Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

God than he had yet reached, because as yet the revelation of Him had not suited itself to man as a sinner, in moral ruin. And the Lord answers this yearning of the soul; for "He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." He passes by in his full glory. "All His goodness" passes by; and He satisfies Moses, though Mores still looks on man as ruined, or Israel as a stiff-necked people (see chap. xxxiv. 9). He asks for no further manifestation. God in full glory, God in all that He is, was what he needed in behalf of his self-ruined people; and having got that, all that he craved now, was the presence and company of the Blessed One, whom he had now seen and heard.

And, indeed, it is blessed to add, that in this manifes tation of God, man is hid. The people were all present, at the giving of the law, in chap. xx. The elders were on the mount, in the divine presence, occupying their place there as truly and as really as the God of Israel occupied His place, during the great transaction of chap. xxiv., for Israel was a necessary party to the conditional covenant. But now, in chap. xxxiii., the people are not present, none but Moses, and he is hid, and God alone is manifested and declared; and Moses has but to look and to listen, forth from the cleft rock, where like sovereign grace had assigned him and provided him a place.

Surely, this was a blessed moment in Old Testament times. Moses craved and got, in spirit, what the Son of the bosom, the Word made flesh, who is the light of life, has now brought to us sinners, in our place of guilt and ruin. With this difference, however. Moses sought this manifestation, the Son has brought it unsought. Moses got it as for himself, the Son has given it, that sinners, as sinners, whosoever will, may walk in the light of it.

And happy still to add, that as Moses found this manifestation of God to be enough for him, so do all those in John's gospel, who come to Jesus, find Him enough for them. Their joy and liberty are secured. Andrew and Philip and Nathanael, and the Samaritan, and the convicted sinner, and the blind beggar, one and all, equally and fully prove this.

"O house of Israel, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord."

The day broke upon Jacob himself at Peniel; and then his path lay over a plain illuminated and gladdened by the face of God. It was a little heaven to him, a brighter, fairer heaven, than when at Bethel he saw the angels ascending and descending on the ladder. on the ladder. The halting of his thigh was not cared for, by reason of the face of God. A man may surely be content to walk lamely, if his path be across Peniel.

And let me add, in John's gospel, ruined man is not so much exposed as taken up. A full and perfect state of moral ruin is rather assumed than proved; and God comes, in the Son, to act in healing light. This is rather what we get there. We see one sinner after another walking in the light, after this healing manifestation of God has visited him. It is not Andrew and Philip and Nathanael, as they had been in the flesh, but Andrew and Philip and Nathanael, in the life-giving light of Jesus. Flesh is not exposed, so much as renewed man, free and happy, is presented-man freshly called into that knowledge of God which is life eternal, and walking in the light, as man new-made.

LUKE XV. 8-10.

"Count not (vain thought!) upon a lost piece of silver seeking its owner. And count not diligence and the use of the broom to be enough without a light also. Not only do night and dusty floors make candle-light expedient, but by its means a watchful eye can see the light as it is reflected from a piece of lost silver."

278

No. XX.

1 PETER ii. 24.

THE true force of 1 Peter ii. 24, has been called in question by those who seek not only to make Christ's life vicarious, but His sufferings, during the time of His active service, penal. The thought that all the suffer ings of that Blessed One have infinite value, and that they were all for us, every Christian heart would close in with adoringly. There may be obscurity of mind connected with it; but the heart is right. But when intel. lectual proofs are attempted to be given to sustain unsound doctrine on this point, so as to undermine the true character and value of atonement, and to cast a cloud on divine righteousness, it is desirable, then, to maintain the truth. I do not hesitate to say that those who speak of the appropriation of Christ's living righteous ness to us for righteousness, and hold the sufferings of His active service, to have been penal and vicarious, have, in no case, a full, clear, and Scriptural gospel. I am sure many who, from the teaching they have had, hold it, are as far as my own heart could desire from the wish to weaken the truth of atonement and the value of Christ's blood-shedding, without which there is no remission. They have not seen the deep evil lying at the root of a doctrine which speaks of vicarious sufferings, and bearing of sins to which no remission is attached. I am quite ready to believe that the most violent accusers of the doctrine which looks to the sufferings of Christ upon the cross as the alone atonement and propitiation for sin do not wish to enfeeble its value. But we may enquire into the justness of all views which we do not judge to be scriptural, and press too with confidence what we find in scripture. I do not believe in the penal and vicarious character of Christ's sufferings during His active service,

