The Bearing of Romans 5:12-21

My dear Brother,
The division in the doctrinal teaching of the Epistle in Rom. 5 at the beginning of verse 12, the verse you point out, has been already noticed in tracts which are in print. The former part deals with what we have done, as God's question to Cain; the second with what and where we are, as God's question to Adam, the state of Adam being confirmed and made plain by the judgment pronounced on him. " He drove out the man." Rom. 1:19 to 5:11 deals with what we have done, and Christ's propitiation as the remedy, adding His resurrection as the great seal of it. From verse 12 it deals with what we are. He speaks of state, not guilt, though of course guilt is there.
The " wherefore " (διά τοῦτο), of which you first ask, is a gathering up of the whole teaching of the previous part of the epistle, which taught, not Judaism and a called people, but wrath from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of them who hold the truth in unrighteousness, Jew and Gentile. All were under sin under different circumstances, but alike come short of the glory of God; and every mouth stopped, those that had law, as well as reckless Gentiles sunk in evident depravity. It was the condition of the whole race of man, as man, before a revealed God, holy in His nature. There is, however, an additional special ground of the " wherefore," which will not be fully apprehended till that is introduced: a living Christ securing blessing where a man is justified from the old sins, and reconciled, having been an enemy. Christ's death would secure him through, and save him from wrath. This so far brought in, not only the clearing the guilty by the work Christ had wrought, but a new standing in life. By the righteousness of one the free gift came to all for justification of life. This was a new position of man, not indeed yet the glory or resurrection with Christ and union with Him, but a new position and standing; not merely the clearing away the sins a man was guilty of in connection with his old standing, but a new standing in life, a justification of life.
This clearly brought in a new state, not mere justification from the evil he was guilty of, but a condition into which he was brought; hence too, though recognizing it, it reached out beyond the whole nature of Judaism. This the apostle sums up in chapter 5: 12-21 with the connecting word " wherefore/' taking the whole scope of thought which precedes, and resuming it in his own mind, as is his custom, as a causative point of departure in his reasoning, as he often does too with the word " for " (yap). The sense of what had been said led to this, "as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin." This brings us to ἐφ' ᾧ.
Ἐπί with a dative is primarily " upon," as ἐπὶ πινάκι, " on a dish"; hence is used for " besides," something added, ἐπὶ πᾶσι, in addition to all this, or above. Hence also as ἐπὶ τῇ προδοτικῇ, ἐπὶ θύραις, but with the idea of actually touching. It is then used morally for a ground, motive, object, what characterizes an act. We use " upon " so, but with express words: I did it upon this ground, upon this condition. Greek uses it by itself, something which is, not the cause, but is supposed; without which the thing would not so be as we say it is. We are called not ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ under a supposition of being unclean persons when so called. Ἐπὶ τρισὶ μάρτυσιν, three witnesses were the condition of carrying out the judgment. Any necessary or true condition: " man shall not live by bread έπ' άρτω." It was not the cause of life, but his life was involved in it; so έπϊ παντϊ ρήματι. We say "tolive upon." This use of έπϊ is very common; ἐπ' ἐλπίδι ἀροτριᾷν. It was no cause of plowing; still the plowing was not to be without it. Ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου, the reception of the child is characterized by that as a motive. In English we must translate it variously, but it is easy to understand in Greek something supposed and viewed as involved in a thing happening, without which it would not be what it is, but not its cause.
Thus here, the origin of death amongst men, or cause of its entrance into man's world, was Adam's sin; but if we could suppose (what could not be save by this acting of God, as in the miraculous birth of Christ) a man born without sin, he would not be brought under death. Hence each person's sinning is supposed in its passing upon all: it is vorausgesetzt; death comes moyennant. It is ἐφ' ᾧ, " inasmuch as," or " for that " as in Authorized Version, not " because." A man was condemned because of his sin, or an elder judged; but it was ἐπὶ τρισὶ μάρτυσιν, that was a regular condition of his being condemned. The sinning exists as a fact connected with the dying: they do not die without it. The origin of death in the world was Adam's sin. It is not a condition set out a priori, as if it was uncertain whether they would, but a fact which comes in for those involved in death.
