how do we 
 account for the apostle's mention of it ? It is 
 admitted on all hands that the apostle had in his 
 mind's eye a misconception regarding this sacrament 
 which he wished to remove. This misconception is 
 sufficient to account for his reference to this Christian 
 rite. There is a constant tendency in the human 
 mind to rest in outward forms. There is a large 
 ritualistic element in all our natures, and this element 
 is constantly cropping out and assuming more or less 
 magnitude. We know that very early baptism was 
 regarded as of the nature of an opus operaUim. This 
 behef actually led some to delay this ordinance till 
 
In Relation to our Salvation 
 
 49 
 
 the hour of death, so that as they passed from life 
 they might be cleansed by the magical annihilation 
 of their sins, and, without hindrance, enter into glory. 
 The words of the apostle here lead us to infer that 
 this heresy had already begun to take shape in the 
 Church. Peter therefore strikes at its root in the 
 incisive words of this second clause of ver. 21. He 
 contemplates a reader as saying : " I have been 
 baptized. Do I require anything else in order to 
 salvation ? Does not this cleanse me from all sin, 
 and secure for me a place in heaven ? Has not all 
 been done that is essential to my salvation, when I 
 have submitted to this Christian rite ? " And the 
 apostle, in effect, replies : " No ; you have formed 
 quite a false idea as to the relation in which baptism 
 stands to salvation. Baptism is merely the expres- 
 sion of your desire to be saved, but this desire cannot 
 take you to heaven apart from lifelong and constant 
 application to Christ. The apostle was thus led to 
 explain what baptism is, in relation to our salvation. 
 He does not give us a definition, properly so called, 
 of this rite. He merely gives us such an account of 
 it as is necessary to refute the false idea regarding 
 it already referred to. His teaching takes first a 
 negative, and then a positive form. 
 
 1. He tells us what baptism is not, in relation to 
 our salvation. It is " not, a putting away of the 
 filth of the flesh." The common explanation of the 
 word flesh here is the outward part of our bodies — 
 the skin. Of course, the matter is not put in so 
 pointed a form as that, but such is the thought. 
 And the idea is, that the apostle wishes to say that 
 baptism does not cleanse away the outward impurities 
 of the body. Steiger says, " The full sense is, not the 
 
150 The Significance of Baptism 
 
 laying aside of bodily filth, consequently the laying 
 aside of what is spiritual." And he quotes Justin 
 Martyr, Dialog, con. Tryiph. : " For what is the benefit 
 of that baptism (the Jewish lustration) which cleanses 
 the flesh and the body only ? " Now, on what con- 
 ceivable grounds can we suppose the apostle would 
 make such a statement, if that be the meaning of his 
 words ? Who ever held that baptism is mere wash- 
 ing ? Whether the ordinance be administered by 
 the immersion of the whole body, or by the sprinkling 
 of a portion of it, the result is not to wash the skin. 
 Wetting is not washing. Surely the apostle had 
 something more important on hand than to refute so 
 frivolous an idea as that with which his commentators 
 have credited him. Besides, is there any instance in 
 the New Testament where flesli is used in the sense of 
 skin ? Evidently, the word jiesh here has the same 
 meaning as we have assigned to it in the 18 th 
 verse — man's corrupt nature ; and the intention of 
 the apostle is to say that the mere rite of baptism 
 cannot remove the corruption of our fallen nature. 
 The removal of this requires a much more powerful 
 agency than the observance of any mere rite. 
 
 2. The apostle next states what is the actual 
 relation in which baptism stands to our salvation. 
 It is " not, a putting away of the filth of the flesh, 
 but the request of a good conscience toward God," etc. 
 The main difficulty here is to determine the meaning 
 of the word which we have translated request — 
 eirep(tiTr)fxa. Our Authorised Version translates ansiver. 
 The Eevision of 1881 gives us in the body of the 
 text the rendering, interrogation, and in the margin 
 the alternatives, inquiry or appeal. And many infer 
 that answer must be the meaning of the term, because 
 
In Relation to our Salvation 151 
 
 they imagine there is here an allusion to the answers 
 given to the questions put to candidates for baptism 
 in early Christian times. Grotius says, regarding 
 these questions, " In baptism the bishop, or some 
 other in his name, in this manner inquii^ed, or, which 
 is the same thing, stipulated. Do you renounce Satan ? 
 The person about to be baptized said, I renounce him. 
 Again he was asked. Do you adhere to Christ ? He 
 replied, I do adhere to Him." This, TertuUian, in his 
 treatise on baptism, calls " the engagement of salva- 
 tion." He also says, in his treatise on the resurrection 
 of the flesh, " The soul is sanctified, not by the 
 washing, but by the response." There is no evidence, 
 however, that such questions as these were put to 
 those who received baptism in Peter's time. Besides, 
 the proper meaning of iTrepcoTrj/jia is not ansicer, but 
 request, or at least something which looks for an 
 answer. It is derived from the verb eVepcwTao), I 
 ask. Bengel makes it mean interrogation or rogatio, 
 question. And undoubtedly the word sometimes bears 
 this meaning. Wiesinger makes it player or desire. 
 Alford, while not thinking himself perfectly correct, 
 translates inquiry. Wiesinger seems to us to give 
 the true sense. A prayer is not an inquiry. But 
 how is baptism a request or prayer ? It is only, 
 of course, constructively such. The man who seeks 
 baptism reveals the same state of mind as that 
 exemplified by the man who prays. He expresses, 
 in no ambiguous manner, his belief in the purifying 
 doctrines of the gospel, and his desire to secure the 
 benefits which the gospel offers. Baptism is the 
 ordinance which has been appointed for marking our 
 connexion with the religion of Jesus. That religion 
 is associated with many benefits. By baptism, there- 
 
152 The Significance of Baptism 
 
 fore, we make application for the bestowal of these 
 benefits. We do our part in connexion with the 
 covenant made with men in Christ, and we show our 
 determination to look to our Kedeemer for what is 
 necessary for our salvation. 
 
 What, then, are we to regard as the request which 
 baptism presents ? The answer to this question is to 
 be gathered from the antithesis between the second 
 and third clauses of ver. 21," Baptism is not a putting 
 away of the filth of the flesh, but the request of a 
 good conscience toward God," etc. The clear inference 
 from these words is, that what cannot be secured 
 through the mere rite of baptism, is secured through 
 the request of a good conscience. It is by divine 
 agency alone that moral pollution can be removed. 
 Christianity is a purifying system. By being baptized, 
 and thus embracing that divine system, we put our- 
 selves in Christ's hands for the purification of our 
 natures. We ask Him to do for us what He has 
 engaged to do. It is the disposition, therefore, which 
 we bring to the baptismal font, and not the mere 
 outward observance, which we are to look to. But, 
 supposing the disposition at the time of baptism were 
 everything that could be desired, is that efficacious for 
 our perfect sanctification ? No one who knows any- 
 thing about the teaching of Scripture will embrace 
 such an opinion. The believer's sanctification is a 
 gradual thing ; and, in order to our being made 
 perfect in holiness, we must, throughout life, strive 
 to maintain a good conscience by cleaving to Christ, 
 looking to Him for His grace, and seeking to live up 
 to our light. The request which is presented in 
 baptism will lead to the putting away of the filth 
 of the flesh, but only if it is a lifelong desire. The 
 
In Relation to our Salvation 153 
 
 removal of all moral impurity is synchronous with 
 our salvation. So that we may express the spirit of 
 the prayer which baptism presents as a desire to be 
 brought to God, or a wish to be saved, or a desire 
 to be sanctified wholly. Hence we cannot agree with 
 Alford, who makes it the prayer for a good conscience, 
 which, he says, is the aim and end of the Christian 
 baptismal life. The form of words used by Peter 
 refutes such an opinion. Baptism is " the request of 
 a good conscience." The good conscience is there, 
 and the request is its outcome. The good conscience 
 precedes, does not succeed, baptism. 
 
 But what is the exact meaning to be attached to 
 the words, a good conscience toward God ? There can 
 be no question that the thought which they express 
 is one and indivisible. Paul, in Acts xxiii. 1, is 
 represented as expressing a similar thought, " Brethren, 
 I have lived before God in all good conscience until 
 this day." In the same Book of Acts, xxiv. 16, he is 
 represented as saying, " Herein do I also exercise myself 
 to have a conscience void of offence toward God and 
 men alway." The grammatical form in both of these 
 passages is different from that in our text, but we are 
 not here raising any question of grammar. The exact 
 thought is what we wish to get at. A good conscience, 
 or one void of offence toward God, is evidently one 
 which cannot blame itself for disobedience to God. 
 It is one enlightened by divine truth and loyal to 
 God's will. Its possessor has turned from the ways 
 of sin, and has resolved to obey God according to his 
 lights. His heart is in the divine service. And, as 
 baptism is an ordinance instituted by Christ, he feels 
 that he must observe it. In the preceding context 
 we read of Christ's desire to bring men to God, and of 
 
154 The Significance of Baptism 
 
 the remarkable means which He once adopted to 
 gratify that desire. When a man submits himself 
 to baptism, or brings his child to receive the ordinance, 
 he thereby responds to this desire on the part of 
 Christ. He shows that he is ready to accept the 
 benefits which Christ died to secure for mankind. 
 The preceding context expresses what Christ has 
 done for man's salvation, here there is expressed what 
 man himself has to do. The two things are the counter- 
 parts of one another. We cannot obtain the benefits 
 of Christ's death unless we make application for them. 
 In short, submission to baptism is the act of a believer. 
 But to whom are we to regard the prayer in 
 baptism as addressed ? The answer to this question 
 must be, to Christ. He has, in His bestowal, all that 
 a man needs to bring him to God. He can en- 
 lighten him by His Spirit, and guide him into all 
 truth. And He can give him all the help required 
 to enable him to overcome all the difficulties of the 
 divine life, and triumph over all his spiritual foes. 
 Baptism is often spoken of as into the name of Christ, 
 that is, as expressive of faith in Him. In Acts viii. 1 6 
 we are told that the Holy Ghost had not as yet fallen 
 upon any of the Samaritan converts, " only they had 
 been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus." When 
 Paul came to Ephesus (Acts xix.) he found certain 
 disciples there. They had not received the Holy 
 Ghost, and had heard only of John's baptism. Paul 
 said to them (vv. 4, 5), "John baptized with the 
 baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that 
 they should believe on Him which should come after 
 him, that is, on Jesus. And when they heard this, 
 they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus." 
 So also in Eom. vi. 3 and Gal. iii. 27. It requires no 
 
In Relation to our Salvation 155 
 
 argument to show that the idea underlying these 
 passages is that submission to baptism implies faith 
 in Christ, and the deske to look to Him for all the 
 grace which the divine life requires. 
 
 This interpretation is confirmed by Acts xxii. 16, 
 "Arise, and have yourself baptized, and your sins 
 washed away, calling on His name." To understand 
 these words, we must bear in mind the well-known 
 grammatical principle, that when two imperatives are 
 connected by Kal, the first sometimes contains the 
 condition under which the action indicated by the 
 second will take place. The application of this 
 principle leads us to say that Paul was here exhorted 
 to have himself baptized, in order that his sins might 
 be washed away, which is exactly the sentiment 
 uttered by Peter on the day of Pentecost : " Eepent 
 ye, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of 
 Jesus Christ, unto the remission of sins " — eU acpeauv 
 dfjuaprtcov (Acts ii. 38). The expression, " calling on 
 His name," is expository of what goes before. When 
 Paul submitted to baptism in order to have his sins 
 washed away, he was then and thereby calling on the 
 name of Christ. He was presenting a prayer in acted form. 
 
 According to the view which we take of the apostle's 
 words, a very good sense might have been brought out 
 of them if we had accepted the rendering of iirepojTTjfia 
 given in the Authorised Version, answer. Baptism would 
 then be regarded as the answer or response to Christ's 
 desire to bring men to God. But we believe that, on 
 the whole, the rendering, request, is to be preferred, 
 especially in view of the words of Acts xxii. 16. 
 
 The believer is encouraged to present his appeal to 
 Christ through His resurrection. By that event he 
 is assured that Christ is able to do all that He has 
 
156 The Significance of Baptism 
 
 undertaken to do. Christ's rising from the dead is 
 the greatest of all arguments for faith in Him. We 
 are justified in looking to Him as the channel through 
 which comes all that is essential to our sanctification 
 and salvation. God has committed the whole work of 
 our salvation to His hands. And Christ has done 
 everything necessary to qualify Him for His exalted 
 office. He has fully met all the claims of justice, and 
 has taken every barrier out of the way of our being 
 reconciled to God. And God has raised Him from the 
 dead in token of His satisfaction with the work which 
 He had given Him to do. 
 
 The believer is still further encouraged to look to 
 Christ by the assurance that He is on the riglit hand 
 of God. This is not only a position of the highest 
 honour, it is also one of the greatest authority. It 
 implies that He is made the governor of the universe. 
 It takes for granted the truth of the words which He 
 spoke to His disciples just before His ascension : " All 
 authority hath been given unto Me in heaven and on 
 earth" (Matt, xxviii. 18). He sits on His mediatorial 
 throne, still seeking, in His government, to carry 
 forward the work which He did on earth, in order to 
 bring men to God. This throne He will occupy till 
 He hath put all enemies under His feet. 
 
 The dependent clause, having gone into heaven, seems 
 to come in a little awkwardly. It places Christ's 
 ascension into heaven after His session at the Father's 
 right hand. This, of course, is not the natural order. 
 What can be our apostle's reason for adopting this 
 order ? The only explanation which presents itself to 
 our mind is that thereby an ambiguity is avoided. 
 The Authorised Version translates this and the pre- 
 ceding clause thus : " Who is gone into heaven, and is 
 
In Relation to our Salvation 157 
 
 on the right hand of God." This order, if it had been 
 adopted by the apostle, might have conveyed the idea 
 that Peter wished to say that the angels, authorities, and 
 powers, spoken of in the clause which follows, are subject 
 to the Father. But the apostle's wish was to bring 
 prominently out the thought that these are subject to 
 Christ as mediatorial governor of the universe, and that 
 they are at His command for the benefit of behevers. 
 
