New Thoughts (11/29/18-12/08/18)
Rules of Interpretation (12/01/18)
Well, we certainly have our hands full with this passage! It is fair warning as to how much time shall be necessary when it takes so many days just to get through Barnes’ Notes on the subject matter contained in these verses. It is also a fair reminder as to the care and prayer that ought rightly to go into our efforts at understanding God’s Word. To that end, there were a few comments made by our authors along the course of their observations on this passage that indeed bear remembering. I would note, even before looking at them, that the very authors making the observation are found at risk, if not guilty of disregarding the very rules they espouse on occasion. I note this only as a comfort by which to assuage any guilt that may rise up at having fallen short; not as excusing the failure, but as recognizing that nothing more has befallen than that which is common to man.
So, we have three items to consider here; three guides for our interpretive efforts. I will start with this one, delivered with a backhand. “It is an interpretation which is to be made out by reasoning and by theology – always a suspicious circumstance in interpreting the Bible.” This is a comment made by Barnes in regard to an interpretation that arrives at conclusions counter to his own. I am less interested in the particular theories and points, at this juncture, and more concerned with the general concern that his observation raises. It’s something we are all prone to, and perhaps more so as we grow in our studies. “An interpretation made out by reasoning and by theology,” is on the one hand, another way of describing eisegesis – reading into the text what we already believe. It is, on the other hand, a way of describing the nearly inevitable.
Here’s what I mean. As we come to conclusions about the various doctrines taught by the Bible – or, perhaps I should those we construe has being taught by the Bible – these will necessarily color our perceptions of subsequent texts. We understand, after all, that all Scripture must hold together, and that being God-breathed, it cannot be found to actually contradict itself. As such, there is a degree to which we rightly ought to consider our reasoning and theology as we contemplate the text before us. It MUST hold together, and our understanding of the present passage must harmonize with what we understand from other passages.
Now, here’s the danger. If we allow our former understanding to dictate what the current passage is permitted to mean, then we are no longer reading to be informed by Scripture. We have, in essence, fallen into Pharisaic error, allowing our traditions (in the form of strongly held opinions) to hold a higher place in our belief system than the words of Scripture. We must remain teachable, even to the extent of finding ourselves forced to acknowledge erroneous beliefs of longstanding. I think this is much easier for the younger believer, because that believer has not as yet wrestled with some of the bigger, if secondary, matters of doctrine. I think, as I so often do, of that trip through Romans which forced such a shift in my views. Why? Well, in large part it was simply that a proper reading of that text, working to hear what it actually said, left me far less able to support those views. But, I can add reasoning and theology to it, I think, in a positive fashion, in that the real convincing came from reading those same authors I consult to this day, assessing the arguments presented by all sides, and seeking that position which best held the full text of Scripture in harmony with itself. In doing so, I did in fact find it necessary to shed some long-held beliefs.
Am I still willing and able to do so? On that subject, I should find it highly unlikely that I would willingly change my views yet again. I consider it settled ground. Of course, I also considered it settled ground before it was upended, so who knows? Perhaps I shall study some portion of Scripture in future that will force me to reconsider the beliefs I have now held for decades. But, I doubt it. On the other hand, I might suggest that study of this text has shifted my views on the charismata at least in some degree. Perhaps I am fooling myself. But, there are understandings that arise from deeper study that will evade us when we stop at a surface reading. That said, past study and past experience render it very difficult, in fact, to hear the voice of Scripture with no accent.
This is no call to toss aside everything we think we know and start fresh every morning as if newly born. It is, however, a stern caution to remain teachable, at least by the text of Scripture. It is a stern reminder of our own fallibility, and a call to humility when it comes even to those doctrines we hold most dear. There is much that I would hold we cannot count as subject to change, but there is much else that we could in fact be very wrong about in spite of the strength of our convictions.
Let me turn to a point that Clarke makes. Again, he has a particular line of argument in view which he would counter, but the general principle by which he counters is a very useful reminder for us. “We should be very cautious how we make figurative expression, used in the most figurative book of the Bible, the foundation of a very important literal system that is to occupy a measure of the faith, and no small portion of the hope, of Christians.” In the immediate application, he is considering the influence of certain passages from The Revelation on how this present passage is understood. But, again, I am more interested in the general guiding principle. We might hear it stated to the effect that we do not interpret the more literal passage by the more figurative. That is to say, there are many passages in Scripture that are somewhat obscure as to their intended meaning. They are subject to interpretation, as we say, and taken by themselves could be read as saying quite a variety of things, and often quite contradictory things. To take one’s interpretation of such a passage and apply it as an iron rule that must bend our understanding of a much less oblique passage is a fool’s game. It will, if not corrected, force us to twist the simpler passage almost beyond recognition in order to maintain our sense of the other passage.
But, this gets it exactly backwards, and actually sets us back under the previous concern. This is a severe case of reading one’s theology into the passage. We’ll leave reason out of it on this occasion, because reason would have noticed the violence done to the more literal passage in order to maintain our position. It becomes an exercise in cognitive dissonance, really; trying to hold what are in fact two very contradictory ‘truths’ simultaneously. It cannot be done to any good purpose, and I think our tendency to insist on a clearly incorrect meaning for a relatively straightforward passage reflects the fact that we realize this. We can’t accept the contradiction, ergo we have two choices, change our mind or change the meaning. Sadly, we have a tendency to opt for the latter.
Now comes perhaps the most important bit of advice, and one that I seem to have a great deal of difficulty holding in mind. “Nothing is more important in interpreting the Bible than to ascertain the specific point in the argument of a write to be defended or illustrated, and then to confine the interpretation to that.” My tendency, as can be clearly seen by the extent of the notes I record on every passage, is to explore every thought and side avenue that comes to me, however tangentially related to the matter discussed in the text. You know, I have often belabored myself over the length of these studies, and yet find myself powerless (hah!) to change. But, then, I am not at present writing sermons, only study notes. That is my general defense, but it is not one that is valid.
Barnes’ point is more than guidance for the pastor who needs to fit his message to the allotted time. It is a principle of interpretation. To discover all sorts of additional meanings in the text, and apply it willy-nilly to every manner of life situation is to mishandle the text. It is one thing to properly apply the text to the present day, and this we must seek to do. It is quite another, however, to simply ‘discover’ ways to make it address whatever issues happen to be on our minds. Again, I can say that this present study is a huge challenge in this regard. There are underlying issues and currents which led me to take up the study of this particular book however many years ago it’s been now. Those issues remain, and they do have a tendency to color what I am seeing. I must, then, be the more careful to discern Paul’s actual point and, Lord willing, to restrict myself to observations concerning that point.
I would throw in one more, which seems particularly apt as I look forward to assessing this passage and what the commentaries have to say about it. This is an old rule of mine, but one I find I violate more often of late. “Don’t get lost in the technicalities.” This might be taken as another sub-topic of that first point from Barnes. What do I mean by it? Let me attempt to explain. It is well and good that we delve in and understand the intricacies of the language, the implications of syntax, and so on. And, there are, as we shall see with this passage, questions which arise and which must be considered. But, if we are not careful, our study efforts become all about those wranglings of syntax and questions, and never arrive at application. To study Scripture and not arrive at application is a sad exercise, if not an entirely wasteful use of time. I have to think it even goes to being an insult to God. What’s the point of so intently looking into His Word if you will not apply it? You become, again, like those Pharisees straining out gnats, but swallowing the camel (Mt 23:24). When the application gets uncomfortable, which it so often does, the temptation to hide in the technicalities is great. It’s safe there. We can feel good about ourselves for being so diligent. But, we aren’t being diligent – pedantic perhaps, but not diligent. The diligent disciple will apply what he has learned. That is what it means, after all, to be a disciple.