I do not think children enter into the question here-no more than when the apostle says, " all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." They really begin to sin as soon as they begin to live: though it be undeveloped, their will works. I do not doubt they go to heaven: Matt. 18, I think, shows it, and the ground; but the apostle is looking at man manifested as man, that is, what he is and does. Children are saved, not by innocence, though practically an expression of it, but because Christ came to save what was lost. This question then I dismiss; I refer to it merely as an objection which might be made.
I do not think ἐφ' ᾧ has the sense " whereunto,ι: if it were the object in its extent, it would be, I conceive, the accusative, if so used at all. What follows, to the end of verse 17, is a parenthesis, bringing in the question of law's place and bearing, and insisting that grace which met sin could not be narrowed up to law, though it met transgressions under it. And first it is asserted that sin was in the world when the law was not. True, a sin could not be reckoned as so much to an account; but death proved its reign over those who were not in the case of Hos. 6:7. Israel, like Adam, had transgressed a positive covenant; but sin was reigning in death over those who had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression. And Adam was a figure of the second Adam come in grace. Now though transgressions or offenses, as verse 16, had to be met, yet the condition and state was the great point here, the many connected with him had been constituted sinners by Adam's disobedience; so the many connected with Christ were constituted righteous by Christ's obedience; but this was state and standing, not properly guilt as to things done. Sin was in the world before the law came.
As to ἐλλογεῖται, it is not ἐλογίζετο, " was accounted " (as righteous). The word is only used elsewhere in Philemon. It is not a person accounted righteous on whatever account, but a particular act or debt owing-put into an account. When there was no specific prohibition, there was no specific transgression. Sin was there, but there was no transgression. This requires a law to transgress. But the evil tree bears its fruits and proves what the tree is, and men are judged according to their works. But there was not as under the law positive transgression, which the government of God could deal with as so much to be reckoned to a man in that government. When God judges the secrets of men's hearts, their works will come out in the books, a witness of what the state of their hearts was, and all will see the light. The apostle speaks here as of the present condition of the world: you could not say you have transgressed here, broken the law there; but the reign of death proved that sin was there. But Adam was the figure of Him to come.
Shall the bearing of man's offense be greater than that of God's gift? Death was reigning outside the law; but by the offense of one many were dead: should not the grace of God much more abound to the many who labor under it, and not be confined to the Jews who claimed it? The state of sin was universal through Adam, the grace must be as wide in its address. Again, as by one's sinning came the charge or guilt leading to condemnation, should not the free gift be thus too? Yea, more, the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift, with many offenses to meet, to justification; vs.16. The first phrase is by one having sinned; the second " by one " is abstract, ἐξ ἑνός, of one [thing or person]: of one-that is its general character; then the free gift is ἐκ πολλῶν-had that as its character. The first statement in verse 15 declares that as to the objects the sphere must extend to the many, since by the offense of one the many died. Grace must go out as far and brings in the man Christ Jesus, the last Adam, of whom the first was a figure, the thought necessarily involving it. The comparison to prove the extent in verse 16 is between the acts, as 15 between the objects. The guilt which led to condemnation was έξ ενός, a unity; the free gift being of God was of many offenses. So as to the effect: by the offense of one, death reigned by one; much more the grace would triumph on the other hand, and they that received it would reign in life. In these three aspects grace in God triumphed over sin in man, and that by one man, not by every man for himself, the principle of law and individual judgment. As far as offenses went, they had been multiplied, and grace could meet them.
Verse 18 resumes the general principle from verse 12, and is as abstract as possible. As by one offense towards all for condemnation, the direction and tendency of the one offense, so by one righteousness or righteous act accomplished towards all for justification of life; for it was in the risen Jesus they got it, from having been under death, and now justified if they had Him in life. For as by the disobedience of one the many connected with him were constituted sinners, put into that place; so by the obedience of one the many connected with Him were constituted righteous. The ὑπακοή is looked at as the whole principle of Christ's life, including as to its character, and proved by, obedience unto death. There was a disobedient man, proved in eating the forbidden fruit: he disobeyed God's will. There was an obedient man: He obeyed God's will. The character and measure of the obedience all through, as proved by it, was obedience unto death, the death of the cross. This had nothing to do with law.