 The last clause of the passage before us, ''angels, 
 and authorities, and powers, herng made suhject unto 
 Him," we regard as similar in meaning to the words 
 of Paul in Phil. ii. 10. "That in the name of Jesus 
 every knee should bow, of those in heaven, of those 
 on earth, and of those under the earth." All intelli- 
 gent beings in God's universe are put under Christ's 
 authority, both those who are loyal to God and those 
 who are in rebellion against Him. The angels we take 
 as the unfallen servants of heaven — those who have 
 kept their first estate. These are at the command of 
 Christ for the good of His people. " Are they not " 
 (that is, the angels) " all ministering spirits, sent 
 forth to do service for the sake of them that shall 
 inherit salvation ? " The authorities and powers we 
 take to mean the evil spirits who seek to bring 
 believers into subjection to the great enemy of man- 
 kind. Christ has power over them, and can protect 
 His people from their malign influence. It is evident, 
 therefore, that all that the apostle has written in the 
 words which we have been considering in this paper 
 were intended to show what encouragement a believer 
 has to submit to baptism, and thereby to profess his 
 confidence in Christ as his Saviour, and his conviction 
 that Christ is able and willing to give him all that 
 he needs to bring him to God and to glory. 
 
V 
 
 BELIEVEES DEAD TO SIN, BUT RAISED 
 TO LIFE WITH CHRIST 
 
 An Exegetical Study ^ 
 
 Kal vfids ovTas veKpovs rots irapairTihixacri Kol ratj dyuaprtats vfj.Qv, ev 
 ah TTOTk TrepieTraTTjcraTe Kara tov aiCJva rod koct/jlov tovtov, Kara rbv 
 dpxovra ttjs i^ovaias rod depos, tov Trve^fiaros tov vvv evepyovvTos iv rots 
 uiots r^s direidelas iv oh /cat ijfieXs irdvTes dv€(TTpd<pr}iiiv ttotc iv rats 
 iTTidv/xiais, TTJs aapKOS rjfMQv, ttolovvtcs to, deXrjfxaTa rrjs aapKos Kal twv 
 diavoLQp, /cat ij/xeda TeKva (pvaeL dpyrjs, ws Kal oi XotTTot* — 6 Se Qeos, 
 7r\ov(Tios (hv iv iXeei, 8id ttjv 7r6Wr]v dydirr^v avTov r]v ^jyaTrrjcrev ijp.ds, Kal 
 6vTas Tjfids veKpoii% Toh TrapaTrrwyUacrt avve^ojOTroirjcre t(^ XpLcrT<^ (%dptr^ 
 iare crecnocrfx^voi), Kal avvriyeipe, Kal avveKd6i<rev iv rots iirovpavots iv 
 'Kpi(TT($ '1t](tov' Lva ivdei^TjTaL iv rots aitDcrt rots iirepxofiivots t6 virep^dWov 
 TrXovros r^s x^^ptros auroD iv xRV^^t^^VT'- ^0' Vf^ds iv Xpi<TT^ 'Irja-ov. 
 
 " You also who are dead to your trespasses and sins ; wherein afore- 
 time ye walked according to the course of this world, according to 
 the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in 
 the sons of disobedience : among whom we also all once lived in the 
 lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind ; and 
 were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest — God, I say, who 
 is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us, did us 
 also, who are dead to our trespasses, quicken together with Christ (by 
 grace have ye been saved), raise up together, and make sit together 
 among the most exalted in Christ Jesus, that iu the ages to come He 
 might show the exceeding riches of His grace, iu His kindness toward 
 us, in Christ Jesus." — Revised Version (revised). — Eph. ii. 1-7. 
 
 The writer of this paper believes that the Eevisers of 
 1881 have, in common with their predecessors of 
 1611, failed to exhibit a perfectly accurate repre- 
 sentation of the apostle's meaning in this part . of his 
 
 ^ Reprinted from the Homiletic Eevieiv, 1893. 
 158 
 
Dead to Sin but Alive with Christ 159 
 
 Epistle. This belief induces him to attempt to put 
 before his readers what he thinks Paul actually 
 wished to say. His exposition, if found to be satis- 
 factory, must be his apology for differing from a body 
 of men so learned and eminent as the Eevisers. If 
 his exposition prove unsatisfactory, he is aware that 
 he exposes himself to the charge of presumption. 
 He puts forward his views with some confidence, but 
 not, he trusts, without due modesty. He accepts the 
 Greek text adopted by the Eevisers. 
 
 The first thing necessary is to indicate in a few 
 words the connexion between the words under con- 
 sideration and the preceding chapter. In the first 
 chapter the apostle speaks of " the strength of God's 
 might which He wrought in Christ when He raised 
 Him from the dead, and made Him to sit at His 
 right hand among the most exalted," etc. In the 
 words before us, he points out the parallel between 
 what God has done for Christ and what He has done 
 for his readers, himself, and all believers. 
 
 Were our Eevisers justified in inserting in the 1st 
 verse the words did He quicken ? This appears to be 
 not only unnecessary, but tends to obscure the con- 
 struction of the apostle's words and confuse the sense. 
 The expression is borrowed ostensibly from the 5 th verse, 
 and is intended, apparently, to represent the meaning 
 of (Tvve^cooTroLTjcre. This verb, as all allow, governs 
 L'/xa?. But so also do avvijyeipe and a-vveKadicrev. 
 Why should the one verb be brought into the 1st 
 verse to eke out the construction, and not the others ? 
 The course adopted by the Eevisers in this matter, 
 therefore, seems unwarrantable. They dislocate the 
 apostle's words for a purpose which our translation 
 shows to be wholly unnecessary. They follow the 
 
i6o Believers Dead to Sin, but 
 
 example of the Eevisers of 1611; but that is no 
 justification. It seems, too, a most unscholarly and 
 extraordinary thing to borrow an explanatory phrase 
 from a verse so far forward. Had they acted in a pre- 
 cisely opposite way, and borrowed from a verse as far 
 away back, we could have better understood their con- 
 duct. This would have been intelligible. But, further, 
 why do they use the emphatic form did quicken in the 
 1st verse and the ordinary form quickened in the 5 th 
 verse ? There can surely be no warrant for this varia- 
 tion, except some supposed necessity which does not 
 appear on the surface. But a still stronger objection 
 to the course which the Eevisers have adopted remains 
 to be stated. Not only should they have brought up 
 all the three verbs which govern vfjia<^, if they thought 
 it necessary to bring up any at all, but they ought to 
 have added the words together ivith Christ The sense 
 of the apostle requires this addition. The words did 
 quicken, besides, do not express the full meaning of 
 (Tvve^cooiroiriae. The aw- is left without any English 
 equivalent. How such an oversight should have 
 occurred passes comprehension ! 
 
 Our main objection to the Eevisers' version of this 
 passage is to the rendering of the words oVra? veKpov^ 
 Toh TrapaiTTco/JLao'L Koi ral^ dfjuaprlai^. These words 
 they translate as if the particle iv occurred before 
 Tot9 TrapaTTTcofjbao-i,. And, in common with the Eevisers 
 of 1611, they regard the clause as a description of 
 men in their unconverted state. This view, we may 
 say, is universally adopted. To assail it seems like 
 an attempt to lead a forlorn hope. The Eevisers of 
 1881 make a very slight modification of the render- 
 ing of their predecessors of 1611. Instead of dead 
 in, they translate dead through ; but this change does 
 
Raised to Life with Christ i6i 
 
 not materially affect the sense. And both sets of 
 Eevisers take oi/ra? as an imperfect. The participle 
 &v seldom occurs in this sense, and therefore there is 
 a strong presumption against its being so translated 
 in this case. There are, we think, unanswerable 
 objections against the clause in question being taken 
 as a description of unconverted men and translated as 
 the Ee^^sers have done. 1. This view makes dead 
 men walk. " When ye were dead through your 
 trespasses and sins, wherein aforetime ye walked." 
 It is not enough to say that this is a paradox. We 
 have no right to ascribe to any writer an inconsistent 
 idea like this without necessity. Our translation 
 shows that there is no such necessity. The idea is 
 grotesque and inconceivable, and ought not to be 
 ascribed to the clear-minded Paul. We say with 
 confidence, such an idea is not warranted here, nor in 
 any other part of the New Testament. Walking in 
 sin and living in sin are Pauline ideas as applicable 
 to unconverted men, but not dead in sin or thorough 
 sin. The apostle is not here so much writing 
 rhetorically as giving a description in what, with 
 him, are technical terms. To what spiritual condi- 
 tion his description applies we shall see by and by, but 
 it cannot be to that of unconverted men. 2. This view 
 destroys man's responsibility. A dead man is incap- 
 able of either thought or action. Extreme Calvin- 
 ism makes men entirely passive in conversion, and 
 some take pleasure in quoting this passage in support 
 of such a position ; but the whole teaching of the 
 New Testament is opposed to such an idea. The 
 whole Bible appeals to our reason and conscience, and 
 tells us that our condemnation or salvation will turn 
 entirely upon our rejection or reception of the truth. 
 
 XI 
 
1 62 Believers Dead to Sin, but 
 
 If men are dead in sins, or through sins, they are, 
 ipso facto, incapable of obeying the gospel, and are 
 no longer accountable beings. According to the view 
 which the Eevisers take of the clause, the words mean 
 totally subjected to sin, as a corpse is to the power of 
 death, and as incapable of rising from it as that is 
 of being restored to life. The Christian intelligence 
 of the present day will not accept such a view. 3. 
 The expression " dead in " or " through transgressions 
 and sins " would, properly, apply, not to unconverted 
 men, but to souls condemned to perdition. As reported 
 in John viii. 21, our Lord said to the Jews on one 
 occasion, " I go away, and ye shall seek Me, and shall 
 die in your sin" — Kal iv rfj afiaprla ufictyv airoOavelcrOe. 
 Should anyone try to escape from the application of 
 this passage to the case in hand by saying that 
 d/jLaprla is in the singular, whereas in the passage 
 before us the plural is used, we have to observe that, 
 in the 24th verse of the same chapter, the words 
 occur in the plural, as if the Lord, foreseeing the 
 possibility of such an objection, wished to obviate it : 
 " I said, therefore, unto you, that ye shall die in your 
 sins ; for except ye believe that I am He, ye shall die 
 in your sins " — airoOavelaOe iv rat? d/jbaprLac; v/jlcov. 
 Now, observe that these Jews whom our Lord was 
 addressing were unconverted men. They refused to 
 believe that He was the great promised Messiah. 
 They were in their sins — living in them, walking in 
 them, but not dead in or through them. They would 
 not be in that state till they had died in unbelief. It 
 is plain, therefore, that our Lord's words are not in 
 harmony with the view which the Eevisers have 
 adopted. Our Lord teaches us to regard the ex- 
 pression dead in or through sins as applicable only to 
 
Raised to Life with Christ 163 
 
 souls condemned to perdition. It does not need to 
 be said that no one understands the apostle, in the 
 passage under consideration, to be referring to men 
 in that state. He classes himself with those whom 
 he describes ; and he was a believer, rejoicing in the 
 consciousness that his sins were pardoned. 
 
 But to this argument, founded upon our Lord's 
 words, it may be objected that perhaps our Lord and 
 Paul use the same words in different senses — that is 
 to say, while our Lord might use the words which we 
 have quoted from John's Gospel as applicable to souls 
 condemned to perdition, our apostle might use them in 
 the sense adopted by the Eevisers. To show that this 
 is not so, let us take a passage in which Paul uses the 
 preposition iv — 1 Cor. xv. 17, " If Christ hath not been 
 raised, your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins " — 
 iv rah d/jbapTLatf; vficjv. " Then they also which have 
 fallen asleep in Christ have perished " — aTrcokovro. 
 Here the idea is precisely the same as our Lord's. 
 Pardon is dependent upon the truth of the gospel. 
 That, again, is dependent upon the resurrection of 
 Christ. If the resurrection of Christ be not a fact, 
 then no one of those to whom Paul was writino; was 
 pardoned. They were still in their sins ; and those 
 who had died, believing the gospel to be true, had 
 died in their sins — that is, unforgiven, and exposed to 
 the wrath of Grod. They were souls eternally con- 
 demned — veKpol iv TaU dfiaprLac^;. The word clttcO' 
 XovTo is even stronger than veKpoi ; but undoubtedly 
 it applies to the state of souls consigned to perdition. 
 Since, therefore, the words under consideration cannot 
 apply to unconverted men, and since it is impossible to 
 take them as referring to souls eternally condemned, 
 there seems no alternative but to translate them as 
 
164 Believers Dead to Sin, but 
 
 we have done — "who are dead to your trespasses and 
 sins." ^ 
 
 Being constrained, for the reasons we have given, 
 to translate ver. 1 as we have done, for the same 
 reasons we are compelled to take that verse as Paul's 
 technical description of one side of the believer's life. 
 All who have undergone the great spiritual change 
 are dead to sin, and alive to God and to righteousness. 
 This is a form of phraseology in which Paul delights. 
 He does not mean by it that the believer does not sin. 
 He speaks theoretically, ideally. He means that the 
 believer ought to have as little to do with sin as a dead 
 man has with the affairs of life. He speaks in the same 
 way of being dead to the law, and dead from the rudiments 
 of the wmid. This death in Paul's mind is logically and 
 theoretically bound up in the death of Christ. He 
 says (2 Tim. ii. 11), " If we died with Him " ; and in 
 Col. iii. 3, "Ye died, and your life is hid with Christ 
 in God." And as the death referred to is bound up 
 in Christ's death, so are all the active graces and 
 privileges of the Christian bound up in the life and 
 honour now enjoyed by Christ in glory. Hence all the 
 verbs in this passage referring to the Christian's posi- 
 
 1 Estius, a Roman Catholic theologian of great learning and 
 exegetical genius (born at Grocum in Holland 1542, died 1613), 
 seems to have been the first to suggest this translation. His words, 
 as given in Poole's Synopsis, in loco, are : " Phrasis hie accipi possit, 
 ut Rom. vi. 2, 11, q.d. Et vos qui jam estis mortui peccatis vestris, 
 i.e. non amplius in iis viventes, nihil qui commercii cum iis amplius 
 habentes, convivijicavit Christo, etc., ut infra, v. 5. Significatur 
 autem ordo naturre inter hsec duo, peccato mortuum esse, et Christo 
 convivificari. Estque allusio ad baptismi ceremoniam, in qua prius 
 est immergi, id est, mystice, mori peccato, posterius emergere, i. e. ad 
 vitam justitise exsurgere. Sensus hie probabilis est, tamen non facile 
 recedendum a communi expositione." No one hitherto, so far as we 
 have been able to discover, has followed up the opinion here expressed. 
 The communis expositio has up till now been accepted as indisputable. 
 