Passover Fulfilled (12/02/18)
In keeping with what I wrote yesterday, let me try and abide by the determination to discern and declaim upon Paul’s main point, and try not to go wandering off on all the side trails. The main point, it is quite clear, has been and continues to be establishing the reality, indeed the necessity of a real, physical resurrection. This is what’s on his mind, and what he is writing is aimed at establishing and upholding this critical doctrine of the faith.
He has spent the last portion of his writing establishing the fact by considering the case if it is not true. In other words, if we accept the opposing premise, that physical resurrection is not going to happen, what are the necessary consequences. That has been a useful exercise, but the time has come to insist upon the truth, and this he does with great force. In the section before us, he is knocking every support from under the opposing argument, and doing so on three main points. The first is the obvious fact that Christ has in fact been raised from the dead. He has already established this point with sufficient evidence. On this alone the opposition must be forced to acknowledge the possibility of physical resurrection. But, they might yet hold out that it worked for Him because He is God, and physical resurrection for the rest of humanity remains just as impossible as ever.
Thus, he brings in mention of the first fruits. Now, several of our commentaries observe the utter aptness of the timing of Christ’s death and resurrection as fulfillment of the Passover Feast. For the most part, I think we already get that, at least most of us. But, there are some details of the correspondence that might not be so obvious to us. For instance, we find the observation that in the observance of that Feast, the waving of the sheaf offering came upon the third day. This is the imagery of the first fruits to which Paul refers. Now, he doesn’t make direct mention of a Passover fulfillment in this allusion because that’s not his subject matter. But, we may observe that he wrote this letter during the period between Passover and Pentecost, as we discern from things mentioned in the letter, so it would hardly be surprising to find aspects of those feasts entering his writing. He was, after all, highly trained in Jewish practice. He might be forgiven for expecting his readers would be just as steeped in that system.
You see, for Paul, mention of the first fruits must conjure up memory of all which is encompassed in that offering. The sheaf offering, the offering of the first fruits had implications. It implied the harvest was upon the land; an outpouring of God’s gracious provision for His people. We will find it useful to observe that God, in His infinite wisdom, made provision for those who could not present the offering before the rest of the harvest was brought in, given the way of farming. So, provision was made to bring the offering later, and yet know its blessing upon the harvest. That point becomes salient as we consider the rest of Paul’s line of argumentation here.
For the moment, though, understand why he has brought the image into play. Here is a key factor for us: What was offered in the sheaf offering was the first sample of the harvest. What would be harvested was, then, something of the same nature. What was offered was of the same substance and nature as what would be reaped. It was of a piece with the harvest. Barnes adds an observation as to the purpose of the sheaf offering of first-fruits. That offering was made as sanctifying the harvest – again, whether brought in before the full harvest, or brought subsequently of necessity. Apply this to Christ the fulfillment of every Old Testament feast and ceremony, and we have something significant: Christ as the consecration of those to be resurrected. And, His Ascension supplies us with fully sufficient evidence that His offering was accepted by God, which is in turn sufficient evidence that we, too, shall be accepted by God.
Let me add just a bit of foreshadowing here. That God accepted the sheaf offering as consecrating the harvest did not suggest that one man’s offering consecrated every man’s harvest. Expand the point a bit, if you like, and we can observe that God consecrating the harvest of Israel was no guarantee of His consecrating the harvests of every far-flung nation and tribe due to Israel’s actions. I might say that He consecrated all the harvest, but not all harvests everywhere.
So, we have this connection, left all but unstated, that Christ rose on the third day, the day of the first-fruits offering. That Paul intends us to recognize the implications of that timing is evident not only in his making mention of Christ as the first fruits of those who are asleep (note the limiting of the scope in that clause), but also in the argument he develops from it. That argument constitutes our next subject, and really the main argument made in this passage; what we may refer to as the argument from death.
The Argument from Death (12/02/18)
This really is the main argument for Paul. Death is to be abolished. What precedes that point is but making the case for the necessity of this truth, and the reason that truth is necessary to establish is because it makes obvious the necessity of the general resurrection. I rather like the way the Wycliffe Commentary sums this up. “Here is the Christian answer to the Greek philosophers. They said there is no resurrection, but Paul says there is no death.” That really is exactly the argument that has been developed in this chapter. That is Paul’s main point, especially in this passage, and it must, therefore, be ours.
This being the point, it must guide our understanding of the arguments Paul makes along the way. But, let us first internalize the point. First, when comes the time of the resurrection, if death no longer reigns, it becomes self-evident that men no longer die. The latter is, we might say, a necessary evidence of the former. For Barnes, this has required him to construe Paul’s discussion about the general resurrection as considering the resurrection of all mankind, good and evil alike. Now, that is most assuredly a valid doctrine, and one clearly stated by Jesus Himself. But, I think we shall need more carefully to consider the text before we join him in his conclusion. For now, I think the observation Clarke makes will suffice to drive home Paul’s argument. “If there be no general resurrection, it is most evident that death will still retain his empire.” This is the force of the argument. If Christ must subdue all His enemies (and He must, for it is written), then death must go, and for death to go, it is necessary to have more than a cessation of the death sentence going forward. That is to say, it does not suffice to say death no longer threatens. No, every captive in the realm of death must be liberated. Otherwise, death retains a kingdom for itself, and is not in fact abolished. Christ’s reign is not completed, and God’s promise must go unfulfilled, which is an impossibility.
Again, on this premise, Barnes argues that if it is only shown that Christ resurrects some, then it is not shown that He has fully countered that which Adam introduced, and Paul’s argument remains inconclusive so far as general resurrection is concerned. It is only if all are raised, whatever circumstances may follow, that ‘the scepter of death shall be broken, and his dominion destroyed’. I have to say the conclusion he reaches is valid enough. Victory over death must be full and final. It’s actually rather compelling, but I shall reserve that for the next portion of this study.
Let us take some application from this point before we proceed. Clearly, at least to any person examining himself with eyes open, we are not yet perfected. Clearly, men and women of all ages, all walks of life, and all spiritual conditions continue to die. Nothing about this requires us to suggest otherwise, and were we to do so, we would rightly be accounted as being out of our tiny little minds. And yet there is this. “I AM the Resurrection and the Life! He who believes in Me shall live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die. DO YOU BELIEVE THIS?” (Jn 11:25-26). That really is the question, isn’t it? DO you believe this? Do you give it more than an intellectual assent? Yes, death still wounds. Yes, we still sorrow for those who have gone to the grave, whether we find cause to think they died believers or not. Yes, as concerns believers, we have this understanding that we shall see them again some day, but DO YOU BELIEVE THIS?
I would suggest, on the force of Paul’s arguments here, that if you do not, you cannot rightly account yourself a Christian. Now, I must acknowledge that even in the context of Jesus speaking those words, we have Christians, or proto-Christians if you like, in the form of Martha who were having great difficulty believing this. Yes, Jesus, I know You are the Son of God. Yes, Martha, but your reactions in this moment indicate that you don’t really believe THIS, and you should. You must!
