Q.-Is the Sabbath part of the law to which the Christian (Rom. 7:4-6, Gal. 2:19) died with Christ? or does Gen. 2:3 make it still binding, as being before the law and even sin? R. C.
A.-Undoubtedly the Christian is declared to have died to the law as well as to sin; and to both without qualification. Grace and new creation take us out of Adam's or Israel's relationship. We are in Christ risen and ascended, and are told expressly in Col. 2 that none should judge us in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a feast-day or a new moon or sabbaths. Having died with Christ, we are not, as men living in the world, to subject ourselves to ordinances. This does not hinder but help our enjoying the privilege of assembling on the first day of the week, “the Lord's day” of resurrection, not as in bondage but in liberty, not only for the remembrance of Christ in worship, but for edification also as well as in the outgoing of heart with the gospel to the lost and burdened. Hence we see how the Lord pointedly wrought His works of mercy on the sabbath, breaking through the formality of the self-righteous Pharisee; while the devotedness, to which the resurrection of Christ gave so mighty an impulse deeply offended the rationalism of the easy-going Sadducee. We may notice too how the N.T., while showing our precious place as associated with and expressed by “the first” day, wholly distinct from the sabbath, carefully avoids any reference for it to the law, or even to a fresh commandment. For we are not under law but under grace. Such is Christianity as a whole and essentially.
Q.-1 John 2:2. Was Christ a propitiation “for the sins of the whole world?” Does John 1:29 teach this? Does 1 Peter 2:24 apply alike to all, believers and unbelievers? W. R. W.
A.-It cannot be urged too plainly or often that “the sins of” is an interpolation, not only uncalled for, but an addition which goes beyond the truth and is therefore false, as all exaggerations must be. “For our sins” is in pointed distinction. “For the whole world” is ample ground of encouragement for preaching the gospel to those who are still in unbelief, without warranting the dangerous delusion that the sins of the whole world are gone. This would naturally lead to telling every body that he is forgiven, in open opposition to the general warning of scripture to all the unconverted. Hence it is not just to confound this last member of the sentence with 1 Peter 2:24, which rather coalesces with Christ's being a propitiation for our sins. He was our substitute; when men believe the gospel, we and they can say this of them. But He is a ransom for all, as He is a propitiation for the whole world. John 1:29 goes on to the complete taking away (not “bearing our sins”) of the sin of the world, as will be manifested in the new heavens and new earth, like Heb. 9:26. The sacrifice is already offered and accepted; but all its results are not yet come and enjoyed. It will be applied to the millennial age, and completely in the eternal day. To say that judging “according to works” does not mean “sins” is mere quibbling. The “works” of the unbelievers, of the wicked, are nothing but “sins"; for which, when raised, they will have their part in the lake of fire and brimstone, the second death.
Q.-1 Thess. 5:23: how do you explain sanctification here? M.
A.-It is sanctification in practice, which all Christians admit and urge. The apostle prays that “the God of peace might sanctify them wholly “; and, not content with this general desire, “that their spirit and soul and body might be preserved entire, blamelessly, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The whole man is comprehended, in virtue of the reconciling work on the cross; which awaits redemption in the full sense (Rom. 8:23) at Christ's coming. It is the believing man inwardly and outwardly, the mind of flesh or old man already condemned, and all the rest, inner and outer, animated and directed by the indwelling Spirit of God. The higher faculty of man, his spirit, is named first, and the external instrument, his body, last; the soul, if we distinguish the words, is the seat of individuality, the “I” which uses both. It is a heathen notion, though favored by many moderns, to place the “I” in the spirit; but scripture is distinctly adverse, and the error involves many serious consequences. As to this, Dr. Delitzsch's book is unreliable, though learned and lively.
Q.-1 Peter 1:2: what is meant by sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience?
A.-It is sanctification in principle, a truth of deep importance, ignored everywhere in Christendom, by Protestants as well as Romanists, by Calvinists no less than by Arminians. For by it is meant true living separation to God from the starting-point of faith, when one is “born of water and Spirit,” in a new nature. This cries, as Saul of Tarsus did when converted, Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do? It is therefore as we see here, “unto obedience"; not only so but to Christ's obedience, not as a Jew under law, but as a child obeying its Father under grace, even though the sprinkling of the blood or justification had yet to be learned, however soon it may follow. Hence we read in 1 Cor. 6:11 “washed, sanctified, justified “: the order of which is inexplicable to such as overlook the absolute setting apart, or personal sanctification, of believers from their first breath of new life as “born of God.” The Washing looks at our previous uncleanness, the sanctification at our separation to God, the justification at our resting on Christ's work of redemption, as the other two precede and go together.
If any one wishes to see the havoc done to scripture by a pious and learned man, through confounding these two senses of sanctification, both equally true and essential to Christian intelligence, let him consider Th. de Bèze's version of 1 Peter 1 and the notes in any of his five folio editions of the Greek Testament; in which he makes κατὰ-ex! ἐν-ad! and εἰς-per! It is a total and inexcusable falsification through prejudice. Verses 15 and 16 of the same chapter do exhort to actual day-by-day holiness or sanctification in practice. Popery and Puseyism confound justification with practical sanctification to the loss of the truth as to both. The great value of the truth, so generally found wanting, can hardly be exaggerated, Romish theology being utter confusion and that of the Puritan partial and one-sided. Scripture alone is the truth which co-ordinates, and is worthy of all trust.
Again, the Authorized and the Revised Versions are fairly correct: elect “according to.” But “by” is better than “through “; and “in” is equivalent to “by,” as it here can only mean “by virtue, or in the power, of.” And both agree in rendering “unto” obedience, which is alone right or possible on any sound principle. We are called to obey, as Christ obeyed, filially, and not in the bondage of the law like Israel; whilst instead of having the blood of victims as its sanction threatening death on failure, we have the sprinkling of His blood cleansing us from all sin.