Raised to Life with Christ 165 
 
 tion are compounded with crvv-, and have their meaning 
 completed by the explanatory words Ta> Xpiaro). 
 
 The apostle dwells at some length on the believer's 
 mystical death to sin m Eom. vi. In ver. 2 he says, 
 " We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live 
 therein?" In ver. 11, drawing a parallel between 
 Christ's being alive and the believer's spiritual life, 
 he says, " Even so, reckon ye also yourselves to be 
 dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus." 
 Then, as a commentary on the meaning which he 
 attaches to the mystical death of which he has been 
 speaking, and as indicating that he does not consider 
 his Koman readers as perfect, he exhorts them in the 
 following manner (vv. 12-14), "Let not sin, there- 
 fore, reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey 
 the lusts thereof : neither present your members unto 
 sin as instruments of unrighteousness ; but present 
 yourselves unto God as alive from the dead, and your 
 members as instruments of righteousness unto God. 
 For sin shall not have dominion over you : for ye are 
 not under law, but under grace." The same idea as that 
 which Paul expresses in the passages which we have 
 quoted is found also in 1 Pet. ii. 24, "Who His own self 
 bare our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, 
 being dead unto sins, might live unto righteousness." 
 
 We have been arguing as if the apostle's expression 
 in the passage before us were simply dead to sins. His 
 actual words, as w^e render them in the 1st verse, are, 
 " Who are dead to your trespasses and sins." This is 
 shortened in the 5 th verse to " Dead to our trespasses." 
 But we believe no argument against our view can be based 
 on this variation of phraseology. It is very generally 
 conceded that it is impossible to draw any distinction 
 which is of universal application between TrapaTrrcofiaTa 
 
1 66 Believers Dead to Sin, but 
 
 and dfiaprlac. Perhaps they are used together in the 
 1st verse merely for the sake of emphasis. 
 
 Col. ii. 13 is admittedly parallel to the passage 
 we are considering. Our Kevisers have accordingly 
 rendered it in the same way. But the general argu- 
 ment which we have employed leads us to translate 
 thus : " You also who are dead to your trespasses and 
 the uncircumcision of your flesh — you did He quicken 
 together with Him," etc. The connection of these 
 words with the preceding context closely resembles 
 the connection between chs. i. and ii. in Ephesians. 
 In the last clause of ver. 12 mention is made of God 
 having raised up Christ from the dead. The spiritual 
 resurrection of the Colossian converts comes in very 
 naturally in ver. 13, "You also," etc. Many com- 
 mentators have been misled as to the teaching of this 
 verse by the credit they attached to MSS. in which 
 the preposition eV occurred before tol<; rrrapainddfxao-i. 
 The Eevisers have taken away any argument which 
 the presence of this particle might furnish by excluding 
 it from their accepted Greek text. This Greek text we 
 accept as correct, and as warranted by the best MS. 
 authority. We note, in passing, that instead of Tal<^ apuap- 
 Tiai^ in Eph.ii. 1, we have in this passage in Colossians r^ 
 aKpofivcnla r?}? aapKo^. This may be for the sake of 
 emphasis, as we suggested in connection with the use of 
 TrapaTTTcofjuacro and ap,apTLai<; in the verse in Ephesians. 
 
 1 Tim. V. 6 may seem to some inconsistent with 
 the views we have expressed. We have said that the 
 view which the Eevisers express in their translation of 
 Eph. ii. 1 is not warranted by any other passage in 
 the New Testament. But at first sight this verse in 
 Timothy seems to refute our assertion. The Kevisers 
 thus translate the verse in question : " But she that 
 
Raised to Life with Christ 167 
 
 giveth herself to pleasure is dead while she liveth." 
 The Eev. H. D. M. Spence, M.A., in Ellicott's Com- 
 mentaries 071 the Neio Testament, says that here we 
 have a thoroughly Pauline thought, and that the 
 widow who could so forget her sorrow and her duty 
 is spoken of as a living corpse, while her believing 
 sister is described as living. And he quotes from 
 the Antigone of Sophocles words which, he thinks, 
 convey an illustrative sense : " I do not consider that 
 such an one lives, but I regard him as a living corpse." 
 He also refers to Eev. iii. 1 as justification of his view, 
 " These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of 
 God, and the seven stars : I know thy works, that thou 
 hast a name, that thou livest and art dead." In making 
 this quotation I have omitted the pronoun thou, which 
 the Kevisers insert before art dead. This pronoun is 
 not called for by the Greek, and is evidently used to 
 support a dogmatic position which we consider false. 
 
 The passage from Sophocles cannot be regarded as 
 giving any actual support to the view which it is 
 adduced to support. It merely declares that one who 
 spends his time in a particular way cannot be said 
 truly to live. He never finds that true happiness 
 which right living is fitted to impart. He may as 
 well be a corpse so far as true living is concerned. 
 It is ridiculous to adduce a poetical passage of this 
 kind as illustrative of the state in which unconverted 
 men are, or as throwing any light on Pauline theology. 
 It seems to bear only an outward resemblance to the 
 passage in Timothy, and that only if we regard the 
 rendering of the Eevisers as correct. The absurdity of 
 such an illustration will appear if we apply a simple 
 test. Suppose the poet were to set before us the 
 case of one who, in his opinion, was living a right life, 
 
1 68 Believers Dead to Sin, but 
 
 would we call that an example of a God-fearing, con- 
 verted man ? Sophocles, I am afraid, will not do 
 much to enable us to understand Pauline theology. 
 
 The passage in Eev. iii., when rightly explained, 
 will do as little as the passage from Sophocles to show 
 that, either in the passage in Ephesians or in that in 
 Colossians, the apostle is referring to unconverted 
 men. It is part of our Lord's message to the Church 
 in Sardis. The members of that Church were not in 
 the position of unconverted men, but they were in a 
 very low spiritual state. They are half living and 
 half dead. That was their reputation, their ovo^a. 
 This is clear from what follows : " Be thou faithful, 
 and stablish the things that remain which were ready 
 to die," etc. This language would not have been used 
 if they had been in the position of unconverted men. 
 
 But while no illustrative weight can be attached to 
 the quotation from Sophocles, and while we believe 
 that the passage quoted from Eevelation, rightly 
 understood, gives no countenance to the idea that 
 either in Eph. ii. 1 or in Col. ii. 13 the apostle is 
 giving a description of unconverted men, we believe 
 that the passage in Timothy, which these quotations 
 were intended more immediately to illustrate, is not 
 accurately rendered by the Eevisers any more than the 
 passages in Ephesians or Colossians which we have 
 been examining. The Greek words are r) Be airara- 
 \6oaa ^waa Te6vr]Ke. The meaning of the apostle is 
 misrepresented by taking fcScra along with redvrjKe. 
 It should be taken along with »; o-TraraXMo-a, which, 
 though in form a participle, is here to be taken as a 
 noun (see Winer, sec. xlv. 7). The passage should 
 have been translated thus : " But she who lives a 
 pleasure-seeker has died." The apostle is contrasting 
 
Raised to Life with Christ 169 
 
 two classes of widows. The one class seeks comfort 
 in the fellowship and service of God, and the other 
 gives herself to pleasure. He says of the first, that 
 she has her hope set on God — riXiriKev kirl 0e6v. 
 He says of the other, she has died — reOvrfKe. Her 
 spiritual life has become extinct. " Now she that is a 
 widow indeed, and desolate, hath her hope set on God, 
 and continueth in supplications and prayers night and 
 day ; but she who lives a pleasure-seeker has died." 
 The fact that she gives herself to a life of pleasure 
 shows that her spiritual life has become extinct, if she 
 ever had any. The idea of the apostle in this verse is, 
 therefore, very different from that which the Eevisers 
 attach to Eph. ii. 1 and Col. ii. 13. 
 
 But there may still lurk in some minds the im- 
 pression that all dubiety has not yet been removed 
 from the apostle's words in those passages which we 
 have been passing in review. It may be said a man 
 must have been dead before he can be said to have 
 been quickened ; if a man has been quickened at 
 conversion, the inference* cannot be resisted that he 
 must previously have been dead. And what more 
 natural than to speak of the unrenewed man as dead, 
 and of the believer as made alive ? There cannot be 
 any doubt that this argument has influenced the 
 Eevisers and interpreters generally. But a little 
 consideration will enable us to expose its fallacy. We 
 must keep carefully before our minds the fact that, in 
 describing the believer's experience, Paul keeps close 
 to the parallel between that experience and the 
 transition through which our Lord passed from His 
 humiliation to His exaltation. There was nothing in 
 our Lord's history corresponding to man's natui^al 
 state. The apostle begins with our Lord's death, and 
 
lyo Believers Dead to Sin, but 
 
 draws the parallel from that point. There are two 
 sides to the great change of conversion. It is first a 
 death and then a life. The sinner dies to sin and 
 then becomes alive to God. The old man is slain ; 
 and this, in Paul's theology, corresponds to the fact of 
 our Lord's death. There is a parallel at that point. 
 Then there is a quickening by the implantation of 
 new feehngs and desu^es ; and this corresponds to our 
 Lord's reanimation after death. After that there 
 comes the active obedience of the new man, corre- 
 sponding to the fact of our Lord's actual leaving of 
 the tomb and entering upon His state of exaltation. 
 Finally, there is the high honour of being made a 
 member of the divine family and exalted to high rank, 
 corresponding to the glory which Christ enjoys in 
 heaven, and carrying with it the potency and hope of 
 sharing with Him that glory. It would be altogether 
 un-Pauline and un-Christian to attempt to find any 
 correspondence between the sinner's natural state and 
 anything in the history of our Lord. 
 
 We have gone far beyond our original intention. 
 That was to point out in a few sentences the in- 
 accuracy of the rendering of Eph. ii. 1 by our Eevisers 
 and others. We found, however, that the inaccuracy 
 was much more extensive than we at first imagined, 
 and actually extended to the whole sentence. There 
 was nothing for it, if we were to do full justice to the 
 apostle's words, but to recast the w^hole sentence in 
 English. Then we found that the misconception of Paul's 
 meaning in the passage in Ephesians was supported by 
 misconceptions elsewhere. We were forced to deal with 
 these misconceptions in order that our interpretation 
 might be placed on a solid basis. We trust that we 
 have sufficiently vindicated our main position. 
 
Raised to Life with Christ 171 
 
 The long parenthesis in Ephesians, inchiding the 
 2nd and 3rd verses, contains the apostle's descrip- 
 tion of the state in which both Gentiles and Jews 
 were before their conversion. The 2nd verse 
 applies entirely to Gentiles, of whom the Ephesians 
 were a fair type. They were filled with the spirit of 
 the time, and were Satanic in character. They were 
 thus, according to a Hebrew idiom, sons of disobedience. 
 This last expression naturally leads the apostle to pass 
 on to the case of the Jews. He admits that they 
 were no better than the Gentiles. The testimony of 
 contemporary history' bears out the accuracy of Paul's 
 words. They indulged in fleshly lusts, and were 
 mental anarchists. They were immoral in their lives 
 and disloyal in their relations to God, and were, 
 according to another Hebrew idiom, children of wrath, 
 even as the rest — meaning thereby Gentiles. There 
 was thus, so far as their moral and spiritual state was 
 concerned, no difference between Jews and Gentiles 
 before they became Christians. This being so, the 
 apostle feels that he must class his kinsmen and 
 Gentiles together, as, in their unconverted state, all 
 under sin. He does not make any exception of his 
 own case, for, though he had not been an immoral 
 man as Saul, the Jew and persecutor, there was so 
 much that was bad in his heart that, in the spirit of 
 Christian courtesy and humility, he speaks as if he 
 had no right to claim superiority over his brethren. 
 
 This explanatory parenthesis enables the apostle to 
 change vfia^ of the 1st verse into ^/ua? in the 4th 
 and 5 th. As he was writing to Ephesian Gentiles, 
 he was under the necessity of using viia^ ; but after 
 showing that there was no practical difference between 
 Jew and Gentile, and when wishing to speak of both, 
 
172 Believers Dead to Sin, but 
 
 he naturally uses r]^a<i. He is anxious to show that 
 both alike have been made partakers of God's grace. 
 Both Gentile and Jewish converts owed their present 
 advantageous position and their future hopes to God's 
 sovereign love. At the 4th verse the apostle begins 
 anew the sentence which he broke off at the end of 
 the 1st verse for the parenthetical explanation of the 
 2nd and 3rd verses, and puts the result of his explana- 
 tion in the sentence thus anew begun. In accordance 
 with this fact we translate he by / say. The Eevisers 
 have so translated this particle in 2 Cor. v. 8, and 
 they often use the Enghsh expression in question when 
 there is no such particle in the Greek. 
 
 But this interpretation of he, in a resumptive 
 thought, is so well estabhshed in Greek usage that 
 we believe no objection can be made to its being so 
 translated here. The apostle brings down the word 
 0609 from ch. i. 17. This word is the subject of 
 the verbs avve^coo7rol7)ae, avvrjyetpe, and crvveKaOLaev. 
 These verbs, as we have said, all require the words 
 ra XpLCFTco — with Christ — to complete the ideas which 
 they are used to express. This can be seen from our 
 translation as well as from the Greek. But what are 
 the ideas which the apostle wishes to express ? Does 
 he refer to the status of believers on earth or in 
 heaven ? The answer must be to the former. They 
 share on earth a hfe and honours such as belonged 
 to Christ after He was raised from the dead. The 
 apostle delights to draw a parallel between Christ's 
 resurrection life and the believer's converted state. 
 And this parallel is of the nature of a prophecy, that 
 all the disabilities of the believer's present state will 
 be removed in heaven, and that he will share the 
 glory which Christ now enjoys there. 
 
