UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

— - It is not sound doctrine so to say.⁺⁺ Abstractedly everything is eternally present with God, and there is no time with Him; but, then, I cannot say ‘when’ or ‘before’ in this point of view, because there is no when or before when there is no time. And in the scriptural view, such language is wholly unwarranted; because in due time Christ died for the ungodly, “when we were yet without strength”: and “having been justified by faith,” etc. We are not justified without believing, but by faith, through faith in His blood — not without it or before it — nor hence without being at the same time born of God “When we were dead in sins,” we were quickened together with Him, etc. “By grace are ye saved through faith.” We, were by nature children of wrath, but God, who is rich in mercy, when we were dead in sins, quickened us. It is a new nature which we as persons never had before it was communicated to us, when we had only the old. To say we were eternally believers, is nonsense. In the same sense, we were eternally unbelievers, too, and eternally glorified, for all these things were before God’s mind together, without time. It is not true that Romans 4: 25 means because we were justified; ‘because we were justified’ is not in the passage: δικαίωσις cannot mean it, but ‘for justifying us’; it would have been, dia; to; dikaiwqh’nai hJma’”. Hence, when the part. passive is used, faith is added; wherefore, δικαιωθέντες, “having been justified by faith.”

Ephesians 4: 18 proves the contrary to what it is alleged. They were “alienated from the life of God” when they were in darkness; and then he talks of learning Christ — that is, when unbelievers, they had to learn Him: if they had, indeed, learned Him according to the truth in Him; namely, the putting off according to the former conversation the old man, and being renewed in the spirit of their mind. Now, here is a work clearly wrought in them; if they had really learned Christ, they knew what it was to put off the old man; they had it before, and put on the new, which they had not before. To say that a man is born of God when he is in sins, is false; that he is created again in Christ Jesus when he is a mere sinner, is nonsense Scripture does not speak so. Justification is referred to faith which I have not, assuredly, before I believe. High Calvinists have this manner of speaking. If they merely mean, that all was in God’s thoughts and purposes, it is all right. But scripture never speaks as they do, but puts a man as a creature, who belongs to time, into time, and deals morally with him. If it be said, that the life which we get existed eternally, for it was Christ who is our life, it is all well. But it is not ours till we have Christ, and before that we are children of wrath; at least, so says the scripture. The work may be all viewed mentally in Him, when the power wrought; but if it be referred to the saints, so that it is only their knowledge of it which is now given, it is untrue and mischievous, because God purifies, the heart by faith, as well as justifies us. Scripture says, “what is, the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe according to the working of his mighty power,” etc.; not to the elect. It had been only wrought in believers. I do not know whether it is held that faith is eternal.

— - No doubt, πώρωσις,⁺⁺⁺ being the active form of nouns, like δικαίωσις, may seem to raise a question; but if adequately considered, the difficulty disappears. For πώρωσις has the simple sense of a callous place, as one might say, ‘it is a hardening of the skin,’ though the form ‘hardening’ be active, because it was a gradual act, while it is now a state. So νέκρωσις is applied to Sarah’s womb; and again, we are to carry about the νέκρωσις of the Lord Jesus. But this is, I apprehend, in no way the case with justifying, or δικαίωσις. Diav always means “on account of:” the question is, does it here signify previous to, or after, the resurrection of Christ? People often cite the verse, as if it meant that Christ was raised on account of our having been already justified before He rose. This, I am convinced, would require some such phrase as dia; to; dikaiwqh’nai hJma’”, which essentially differs from that which Paul employs. In the present case, there would be no process like that of πώρωσις, or νέκρωσις (which words express a state as result), but a state existing by the simple act of another, a relationship in virtue of an act done. This, the active form, does not, I believe, express; an effect to be produced it can express. The great doctrinal mischief of the alleged rendering, ‘because of,’ is, that it excludes faith from justifying, which is Calvinism, or ultra-Calvinism, but wholly unscriptural.

The change from “heard and seen” (verse 1) to “seen and heard” (verse 3) is because of the manifestation, I apprehend, spoken of in verse 2. But as hearing His word was the way of knowing Him and having eternal life, Christ having given them the words the Father had given Him, and by His title the Word, hearing was the first thing. They had thus His authority, believing Him (not their sight) as groundwork But they did see Him. He was a real, living man then: and this was all-important. So we have “looking upon,” or contemplating, Him added. It was not a momentary vision. He was seen as a man walking amongst them. They had “handled” Him too: He was a real man come in flesh. This was the very essence of what they had, Jesus Christ come in flesh.

“If we say” in verse 6, etc., is this: grace and privilege are always in John connected with the Father and the Son; responsibility with God as connected with His nature. The first part of this chapter (vers. 1-4) gives the privilege and joy simply and fully. Verses 5 and 6 test the profession by the divine nature — purity — which, as light, revealing itself, detects everything. If they pretended to have the joy and were not in the light, it was a lie. The true knowledge of God, revealed in the soul such as He is in holiness and truth, must exist to have fellowship in grace. Though it is not necessarily according to the light, it is in the light — only reality is supposed, walking in the light. The next, “if we say,” is a question of truth in us. (verse 8) If Christ be in me as the truth, I shall be conscious of another principle and nature in me, which in itself always has its own will and fruits. I have not the truth in me, as the life of Christ is the truth in spiritual intelligence in me, if I do not know sin, which it is conscious of and judges, because it — truth — is in me. Sin here is the whole condition of the old man, though learnt by indwelling sin — specially this last. Then, if I say that I have not sinned (verse 10), I make God a liar; for He has declared all men have sinned: Christianity is founded on it, and the death of Christ declares it. God’s word, in such a case, is not in us; for it reveals that all have sinned.
[1863.]

⁺Romans 3: 23 interpreted to mean “have come short” instead of “do come short”: the tense contributing to make the meaning clear; namely, all have failed to exhibit the glory of God, rather than all fail to obtain it.

⁺⁺‘Is it sound doctrine: that believers were justified, quickened, raised, etc., in and with Christ, when He died and rose again; that is, that they were justified before they were born, and that faith merely gives the knowledge of it?’

⁺⁺⁺‘I believe there is no sufficient reason to doubt that Romans 4: 25 means that Christ was raised “for our justification.” I have heard it argued, however, that dia; th;n πώρωσιν, in Ephesians 4: 18, which beyond question means “because of,” and not for “the hardness,” etc., sets aside the reasoning grounded on the form of the word δικαίωσις. What think you?’