Yet, this is not to suggest to us that we are somehow to defy the grave. My! But, in our current, still sinful state such a belief system would be disastrous. If we did not suppose our actions could lead to our own death, what foolish actions we should take! It is again a thing self-evident from our own youth. Every youth knows the foolhardy assurance of his or her own immortality. Youth is invincible right up to that moment when it finds itself brought down. Or, if the Lord is merciful, that foolishness passes with the coming of maturity. Then, we must add the special seasoning of Christianity to the mix. Death, we come to understand, may still wound, but it can no longer slay. That victory over death is not some future thing which hasn’t happened yet, but neither is it some past thing which has been completed and its fruits applied in full. The subjection of death to Christ’s rule is an ongoing affair. It is progressing nicely, but it is progressing so long as Christ tarries. In the meantime, as Calvin writes, we live with the reality of death, but not the finality. “For we die,” he writes, “but dying we enter into life.” That is the promise of Christ to His sheep: Death no longer reigns when men no longer die. We might well argue that men no longer die when death is but entrance into life. But, I do not believe that is Paul’s argument here, so let us save it for another time.
How Much is All? (12/03/18)
Here we arrive at one of the great challenges of translation generally, it seems to me. For it is the case of a small word which seemingly leads into all manner of misunderstanding. It is the question of how much is all? The trite will insist that all is all; it is ever and always all inclusive. But, the briefest bit of reflection would demonstrate that this hardly applies in everyday speech. All, in fairness, is almost never all on those terms. You may have it suggested that in Greek, technical language that it is, the application is much more precise. There, again, I think even a cursory scan of the lexicons would demonstrate that Greek has as many shades of meaning to its words as does English, or I suppose most any other language. The precision is all in our minds, as is the woodenly all-inclusive view of all.
All is more generally, if not inherently, all within a set – some set. Our challenge, then, is to recognize the set. It may be that in some instances the set truly does encompass everything, but then we have a greater challenge, don’t we? We must define what everything is. Does it encompass the created order only? Or does it include divinity in its scope? Does it encompass only the living, or the living and the dead alike? Does it include all organic matter? The absence of organic matter? Whatever, it seems to me, we choose as the scope of all, we shall discover there is in fact something that it outside the set.
To add to our challenge, we have several occurrences of our word before us. Indeed, we have some twelve cases just in these eight verses. But, it is the first pair that seem to cause the most difficulty. In Adam all die, in Christ all shall be made alive (v22). The issue that arises is the scope of the resurrection. Does it apply to believers only, or does it apply to the entirety of humanity? And, even given a satisfactory and biblically sound answer to that question we have also to ask what is the scope of Paul’s intention here? This is not by any stretch as cut and dried as we might like it to be. If it were, there wouldn’t be a challenge, now, would there?
So, we start with this: Both of our occurrences of all establish their own boundaries. In the first instance, all is bounded by ‘in Adam’, and in the second, by ‘in Christ’. We understand the implications of that phrase (and will explore it a bit further in the next portion of this study), but let’s make it explicit. Both Adam and Christ stand as federal head of a people. In the case of Adam, it is the whole of humanity through all ages from inception right on through to the end. Every human being who ever was or ever will be has Adam not only as their forebear (that mitochondrial Adam that has been again in the news of late), but also as their representative at government before the throne of God. He is our federal head, our representative, and his decisions and actions become binding upon us.
Welcome to original sin. And make no mistake, it is original sin that is in view as Paul considers how death came to all men ‘in Adam’. By his initial guilt, all mankind has been rendered guilty. Paul, in the letter to the Romans, actually expands this to encompass all nature as well, but I incline to think there is a distinction of sorts there, in that man remains a moral agent, whereas the animals are not. Who knows? Maybe we shall discover we were quite wrong about that, and even dogs and cats are in fact moral agents, but I’m not expecting it. For our purposes, the point is simply this: The first ‘all’ clearly encompasses all humanity through all time.
This bothers us. We’re ok with guilt applying to all who have passed some loosely specified age. We have it in our laws, in the sense that a minor is not held to the same legal standards as one who has reached his majority. It’s arbitrary, as we can see by the way the specific age shifts with the years. It was twenty-one when I was young. It’s been eighteen for some time now, for better or worse, and it seems likely to drop younger, if somebody finds it advantageous to their cause to make it so. But, the simple fact is that even ‘from the womb’ this sinfulness has been our defining feature. There is no such thing as a babe born in innocence. There is no point in the course of life before which we had no sin. This does not, as I stressed last time I looked at these verses, set the unborn child beyond God’s salvific reach. Nothing shall be impossible with God. But, that doesn’t alter the case that we are, every one of us, from the first moment of life, under the sentence of death.
This is critical to understand and bear in mind. Apart from sin, and the guilt of sin, death has no place. Were it not for sin, we would have no conception of death because we would have no experience of it. “All die.” The clear implication of that is that all are guilty. For the non-guilty to die would be an injustice on the part of God. This, in turn, is the power of Christ’s death. He alone amongst all mankind was born free of sin (the implication of having no paternal linkage back to Adam), lived free of sin, and died in spite of remaining sinless. But, He took upon Himself – a deliberate and voluntary action – the sins of the former ‘all’, or at least some subset of that ‘all’. He died for a guilt not His own, and on that basis, combined with His life of perfect obedience to the whole Law of God, purchased our lives, not just for this brevity of current existence, but for eternity. “Though you die, yet shall you live.”
This brings us to the second ‘all’. It is all who are in Christ. Well, then, what does it mean to be ‘in Christ’? It means, amongst other things, that He is your federal head. It also means you are part of a new race, if you will, the race of the twice-born, the race of the resurrected. It seems sufficiently clear that this is the scope Paul intends us to see, and that this is the case would appear to be reinforced by the following verse, which speaks of “those who are Christ’s at His coming.”
So, then, why belabor the point of ‘all’? Well, for one thing, we discover that several of our commentators are at odds over the extent of this second ‘all’. Barnes, for one, finds it to require a wider scope. To his lights, there is first a linguistic necessity to this. The nature of the sentence requires a balance. The first all and the second must be of like extent for the sentence to make sense. He arrives at the conclusion that this means the ‘all’ of in Christ must match the extent of the ‘all’ of in Adam, which is to say the entirety of humanity through all ages. This aspect of his argument is a bit weak, in my view, as we could argue a balance of scope based on the extent of who is represented by each of these federal heads. That is to say, there is a qualitative equality of application, if not quantitative.
His second argument, which is really his primary one, is perhaps more salient, because it hinges, as is proper, on the argument Paul is making here. His point is that death must be vanquished. It will be the last thing put in subjection to Christ, but it shall be subjected – utterly subjected. The kingdom of death will be left no subjects. As we explored yesterday, it is insufficient to simply say that nobody else dies beyond such and such a date. For death to be stripped of its realm, all who are already dead as of that date must also be restored to life. As such, Barnes insists, the arc of Paul’s argument insists that we find this second ‘all’ to apply to all mankind in all ages. Anything less is not the total subjugation of death.
Now, I observe that even the editor of Barnes’ Notes cannot allow this to stand unchallenged. He reaches the same conclusion you find me leaning towards, which is that we are concerned with federal headship in this verse, and the ‘all’ is rightly restricted to those represented by each federal head. “In Christ” has meaning, and it is applied to the all of the second half. Further, as I have observed, it is amplified in the next verse as “All who are Christ’s at His coming.” Barnes, it seems to me, has to perform some serious mental gymnastics to allow that verse its clear application while yet insisting that here we must find a larger group.