Raised to Life with Christ 173 
 
 We have thus tried, we trust not vainly, to indicate 
 what seems to us the true meaning of the passage 
 which has been under consideration. 
 
 Note. — The phrase ev rol^ iirovpavioL'i occurs five 
 times in this Epistle, and is not met with elsewhere 
 in the New Testament. We have not seen any 
 translation or explanation of it which we can accept as 
 satisfactory. The rendering in the heavenlies conveys 
 no definite idea. The Eevisers of 1611 do not seem 
 very decided. They put in the text in heavenly places, 
 and in the margin, as an alternative, things. They, 
 however, find that they cannot render vi. 12 in this 
 way, and translate in high places. The Eevisers of 
 1881 accept in the heavenly places — places, of course, 
 being printed in italics in both versions, as the Greek 
 has no equivalent word. This is the common way of 
 understanding the phrase. It seems to be accepted 
 almost as an axiom that it designates place. 
 
 Why this view should have been so persistently 
 taken we do not quite see. It is fortunate that the 
 phrase occurs so often in this Epistle. This should be 
 helpful in determining its meaning. We may safely 
 assume that it is used in the same sense in all 
 instances of its occurrence. And therefore, to use an 
 arithmetical phrase, we shall have to try and reduce 
 these instances to a common denominator. We do 
 not see why italics should be required at all in 
 translating the phrase. It is not necessary to assume 
 that the word iTrovpavlot^ is neuter. It may be taken 
 as masculine. And so taken, it seems to us that the 
 phrase presents a better sense. Wolf in his Curce 
 Philologicce, in loco, ii. 6, says : " Inter coslites, seu 
 cceli incolas vertit CI. (Ederus, I.e. p. 680, quamvis cum 
 iis, qui dona et bona coelestia malunt non valde liti- 
 
174 Believers Dead to Sin, but 
 
 gandum putet." This is the nearest approach to our 
 rendering which we have seen. It is the only other, 
 so far as we know, which takes eirovpavloi^ as masculine. 
 The idea of great height is inherent in the word 
 heaven. " As the heaven is high above the earth." ^ 
 " The heaven for height, and the earth for depth, and 
 the heart of kings is unsearchable."^ And in this 
 same Epistle, " He that descended is the same also 
 that ascended far above all the heavens, that He might 
 fill all things." ^ While the word ovpavo^ thus conveys 
 this idea of great height, the preposition eV adds 
 intensity to that idea. It seems, therefore, natural 
 enough to ascribe to the word thus compounded the 
 secondary meaning which we ascribe to it in our 
 translation, among the most exalted. Let us see how this 
 translation fits into the five different passages in which 
 the phrase occurs. We shall take these in their order. 
 
 1. Ch. i. 3 : " Blessed be the God and Father of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, who had blessed us in every 
 spiritual blessing among the most exalted in Christ." 
 We can make no sense of the apostle's words if we 
 accept the translation in the heavenly places. The 
 expression in Christ must be taken along with the 
 words in every spiritual blessing. The apostle is thank- 
 ing God for all the spiritual blessings bestowed on him 
 and his fellow-believers in Christ. And he gratefully 
 recognises the high honour to which all believers are 
 raised. He and his readers are among this honoured 
 class. They share the honour bestowed on Christ. 
 
 2. Ch. i. 20 : "Which He (God) wrought in Christ, 
 when He raised Him from the dead, and made Him 
 to sit at His right hand among the most exalted." 
 Here the most exalted must mean those brought to 
 
 ^ Ps. ciii. 11. 2 pj^oy^ XXV. 3. ' Eph. iv. 10. 
 
Raised to Life with Christ 175 
 
 heaven by Christ. Among these Christ sits, according 
 to the words of His own promise, " He that overcometh, 
 I will give to him to sit down with Me in My throne, 
 as I also overcame and sat down with My Father in 
 His throne." ^ 
 
 3. Ch. ii. 6 : " Made us sit with Him among the 
 most exalted in Christ Jesus." This is that instance 
 of the occurrence of the phrase to explain which we 
 have been induced to refer to all the other instances 
 of its use. Here the most exalted must be taken, as in 
 the last example, to mean redeemed men. The words 
 in Christ Jesus further describes them, to distinguish 
 them from those afterwards to be mentioned who 
 occupy a bad eminence. 
 
 4. Ch. iii. 10: "To the intent that now unto the 
 principalities and the powers among the most exalted 
 might be made known, through the Church, the mani- 
 fold wisdom of God," etc. Here the phrase refers to 
 rulers and those exercising the highest authority 
 among men. In the preceding context Paul is speak- 
 ing of the great grace bestowed upon him when he 
 was appointed to preach among the Gentiles the 
 unsearchable riches of Christ. He received this grace 
 (1) to make all men understand the mystery of the 
 gospel, and (2) to make known to those in authority 
 the manifold wisdom of God. It was part of the 
 commission which the apostle received that he was to 
 speak of Christ before men of the highest rank. When 
 Ananias demurred to visit Saul of Tarsus because of the 
 evil reports he had heard regarding him, the Lord said 
 unto him, " Go thy way ; for he is a chosen vessel unto 
 Me to bear My name before the Gentiles, and kings, 
 and the children of Israel." ^ In another chapter of the 
 
 1 Rev. iii. 21. 2 ^^^g j^^ ^5^ 
 
176 Dead to Sin, but Alive with Christ 
 
 Acts we have a commentary on this aspect of Paul's 
 mission : " So on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, 
 and Bernice, with great pomp, and they were entered 
 into the place of hearing, with the chief captains, and 
 the principal men of the city, at the command of 
 Festus, Paul was brought in." ^ To these principalities 
 and powers — these most exalted men — Paul sought 
 to make known the manifold wisdom of God. 
 
 5. Ch. vi. 12 : "For our wrestling is not against 
 flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against 
 the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, 
 against the spiritualities of wickedness among the 
 most exalted." Here the apostle enumerates all the 
 adverse influences against which Christians had to 
 contend in his day. These were of two kinds. (1) 
 The governing authorities. These sought to persecute 
 the saints, and lead them to abandon the cause of 
 Christ. It was difficult .to induce men to become 
 Christians and remain steadfast, when they knew that 
 they exposed themselves to death Then (2) there were 
 the evil spirits of the nether world always exercising 
 a malign influence, and co-operating with unbelieving 
 princes and potentates. Two expressions are employed 
 by the apostle in each case to describe these adverse 
 influences : in the first case, the principalities and 
 powers ; in the second, the world-rulers of this dark- 
 ness and the spiritualities of wickedness. These op- 
 ponents of Christ's people were among the most exalted^ 
 but their eminence was conspicuously bad. In the 
 words which follow those we have commented on, the 
 apostle exhorts his readers to avail themselves of all 
 the assistance offered to them in the gospel, and to 
 stand fast against all their spiritual foes. 
 
 1 Acts XXV. 23. 
 
VI 
 
 THINGS WHICH MAKE SALVATION 
 CEKTAIN 
 
 An Exegetical Study 
 
 Kat (to,) ix^fieva, aurripias. — Heb. vi. 9. 
 
 ' ' And things that accompany salvation. " 
 
 — AutJiorised Version and Revised Version. 
 
 Does this translation, which our Eevisers of 1881 
 have copied from their predecessors of 1611, 
 correctly represent the Greek words ? The Eevisers 
 themselves are in doubt on the point. Instead of 
 the word " accompany," the English section give us, 
 in the margin, the alternative rendering, "are near 
 to." The American company, on the other hand, 
 think the marginal rendering should be " which 
 belong to." This diversity of opinion is somewhat 
 perplexing to the ordinary reader, but is quite in 
 accordance with the exegetical history of the passage. 
 The opinion of interpreters has all along been much 
 divided. Some have even held that i')(pfieva is 
 pleonastic, while others have thought that acoTr)pla<; 
 refers, not to eternal salvation, but to temporal deliver- 
 ance. These views are now exploded, and no exegete 
 of the present day would think of expressing them. 
 All modern expositors understand o-coT7]p[a<; to refer 
 
 12 
 
1 78 Things which make Salvation certain 
 
 to the salvation which the gospel brings, and all try 
 to give i^o^eva its full, natural meaning. The word 
 acoTTjpta, wherever it occurs, must be interpreted in 
 accordance with the trend of the writer's thought and 
 the nature of the subject; and there can be no doubt 
 what is its meaning here. 
 
 We may make another remark before we go 
 further. The whole of the verse is antithetical. But 
 how is the antithesis to be defined ? Ebrard says, 
 " 'Exo/Jieva awir^pla^ forms only the general antithesis 
 to KaTCLpa^ 677^9." Westcott says, " The phrase is 
 parallel with, and yet distinct from, Kardpa^ iyyix;" 
 We do not quite see what this means. Dr. William 
 Lindsay says, " 'E^o/JLeva awTT^pia^ is obviously a 
 contrast to Kardpa^ iyyv<;." So Farrar and others. 
 Now, this view of the limits of the antithesis seems 
 to us too narrow, and lacking in exegetical insight. 
 The writer is evidently contrasting the whole 
 character and destiny of those who fall away, as 
 depicted in the preceding context, with what he 
 believes to be true of his readers. The 7 th and 
 8th verses contain simply an illustration, drawn 
 from nature, to enforce his teaching. To seize upon a 
 phrase in that illustration, and make that one of the 
 limbs of the antithesis, is not exegesis. 
 
 The views of interpreters classify themselves under 
 four heads. 
 
 1. That which accepts the rendering of our English 
 versions. This view is supported by such authors as 
 Owen, Doddridge, Whitby, and many others. It is 
 vague and indefinite. " To accompany " is to go along 
 with, as a companion or associate. The word leaves 
 us quite in the dark as to whether we are to under- 
 stand by salvation something enjoyed in this world or 
 
Things which make Salvation certain 179 
 
 in the next. But this vagueness is looked upon by 
 the votaries of this view as an element essential to 
 the exposition of the words. Delitzsch says, " The 
 expression is intentionally ambiguous or vague." 
 Ebrard says, " The expression is left purposely 
 indefinite, and it is wrong to attempt to find one or 
 another precise sense." These statements are surely 
 made in oblivion of the fact that the 10 th verse 
 makes it indubitable that our author was thinking of 
 salvation as something to be obtained in the future 
 world. If that be so, then the things that accompany 
 salvation must be the enjoyments of heaven, exemp- 
 tion from sin and all the miseries associated with it, 
 the beatific vision, communion with Christ and all 
 redeemed men, and the perfect reahsation of all that 
 our ransomed nature can desire. But this cannot be 
 the meaning. The sacred penman is evidently 
 referring to personal qualities, at the time of his 
 writing distinguishing his readers, and therefore 
 connected with this world. There are some who 
 make " conversion " and " salvation " synonymous 
 terms. It looks as if our Eevisers did not wish to 
 express any opinion on the point. Those who hold 
 this view will, of course, take the words to mean 
 that when a man is converted, or saved, as they 
 express it, there are found in him the ordinary 
 characteristics of Christians. But that does not 
 express the force of our author's words. He 
 evidently wishes to comfort his readers by the 
 expression of his con\T.ction that they were on the 
 way to salvation, and were not among the number of 
 those who fall away after having accepted the gospel 
 for a time. 
 
 2, The view which interprets the words before us 
 
i8o Things which make Salvation certain 
 
 by some such phrase as that which the English 
 company put in the margin — " are near to," " are 
 nearer to," " are bordering on," " are very near to," 
 salvation. So the Vulgate, CEcumenius,^ Luther, 
 Castalio, Bengel, Moses Stuart, Dr. William Lindsay, 
 and others. Strictly speaking, " nearness " can refer 
 only to time or place. Both ideas are here excluded 
 by the nature of the case. The sacred penman is not 
 speaking of salvation as a thing near or remote, but 
 of certain spiritual qualities which he believed 
 belonged to his readers. These qualities could not 
 be spoken of in any strict sense as near, or nearer, 
 salvation. They might be described as bringing their 
 possessors nearer to salvation ; but that is not the 
 idea expressed by this translation now in question. 
 And even if that had been the idea of the sacred 
 writer, it would not have brought much comfort to 
 his readers in the circumstances. For those thought 
 of as falling away were once supposed to be near 
 salvation ! Our author wishes to place his readers 
 on firmer ground than that. The words before us, as 
 translated by our Eevisers in the margin, cannot be 
 taken as parallel to Paul's words in Eom. xiii. 12, 
 " Now is our salvation nearer than when we believed." 
 Westcott says, " The construction execrdai rivo^ is used 
 of local contiguity in Mark i. 3 8 ; of temporal connec- 
 tion, Luke xiii. 33, Acts xx. 15, and xxi. 26." To give 
 point to this critical remark, he should have suggested 
 the rendering, " in touch with salvation." But this 
 would have been as objectionable as any of the phrases 
 with which we have been dealing under this head. It 
 could not have brought any comfort to our author's 
 readers, for the evil in the case of those whom he 
 
 ^ (Ecumenius interprets ix^fieva by iyyds '6vTa. 
 
Things which make Salvation certain i8i 
 
 thinks of as falling away is that they lose touch 
 with salvation. And that is the very danger against 
 which the sacred writer seeks to warn them. He 
 wishes to encourage them to perseverance in faithful- 
 ness to Christ by the assurance that their salvation 
 was certain, if they so persevered. 
 
 3. The view which accords, more or less, with the 
 judgment of the American company, and would 
 translate, " which belong to," " are connected with," 
 " are inseparably connected with," " are akin to," 
 " which partake of the nature of," salvation. So 
 Erasmus, Beza, Piscator, Macknight, Kuinoel, Ltine- 
 mann, Tholuck, Boothroyd, Darby, Alford, etc. 
 Tholuck's \dew, as given by his translator, James 
 Hamilton, M.A., is strangely expressed. "'Exofieva 
 (T(OTr)pla^" he says, " is a classical periphrasis of the 
 adjective notion." He must intend to say, " things 
 of saving virtue." Augustine, writing to Cresconius, 
 expresses his view thus : " Things to which eternal 
 salvation closely adheres." This view seems to us 
 to come very near the author's meaning, though we 
 feel that it fails to bring out an essential feature of 
 the words. The translation is not sufficiently clear, 
 and does not remove all ambiguity from the passage. 
 The words, " which partake of the nature of," con- 
 found the means, or antecedents, of salvation with 
 salvation itself. Eor the same reason, the rendering 
 of Alford — " are akin to " — is also objectionable. 
 