nor do I believe in the appropriation of His legal righteousness to me as failing in legal righteousness myself. I am satisfied that those who hold it have not a full, true, scriptural gospel; by some it is used for the maintenance of what is horribly derogatory to Christ. I have known many valued and beloved saints who hold that Christ, under the law, satisfied by His active fulfilment of it for our daily failure under it. I believe it to be a very serious mistake, though I may value them as His beloved people still. I believe in His obedience to the law I believe that all His moral perfectness, completed in death, was available to me as that in which He was personally agreeable to God, and a lamb without spot and blemish. But these are not the appropriation to me of legal righteousness. But I am not now purposing to go over all this ground; I merely maintain the ground on which I stand, and the doctrine which I hold as scriptural, and as of immense importance to the church just now. I would do it meekly, patiently, that souls may be delivered from error and bondage into the liberty of the truth of God, which is the only real power of godliness; but I would do it firmly and constantly. In the attempt to maintain the doctrine of Christ's bearing sins all His life, the translation of the text I refer to has been called in question. I am satisfied that it is perfectly correct. As an element in this question, I would now examine it. The English version is, "Who His own self bare our sins in His own body, on the tree." A simple person would, surely, in reading Peter, refer to His sufferings in death. Thus, in chap. iii., I read: "For Christ hath, also, once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us unto God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." No one denies that Christ suffered, during His life, sufferings which found their perfection in His death, besides the wrathbearing character of it; for He was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. But the question is, "Was there sin-bearing during His active service, or was He kept up as the Lamb to bear sin?" It turns on the word "bare" avevεYKE. It is alleged that if it meant "bare," it must be υπενεγκε oι εβάστασε or ελαβε. All this is a

66

mistake. A sacrificial word is, I do not doubt, purposely used, but avapepo means "to bear, or undergo," probably because sacrificial victims, which were offered up, were supposed to bear sins; at any rate, it does mean "to bear, undergo, sustain." The truth is, determining the meaning of a word by etymology, in a cultivated" language, is the most absurd thing possible. It is interesting as philological research, but as determining the usus loquendi, it is ridiculous. I might say "hell fire” must mean "covering sins"; for it is the same word as "to heal,” used also provincially for roofing; for the same reason, hence, that the fire of hell was purgatorial or remissory. It did originally mean a covered place, hades, and hence, gradually, everlasting punishment. Avapepw, does mean to offer in sacrifice; it means to recreate oneself, to remember, to cough up, to return, to cast the sin on another, to weigh or consider," etc. The question is, does it mean to bear, to undergo the pain and burden of, and, when used sacrificially, can it be separated from the altar of sacrifice. I say it does mean "to bear, undergo the pain and burden of anything"; and when used in connection with sacrifice, cannot be separated from actual offering up to God. First, that it means "to bear or undergo." I must turn to the dictionaries for this, and the passages in which it is used. They leave no sort of question. It is only systematising, and not the facts in the Greck language, which can lead any one to deny it. I turn to Stephanus. I find avapepeiv, ferre, perferre, pati, ut Christus dicitur, aveveryкeiv peccata nostra (1 Pet. ii. 24; Heb. ix. 21). Cit. e, Thucydides avapepeiv Kıvdvvous, quod durum sit reddere ferre pericula potiusque verti debeat subire pericula; better "to undergo," that is, than "to bear”; the general sense of "undergoing the burden and pain of,” is evident; and that is our point here. There is a reference in the beginning of the article to Aristides; I suppose, Ælius Aristides, the rhetorician, which I cannot verify. So Pape auf sich nehmen, ertragen, "to take on oneself," "to bear," KIVdUvous, Thucydides. Povovs Kaι SiaßоXovs, Toλeμov, that is, "envy, calumny, war," Polybius and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. He adds, New Testament. Liddel and Scott give "to uphold, to take on one,

« AnteriorContinuar »