There are, as the whole passage teaches and has for its object to teach, two heads of races, natural and spiritual: two persons, one in whom sin, the other in whom grace, came; and, further, that the law was a " moreover " (πλήν), which came in by the bye, παρεισῆλθεν, but that you could not shut the grace up to that, but must go to the two heads of sin and grace. The law merely came in that the offense might abound, but it was not only when offense, but when sin, abounded that grace abounded over it. Had righteousness replaced the reign of sin, judgment and condemnation only could have been the effect. But grace reigned, yet through righteousness, (on the principle of divine righteousness, fully established), and that to eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord: a complete summary of the whole ways of God. Death is looked at as death here reigning by sin; condemnation was out beyond that.
I turn to look at some of the words inquired of.
Παράβασις is positive transgression of a law which exists. Παράπτωμα, though applicable to transgressions, is a more general word and with a different sense.
Παράβασισ goes beyond and transgresses an actual law or barrier set us by God. Hence there must be a law. Παράπτωμα fails or falls from the right condition in which we should hold ourselves. Transgressions do this, but every fault and failure does. This can be without a law. A Concordance will easily show this. I am not aware of any case where παράβασις is used without direct reference to law (or tradition), unless the verb in Acts 1:25. (Judas παρέβη), and a case where another reading is preferred.
Δώρημα, χάρισμα, δωρεά require a keener, finer sense of shades of meaning to distinguish.
Δώρημα is the gift, χάρισμα the fruit of grace in the person giving. So far there is a shade in the way the same thing is given. I say such a thing was a gift, a free gift; I did not earn it. How came you to have it? It was pure grace (a χάρισμα) in the person who gave it me. One leads me to think of it as freely given, not earned, and given without condition or price, the others to what moved the person to give. The gift of righteousness is not by working or labor, or acquired fitness, or anything on my part. It is a free gift, δωρεά, but the δωρεά is ἐν χάριτι. God's divine favor and grace were the origin of this gift; so in verse 16 his mind goes up to God as a source; it is therefore χάρισμα in the beginning of the verse. And it is a gift-the fact simply; but is it not to be as large as the evil? It is a χάρισμα of God; this cannot but be. Whereas in verse 15 he is contrasting abstractedly man's fall and offense with God's giving: hence it is χάρισμα.
As to the difference of δώρημα and δωρεά, the former word is used but twice, here and in James 1:17, where the mind rests in the thing given, in δωρεά in its quality. In English we use "gift" for both. " What did you give for that?" "Nothing; it is a gift. I have it as a δωρεά." " What is your gift? " "It is a beautiful Bible, a δώρημα." So we use " hope " for the thing hoped for and the quality. That δωρεά is the quality we see when adverbially used, δωρεάν ἐλάβετε, δωρεάν δότε. Δωρεά then is the general word which characterizes what I get. You may remark that all the words in verse 16 have this form, that is, are objectively looked at as a complete subsisting thing: δώρημα, κρίμα, κατά-κρίμα, χάρισμα. In James 1:17 we have δόσις and δώρημα.
As to these forms, and so in δίκαι-, many of your readers may be, but perhaps all are not, aware that the ordinary rule is, that words derived from the perfect passive have their force according to the person. The first person is the objective thing or act, the second the doing, the third the doer, -μα, -σις, -της: as κρίμα the judgment pronounced, the thing itself imputed; κρίσις judging as an act; κριτής the judge. So δόσις is properly giving, δότης a giver.
It may be added here that κατά compounded with a word gives intenseness to it, as ἔχω to have, κατέχω, to hold, hold fast, take and keep fast; χράω, καταχράω, to use as a possession what belongs to me. These become modified in use. Κρίμα is the thing of which I am accused and for which I am judged. Christ's κρίμα was put on the cross, what He was condemned for; it is the thing imputed to me. Κατάκριμα is actual condemnation.