Now, I get his point, and the doctrine he is putting forward is clearly quite correct. We have the parable Jesus offers of the sheep and the goats. All the descendants of Adam are in fact raised, although they may not all appreciate their resurrection. Paul affirms the same, as one or the other of the commentaries observed. It is a resurrection of the wicked and the righteous alike. Some will rise to eternal life in the immediate presence of God, seeing Him as He truly is. Others, the vast majority most likely, will rise to an eternal punishment for crimes against an eternal God.
For those who wish to go about proclaiming that God has a destiny for each and every one of us, I will grant you it is true, even as the assurance of a resurrection does in fact apply to ‘all’ in the fullest scope of humanity. That is not to say that their resurrection or their destiny (for the two go hand in hand) will be something to anticipate with pleasure. It sounds so nice when you inform somebody that they have a destiny in God. But, if that destiny consists in the lake of fire which is the second death, it out to leave us shaking in grief to have to inform them of their future.
At any rate, Barnes makes his way to verse 23 and sees the clear fact that we are now looking at a smaller group. As I say, I get why he feels the need to expand it for verse 22 to support the ‘all things in subjection’ aspect that comes later, but I think it an unnecessary and, honestly, unsupportable expansion. That Paul already has that same limit in place is clear enough from the ‘in Christ’.
At the same time, the conclusion that Matthew Henry puts forward seems equally unsupportable. He advises that if resurrection is by virtue of Christ’s resurrection, then it necessarily follows that this resurrection is only for those who are His body, which is to say believers’ resurrection. That seems to me a step too far, for as I have already observed, Scripture does in fact teach a resurrection of all, regardless of standing. All will face the Judgment Seat and hear sentence pronounced. All the dead shall rise, not only those who are in Christ. As I say, not all will be happy to discover this is the case. Is their resurrection any less by virtue of Christ’s resurrection? If He is the Life, where else would it derive from? Again, there is clearly a qualitative difference in the result. The JFB captures it nicely. “Though all shall rise, not all shall be saved.” We might, in order to allow Mr. Henry his point, suggest that all are resurrected, but not all are made alive, in that zoe sort of life that is worthy of being called life.
As concerns this passage, and Paul’s intentions, however, I think we need to bear in mind that he is not defending a humanity-wide resurrection in this instance. He is addressing believers who have been impacted by some teaching that insists there is no resurrection. For his purposes, it is sufficient to establish that believer’s resurrection is a real and certain hope. That is enough to counter the argument that needs countering. That even the wicked are resurrected is true, and we might even find cause to see that brought into the picture in verse 24, where he gives us what we might suppose to be a third step in the order of restoration: “Then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom.” But, that’s a declaration with its own questions to consider, so let’s save it.
Federal Headship (12/04/18)
I have already considered the matter of federal headship in the previous section, in spite of pointing forward to this one. But, let us review a few simple points, as they bear on our passage, and on Paul’s argument therein. We are considering an argument for the necessity of there being a general, physical resurrection. That argument has led Paul to observe the very clear necessity of death. Considering that he is arguing to those steeped in the ways of Greek philosophy, this is a good point to observe, because it observes the factual evidence. All men die. OK. There’s fact. Whatever our position, we should have to account for it. The Greeks were concluding that because of this fact of death, the very idea of there being a resurrection was absurd.
But, Paul moves us behind the bare facts, and asks us to remember why all are subject to death. Death, he observes, is not part of the original order. It finds its source, its cause, in Adam. That further implies that it comes in punishment of sin, which is to say that death may not be natural, but it is utterly just. Why? Because all have sinned. In Adam, who stood as representative of all mankind to come, one man’s failure bound all mankind in the repercussions, to the point that there is no such thing in all humanity as one born without sin, let alone one who has lived without sin. That, we should note, continues to apply to the Christian.
However, the Christian has a new representative, One who has adopted him into a new humanity, the family of the twice born. This Christ, we discover, is the cause of life in such fashion as perfectly answers to the cause of death in Adam. That’s the message here. His death was not for His sins, but for those He represented, this new humanity. That scopes our ‘all’. Each man, both Adam and Jesus, brought results to bear on all whom they represented. But, whereas Adam stood as federal head over all mankind, Jesus does not. He stands as federal head over all whom the Father has given Him. That is uncomfortable, but it is clearly true. There remain those for whom the final words from Him shall be, “Depart from Me. I never knew you.” If, in fact, universal salvation were a valid doctrine, these words could never be said. Jesus saves, and He saves all those for whom He came. It may pain us to consider some of those who are not in that number. It may shock us, I suspect, to discover some who are. But, it is God’s call. “I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” You cannot force Him. You cannot cajole Him. You cannot barter with Him. You can obey.
Barnes suggests that His being the first is not, in this instance a matter of order in time, but more a pointer to His resurrection as pledge of our own. But, I do not find it necessary to follow him in this thinking. I can see where some might perceive some sort of resurrection prior to the death and resurrection of Christ. As to those few examples we have from the Gospels, I should think it sufficiently clear that, while resurrected, what they were restored to, Lazarus included, was earthly life. The death sentence remained in place, it had merely been a delay. As to the examples that may arise from the Old Testament, such as Enoch or Elijah, it must be observed that they, so far as the records show, never died. One cannot be resurrected who has not died. What transpired in the death and resurrection of Jesus was and remains entirely unique in the course of human history. It shall not always be so. For there will come that time when He returns and all are changed ‘in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye’ (1Co 15:52). Observe, though this remains ahead of us, that this encompasses not only those who are in the grave, but those who are yet living. Even for them, ‘this perishable must put on the imperishable’. That, I would have to insist, includes Enoch and Elijah. What has been their condition through the centuries since their passing, I will not speculate. But, their future remains as our own: Life – real life, resurrected, remade life – in Christ.
What Happens with this Subjection? (12/04/18-12/05/18)
Now we can turn to another question that demands consideration. What is going on here? I would suggest it is a question in two parts, the first brought about by our prior considerations of ‘all’, and of federal headship. Verse 24 introduces us to the clause, “Then comes the end.” This is a term of succession, and as one or the other of our authors observed, with Paul, these terms always cover a period of time. Consider the ‘after’ of the previous verse, which is still in effect, some two thousand years on. So, the timing of ‘then’, other than that it follows upon the conclusion of ‘after’, we should be hard pressed to say. But, there is a second mystery, if you will, introduced. In this end, whenever that may be, Jesus delivers up the kingdom to ‘the God and Father’.
So, problem number one: What kingdom? We see that this shall come about ‘when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power’, and that is the critical point for Paul’s argument, because amongst those abolished is death. But, what kingdom? Is it the kingdom of those whom the Father has given Him? Are we still looking at “those who are Christ’s at His coming”? Or, are we, as Barnes informs us Professor Bush has suggested, looking at a kingdom composed strictly of those opposing kingdoms which Christ conquered? As to that, I should have to maintain that even if we took that meaning, it would yet encompass those who are Christ’s at His coming, for we ourselves were at enmity with God up to that point when He called us, purchased us, subdued us, and made us His own.
With that, I would conclude that the end that is in view is more likely to involve the full resurrection of mankind, the scene of the Great White Throne set up for final judgment. This, I think, satisfies Barnes’ concern with limiting the scope of ‘all’ back in verse 22. All in Christ are made alive. But, a larger group is resurrected. There is your thoroughly inclusive all that sweeps up all mankind. All, on that scope, will bow down and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Many, however, will do so grudgingly, only because they have been left no option. I think of some of the scenes from the series we’ve been watching on Irish castles. Many an Irish lord came and bent the knee to the king of England, but not because they welcomed his rule over them. Rather, it was because they determined that, at least for the present, resistance was futile.