 4. The view which adds to the words, " are 
 connected with salvation," some such phrase as " and 
 lead to " it, as necessary to bring out the full sense. 
 So Parseus, Eaphelius, Dindorf in his edition of 
 Ernesti on our Epistle, and Dr. A. B. Davidson. 
 Parseus says, " Literally, containing salvation, or 
 
1 82 Things which make Salvation certain 
 
 contiguous to salvation ; for eyoy^eva is properly used 
 of those things that follow one another so as mutually 
 to touch, like adjoining buildings. He (our author) 
 understands, therefore, the necessary antecedents to 
 salvation, such as faith, conversion, patience, con- 
 stancy, and perseverance. Those who have these, and 
 maintain them, are certain of salvation." Parseus 
 does not put into his translation all that he has in 
 his exposition. In fact, his translation and his 
 exposition do not correspond with one another. He 
 is apparently controlled by tradition in translating, 
 but his exegetical instinct leads him to express the 
 whole truth when expounding. The words of 
 Eaphelius are, " Things which carry salvation with 
 them, which are connected with it, and make for it." 
 Dindorf says, " As we view it, ra e-^oyieva aairrjpia'i 
 means ' things which bring salvation, and secure it.' " 
 That satisfies the critical conscience. Many inter- 
 preters seem to have had the conviction that this 
 idea : and leading to it, is involved in the phrase, 
 but have not been able to express it. With this 
 method of bringing out the meaning of the words 
 before us we cordially agree. The phrase used by 
 the sacred writer is a pregnant one. We cannot rid 
 ourselves of the conviction that when any part of the 
 verb e;^ft) is used in connection with eternal life, or 
 salvation, there is inseparably connected with it the 
 idea of security and certainty. That idea should 
 certainly be expressed here. Let us glance at a few 
 passages in illustration of our meaning. John iii. 16, 
 " God so loved the world, that He gave His only- 
 begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should 
 not perish, but have {e^o) eternal life. For God 
 sent not the Son into the world to judge the world. 
 
Things which make Salvation certain 183 
 
 but that the world should be saved through Him." 
 The word " have " here has the meaning of " obtain, 
 and be sure of." More definite still is the 36th 
 verse of the same chapter, " He that believeth on 
 the Son hath (exei) eternal life ; but he that obeyeth 
 not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of 
 God abideth on him." Here the force of " hath " 
 is undoubtedly " shall infallibly obtain." This is 
 clear from the antithesis stated in the second and 
 third clauses of the verse. Then, in this same gospel, 
 ch. V. 24, the words occui', "He that heareth My 
 word, and believeth Him that sent Me, hath (ex^i) 
 eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath 
 passed out of death into life." This verse needs no 
 special comment. It is a feeble exposition that 
 interprets " hath " in these passages to mean " hath it 
 now." What, then, are the things in the Christian's 
 character that secure his salvation ? They are such 
 as faith, a growing hatred of sin and a corresponding 
 love of holiness, a hunger and thirst for the word, a 
 craving for communion with God, and a deepening 
 interest in His cause. And these our author believed 
 that his readers possessed. On the whole, we would 
 prefer, as a rendering of the words, this : " And 
 things that ensure salvation." 
 
VII 
 
 OUR LORD TROUBLED AND 
 TRIUMPHANT 
 
 A Lecture 
 
 " Now is My soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save 
 Me from this hour ? But for this cause came I unto this hour. 
 Father, glorify thy name. There came therefore a voice out of 
 Heaven — 'I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again,' The 
 multitude, therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it had 
 thundered. Others said, 'An angel hath spoken to Him.' Jesus 
 answered and said, ' This voice hath not come for My sake, but for 
 your sakes. Now is the judgment of this world : now shall the prince 
 of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, 
 will draw all men unto Myself. ' But this He said, signifying by what 
 manner of death He should die." — John xii. 27-34. 
 
 What caused the sudden access of mental anguish 
 with which our Lord was now visited ? To answer 
 this question intelhgently, we must go back to what 
 our evangelist says about certain Greeks who had 
 come up to Jerusalem to worship at the feast. This 
 is acknowledged on all hands to be necessary. The 
 commonly received opinion regarding these men is, 
 that they were anxious inquirers, who wished to have 
 an opportunity of conversing with Jesus. It is 
 assumed that they had heard much about His doc- 
 trine, had become deeply interested in it, and that 
 they craved the advantages of a private interview. 
 
 184 
 
Our Lord Troubled and Triumphant 185 
 
 This opinion seems to be founded mainly, if not 
 entirely, upon the apparently respectful form of the 
 request. As that request is usually read, it wears the 
 appearance of great modesty. Instead of applying 
 directly to our Lord, they sought to approach Him 
 through one of His disciples. They wished to see 
 Jesus. What this really meant cannot be conclusively 
 inferred from the form of words. The term see is 
 the same as that employed in the narrative about 
 Zaccheus ; " He sought to see Jesus, who He was." 
 Much would depend upon the tone and manner of the 
 speakers. They may have assumed an insolent and 
 threatening aspect as they spoke. They may have 
 presented a sinister and suspicious look. The nar- 
 rative does not certainly make it imperative that we 
 should believe they were actuated by spiritual concern. 
 
 There are three circumstances connected with the 
 story, and lying on its very surface, which make us 
 unwilling to acquiesce in the traditional opinion. 
 (1) There is the hesitation of the disciples. Their 
 suspicions were evidently excited. Philip, to whom 
 the request was made, deemed it prudent to consult 
 with Andrew. Why not take them to Jesus at once 
 if they were good and true men, and appeared to be 
 such ? It was only after the two had consulted together 
 that the matter was mentioned to Jesus. It has been 
 suggested that Philip's hesitation arose from our Lord's 
 express assurance, that He had not come except to the 
 lost sheep of the house of Israel. When the Twelve 
 were sent forth to preach after their ordination, they 
 were told not to go into the way of the Gentiles. 
 And these men were Gentiles, not Jews. But we must 
 remember that we have here before us persons who 
 do not belong to the category of Gentiles proper. 
 
1 86 Our Lord Troubled and Triumphant 
 
 They were proselytes to the Jewish faith, and were 
 thus, to a certain extent, identified with the Jewish 
 community. The hesitation of the disciples is not 
 explained by this suggestion. (2) There is no evidence 
 in the narrative that our Lord granted an interview. 
 If the men had been actuated by a right spirit, we 
 can hardly doubt that our Lord would have complied 
 with their wishes. And if the interview had been 
 granted, it is reasonable to think that we would have 
 had some account of it. The matters on which they 
 wished to be informed would have been mentioned, 
 and our Lord's attitude towards them indicated. 
 There is the profoundest silence in the narrative after 
 we are informed that Andrew and Philip told Jesus. 
 There is evidently a material difference between the 
 case of these men and that of Zaccheus. Zaccheus 
 was an eminently good man, and what he had heard 
 of Christ filled him with the deepest admiration. 
 There is no evidence, apart from the dubious form of 
 their request, that these men had any sympathy with 
 Jesus, or cared anything about His doctrine. They 
 were most probably fanatics, who had heard of the 
 bitter feeling which prevailed among the Jews against 
 our Lord, and who had become more Jewish, in this 
 respect, than the Jews themselves, and only sought to 
 see Jesus that they might assassinate Him. (3) The 
 request of these men threw our Lord into great mental 
 distress. Everyone admits the connection between 
 this distress and the visit of these Greeks. Now, our 
 Lord's distress could not have been due to honest 
 religious interest on the part of these men. There 
 must have been something sinister about their whole 
 conduct. They must have been bent upon laying 
 violent hands upon our Lord there and then. 
 
Our Lord Troubled and Triumphant 187 
 
 It is only on this supposition that it is possible to 
 explain this otherwise inexplicable passage in our 
 Gospel. Our Lord was now filled with distress 
 because He feared premature death. As death in 
 such a form as that now threatened, and at such a 
 time, was inconsistent with what His Father had 
 revealed to Him as to the manner and time of His 
 death, and as it seemed to make it impossible that all 
 that was written in the Law of Moses and in the 
 Prophets and Psalms concerning Him could be 
 fulfilled, we can understand this sudden outburst of 
 mental trouble. Our Lord all along was anxious to 
 do all that the Father had given Him to do. Was 
 His career to be cut short before all had been done ? 
 
 We cannot fairly set aside this supposition by 
 appealing to the statement of our evangelist, that 
 these Greeks had come up to Jerusalem to worship at 
 the feast. The Jews who clamoured for our Lord's 
 crucifixion, and ultimately gained their object, had 
 come up to the Holy City for the same purpose. We 
 cannot predict what misguided men, under the influ- 
 ence of fanaticism and passion, will do. The Greeks 
 are a hot-blooded people, and assassination is not a 
 thing unheard of in the history of their nation. Are 
 we reminded that we are explaining this passage by 
 the aid of a supposition ? So far as that goes, the 
 opinion that these Greeks were anxious inquirers is 
 but a supposition too ; and we do not think it is a 
 supposition so well founded as that which we have 
 brought forward. Our supposition, when stated, comes 
 very near to a demonstration. 
 
 Our Lord's present distress cannot be accounted for 
 by His fear of death. Had He been actually afraid 
 of death, it could have been justly said that He had 
 
1 88 Our Lord Troubled and Triumphant 
 
 less courage in this respect than has been shown by- 
 many of His followers since. He all along knew that 
 He was to die. It was His fixed and unalterable 
 purpose to give His life a ransom for many. " There- 
 fore doth My Father love Me," we have found Him 
 saying in this G-ospel before, " because I lay down My 
 life, that I might take ifc again. No man taketh it 
 from Me, but I lay it down of Myself." " And it 
 came to pass, when the time was come that He should 
 be received up, He steadfastly set His face to go to 
 Jerusalem." It is to our mind simply impossible to 
 think that our Lord's present distress was caused by 
 the near prospect of death. He was always wilhng 
 to die, but He did not wish to die till all that had 
 been written concerning Him had been fulfilled. It 
 was premature death, which would leave His work 
 incomplete, that He dreaded. 
 
 In His distress our Lord betook Himself to His 
 Father in prayer. But He hesitated, for a brief 
 period, as to how He should express Himself. What 
 was He to say ? Was His prayer to be, " Father, 
 save Me from this hour " ? That language He could 
 not use. It would imply a want of confidence in His 
 Father's goodness and providence. He had been 
 brought into His present position by the divine 
 leading, just as He had been led by the Spirit into 
 the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. God must 
 have had a special reason for bringing about the 
 present circumstances. And He felt that it was His 
 duty to acquiesce. " Though He were a Son, yet 
 learned He obedience by the things which He 
 suffered." This was a new test of His filial confi- 
 dence. We must remember that our Lord placed 
 Himself, for the accomplishment of our redemption, 
 
Our Lord Troubled and Triumphant 189 
 
 under all the conditions of ordinary humanity. He 
 had to learn, as we need to do, His Father's will in 
 connection with the leadings of Providence. And we 
 need not be surprised that He found it difficult some- 
 times to discover what that will was. The result of 
 His mediation, before His Father's throne at this time, 
 was to dissipate the cloud which had settled down 
 upon His soul. Hence His submissive words, " Father, 
 glorify Thy name." That is, " Carry out Thy will 
 concerning Me. I am ready to submit to all that 
 Thou art pleased to appoint for Me. And Thou 
 knowest how to defeat the machinations of wicked 
 men, and to bring to pass what Thou hast ordained. 
 I cheerfully resign myself into Thy hands." 
 
 It is exceedingly probable that this was the occasion 
 referred to in Hebrews, where it speaks of the Lord 
 offering up prayers and supplications, with strong crying 
 and tears, to Him that was able to save Him from 
 death. The phrase is suggestive, and, on our supposi- 
 tion, looks like an undesigned coincidence. It does not 
 follow that both passages do not refer to the same period, 
 because the account of our evangelist is so meagre. 
 
 The people (more correctly, the multitude) must 
 have heard this prayer, though it does not seem to 
 have been a common thing with our Lord to pray to 
 His Father in the hearing of the unsympathetic crowd. 
 His evident reason for presenting His prayer in the 
 hearing of the people was to secure that their attention 
 should be called to the answer. He wished to convince 
 them that there was perfect understanding between 
 Him and the Father, and that He had made no claim 
 which the Father did not endorse. The answer to 
 His prayer came in the words, " I have both glorified 
 it, and will glorify it again." That this answer was 
 
190 Our Lord Troubled and Triumphant 
 
 given in articulate sounds, seems indisputable. But 
 what did it mean ? It meant that the Father had 
 exercised a guardian care over His Son in the past. 
 He had opened up a way of escape from all the 
 dangers to which He had hitherto been exposed. He 
 had, at the beginning of His public ministry, enabled 
 Him to escape from the enraged villagers of Nazareth ; 
 and He had more recently, on two occasions, enabled 
 Him to escape out of the hands of the Jews. All 
 this had been done because His hour had not yet 
 come. It could not be that He should die before His 
 work was done. But the voice from heaven also 
 meant that He would be delivered from the fanaticism 
 of these Greeks. Their evil intentions would be 
 frustrated, and all that the Father had appointed for 
 Him would be fulfilled. Had Jesus been put to death 
 now. His work would not have been completed. And 
 these Greeks being His murderers, His death could 
 not have been looked upon as a legal sacrifice. To con- 
 stitute His death such a sacrifice, He must be brought 
 to the altar through the agency of the chief priests. It 
 is not without significance, in this connection, that it 
 is written, " Judas, having received a band of men and 
 officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh 
 thither with lanterns, and torches, and weapons." " He 
 was led as a lamb to the slaughter." 
 
