Q. In a paper entitled, “Remarks on the Gospel of Matthew, chap. v. 17-48,” July number of the Bible Treasury, the writer considers our Lord's command, “Swear not at all,” as not referring to judicial oaths, which latter he holds that the Christian is not absolved from, the same being administered by a magistrate, in whom, he considers, the Christian is bound to acknowledge God. Now, is the Christian equally bound to obey the civil magistrate, when summoned as a juryman to try a fellow-creature in a criminal matter, and to unite with his fellow-jurors in returning such a verdict as (if found guilty) would be the means of depriving the criminal of his life? True, it is the judge, not the jury, who passes sentence on the criminal, but the verdict of the latter determines the sentence of the former.
W. B.
A. A Christian could hardly refuse to serve. It is not the same thing as to be a judge. A juryman is only called on, by authority, to state his belief of a fact; and this owns the authority, which of God has a right and is bound to inquire and bear the sword. It is of all moment that Christians should not trench on God's title to govern in the world, when pleading their Christian place. The magistrates place is not theirs, but because they know God in theirs, they are bound to own God in the place of authority in the world. There is this double sphere. They are in one, and have intelligence, and thus are called upon to own God to the other. Refusal of oaths, as such, imposed by a magistrate is unlawful, I conceive, and unchristian, though individual conscience is to be respected. The same thing that would hinder my being a magistrate (because it is another sphere of God's authority from that in which I am), would make me own that authority in that place. I do not see that the magistrate goes beyond it in calling twelve men to declare their estimate, as to a fact, of the evidence which can be produced, and this is a jury. The use made of the verdict is entirely the province of the judge.
Q. I believe there is no sufficient reason to doubt Rom. 4:2525Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. (Romans 4:25) means that Christ was raised “for” our justification. Grammatically, it is well known, “because of” is a common, perhaps the most common, force of the preposition διά, with the accusative. But the form of the word δικαίωσις resists such a view here; and still more does the context, especially chapter 5:1, where justification is made to depend on faith, instead of being treated as a thing already settled independently of believing. I have heard it argued, however, that διὰ τὴν πώρωσιν, in Eph. 4:1818Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: (Ephesians 4:18) (which, beyond question, means “because of,” and not for “the hardness,” &c.) sets aside the reasoning grounded on the form of the word. What think you?
X. X.
A. No doubt, πώρωσις, being the active form of nouns, like δικεαὶωσις, 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 νἐκρωσις is applied to Sarah's womb; and again, we are to carry about the νἐκρωσις of the Lord Jesus. But this is, I apprehend, in no way the case with justifying, or δικαίωσις. Διά 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 διὰ τὸ δικαιωθἠναι ἡμὰς, which essentially differs from that which Paul employs. In the present case, there would be no process like that of πὠρωσις, 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.