Note well the definition given of the end. It is when “He has put all enemies under His feet.” It is not, explicitly not, when He has gathered the full number of His bride. That, I have to maintain, was already taken care of in the ‘after’ of verse 23. This is subsequent, and covers the rest of humanity, and more than that, all the demonic powers of hell. ALL, whatever existence there may be, whether physical, spiritual, or some previously unimagined combination thereof, will be subject to His rule. All were subject all along, but rebellion and insurrection remain a problem until the end. Henceforth, there shall be no rebellion, no threat of insurrection. That is not to be taken as implying all are saved. We’ve already observed that, and the Lake of Fire, which is the second death, makes it just as plain that not all who are resurrected in that final day are going to be pleased with their prospects. Yes, they will find they have a destiny, and one assigned by Go’s choice. That, I suspect, will do little to ameliorate the infinite agony of their punishment.
Before I move on, let me simply observe that the inclusion of death and its abolition in this part of the argument is the key point we need to consider. Remember: We are discussion the necessity of a real, physical resurrection, that thing which the Greek philosophers found too absurd to consider. Paul is demonstrating that at least for those who have come to faith in the God revealed in Scripture, it is not absurd, it is necessary. If death is punishment for sin, then those who have been redeemed from sin’s grip must be redeemed from death. Here, we have moved a step further. If death is so thoroughly vanquished as to satisfy the Scriptural promise that all things are put under His feet, then death must be left not so much as one victim. It must be vanquished not only for all future days, but also for all past days. This was the stumbling point for Barnes in considering verse 22. This is the necessary thing to understand as we sort out verse 24. Eventually, ‘all’ must encompass all humanity, or that promise of Scripture remains unfulfilled. This is the entire reason for Paul bringing up that fulfillment. Death is abolished in Christ. Death must be abolished entirely in man. All things must be put in subjection to Him, because God has said it, and His Word does not fail to achieve all His purpose.
But, answering one problem, it seems, Paul has introduced another. I’m somewhat surprised that Paul doesn’t take pains to clarify on this occasion, but he does not. It is, I suppose, left as an exercise for the student. Here’s the problem. The argument proceeds to indicate that Christ turns over His kingdom to the Father, or, as the NASB is careful to leave it, “the God and Father”. But, Scripture is abundantly clear concerning Christ, that “of His kingdom there shall be no end.” How are we to reconcile this? If Christ turns over the kingdom, does His reign not end with that turning over? And if it doesn’t, then what exactly is the point here?
These questions make it necessary for us to consider first, just what kingdom is in view, and also, whether perhaps there are multiple kingdoms that need to be taken into account. The standard resolution of this seeming conundrum apparently hinges on the idea of a mediatorial kingdom, a kingdom which does not – at least not as yet – experience God as the direct and immediate ruler of all things. That is not to say He does not in fact reign over all things, but in this present age, it remains hidden from most, albeit by their own choice, that this is so. It is mediatorial in that in order for mankind to survive the reality of God’s reign, it is necessary to impose a Mediator between God and man. As the Scriptures make clear, for sinful man to see holy God is for sinful man to die. And so, though we pray to the Father, as we were taught by Jesus, yet we pray in His name, through His mediation, and we trust the Holy Spirit, sent of the Son, to correct any misstatement in our prayers, any untoward word, any failure to honor God as we ought in our prayers to Him. We need mediation, and in Christ, we have our Mediator.
It is, then, a mediatorial kingdom over which Christ reigns. The image set before us is of the day when the need for mediation comes to an end. We have known all along, at some level, that there is this other kingdom, one which has not needed mediation, but which is already in the immediate presence of God. We speak of angels, and they are of this kingdom. We consider the scenes of heaven which come to us from the book of the Revelation, and we recognize that we are peering into this kingdom. It is not like ours. God is very much present, and His subjects are very much aware of it. Nothing is imposed between King and subjects, and so we find the cherubim wrapping wings across their eyes, wings across their feet, lest they offend and be destroyed by the perfect holiness of Him Who is enthroned on high. For them, God is already ‘all in all’, as Paul describes it. For God, certainly, He is already and ever has been ‘all in all’.
What we see transpiring in this description Paul provides us is, we might say, the merging of the kingdoms. The mediated kingdom over which Christ has been made ruler is brought together with what I see termed the kingdom of glory, that kingdom which knows God’s immediate presence as their normal experience. Has the kingdom ended? It cannot be, for that kingdom shall continue forever according to the word of God Who lives forever. But, the administration of that kingdom has certainly changed. It is no longer through the mediation of an additional layer of bureaucracy. Though I shudder to even suggest thinking of Christ in such terms, it remains perhaps the nearest image we can borrow from our experience to explain the situation. Think of Pilate, set as governor over that region of the Middle East, or even of Herod, who was styled a king. So far as daily local governance was concerned, this was the authority with which one had to deal. If you wished to have words with your ruler, it would be to these men that you went to speak. Yet, they were in reality in a mediatorial position. Their authority was a delegated authority, as Jesus rather pointedly reminded Pilate at His trial. In earthly terms, their authority derived from Caesar, and could be stripped from them as readily as it had been given. Of course, Jesus points beyond Caesar and observes that even his authority was in fact delegated. There remained and ever does remain One absolute Authority from whom all other, lesser authorities derive such authority as they exercise.
Jesus is far more, to be sure, than a governor over some far outpost of the realm, although there are great similarities to the experience, I should think. It would not be hard to imagine a denizen of the courts of heaven coming to this fallen land and wondering that God even has interest in it, let alone tolerates its rebellion. It would be easy to understand should the Supreme Being decide He’d had enough of us and brought about our entire abolition. Why should He not? But, He didn’t. He sent a King, a Mediator, a Man given authority to redeem whom He would, to reign over this unruly populace in the full authority of God. And yet, it is a mediatorial role. It is appointed, delegated.
Jesus is appointed by God not only to rule this kingdom and bring it into line, but with a purpose. He has been given the mission of fashioning a people fit for heaven from out of the populace He rules. That is the work of redemption, and of sanctification. God has appointed from all eternity who from among that populace would be brought into such suitable condition, and Christ, from all eternity, is appointed as the One to prepare them. So, then, we come to the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father. At minimum, the mediatorial kingdom is merged with the eternal kingdom of glory at that time.
Yet, we do have the subjugation of all enemies, and it is quite clear that this does not mean to inform us that all His enemies are thus made His friends, such that they, too, enter this eternal kingdom. No. “A highway will be there, a roadway, and it will be called the Highway of Holiness. The unclean will not travel on it, but it will be for him who walks that way, and fools will not wander on it. No lion will be there, nor any vicious beast; they will not be found there. But the redeemed will walk there, the ransomed of the Lord will return and come with joyful shouting to Zion, with everlasting joy upon their heads. They will find gladness and joy, and sorrow and sighing will flee away” (Isa 35:8-10). That is not a vision which includes the reprobate or the demons of hell. For them, there is a different vision: That of the Lake of Fire which is the second death reserved for them from all eternity. Either way, though, all – in its widest extent – shall find themselves undeniably subject to the rule of God
The thing is, what has transpired is not a change of kingdoms, but rather of administration over that kingdom. It’s not that far different from the shift God made from the Old Mosaic Covenant to the New Covenant in the blood of Christ. This was not an overturning of one kingdom or system in favor of another. It was a recognition that the former administration had served its purpose and a new administration, suited to the new age, had come. This transpires again at the end of that administration, when the need for mediation has been removed.