 Some of the multitude who stood by, when they 
 heard the voice from heaven, said it thundered ; others 
 said an angel was speaking to Him. It was very 
 much as it was with the vision which Saul of Tarsus 
 had on the way to Damascus. The persecutor dis- 
 tinctly heard the words spoken ; those who were with 
 him heard a sound, but could not discriminate the 
 words. Our Lord explained that the voice came 
 
Our Lord Troubled and Triumphant 191 
 
 solely for the sake of the multitude. He had already 
 obtained, in His inward calm, evidence that His 
 prayer was answered. He could say now, as He said 
 at the grave of Lazarus, '' I knew that Thou hearest 
 Me always : but because of the people which stand 
 by I said it, that they may believe that Thou hast 
 sent Me." The whole scene was so arranged as to 
 encourage them to believe on Him. 
 
 This was a critical time in our Lord's earthly life, 
 but it was also a critical time in the history of the 
 world. Our Lord saw in the spirit of these Greeks 
 the fact of His rejection by the Gentile world. The 
 Jews and Gentiles are terms used in the New Testa- 
 ment to describe the whole of mankind. The Jews 
 had already indicated their hostility to Him, and 
 their rejection of Him. This rejection by the Jews 
 was followed by the rejection of the Gentiles. Thus, 
 by the spirit manifested by the Greeks, it was made 
 manifest that the whole world was set in array against 
 Christ. All nations are to share in the benefits of 
 His death, and all nations, through their representa- 
 tives, had a share in compassing His death. 
 
 It seemed at one time as if the forces of evil were 
 to triumph, and as if the plans and purposes of 
 Heaven were to be thwarted. But this prospect of 
 the triumph of evil was short-lived. What at first 
 looked like a victory was to end in ignominious defeat. 
 The devil's seeming triumph was really the Lord's 
 victory. The power of man's great enemy would be 
 destroyed; the prince of this world w^ould be cast 
 out. There is a ring of triumph in the words which 
 our Lord here uses, " Now shall the prince of this 
 world be cast out." The enemies of Christ have often 
 imagined that they have prevailed against Christ. 
 
192 Our Lord Troubled and Triumphant 
 
 But He that sitteth in the heavens laughed ; the 
 Lord had them in derision. No weapon formed 
 against God can prosper. 
 
 In this triumphant strain our Lord continues : 
 " And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw 
 all men unto Myself. But this He said signifying by 
 what manner of death He should die." Here our Lord 
 speaks again, in His wonted language, about the mode of 
 His death. His fears have been removed. He is now 
 satisfied that He will not die till all has been fulfilled. 
 The providential guardianship of His Father will keep 
 Him safe till His time has come, and till all that has 
 been given Him to do has been accomplished. 
 
 There is no evidence here of our Lord's fear of 
 mere death — He thinks only of the grand results that 
 were to follow from His death. " I, if I be hfted up 
 from the earth, will draw all men unto Myself." His 
 death would accomplish what His life had failed to 
 secure. While He lived on earth men had hated and 
 despised Him. He was a root out of a dry ground, 
 and when they saw Him there was no beauty in Him 
 that they should desire Him. There were times 
 when the people were drawn towards Him for a brief 
 period, but this was speedily followed by reaction. 
 His death would make a favourable change. Men 
 would be induced to think of Him in a different way. 
 The purity of His life, the love and unselfishness which 
 He manifested, the divine nature of His doctrines, 
 and especially the cruel death He was to die, would 
 evoke human sympathy ; and that, in turn, would 
 awaken admiration, faith, and love. As matter of 
 fact, there is nothing which touches the heart of the 
 sinner like the story of the Cross. When every other 
 appeal fails, this can find its way to the conscience. 
 
Our Lord Troubled and Triumphant 193 
 
 The love which breathes from the Cross kindles love 
 in the sinner's soul. 
 
 The word all here must not be taken absolutely, as 
 meaning that all men individually were to be drawn 
 to Christ after His death. That cannot be the 
 meaning, for we know that, as matter of fact, all 
 men are not drawn to Him. In every age there 
 have been some that have rejected Him and turned 
 their backs upon Him. The evident meaning of the 
 word is, that there will be drawn to Him some men 
 out of every kindred and race — Jews as well as 
 Gentiles. This, we know, has been done. Wherever 
 the gospel has been preached some have been found 
 to accept it. And our Lord's prediction here is 
 receiving, in our day, a more complete fulfilment than 
 at any previous period since His death. Even the 
 Jews, who have so long treated Him with hostility, 
 are beginning to speak of Him with admiration. The 
 cause of the gospel is not a failure. However the 
 careless may treat it, however the wise men of the 
 world may regard it, its triumph is the one outstand- 
 ing fact in the history of the world at the present 
 day. 
 
 " Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from 
 our sins in His own blood, and hath made us kings 
 and priests unto God and His Father ; to Him be 
 glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." 
 
 13 
 
VIII 
 
 THE GETHSEMANE CUP— WHAT 
 WAS IT? 
 
 " My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from Me : 
 nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt. " — Matt. xxvi. 39. 
 
 ' ' The cup which the Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it ? " 
 — John xviii. 11, last clause. 
 
 On this question two different opinions have con- 
 tended for acceptance. 
 
 I. The majority of interpreters have held that by 
 this cup we are to understand the terrible ordeal of 
 the Cross. Our Lord had come into this world, 
 assuming our mortal flesh, for the express purpose of 
 dying for men, and, during the whole course of His 
 life and ministry on earth up to this time, had spoken 
 of His death as something which lay before Him, and 
 to which He was ready cheerfully to submit ; but, we 
 are told, when the hour of His sufferings actually 
 approached He shrank from the prospect. His heart 
 was overwhelmed by an unspeakable horror, which 
 found expression in the agony of the garden. There 
 was something inconceivably awful in the thought of 
 having to bear the load of the world's sin. But this 
 our Lord did not fully realise till brought face to face 
 with it. (1) It is a fatal objection to this view that 
 
 194 
 
The Gethsemane Cup — What was it? 195 
 
 it presents our Lord in a most vacillating light. 
 What ! are we to suppose that He now wished to 
 abandon the great purpose for which He came into 
 the world, and to stultify all that He had previously 
 said and done ? He told His disciples that He had a 
 baptism to be baptized with, and that He was greatly 
 straitened till it was accomplished. When the time 
 came that He should be offered up. He steadfastly set 
 His face to go to Jerusalem, where He expected to 
 be put to death. Is it consistent with our Lord's 
 character to suppose that He repented at the very 
 last ? This opinion, we humbly think, seriously dis- 
 honours Him. The words of John xii. 27-34 and of 
 Heb. V. 7, refer to an occasion totally different from 
 the scene in Gethsemane. (2) But another objection, 
 equally fatal to this opinion, is drawn from the words 
 which our Lord used in His prayer regarding this cup. 
 These words slightly vary in the different evangelists, 
 but they all convey the same meaning. Take those 
 found in Mark : " Abba, Father, all things are 
 possible unto Thee ; take away this cup from Me." 
 Was it possible for God, in harmony with the plan of 
 redemption, to allow Christ to evade the Cross ? It 
 is evident that we must interpret the cup to mean 
 something which it was possible for God to do, while 
 at the same time yielding up Christ to die for us. 
 Christ could not be saved from the Cross, and at the 
 same time offer Himself as a sacrifice for sin. 
 
 II. A large number of expositors, dissatisfied with 
 the opinion wdiich we have been examining, believe 
 that our Lord was now in a condition so physically 
 reduced that He was afraid of dying before He could 
 reach the Cross. He shrank, it is alleged, not from 
 death on the Cross, but from death in Gethsemane. 
 
196 The Gethsemane Cup — What was it? 
 
 This view is supported by such arguments as these — 
 
 (1) Luke, in his account of the scene in the garden, 
 mentions that an angel came from heaven to 
 strengthen Him. Hence it is argued He must have 
 suffered from physical weakness. But this inference 
 does not follow. The strength imparted to Him may 
 have been, and, undoubtedly, was, of a spiritual 
 nature, to enable Him to bear what the Father had 
 appointed for Him. Had the strength imparted by 
 the angel been of a physical nature, the result must 
 have been to relieve His agony and reassure Him. 
 No such result was, however, produced. It is im- 
 mediately added that, " heing in agony, He prayed more 
 earnestly ; and His sweat was as it were great drops 
 of blood falling down to the ground." The strengthen- 
 ing which He received did not, it is evident, mitigate 
 the bitterness of the cup, whatever that was. There 
 is no warrant whatever for the belief that our Lord 
 thought Himself dying. He told His disciples, it is 
 true, that His soul was exceedingly sorrowful, even 
 unto death ; but evidently this expression is employed 
 merely to mark the intensity of His mental anguish. 
 
 (2) A further argument in support of this view is, 
 that our Lord did not die in Gethsemane. The 
 reasoning here is what logicians call a vicious circle. 
 It is assumed that Christ prayed to be delivered from 
 premature death, and then, because He did not die in 
 the garden, it is argued that premature death was 
 what He dreaded. (3) A third argument is drawn 
 from the words used by our Lord at the grave of 
 Lazarus, " I know that Thou hearest me always." 
 But such an argument involves a fallacy. Hearing a 
 prayer, and granting the request which such a prayer 
 presents, are not one and the same thing. The terms 
 
The Gethsemane Cup— What was it? 197 
 
 which the Lord used imphed that He was not certam 
 that His request would be granted. He left Himself 
 in the Father's hands — " Nevertheless, not My will, 
 but Thine, be done." God hears our prayers, but does 
 not always grant what we ask. Paul prayed to be 
 delivered from his thorn in the flesh, but, though his 
 prayer was heard, its request was not granted. 
 
 A conclusive objection to this view arises out of 
 John xviii. 11. When Peter smote Malchus, and cut 
 off his right ear, our Lord said to him, " Put up thy 
 sword into the sheath ; the cup which My Father 
 hath given Me, shall I not drink it ? " Clearly the 
 cup was not something removed from our Lord at this 
 time when He was leaving the garden. It seems 
 difficult to escape from this inference, but some boldly 
 say. The cup in the garden, and the cup here referred 
 to, are not one and the same. Such an argument 
 needs no reply. The cup, for the removal of which 
 Christ prayed, must have been something which caused 
 Him intense mental anguish, but something which did 
 not seem to Him to enter into the essence of His 
 mission — something, in short, from which He might 
 escape without setting aside the purpose for which 
 He came into the world. What that was we shall 
 now endeavour to show. 
 
 III. We are forced to conclude that by the cup 
 from which our Lord shrank, is to be understood the 
 betrayal, and what might arise out of it. Our Lord 
 knew who it was that was to betray Him. And, 
 looking at the matter from a human standpoint, most 
 awful consequences might spring out of the action of 
 the traitor. There might be serious violence and 
 bloodshed. We believe that these possibilities filled 
 our Lord's mind with alarm and anguish. The con- 
 
198 The Gethsemane Cup — What was it? 
 
 siderations which have induced us to adopt this view 
 are these — (1) The directions which Christ gave His 
 disciples as recorded in Luke xxii. 35-38, "And He 
 said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and 
 scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything ? And they said. 
 Nothing. Then said He unto them. But now, he that 
 hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip : 
 and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, 
 and buy one. For I say unto you. That this that is 
 written must yet be accomplished in Me, And He was 
 reckoned among the transgressors : for the things 
 concerning Me have an end. And they said, Lord, 
 behold, here are two swords. And He said unto them, 
 It is enough." These instructions surely pointed to 
 the possibility of great trial and danger. They clearly 
 indicate a fear that the usual channels of hospitality 
 might be closed against the disciples through the 
 hatred that might be excited against them. They 
 indicate also the possibility of their being called upon 
 to struggle for their lives against an infuriated mob. 
 Here we naturally recall what our Lord said to the 
 three whom He appointed to guard Him while He 
 prayed in Gethsemane : " Watch and pray, that ye 
 enter not into temptation." Here we must under- 
 stand our Lord to refer to physical quite as much as 
 to spiritual danger. It well became them to watch 
 and pray, lest they should be forced to defend their 
 lives against violence. They were set to guard their 
 Master while He prayed, but it would be a most 
 lamentable thing if they were forced to use the sword. 
 They were happily delivered by the providence of 
 God from so painful a necessity. Now, it will be 
 admitted that all these instructions which our Lord 
 gave to His disciples were just such as human 
 
The Gethsemane Cup — What was it? 199 
 
 prudence might suggest. What concern to avoid 
 colhsion between the disciples and the armed band is 
 seen in the words, " If ye seek Me, let these go their 
 way " ! The armed band was miraculously restrained. 
 When Jesus revealed Himself to them, they went 
 backward and fell to the ground. They seem to have 
 been still under the influence of a strange awe when 
 Peter smote Malchus. We cannot otherwise under- 
 stand how a scene of violence and bloodshed did not 
 ensue. 
 
 (2) John, in connection with the reproof ad- 
 ministered to Peter, records the words, " The cup 
 which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink 
 it ! " These words are brought forward by some to 
 prove that it was the Cross which constituted the cup 
 Irom which our Lord sought to be delivered. See, 
 they say, the drinking of the cup was still a thing in 
 the future. If any argument of this kind could be 
 established, it would be fatal to our view, which is, 
 that our Lord was now drinking the cnp which the 
 Father had given Him. But no sound interpreter 
 can be led astray by such an argument. The future 
 tense, as used here, implies moral obligation rather 
 than indicates time. It is so used in many other 
 cases, as, for example. Job ii. 10, "What! shall we 
 receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not 
 receive evil ? " Here the future of the verb is used, 
 and yet Job's sufferings were not in the future, but 
 actually upon him. But (3) the conduct of Judas 
 must have caused our Lord intense pain. Can any 
 one doubt that He wished, if it were possible, that 
 He should be delivered to death without the inter- 
 vention of Judas ? That disciple had been dear to 
 Him as the others had been. Then there was the 
 
200 The Gethsemane Cup — What was it? 
 
 possibility of the disciples losing all control of them- 
 selves when they saw the baseness of the traitor. 
 Besides, (4) there were possibilities of outrage on the 
 part of those who came to apprehend Christ. These 
 were Jews. Might they not be tempted to use 
 violence towards both our Lord and His disciples ? 
 