Thus also δικαίωμα would be the objective sum total, which being accomplished gives me righteousness as far as that sum total goes: hence an ordinance, or such a fulfillment of required righteousness as makes my righteousness complete as to that. If it is before God, it must be according to God and absolute. Hence we have the δικαιώματα of the saints. Zacharias kept the δικαιώματα of the law blameless. It is the sum total of what is required. Δικαιοσύνη is the abstract idea or the quality, the thing righteousness. Δίκαιος is what any one is; δίκαιο-σύνη is that thing which having he is δίκαιος. Christ is made unto us δικαιοσύνη. I have this character before God; but the δικαίωμα of the law is to be fulfilled in us, the full requirement of the law. So verse 16 speaks " of many offenses,ι to δικαίωμα, to the full requirement of what must be for me to be δίκαιος before God. It is not to justify me (however true before God), but the full sum of that needed for my being accounted just. Justification of life is δικαίωσις, the act of justifying, but being in the new place or state beyond death, it is in life as Christ is risen. In verse 17 I have the gift of δικαιοσύνης, that is, the state God sees me in or has given to me in Christ. But the one δικαίωμα is the full required total, the act which met the whole requirement.
I believe I have answered, I hope rightly, all the questions you have put to me. The English mind is little used to the niceties of Greek language; still they are often of value to one that studies, and result in greater general clearness of statement. Some of the verses of this passage are as badly translated as any in the New Testament, or worse, as especially verse 18. Those in the parenthesis (15, 16, 17) are all much clearer, I think, if put as a question.
Scriptural Criticisms
2.
DEAR SIR,
I would renew my attempt to clear the interpretation of the New Testament by some very simple criticisms.
I would here first take notice of the difference of εἰς and ἐπί, the use of either of which distinctly is intimately connected with the question of God's love to the world, and the absolute salvation of the Church: to which, important as it is, I refer here only in connection with the texts I take notice of.
Rom. 3:22: " The righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all, and upon all them that believe "; not unto and upon all them that believe, but the righteousness of God is unto all, and upon all them that believe; δικαιοσύνη Θεοῖ εἰς πάντας τοὺς πιστεύοντας. The Jews had been convinced of sin; the Gentiles had been convinced of sin; they had no righteousness in which to stand with God. Whether Jew or Gentile, they had no hope in themselves; but the righteousness of God through faith of Jesus Christ was not towards Jew or Gentile, but towards all, εἰς πάντας. Moreover it was upon all (ἐπὶ τοὺς πιστεύοντας) those that believe; they stood in that righteousness.
We have another most important instance in verse 18 of chapter 5. " Therefore as by one offense towards (εἰς) all men, to (εἰς) condemnation." This was the aspect of the result of the offense (intercepted, as regards them that believe, by the death of Christ); " so by one righteousness towards (εἰς) all men, to (εἰς) justification of life "; if, as in the English translation, it had been " upon," for which the scriptures use ἐπί, all would have been justified. We know it is not so, nor does the scripture say so. The aspect of the act is as wide as the aspect of the act of the first Adam; the effect is quite another and a distinct question. We have, in the former passage, seen it to be pronounced upon them that believe. These remarks make, I believe, quite clear what the English translation renders very difficult to comprehend. The word translated (Rom. 5:18) " upon all" is the same as " unto all " in Rom. 3:22, not as " upon all" them that believe. It shows that the free gift was unto (that is, towards) all in its aspect; but that its effect, and the acceptance of people under it, is quite a distinct question. The accuracy and perfectness of scripture is additionally illustrated. Εἰς seems to exhibit the natural consequence, the effect of anything looked at in itself: it may or may not involve the coming to the result; taken in itself it has the effect, for the tendency of anything is that which per se, or left to itself, it would produce or arrive at. The word may be seen in many passages of chapter 6 so used.
I would add a few words on Rom. 7
The expression γένηται ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρω is translated " married to," which seems to be more than its force; as in verse 3, " if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man." It seems a more general phrase, though in an honest sense it may of course have this force. But while it may be said in a certain way that the soul is married to the risen Christ, the Church, I believe, as such, is never said to be married to Christ. It is said, as to a particular body, that " I have espoused you as a chaste virgin unto Christ."