Our commentators expend a great deal of ink on this point. When the need for mediation has come to an end, it is only reasonable that the office of the Mediator likewise comes to an end. Unlike earthly governments, the office does not become a self-preserving entity whose chief aim is its own continuance. There comes a point of, “Mission Accomplished,” and that mission being accomplished, the officer who had charge of the mission relinquishes his commission. He is no less an officer, and may very well go on to other assignments, but as concerns this mission? No. It’s over, and the office no longer serves a purpose.
Again, it is but a meager analogy for heaven, but it’s the nearest equivalent we’re going to find from our own experience. The kingdoms are merged, and are now under one King. Has Jesus ceased to rule? How can it be? He is God. He and the Father are One, together with the Spirit. There is no separation, no greater and lesser to be had here. Thus, when we read that God will be all in all, I think we can conclude, as Clarke does, that there shall be then no distinction remaining amongst the persons of the Trinity, for Christ shall have resumed His divine authority, as the Triune Godhead rules directly and no longer through mediation. For, as the JFB observes, in this end to which Paul points, Christ has removed every cause of separation for those who are His own. As to those who are not, they shall be eternally separated.
This may raise yet more issues for us. For, we still have the Son subjected to the God and Father, and it’s hard to sort how this can be if they are equal. For all that, if God is eternal and does not change, how can the Son’s role alter? Is that not change? It is hard enough, I think, to sort out how He could become a man and that not count as change. Is it not change to add humanity to divinity? And so, we must accept that humanity wasn’t added per se. It gets us deep into the mystery of the God-man, but it is into that mystery that we must delve.
Where we cannot arrive is God subjected to Himself. Where we cannot arrive is God made any less or any more than He has always been. Where we cannot arrive is God in Three Persons being other than One. But, as concerns Jesus, we have this second set of requirements. He cannot be more or less than wholly God of wholly God. Neither can He be more or less than a true human being. His birth had to be a real birth into a real life lived as a real man and terminated in an all too real death. Anything less would not do. Anything less, and there would have been no resurrection to stand as surety for our own. There would be no redemption of sin, no hope of glory, nothing but a nihilistic present to survive as best we may, knowing that eternal hell awaits at the end of our days.
It is in this set of difficulties that we must find our answer as to how He is subjected to the God and Father, and what that means. And that shall be our subject in the next portion of this study.
Who’s In Charge, and of What? (12/06/18)
As concerns the redemption of mankind, it is inherently necessary that the Redeemer be a man. The federal head must be of the same nature as those he represents, just as the first fruits offering is of the same nature as the harvest it represents. In the case of redemption and victory over death, this is true all the more. Death came as penalty for sin, a just imposition upon the unjust individual. The death of God would not accomplish this, were such a thing even possible, for God is not of the same nature as man. It might remove the Judge, I suppose, but it could not remove the penalty. The death of a sinful man could not redeem anybody, because it is the just sentence upon his sin.
It required a man, and a man in whom no sin was to be found. In Adam, this had become impossible, for each of his descendants bore the guilt of sin from conception. There could be no innocent lamb offered as guilt offering on our behalf from amongst our kind. Yet, it needed a man. So, God intervened in the natural course of things, and caused Himself to be born into humankind. Now, in doing so, He could not cease to be God, for that would constitute change, and God is unchanging. Yet, as we read, He set aside the prerogatives of the godhead to live in His humanity. Does this mean that He no longer operated in the power that was inherently His? Yes and no, I think. Clearly, in the miracles that He performed, and given their purpose of demonstrating His being God, those powers continued to require God in Him. At the same time, particularly given the letter we are in, we would have to raise the question of how it is the Apostles performed miraculous signs, and we would point to the Spirit indwelling, the power of God continuing to be the power for miracles. But, then we must expand it as well to encompass those in the church of Corinth who were likewise performing miracles – except where it be discovered that these were counterfeits. What we can safely conclude is that they were not achieved, if supernatural acts they be, by the power of mere mortal man. The same must hold for Jesus as Man. The miracles He performed were not the product of His humanity, but of His divinity.
The thing is, for Jesus to serve as the Atonement for our sins, it was needful that He be one of us. For His Atoning sacrifice to have any impact on our situation, it needed an eternal sacrifice to fitly satisfy the penalties due for sins against an eternal being. It required that Jesus as God. Now, we contemplate these things and we must at some point arrive at a point where understanding fails us. In general, I think contemplation of the God-Man brings us swiftly to that point. How Jesus could die an eternal sacrifice and yet God not die is a conundrum that exceeds my capacity to unravel. How Jesus could take humanity upon Himself, and this not constitute change I again struggle to comprehend. Yet, I know it must be so.
I think perhaps our best shot at this likes in considering the office of Mediator. Christ, in taking up the office appointed Him, did not change. I was once not an elder and now I am. In time, I shall be in office no more. But, these changes in office are not changes in me, only in assignment. We think of Christ as Mediator and for us it seems an eternal thing because we have only ever known ourselves in need of His mediation. And God forgive us should we ever become so foolish as to think we’ve outgrown the need! But, this consideration fails to take in the nature of the heavenly kingdom. When we have become what we shall be, the need for the Mediator imposed between us and God shall be done away. We shall see Him as He is.
Think about that. He is and ever has been Who He is. Yet, if our experience of Him had been of Christ as He is in His divine essence, we should be just as thoroughly destroyed by it as ever was the case. We are not holy. He is perfectly holy, and cannot and will not tolerate even the least trace of sin in His presence. What do you suppose is going on with the ritual elimination of leaven in the Passover feast preparations? It is the necessary eradication of every last trace of sin in preparation for an audience with God Who reigns in the Holy of Holies. Man cannot do this. The most earnest efforts of the most devout Christian cannot do this. The best we can do, and even that I think is clearly proven to be beyond us, is to go and sin no more. We cannot do anything to address past sins, for those crimes are already committed, and the penalty remains unpaid. Until Christ…
Christ, the Atonement, comes into this life. He lives as a man amongst men. He undergoes all the trials and temptations that are common to man, and many more that are unique to Him, I should think. There is not a test He does not face. There is not a test He does not pass. He alone amongst all humanity since Adam (who was made, not born) is born sinless, giving Him the unique opportunity to live a sinless life. To be sure, as He remained God throughout His incarnate existence, He still had access to divine power, but I have to think that that emptying of Himself of which Paul writes includes laying that power upon a mediator in His own right. Had He simply made direct use of His divinity to achieve His sinlessness, I’m not sure it could count for our redemption. But, availing Himself of much prayer and experiencing the indwelling comfort and assistance of the Spirit in another example of first-fruits, He did what we could not, and what we yet cannot except to the degree the Spirit within gives us aid.
He lives perfectly, as a Man. He is put to death in spite of His sinless existence. He is the Atonement, fulfilling at once the role of Paschal Lamb and that of the scapegoat. He is the Mercy Seat; His own blood poured out that we might be accepted. And because of His perfect work, we are accepted. Yet, we are not as yet perfected. We continue to need Christ the Mediator. We continue to need His humanity every bit as much as His divinity. In point of fact, we need a Jesus who is in some wise inferior to God. In His godhead, this cannot be, for He is of one and the same essence with the Father. There is no qualitative superiority or inferiority amongst the Persons of the Trinity. There cannot be, for God is One.