 There was surely enough in these possibihties, and 
 in the conduct of Judas, to account for our Lord's 
 intense concern, and to awaken in His mind the 
 desire that the great Disposer of all events might so 
 arrange as to avert from Him so terrible a trial. 
 God answered His prayer, but not in the way He 
 desired. No lives were sacrificed, and no violence 
 was exercised, except by Peter ; and that episode 
 speedily terminated with this happy result, that it 
 gave our Lord the opportunity of teaching a most 
 important lesson in Christian morals. 
 
IX 
 
 IS THE LAST CLAUSE OF JOHN III. 13 
 GENUINE ? 
 
 A Study in Textual Ceiticism 
 
 Kai ovdels ava^e^r^Kev ets rbv ovpavbv ei fir] 6 iK rod oipavov /carajSds 
 6 vios Tov avdpthirov [6 (bv iv t(^ ovpavw], — Textus Eeceptus, etc. 
 
 "And no man hath ascended into heaven, but He that descended 
 
 out of heaven — the Son of man." 
 
 The question before us is one of special interest, but, 
 at the same time, one of special difficulty. We have 
 indicated our opinion by leaving the clause in question 
 untranslated. Whether that opinion is well or ill 
 founded must be decided by the reader. We have 
 four classes of authorities to examine. (1) Those 
 which present the clause as it stands in the Textus 
 Eeceptus, which is that exhibited at the top of this 
 paper. (2) That which reads, o ev rS ovpavS. (3) 
 Those which read, o o)v Ik tov ovpavov. (4) And 
 those which omit the clause altogether. The trial of 
 strength is really between the first and the last of 
 these classes. The only undoubted evidence in favour 
 of the second is the Gospel Lectionary 44. The idea 
 that it was the original reading of Codex A rests, as 
 we hope to show, on no evidence whatever. The 
 
202 Is the Last Clause of 
 
 reading of the third class is supported by the cursives 
 80 and 88. To these we are now able to add the 
 recently -discovered Sinai tic Syriac palimpsest of the 
 Gospels. This manuscript has the preposition " from " 
 in its full separate form. The fact is interesting and 
 suggestive, but it does not alter our position, that the 
 decision must be in favour of either the first or the 
 fourth class of authorities. 
 
 The rules of grammar are not to be forgotten in a 
 case of this kind. It will readily be admitted that 
 our translation entirely satisfies these rules. And we 
 are at a loss to understand what necessity the trans- 
 lators of 1611 and the Eevisers of 1881 saw for the 
 supplementary word " even." It is in no way neces- 
 sary to the sense, and only serves to obscure the 
 apostle's meaning. Our translation is the natural 
 one, according to the Greek iisus loquendi. So far, 
 therefore, as grammar is concerned, the verse comes 
 to a legitimate termination with the word " man." If 
 the clause was not added by John, its addition since 
 was not called for to meet any grammatical difficulty. 
 Its presence in the text may be due to some supposed 
 logical necessity. When we read over the verse 
 without the last clause, there is a feeling as if the 
 protasis and apodosis did not perfectly balance. We 
 expect a more explicit assertion in the apodosis than 
 we actually find. Westcott and Hort suggest that 
 the clause was probably introduced to correct any 
 misunderstanding that might arise out of the position 
 of dva^e/SrjKep as coming before Kara^d^. The feel- 
 ing to which we have referred is very much relieved 
 when we remember that el fjur} does not introduce a 
 directly negative or exceptive proposition. It pre- 
 pares us rather for a qualification of the statement 
 
John in. 13 Genuine? 203 
 
 which preceded it. In this case it gives us to under- 
 stand that, while no man has ascended into heaven to 
 ascertain God's mind and will, Christ, the Son of God, 
 has become incarnate to reveal to us all that it is 
 necessary for us to know. 
 
 The addition of the clause in question makes the 
 verse look like an ill-patched garment. It introduces 
 a contradiction to the clause which states that Christ 
 came down from heaven. Our Lord nowhere else 
 speaks of Himself as being in heaven while He 
 tabernacled upon earth. But those who plead for the 
 retention of the clause use as one of their strong 
 dogmatic arguments that it furnishes a remarkable 
 proof of our Lord's Divinity. While He was on earth, 
 we are told, He was also, through His Divine nature, at 
 the same time in heaven. How can such an exposition 
 be harmonised with such words as these? — John \'i. 62, 
 " What, then, if ye should behold the Son of man 
 ascending where He was before ? " John xx. 17," Jesus 
 saith to her. Touch Me not ; for I am not yet ascended 
 to the Father." But, further, if we accept the clause, 
 and construe the verse as our Enghsh versions do, we 
 have no definite verb in the apodosis. "flv is a parti- 
 ciple, introducing an assumption, but not containing a 
 definite proposition. Our versions get over this diffi- 
 culty aijparently, but not really, by translating, " who 
 is in heaven." A participial clause, without a definite 
 verb, cannot be treated in this way. The literal 
 rendering is, " who [or, ' He who '], being in heaven." 
 This leaves the verse hanging in the air. We do not 
 see how this grammatical difficulty can be overcome 
 by those who accept the words of the clause in ques- 
 tion. This clause should have been followed by some 
 definite verb to satisfy the requirements of grammar. 
 
204 Is the Last Clause of 
 
 The f oUowmg cases illustrate what we mean : John 
 i. 18, "The only-begotten Son, which is (6 cov) in the 
 bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him " ; John 
 vi. 46, "He which is (o cov) from God, He hath seen 
 the Father " ; John viii. 47, " He that is of God (o oiv 
 €K Tov ©€ov) heareth the words of God " ; John 
 xviii. 37, "Everyone that is of the truth (vra? o wz/ 
 ifc T^9 akriOeia^) heareth My voice." Such examples 
 might easily have been multiplied almost indefinitely. 
 We have confined ourselves exclusively to John's 
 Gospel, in case it should be thought that there is 
 anything in this evangelist's style inconsistent with 
 the position we have taken up. The rules of grammar 
 and the laws of thought alike, require a definite verb 
 after 6 cov. We do not, of course, object to the trans- 
 lation of 6 cov by " he who is " when a definite verb 
 follows ; but as there is no such verb in the present 
 case, we regard the rendering of our English versions 
 as illegitimate. We go further, and say that, if we 
 retain the clause, the verse cannot be translated 
 grammatically. From all this w^e infer that the words 
 in dispute could not have proceeded from John's pen, 
 who is never guilty of a glaring grammatical in- 
 accuracy of this kind. They have all the appearance 
 of having been subsequently imported into the text, 
 and in utter disregard of grammatical rule. They 
 were probably put in the margin of some early 
 exemplar, whose pious possessor wished to express 
 his belief in our Lord's ascension, but who had 
 no thought of adapting his words to the apostle's 
 construction, or any desire to have them regarded 
 as of sacred authority. The grammatical form of 
 the clause stamps it with suspicion, to say the very 
 least. 
 
John iii. 13 Genuine? 205 
 
 I. The external evidence in support of the clause is 
 furnished at great length by Tischendorf, Scrivener, 
 and Burgon, who proceed upon the fallacious principle 
 of counting authorities without weighing them. 
 Scrivener says, " The clause is contained in A, E, G, 
 H, K, M, S, U, V, r, J, A, n, and in all cursives 
 save one." Burgon is more minute, " It is found in 
 every manuscript in the world, except five of bad 
 character ; is recognised by all the Latin and all the 
 Syriac versions, as well as by the Coptic, ^thiopic, 
 Georgian, and Armenian ; is either quoted or insisted 
 upon by Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Didymus, 
 Aphraates the Persian, Basil the Great, Epiphanius, 
 Nonnus, pseudo - Dionysius Alex., Eustathius ; by 
 Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Cyril, each four times ; by 
 Paulus, Bishop of Emesa, Theodore Mops., Amphilo- 
 chius, Severus, Theodorus HeracL, Basilius Cil., Cosmas, 
 John Damascene, in three places ; and four other 
 ancient Greek writers, besides Ambrose, Novatian, 
 Hilary, Lucifer, Victorinus, Jerome, Cassian, Vigilius, 
 Zeno, Marius, Maximus Taur., Capreolus, Augustine," 
 etc. We have not noted the references which 
 Burgon gives to the works of the different ecclesi- 
 astical writers here mentioned. This would have 
 occupied too much of our space. They are all given 
 at the foot of p. 1 3 3 of The Revision Revised — three 
 articles reprinted from the Quarterly Review. We 
 have given this evidence in full, to avoid all suspicion 
 of unfairness. 
 
 It would be impossible to enter into a full analysis 
 of all this. The versions are the most difficult to 
 dispose of. Some of them must have been made 
 within two hundred years of John's death. But 
 Griesbach, in his Symholce Critical, makes some re- 
 
2o6 Is the Last Clause of 
 
 marks which go to show that they may not carry with 
 them so much critical weight after all. He asserts 
 that the manuscripts of the Alexandrian and Western 
 recensions (according to his classification) were grossly 
 corrupted in the age immediately succeeding that of 
 the apostles ; and that those which he held in the 
 highest esteem bore evidences of being corrupted on 
 every page by marginal scholia and interpolations of 
 the Fathers, and contained innumerable and very 
 serious errors. The recently discovered Syriac palimp- 
 sest supports Griesbach's remarks in a remarkable 
 manner. From what has reached the pubHc in con- 
 nection with this interesting manuscript, it would 
 appear that the translator has taken great liberties 
 with the words of the sacred penmen. The clause 
 which we are discussing, if it stood in the copy which 
 he used, was tampered with by him. Instead of 
 making it contradictory to the first clause of the 
 apodosis, he makes it a meaningless repetition of that 
 clause. We do not therefore feel called upon to 
 accept without question the evidence of these ancient 
 versions. 
 
 Scrivener quotes Codex A in support of the clause. 
 We are not satisfied that we have here the words of 
 the original scribe. It is admitted on all hands that 
 what was originally written has been erased, and the 
 words of the clause, as they now stand, substituted in 
 its stead. The British Museum authorities have pub- 
 lished a beautiful photographic impression of both the 
 Old and New Testament of this most valuable manu- 
 script. Our examination of two different copies of 
 this impression at this passage has revealed to us 
 some important and interesting facts. The clause 
 reads, 6 wv iv tS ov'^vw — ovpava> being contracted in 
 
John iii. 13 Genuine? 207 
 
 this way, evidently to avoid encroaching too much on 
 the margin. The evidence of erasure extends from 
 the right-hand side of 6 to the marginal liae, the 
 letters rw beiag clear and distinct, and showing that 
 they were written on a part of the parchment which 
 had not been interfered with by erasing. The is 
 normal in shape ; the 00 leans considerably towards 
 the left hand, and thus occupies more space than 
 usual. The N, when carefully examined, shows signs 
 of having been originally a K. There are clear traces 
 of the upper slanting stroke, and what now constitutes 
 the slanting stroke of the N begins about half-way 
 down the left-hand upright stroke, contrary to the 
 scribes' usual way of writing that letter. There is 
 thus not a particle of warrant for the generally received 
 opinion that the original scribe wrote the clause as it 
 now stands, inadvertently omitting &v, and having to 
 erase what he had written to get this word inserted. 
 The evidence seems to warrant the conclusion that, as 
 the manuscript originally stood, it contained a reading 
 totally different from anyone that has been trans- 
 mitted to us. The examination of the passage, as 
 presented in the photographic copies, took us so much 
 by surprise, that we distrusted our own eyesight, and 
 asked two intelligent, sharp-sighted librarians, who 
 knew nothiQg of Greek, and who could therefore be 
 under no bias, what they saw in the clause. Without 
 any prompting, they at once detected the facts which 
 we have set down. We then began to consider what 
 those facts pointed to, and we found it impossible to 
 resist the conjecture that the original writing was eVrt 
 Ka\ Tox) ©eov} The e in eVrt was, of course, as an 
 uncial written 6. The erasui'e of the horizontal 
 
 ^ Possibly Qeou was contracted to Qv, as in ver. 18. 
 
2o8 Is the Last Clause of 
 
 stroke would not affect the left-hand side of the letter, 
 but only the right-hand one. The whole word, 6CTI 
 written in uncials, would just fill up the space till we 
 come to the N of CON, which, we have said, bears 
 traces of having originally been a K. We have 
 nothing to go upon in conjecturing that K6vl TOY 
 66 OY completed the verse, except the traces of a K 
 and the extreme probability that a scribe, wishing to 
 make the Divinity of Christ plain, would so write, 
 thinking that the words had been omitted from the 
 copy which he used, or, at all events, should have 
 been there. The words, eVrl koI tov ©eov, written in 
 uncials, would just fill up the space to the marginal 
 line, without trenching on the margin ; and so we 
 account for the last two letters of ovpavat giving no 
 evidence of erasure. If this way of accounting for 
 the facts which Codex A presents be the true one, 
 then we have succeeded in laying bare a part, at 
 least, of the process by which this passage has been 
 corrupted. No one can say this is not, at least, a 
 plausible account of the facts. It rounds off the 
 verse with a definite verb, the want of which appears 
 to have been a stumbling-block to many, and seems 
 to supply the matter necessary to balance the protasis 
 and apodosis. Whether the alteration of the clause 
 was made by the original scribe or by some other 
 hand, we are not expert enough to be able to give an 
 opinion. But what we have said is, we think, enough 
 to make us hesitate in accepting the clause as it 
 stands as being the original words of the Codex, with 
 the omitted Sv inserted. 
 
 Of the other uncials enumerated by Scrivener, C is 
 regarded by experts as belonging to the fifth century, 
 E and A to the seventh or eighth, the rest to the 
 
John iii. 13 Genuine? 209 
 
 ninth or tenth. It is clear, therefore, that these 
 manuscripts do not carry with them overwhehning 
 weight on the score of antiquity. The cursives are 
 not enumerated, but they can hardly claim greater 
 authority than the uncials. 
 