In Rev. 19 we have the joyful celebration, " Hallelujah, for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth; let us be glad and rejoice, for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready." This is after the judgment of Babylon. And again, in chapter z1: 9, " I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife." Here we have then the Church confessedly not married to the Lamb; and I believe this to be a most important difference: error as to which has produced as much mistake as any other at all concerning scripture. It may be said to be espoused or destined for him, but the marriage is not yet come. This takes place on being united to Him in that day when He shall appear in His glory, when He calls them up into the air; then shall He " present it to himself a glorious church, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing."
The Jewish body was so married, " for I am married unto you, saith Jehovah." (Jer. 3:14; Isa. 54:4-6.) " Fear not, for thou shalt not be ashamed; neither be thou confounded, for thou shalt not be put to shame; for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more: for thy Maker is thy husband; for Jehovah hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth when thou wast refused, saith thy God." And we shall find this remarkably maintained throughout. Thus the Jewish body is ever called an adulteress, as in Hos. 3; the Church as corrupt, but not breaking covenant. " Thou hast judged the great whore," and fornication is the sin of the Church.
Now this difference affects the whole position we are set in. The Church has, never yet been brought into the position with God, in which the whole argument of the great body of comments on scripture supposes it to be placed (and this is another instance of the evil of applying Old Testament statements to New Testament subjects as if they belonged to them), though faith, by the Spirit, sees that place to belong to it, and therefore keeps itself for it. It is the part of Babylon to corrupt itself with all the kings of the earth; but we, though with long protracted affections, know the faithfulness of the Redeemer's love, and remain in solitude till He who has loved us shall appear. For we are " espoused to one husband," and this shall be in the resurrection, for the second Adam is known to us in the resurrection. We were taken out of Him in death: He is dead to all but faith now, and the Church is therefore still taken out of Him; and in resurrection we shall be one with Him, married unto Him. We are indeed one spirit with Him now, and therefore know the blessing; but the whole body of the Church shall be finally united to Him in the joy of its Lord.
I think it will be found that all the scriptures will bear out this difference; and, clearly, it strongly affects our position, while we learn distinctly the aspect of faithfulness which the Church should present; its utter separation from the world and all secular help; in its character, a chaste virgin unto Christ: γεμομένη ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ, it has lost all its character as well as relationship. When the spirit of the risen Savior is in me, I am so far united unto Him, and so ought I to keep myself: I am vitally and everlastingly one with Him; but the Church corporate is not so married unto Him, for indeed it is not yet formed. To assume the privileges of a wife does not become her position; not to have more than the modesty of one in her deportment as ill suits her state. She shall reign queen over all her Lord's goods, and rule in His house with Him: fidelity of hope to one long absent from His pledged love-as a stranger therefore in the midst of all that knows Him not-her present portion. Whether receiving the tokens of His love to her from on high or not, faithfulness to Him is her clear part. The world may count her case foolish and hopeless; but she knows in whom she has believed, and she may be content to abide the jest of those who know it not, because she has the secret of His love by His Spirit dwelling in her, and will rejoice in that day when He makes good His faithfulness, and celebrates hers, before those that have despised her. (Compare Rev. 3:8, 9.)
I am daily more and more convinced that this is the real, the only, position of the Church. It may have the desolateness of widowhood, but the keenness and poignancy of affection of one a widow before she was a wife. Babylon has no need to be sorrowfully and separatedly waiting; she has wasted her affections upon ten thousand lovers, who shall hate her in the end. But the true-hearted believer, as partaker of the spirit of the Church, will, as separated from the world, wait for Him in whom his hope is, in the spirit of holy separation.
I would also add, that we find I think a remarkably beautiful association of the act of God and of man in the person of the Lord, in the connection of Gen. 2:22 and Eph. 5:27.
Let me add another suggestion here: the force of δώσει τοῖς or ταῖς in the Revelation appears to me to have the force of making effectual the thing spoken of, making them to be what they are as, but could not be effectually without this interference. We have instances of this in chapter 8: 3 and chapter II: 3.