But, Christ the Mediator, Christ in His human nature, is another story. He, as Clarke concludes, “must ever be considered inferior to the Father: And his human nature, however dignified in consequence of its union with the divine nature, must ever be inferior to God.” This is necessary from the simple fact that human nature is of necessity less than divine. It is also necessary for the office. This I have labored to show. We need Jesus in this less than divine position, because for us to come to a Mediator that was fully divine would be no different than coming to the Father directly, which is to say certain annihilation. So long as sin remains in us, we need the God-Man to continue in His Mediatorial office, to continue to face us with His humanity and face Father with His divinity.
Human nature, as echoed by Matthew Henry, “must be employed in the work of our redemption.” I would observe, though, that this work, while accomplished, is ongoing in us. Redemption is established fact in the redeemed, yet the work of redemption is a lifelong work which we usually describe as the process of sanctification. Here, I think we must find Mr. Henry contemplating the whole as collapsed down to a point. He concludes, “Yet God was all in all in it. It was the Lord’s doing and should be marvelous in our eyes.” Indeed it should! It should ever be a wonder to us that God has chosen to be bothered with us at all. “Who am I, O God, that You take notice of me?” Look to yourself and you can never find the least basis for His decision. But, Truth remains unchanged. “I will show mercy upon whom I will show mercy.” There is the sole reason: God.
This recognition of Christ in His human nature must apply to the Mediatorial office. I hope we can see that it must also apply to the whole point and purpose of His Incarnation. This has to color how we see His actions as He ministered. But, we must also recognize that He remained and must ever remain fully God, even though this remained so thoroughly cloaked from view as He walked among men. With that in mind, we must recognize that His performing of miracles does not set some standard of expectation for those who follow Him. There may be miracles, there may not be. But, those miracles He performed were not done to teach us what we, too, could do if only we would live right. They were done to make a point. They were done to make it inescapably clear that however cloaked the full reality remained in Him, here was God live and in person.
Consider the testimony that Nicodemus gives regarding Jesus. “Nobody could do what You do unless God was with him” (Jn 3:2). That much, we might suggest, would hold as true for any man or woman among the elect. They too have God with them, indwelling them in the Person of the Holy Spirit. Yet, I would maintain that such miracles as the Apostles performed, or any who have followed since, are qualitatively different than those Jesus performed. They have to be. His miracles were fulfillments of prophecy, pointers not merely to divine interference in the course of events, but God Himself standing before His people, in real, physical manifestation. Every one of those miracles was a shout. “See Who I AM.” This could not apply to the Apostles. Nobody needed to see who they were. Seeing who they were would achieve nothing. But, we had great need to see Who they were pointing us to. For them, the miracles were ever and always, “See Who He IS.” Never were they allowed to become, “Look at me!” Never. The “Look at me” miracle, is ever and always a counterfeit act, a deception designed to turn our eyes away from Jesus, who alone is Mediator between us and our Father.
Now, as we look at Christ our Mediator, we see Him wielding a delegated authority – again, in His humanity. But, there are two things we must observe about this. First, in setting the Son in this mediatorial office, the Father has not in any fashion relinquished His principal right to rule. The President, to take the nearest earthly example, does not relinquish his right to command the army because he has appointed this general or that to take charge of a particular engagement. Should he find it needful to overrule the general, that right remains with him. So, with the Godhead, though Jesus has been granted all authority in heaven and on earth in this mediatorial office, yet the case remains that the principal authority remains with God Almighty.
I am treading as carefully as I know how now because this gets so tricky. But, Jesus, although exposing His humanity in this office, remains fully God of fully God. When we see principal authority remaining with God Almighty, we see the full Trinity in charge. Thus, when Jesus submits Himself as Son to the Father, what we are primarily seeing is a termination of the mediatorial office on the basis that the campaign for which that office was established has been completed. But, as Calvin observes, even in this submission, the rightful dominion remains in Christ’s hands. Just as the Father never relinquished His principal right to rule in establishing that office in Christ, so Christ does not relinquish His principal right to rule in handing the completed work back to the Father. He is, in essence, handing it to Himself, for He and the Father are One.
What we see in Paul’s conclusion is not a transfer of power from Son to Father. It is, to borrow Calvin’s wording, a transfer of reign from His humanity to His divinity. What becomes of the humanity of Christ as of that transfer? I would not venture a guess. But, the office of Mediator, being completed, is done. The mediatorial kingdom is fully ingrafted into the heavenly kingdom as we who are the citizens of that mediatorial kingdom are finally made what we shall be, enabled to see Him as He ever Is.
Timing (12/07/18)
Very briefly, the JFB offers up the thought that the coming of Christ, spoken of in verse 23 is not some singular point in time, but rather a period of time. They demark that as beginning with the resurrection of the just (or the elect, to use the more familiar phrase), and ending at the judgment. While I take the point, I find it to be one for which I rather wish they’d offered more scriptural evidence. Even granting that there is a period of some duration, whether it be minutes or eons, between those two events, it seems to me His coming is spoken of, even a relatively few verses from now, as happening ‘in the twinkling of an eye’ (1Co 15:52). But, let us allow the point to stand, that the reference here is not to that specific moment of His appearance, but to the whole scope of the events which follow upon His appearance.
Here it is helpful for us also to recall that God’s view of time is radically different from our own, given that He has His being outside of time. Can I say whether or not one has a sense of time passing in eternity? No, I can’t, not having been there. But, I can say that God knows the end from the beginning (Isa 46:10), and even from before the beginning. “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you” (Jer 1:5a). His word being certain to accomplish all He purposes, we often find that, “What God has said is as it were already done, so sure is it,” as the JFB writes. So it is with this victory over death. That victory was always assured, for God had determined this victory from before the dawn of creation, but it was made the more certain on the cross and more certain still with the Resurrection. Is death a defeated foe in our day? Clearly not, for we still have our funerals to attend, and loved ones departed. But, the final victory, though yet to come in our view of time, is as certain as if it had already been accomplished. Why? Because God has already said it.
This same assurance, I observe, must surely apply to our salvation, and with the same caveats. We are saved, yet we know ourselves too prone to sin, ‘prone to wander’. We remain sheep in need of our Shepherd, and ever shall so long as life this side of heaven persists. Yet, He has already said it. “It is finished!” It is certain. It has already come to pass, although we await the full manifestation of that fact. The two things are just as certain. I think this, too, plays into Paul’s argument here. You can see it in what has been pointed out previously, that a rejection of general resurrection is of necessity a rejection of salvation.
Here is one further aspect of how this view of time ought to color our view of the present. Again, I pull a quote from the JFB. “The Unity of the Godhead and the unity of the Church shall be simultaneously manifested at Christ’s second coming.” This, too, is clearly a case of ‘the now and the not yet’. The High Priestly prayer of Christ gives evidence of the certainty of the outcome. “That they may be one even as We are,” (Jn 17:11), “even as Though, Father are in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us […] that they may be one, just as We are” (Jn 17:21-22). Do you note the trifold repetition of the point? It is emphatic. It is certain. This will be the end result. Yet, it is painfully clear in macrocosm and microcosm that the Church in the present tense is anything but unified. We have our myriad denominations and offshoots. We have our divisions over secondary matters of all sorts. We have heated, even angry debates over matters great and small. We cannot even agree on Truth. And yet, this stands as a certainty: We are one, and there will come that day in heaven when we actually manifest that reality.