 Then it would be easy to overestimate the testi- 
 mony of the ecclesiastical writers referred to. Many 
 of them, no doubt, never troubled themselves about 
 critical questions. Finding the clause as a current 
 gloss in the Churches in early times, many might 
 introduce it into their sermons and writings without 
 looking very carefully to see whether it was in their 
 manuscript or not. There are similar glosses current 
 in the present day, and we can well believe that many 
 who use them, if sitting down to write, would transfer 
 them to their pages, in the behef that they were 
 genuine Scripture. This was far more likely to 
 happen in primitive times, when there were few 
 facilities for reference. Griesbach warns us against 
 placing too much reliance upon the remains of 
 Origen which have come down to us. We cannot 
 be sure that the Latin of Eufinus is correct, and 
 Griesbach says that the copies from which Origen 
 quoted were not always rehable. As to Cyril of 
 Alexandria, Westcott and Hort charge Aubert, his 
 editor, with inserting the clause in question into 
 the text which he printed in 1638 ; and they add 
 that this is not the only instance in which Aubert 
 has taken Hberties with his author. If anyone will 
 take the trouble to turn up Cyril's Commentary on 
 John, in The Library of the Fathers, at ch. iii. 13, 
 he will find that, while the clause is printed in the 
 text, not a word is said of it in the exposition. It is 
 impossible to resist the conclusion that the words 
 14 
 
2IO Is the Last Clause of 
 
 were not before Cyril when he wrote his Commentary, 
 and that Aubert must have inserted them on his own 
 authority. Subsequent editors have copied Aubert 
 slavishly. Then it seems hardly fair to mention 
 Nonnus as an authority on such a question. A 
 metrical paraphrase of John's Gospel in Greek by 
 him is the source of this reading. Burgon was too 
 much of a partisan to be followed with implicit 
 trust. 
 
 Scrivener attempts to defend the clause by appeal- 
 ing to the critical rule, that the more difficult reading 
 is to be preferred to the simpler one. But this rule 
 cannot apply here. He says the clause is doubtless 
 difficult ; but where is the simpler reading which any 
 one proposes to substitute for it ? The question really 
 is between this reading and none at all. No critic 
 in modern times, so far as we are aware, dreams of 
 accepting either of the readings which we have classi- 
 fied as (3) and (4). 
 
 Alford appeals, in support of the clause, to ch. i. 18, 
 " The only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of 
 the Father, He hath declared Him." We fail to 
 see the appropriateness of the appeal. John speaks 
 there of the ascended Christ. He has gone back 
 into the bosom of the Father — et? top koXttov tov 
 Tlarpo^. The phrase is a pregnant one. In this 
 passage with which we are now dealing Christ is 
 speaking of Himself as still on earth. There is no 
 parallel between the two passages. 
 
 II. The evidence against the clause is given with 
 considerable fulness by Westcott and Hort. Of the 
 uncials they specify n, B, L, T^ ; of the cursives they 
 can adduce only number 33, which, however, has 
 earned the honourable distinction of being called 
 
John ill. 1 3 Genuine ? 211 
 
 " queen of the cursives." ^ Of versions they men- 
 tion the Memphitic and the best Ethiopia Codex. 
 Of ecclesiastical writers they name Cyril of Alex- 
 andria's Commentary on the passage, referred to 
 above. 
 
 A second branch of the evidence adduced by West- 
 cott and Hort consists of proof of their statement 
 that many quotations of ver. 13 stop short at rov 
 dvdpcoTTov, and that it is morally certain that most 
 of them would have included 6 wi/ iv tw ovpavw if 
 it had stood in the copies which the writers used.^ 
 They instance Origen on Proverbs, 110 of Tischen- 
 dorf's edition ; the Latin fragment by the same writer 
 on Isaiah, and Eusebius, in two places. (Tischendorf 
 tells us these references are to the work on Psalms, 
 403, and to the Ecclesiastical History, 82.) They 
 refer to Adamant in Origen's Works, i. 855. (Is not 
 Adamant another name for Origen himself ?) They 
 mention also The Heresies of Epiphanius, 487, 911. 
 Gregory of Nazianzen, both in his letter to Cledonius, 
 87, and in that to Nectarius, his successor in the see 
 of Constantinople, 168; Didymus on the Acts, in 
 Cramer's Catence, vol. iii. p. 41, Oxon. 1838, which 
 we have verified. They give, in brackets, an alterna- 
 tive reference, " = 1657 Mi." (Does this mean some 
 passage in Migne's Patrologia Grceca ?) Then they 
 adduce Gregory of Nyssa, Against the Apollinarians, 6 ; 
 
 1 "Westcott and Hort say that C and D are defective here. Scrivener 
 adds F to these. 
 
 2 We here fill in the somewhat severe contractions of Westcott and 
 Hort to the best of our ability. We cannot guarantee absolute, but 
 only approximate, accuracy. Writing in the provinces, we have not 
 had the facilities for reference which the contractions of Westcott and 
 Hort require. We wish they had been a little more liberal with their 
 information. 
 
212 Is the Last Clause of 
 
 the spurious writings of Pope Juhus of Eome, 119 
 lag. (? edited by Lagarde). We are told that there 
 are thirteen places in Cyril's writings in which the 
 clause would with moral certainty have been quoted -^ 
 if Cyril had found it in the copy which he used. We 
 are next invited, in brackets, to consult E. P. Pusey 
 on Cyril's Scholia de Incarnatione Unigeniti, p. 128. 
 Then we have Jerome on Eph. iv. 10 ; and, lastly, 
 Ephraem Syrus, as represented by the Armenian 
 translation of his Commentary on the Biatessaron 
 of Tatian, 168, 187, 189. 
 
 It will hardly be denied by any fair reader that 
 this furnishes a very powerful argument for the exci- 
 sion of the clause from the text, especially if we take 
 into consideration the strong internal evidence which 
 we have stated at the beginning of this paper. In 
 the hands of a special pleader like Burgon, if he had 
 held a brief for this side of the question, it would 
 have been made to appear unanswerable. We attach 
 all the more weight to this evidence when we think 
 of the calm and dispassionate manner in which West- 
 cott and Hort present it. 
 
 Scrivener and Burgon make attempts to discredit 
 this evidence in a way which does not seem to us to 
 do them much credit. Scrivener tries to damage the 
 testimony of {<, B, and L by saying that they read in 
 ch. i. 18, /jLovoy6V7]<; ©eo^. This appeal to the odium 
 tJieologicum seems strangely unworthy of so great a 
 man. Burgon brands the five manuscripts which 
 exclude the clause as of bad character. This cannot 
 be called fair criticism, and we do not think the 
 learned world will endorse this ex parte judgment. 
 
 1 Westcott {Speaker's CorriTnentary on Jolm) refers us to Pusey 's 
 Cyril, vii. 1, Pref. p. xx. 
 
John iii. 13 Genuine? 213 
 
 If you condemn these five manuscripts as bad, where, 
 we ask, are the good ones to be found ? We think 
 we have shown that A has been tampered with since 
 leaving the hand of the original scribe. No expert 
 has given evidence as to the time at which the clause 
 was inserted in that Codex. 
 
 Burgon says, " Since we have proved that Origen 
 and Didymus, Epiphanius and Cyril, Ambrose and 
 Jerome 7'ecognise the words in dispute, of what 
 possible textual significancy can it be if presently 
 (because it is sufficient for their purpose) the same 
 Fathers are observed to quote St. John iii. 13 no 
 further than down to the words ' Son of man ' ? " 
 The answer to this is that they may be quoting 
 loosely and recording a popular gloss in the one case, 
 while in the other they are adhering to the words of 
 the codex before them. Again, he says, " Origen, 
 Eusebius, Proclus, Ephraem Syrus, Jerome, Marius, 
 where they are only insisting on the doctrinal signifi- 
 cancy of the earlier words, naturally end their quota- 
 tion at this place." This argument will hardly hold 
 water. The great reason given for the retention of 
 the clause is its doctrinal significancy. Authors 
 writing with a doctrinal object, if they had occasion 
 to quote this 13 th verse at all, would certainly 
 have quoted the clause in question if it had stood in 
 their copies. The chmax of false argumentation is 
 reached when Burgon says, " The two Gregories, 
 writing against the ApoUinarian heresy, of course 
 quoted the verse no further than ApoUinaris him- 
 self was accustomed (for his heresy) to adduce it." 
 There was nothing in Apollinarianism to induce its 
 author to omit the clause in question, if it had stood 
 in the copy which he used. The conclusion seems in- 
 
214 Is the Last Clause of John iii. 13 Genuine ? 
 
 disputable that neither the Gregories nor ApolHnaris 
 knew anything of it. 
 
 The view which we have sought to support is that 
 which Tischendorf accepted in his Synopsis Evangelwa, 
 published in 1864. He has since repudiated it — we 
 think on very insufficient grounds. We are glad to 
 find ourselves in the company of such competent 
 judges as the late Professor Milligan and Westcott 
 and Hort. After all that has been said, it seems 
 plain that it is much easier to account for its inser- 
 tion, if not written by John, than for its omission, if 
 it really came from the pen of the sacred writer. 
 Scrivener's concluding words, in his note on the 
 passage, are an outrage on critical intelligence. He 
 says that the manuscripts which exclude the clause 
 are convicted " of the deliberate suppression of one of 
 the most mysterious, yet one of the most glorious, 
 glimpses afforded to us in Scripture of the Saviour 
 on the side of His Proper Divinity." 
 
SELECTION FROM 
 
 Oliphant Anderson & Ferrier's Publications. 
 
 Post 8vo, art canvas, price is. 6d., 
 David Hume. By Henry Calderwood. Being 
 Volume XX. of the " Famous Scots " Series. 
 
 Large crown 8vo, cloth extra, price 5s. , 
 
 The Personal Ministry of the Son of Man. 
 
 Studies in the Saviour's Application of His own Teaching. 
 By the Rev. James Jeffrey, M.A. 
 
 Large crown 8vo, cloth extra, gilt top, price 5s. , 
 
 Palestine, The Glory of all Lands. By the 
 
 Rev. Archibald Sutherland, Perth. 
 
 Crown 8vo, cloth extra, price 5s., 
 
 The Presbyterian Church : Its Worship, Functions, 
 
 and Ministerial Orders. By the Rev. Alexander Wright, M.A. 
 Large crown 8vo, cloth extra, price 3s. 6d., 
 
 Leaders in Literature : Emerson— Carlyle and 
 
 Emerson: A Comparison — Lowell — George Eliot — Mrs. 
 Browning — Robert Browning — Matthew Arnold — Herbert 
 Spencer— John Ruskin. By P. Wilson, M.A. 
 
 Post 8vo, art linen, gilt top, price 3s. 6d. each, 
 
 Bible Characters : Adam to Achan. 
 Bible Characters : Gideon to Absalom. 
 
 By the Rev. Alexander Whyte, D.D. 
 
 Post 8vo, art canvas, price is. 6d., 
 Norman Macleod. By John Wellwood. Being 
 Volume XIV. of the "Famous Scots" Series. 
 Crown 8vo, cloth, price 5s., 
 
 Memorials of the United Presbyterian Hall 
 
 for 140 Years. By the Rev. P. Landreth. 
 Small crown 8vo, illustrated paper covers, 6d. ; cloth, is., 
 
 Elder Logan's Story about the Kirks. A Book 
 
 for the Young. By John Strathesk, Author of "Bits from 
 Blinkbonny." 
 
 Crown 8vo, cloth, price 2s. 6d. each. 
 Life's Stages : Their Duties and Opportunities. 
 Life's Phases: A Sequel to ''Life's Stages." 
 By James Stark, D.D. 
 
 Large crown 8vo, cloth extra, price 5s., 
 For Days of Youth. A Bible Text and Talk for 
 every Day of the Year. By the Rev. Charles A. Salmond, M.A. 
 Large crown 8vo, cloth extra, price 5s., 
 
 The Holy Spirit, The Paraclete. By the Rev. 
 
 John Robson, D. D. 
 
Selection from Oliphant Anderson* Ferrier's MMWom— continued. 
 
 Crown 8vo, cloth extra,, price 2s. 6d., 
 
 Plymouth Brethrenism Unveiled and Refuted. 
 
 By the Rev. William Reid, D.D. Third Edition. 
 Large crown 8vo, cloth extra, with Portrait, price 2s., 
 
 Pardon and Assurance. By the Rev. William 
 
 J. Patton. Edited, with a Biographical Sketch, by the Rev. 
 John M'llveen, B.A. Fourth Edition. 
 
 Crown 8vo, cloth extra, price 3s. 6d., 
 
 What and How to Preach : Being Lectures 
 
 delivered in the College of the United Presbyterian Church. 
 By the Rev. Alexander Oliver, D.D. 
 
 Post Svo, cloth extra, price 2s. 6d., 
 
 Week-Day Religion. By the Rev. J. R. Miller, D.D. 
 
 Crown Svo, cloth extra, price 5s. each, 
 
 The Gospel and Modern Substitutes. 
 
 The Church and Social Problems. Second Edition. 
 
 By the Rev. A. Scott Matheson, Dumbarton. 
 Crown Svo, cloth extra, price 7s. 6d., 
 
 Lectures, Exegetical and Practical, on the 
 
 Epistle of James. By the Rev. R. Johnstone, D.D. Second Ed. 
 Large crown Svo, cloth extra, gilt top, price 5s., 
 
 Messages to the Children. By the Rev. Charles 
 
 Jerdan, Greenock. 
 
 Post Svo, art canvas, price is. 6d., 
 John Knox. By A. Taylor Innes. Being Volume 
 IV. of the "Famous Scots" Series. 
 Large crown Svo, cloth extra, with Map and Illustrations, price 5s., 
 
 Calabar and its Mission. By the Rev. Hugh 
 
 Goldie. 
 
 lost Svo, art vellum, price 2s. 6d., 
 
 God's Measure, and other Sermons. By the Rev. 
 J. T. Forbes, M.A. 
 
 Post Svo, cloth extra, price is. 6d., 
 Silver Wings, and other Addresses to Children. 
 By Andrew G. Fleming. 
 
 Post Svo, cloth extra, price is. 6d., 
 A BaS" with Holes, and other Addresses to Children 
 By the Rev. James Aitchison, Falkirk. 
 
 Demy Svo, cloth, with Portrait, price 2s., 
 
 Life of the Rev. Henry Belfrage, D.D., of 
 
 Falkirk. By the Rev. John M'Kerrow and the Rev. John 
 M'Farlane.