I would desire to make some use of the remarks I made on the Greek article in your last number, as they intimately open out the proper deity of our Lord, connected both with His relationship as the incarnate Son with the Father, and with us therein: points which, with that presence of the Spirit by which they are known, form the great scope of Christianity; and it is of great importance in the present day to give the full scope of Christianity. For occupation in the fullness of this is that which preserves the mind under grace, and meets that wandering into things not taught of God-questions of no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers, to which the mere reasoning of the mind is the complete slave, the creatures of intellectual reasonings or imaginings-things which, if not our hands, our intellects have made. No one not acquainted with the extent to which the Gnostic heretics went, could imagine how far subtle creations of the human intellect misled could go, and from which it can find no retreat but utter humbling. May we be led of the Spirit, and kept fast by the word! There is intellectual idolatry as well as physical, quite as subtle, quite as dangerous, and (if the imagination be less vivid in our days or regions in external or mental objects) there is not the less departure in its duller movements from God, wherever anything but Himself, as taught by the Spirit, is the object of our minds, instead of our being subject to Him thus known in Christ.
But to turn to my criticisms.
Substantially they made the article the person of the sentence, and the words without it the character of that person, or what he was when it is used. This often gives much blessed instruction; thus we have in
Gal. 1:4, τοῦ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν He who is God and our Father.
Phil. 4:20, τῷ δὲ Θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡμῶν, to Him who is God and our Father.
Col. 3:17, τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ who is God and Father: showing here Father to be a distinct characteristic, just as Son might be.
1 Thess. 1:3, τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν, both again denominations of τοῦ. 1 Thess. 3:2, αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἡμῶν, that very one who is God and Father.
James 1:27, τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρί, Him who is God and Father.
We have a remarkable instance of this construction, in which it was not possible to give this in English from an ordinary participle intervening,
Jude 24, τῷ δὲ δυναμένῳ... μόνῳ σοφῷ Θεῷ,. &c. The
structure is just the same as the former; if translated as the others it ought, in sense, to read if the English could bear it; " To him who is able the only wise God "; the particle to, in verse 25, alone mars the English.
We have another remarkable instance in which it is not rightly given in English,
1 Tim. 1:17, Τῷ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων, ἀφθάρτῳ, ἀοράτῳ, μόνῳ σοφῷ Θεῷ, " to him who is the king eternal, incorruptible, invisible, only wise God, honor and glory," &c.
I would now mention some others which have been noticed before, but I bring them in juxta-position with those previously mentioned, as showing the usage of the language; passages in which our Lord is spoken of as God, in the same way, adding some other characteristic than Father.
Titus 2:13, τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, " Him who is the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ "; compare τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν. Gal. 1:4.
Jude 4, τὸν μόνον δεσπότην [Θεόν], καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. The structure here is the same, " Him who is the only Lord [God] and our Lord Jesus Christ." I will not adduce other passages to this point; as I stated, it has already been done. These show the identity of construction of both, while God is the common or one name of both, and the other titles distinctive to each, or common as Savior. We have another instance in 1 Tim. 5:21 of distinctive title annexed.
I now advert to some other passages, which further illustrate the principle and show this unity with us, so as to magnify our blessing, by the same uniform construction. There is an intermediate form in Rev. 1:6; kings and priests τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ-" to him who is God and his Father." This is the Person to wham He has made us priests.
In Eph. 1:2 God is called our Father. Then, because all fullness dwelt in Him, fullness of relationship as the incarnate object of love, in verse 3 we have this blessed association: ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, " He who is God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." The great object of this epistle specially here is to show the identity in sonship given us in Jesus. So, precisely, in Col. 1:2, 3, we have first, our Father, verse 2, then, -τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ τοῦ Κυρίου.
In 1 Peter 1:3, we have the same title given to the holy One, ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου. Thus we have on one hand the use of it as to the Father, identifying that name with God; then with the Lord, identifying His name with God; and then identifying Him with us, so as to give us all the blessing which He held with God as man, His God and our God, His Father and our Father. ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ. Θεὸς καὶ σωτὴρ Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. Θεὸς καὶ πατήρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἡμῶν. Kings and priests τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ. What a blessed chain! It is extremely sweet to see the blessed truths, in which our whole hope stands, shining out in all their gracious beauty, combined into their places by the same hand which has given the same link of assurance (wonderful mystery!) to one and the other, and the closest criticism, as it appears to me, alike establishing both on the same ground, instead of invalidating them, which superficial assertion would sometimes say that it did.
There are two other passages the force of which is opened out by these remarks. " This is the true God and eternal life." οὗτος He (that is, υἱὸς αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦς Χριστός) is the true God, ὁ ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς, καὶ [ἡ] ζωὴ αἰώνιος. Now this, placed as an affirmation concerning οὗτος, is affirming the identity of predicate and subject in extent.
Now if we compare John 17:3, we shall see the amazing force of that expression, and the meaning of this: " This is life eternal, that they should know thee, the only true God [that is the Father], and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." That they may know thee, τόν-that one, or Him, who is the only true God, contrasted with gods many and false gods, and Him whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ. How does He give them this eternal life, this knowledge? I answer, By their being planted in Himself: " he that hath the Son hath life ": but they are thus in Him that is true, and consequently, being in Him that is true-that is, in His Son-they dwell in God and God in them. They know the Father, who Himself is the only true God; and they know Jesus Christ whom the Father hath sent, and none else can know Him. Being in Christ and knowing His love, we are in the true God, and so know the Father as being in the Son, and we know Jesus Christ.
I would remark that this passage (John 17:3) seems to me to embrace true religion as referable to Jews and Gentiles. Unless known as the Father, there was no knowing Him at all; and this by knowing Him in the Son; if they knew not Jesus Christ whom He had sent, they knew nothing of that ministration in which, as Messiah, He had fulfilled the purposes of God, and manifested eternal life in sonship. This was eternal life, for He was the living God. Therefore He says " power over all flesh." The Epistle was written, as the Gospel, to show them what eternal life was, to prove to them that they had it already. He sums up all from first to last (against all the ramifications of intellectual imaginations, in which men, creating trouble for their own minds, were apt to wander) in the person of Jesus Christ, putting everything in its place in and round that center. Whoever studies the three closing οἴδαμεν of John's Epistle will at once see the amazing and stern comprehensiveness of the passages, and in the last especially; the closing of all cavil in the person of Jesus Christ-" Him that is true "-" the true God and eternal life." If the object of the two books, as stated, John 20:31, and 1 John 5:13, be observed, the meaning and combined power of these passages will be most apparent. Simplicity of faith is the real secret-the kernel of all knowledge.
I would make further a few remarks on 1 Cor. 15:24, et seq. I do not think it is sufficiently observed that there are two very distinct though closely connected passages referred to there; and I think a little attention will make it plain. The two distinct things are, His " putting his enemies," and putting " all things under his feet." There is also a direct distinction between putting them under Him, and His subjecting them.
I would first remark that the supremacy of man is the point in question-man in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ; as a little farther on, verse 47, " the second man, out of heaven." The whole chapter is the power of the resurrection: the progressive steps of this resurrection occupy the apostle's attention. The putting all things under man's feet is the express subject on which the apostle dwells from Psa. 8 The union of the other with it, being Lord as well as Son of David, is that which must always puzzle the unbeliever, as the Lord did the Jews with it; it is the strength and comfort of faith. It is the same Jesus who was made Lord and Christ, whose coming to take His kingdom is here celebrated.
The whole subject then is the kingdom of man (in resurrection) as a given kingdom, contrasted with God. Hence, the Father never becoming incarnate and remaining in office (I speak after the manner of men) Supreme Deity, the kingdom is delivered up to Him, to God, even the Father, τῷ Θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ -that God (as contrasted with man) may be all and in all, instead of Christ the Man being all in all. This is clearly the subject: the contrast of God and the given kingdom of the risen Man, the Head of the new world.
With this personal supremacy of Christ, the Lord from heaven, there are two things connected; " the putting his enemies " and putting all things under His feet being quotations from Psa. 110 and 8.
Now under the risen Man, as entitled in every sense thereto by glorifying God, by purchase at His life's cost back again, by overcoming all His enemies personally, God on His resurrection and glorifying put all things under Him, not in actual subjugation, but title of subjection; they were His by victory, by purchase, by worth, in the purpose of the divine glory: so Psa. 8
It is quite otherwise as to the other. There Jehovah says, " Sit thou at my right hand till I make thy foes thy footstool."
He is to sit there till it is done. Ruling " in his enemies " and " over all," are quite distinct things; as to both, the gift of dominion by the Father is distinct from subjugation by the Son. In this latter (that is, subjugation by the Son) the two become coincident. The reign of verse 25 I take to be the direct assertion of what is consequent upon His receiving the power of ruling among His enemies till the time when He delivers it up (the last enemy being destroyed, which is death). Further, " sit thou at my right hand till I make "-here is the Father making Christ's enemies His footstool, consequent on which He rules in the midst of His enemies.
Now this act of the Father's the apostle does not speak of; because, after speaking of the resurrection of Christ's people at His coming, the time of this kingdom, he goes on to the end when He delivers up the kingdom; " for," says the apostle, " he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet." This is the Son's by His actings in power, as the risen Man. The Father having put His enemies under His feet, or made them His footstool when He comes, having till then sat at God's right hand; " for he hath put all things under his feet." This is another great truth; and here the general act of the Father is spoken of (namely, putting all things under Christ's feet); but as a thing already done-God hath put all things under His feet. This is His enjoyed power-a power the results of which we by no means see accomplished. When they are, when all things are subjected, then He, the Man, will deliver up the kingdom, that God may be all in all.
The same truth as to all things being not subjected by Christ, when all things are put under His feet by the Father, is stated in Heb. 2, where, quoting the same Psa. 8, the Spirit of God adds for us, " Howbeit we see not yet all things put under him, but we see Jesus," exalted.
Here then we find the title of all in inheritance (in Christ determined the Son of God with power) in the resurrection. He waits for the time when the subjugation of His enemies shall make all things His, His enemies not yet being made His footstool. The saints are gathered out, meanwhile, to reign with Him; He acting by His Spirit and controlling also thereby through the world, they are raised at His coming. For His enemies are now put under His feet, and He takes the inheritance, subjecting His enemies; and they having been destroying the inheritance, as well as injuring the heirs in it, He vindicates the inheritance, and we see all things put under Him. For the putting His enemies, and all things under His feet, are two distinct acts; yet the subjugation of the one is the vindication of the other. But we by faith must own that all things are put under Him-glory and honor, power and title His, though we do not see it here; for He sits at God's right hand till His enemies are made His footstool-we being tried therefore meanwhile. We believe therefore that His enemies are not made His footstool, for He yet sits; we waiting longingly, delighting in His glory at the right hand of Jehovah. When He comes, His enemies being made His footstool, we, coming with Him or meeting Him, shall know this also and see all things put under His feet. All things are put under Him because of His title there. His enemies are made His footstool when He leaves it and comes here into these lower regions of earth and heaven, where His enemies are. There He has none: all adore Him. Oh, for the time when it shall be so, and the Father's will be done on earth as it is in heaven, all men honoring Him as they honor the Father! We see the same thing taught us in Rev. 2:17, 18; but I here dwell upon the passage rather than teach or interpret the doctrine. The distinction between the Father's act in putting under, and the fact of their subjection by, the Lord Christ, is manifest in verses 27, 28, as it is also in Heb. 2
The end of Christ's given kingdom is stated in verse 24: the way in which the subjection of His enemies by Him is connected with His power in verse 25: in verse 27 the extent and character of the dominion is given, but not the state of things under it, because resurrection is the subject, and they, though under it in blessing, are not in it; so neither the intermediate state of Psa. 110:1; for the apostle is speaking of the exhibited resurrection state in Christ and in us, and this in full, consequent upon His leaving the right hand of the majesty on high, His enemies now made His footstool.