It is comforting in the extreme to read that as the JFB has presented it, for we recognize that the Godhead is in much the same boat from our perspective. Let me be careful to observe that in no way is the Godhead divided and bickering amongst His Persons. No, there is ever and always perfect accord amongst them as there surely must be in One God. The work of God is accomplished in Unity, yet from our perspective, we are more likely to see the distinctions. Christ sits in the Mediatorial office, and not Father or Spirit. Spirit indwells and tutors us, not Father or Christ. Father remains somewhat remote and unapproachable in His holiness, but we feel no such constraint in approaching Son or Spirit. We even discover a certain degree of competition amongst us as to which is to be more honored, which more earnestly pursued. Thus, we have those who exalt the Spirit almost to the point of displacing Christ; we have those who become all about the Father to the neglect of Son and Spirit; and we have those who insist there is only Jesus, and Father and Spirit are – well, I don’t know what they do to erase those two, make them references to the Son, I suppose. Yet, Father, Son, and Spirit are One. They suffer no such competition or vying for glory. They are in perfect harmony as they pursue their shared, covenanted purpose in this work of redemption.
This, I think, is perhaps the most glorious point of Paul’s picture. “That God may be all in all.” This is not a sudden jump into universalism. It is a recognition of that point when God and Church alike are manifested in the unity that has been theirs all along. No longer do we see any distinction between the Persons. We see God in His fullness. No longer do we see the Church in her myriad denominations. We see the Church glorified. No longer do we see Christians in their divided, simultaneously saint and sinner state. We see the work of sanctification completed in each and every individual among the elect, and the Bride presented without spot or wrinkle. O, glorious day!
The Mediatorial Kingdom (12/07/18-12/08/18)
What comes about in that day? We are seeing it partially unfolded for us here. God alone shall have dominion. Yes, all earthly authorities are come to an end. The great powers of the world as we know it, or as we shall know it then, shall cease to be. The demonic forces that have held sway shall be cast into the eternal punishment reserved for them. The great body of sinful mankind, unrepentant to the end, shall join them, no more to tempt and mislead the elect. But, it doesn’t stop there. It’s not just the opposing authorities and powers that are brought into subjection, but the righteous as well. Angelic principalities, while we might argue that they have ever and always been in subjection to God, will yet cease, and on the same basis as the Mediatorial office: There is no longer a need for such services. God will be all in all, the only Authority, not merely the chief Authority.
As Calvin points out, this also necessitates that whatever ministry hierarchies may pertain in the Church will also cease. Here, too, though we may suggest that the Church as a concept at least continues, yet there is no longer a need for pastor/shepherds, for elders, for teachers. For the Church has One Who is her Shepherd, her Teacher, and He is ever with her. Nor does anything remain to distract her attention from His direction.
Over and over again, we return to this image of the Mediatorial Kingdom of Christ. As with Trinity and a number of other sound Christian doctrines, this is not a phrase you’re going to be able to find in Scripture. Indeed, it is such an unusual phrase that spell-check doesn’t like it at all. But, it describes the situation. We have the God-man as Mediator, with a kingdom committed to Him over which to rule and mediate. “Of those whom Thou hast given Me, I lost not a one” (Jn 18:9). All that He has, He has because the Father has given them into His hands. The God-man reigns over His kingdom, and that kingdom expands age to age, although to our eyes it may seem quite the contrary.
We might turn back to Romans 8 to see that office most clearly. “Who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us” (Ro 8:34). There He is, our Mediator. It is this kingdom, Christ in this office, which is in view throughout this section. Indeed, as Mr. Henry points out, the whole argument turns on the continuance of that kingdom. But, comes the day when He turns that kingdom over to the God and Father, such that we may – indeed we will – ‘cleave wholly to God’, as Calvin writes. The need for mediation removed, the office is retired. The Church is finally freed of all idolatry, all superstition, all heresy, and God shall reign forever over the inhabitants of heaven.
Here, we abide in what Clarke describes as, “The mediatorial kingdom, which comprehends all the displays of His grace in saving sinners, and all His spiritual influence in governing the church.” What is in view, as he notes, is the end of the ‘present system of the world’, which, while it certainly contains all earthly governments in its scope, also encompasses that present order of the mediatorial kingdom. Now, we abide in the period of His working. He is ever exercising His grace, not only in saving sinners but in upholding the Church. Whatever our governing structures in the Church, He reigns supreme, as He has since He ascended. He is made head of all things to the Church, and its Protector against all enemies. This is another function of that mediatorial office He holds, in that as head and Protector of the Church, He acts not as God, but as Mediator.
This is a point Mr. Henry brings forward. It may disturb at first reading, but I think it holds up. God, as God, is absolutely the sole, proper focus of our worship. Yet, in this age between Christ’s Ascension and His return, we remain in some need of subjection and direction. We remain in need of our Shepherd, our Mediator. We are not yet in any condition to stand naked and exposed before our God. So, then, He who reigns over the Church is Christ the Mediator, who reigns, “not as the offended Majesty, but as one interposing in favor of His offending creatures.”
We are pointed toward that ending, that telos, in which we find described the completion of Christ’s mediatorial reign, when all has been done, and manifest reality is finally in full harmony with potentiality. All has been done in the Atonement, but it remains, from our experience, a potentiality. We remain in that place John describes, children of God who do not yet grasp what we shall be. We only know that when He appears, we shall be like Him, seeing Him just as He is (1Jn 3:2). But, we remain in the present, even if we are no longer of the present order. We remain cognizant that this is not something we can rush, not something we can demand ahead of the proper time, insisting that we be perfected now, see Him as He is now. There remains the instructive reminder that it shall be ‘each in his own order’.
While we remain in this period of potentiality, it is well that we should remember who we are, even as we contemplate what we shall be. Hope, even so certain a hope as rests upon Christ’s, “It is finished!” is no basis for presumption. How does that play out for us? Well, for one, when we come to Him in prayer, while we come joyfully and boldly into His presence, we are in no position to come demanding. We can and should ask. We can and should expect a response. “Ask and it shall be given to you” (Mt 7:7). “All things you ask in prayer, believing, you shall receive” (Mt 21:22). “Truly, truly, I say to you, if you shall ask the Father for anything, He will give it to you in My name” (Jn 16:23). But, still, I must caution us, this is no permit to come in self-seeking, self-serving prayer. This is no grant to pray that life be convenient, and the weather fine, wherever you may roam, and whatever you may be doing. To demand of God is presumptuous, and to come presumptuously before one in power is never a wise thing. To do so when the one in power is the Power, the Supreme Being? That is suicidal in the extreme! Even in the prayers of Jesus, the perfect Son, you do not find such presumption. Come with requests, and with thanksgiving. But, if you think to make demands upon the God of heaven, come expecting nothing from Him. You have exceeded your authority, and no longer ask in Christ’s name. The Mediator yet acts, and protects you from the full wrath such presumption deserves, but far better we ask as those aware of who we are, who the Father is, and our continuing need for Christ to stand between us, speaking on our behalf.
This reflects the nature of God’s kingdom, insomuch as we see in His governance a clear and consistent model. At every level, we discover that those who lead do so by serving. Christ leads His Church by serving her, protecting her, and as often as not, covering for her while she works out her errors. She will be presented without spot or wrinkle, but that is yet future. In the present, spots and wrinkles abound, and it takes our Lord to keep us presentable in God’s sight. Within the Church, the proper order remains the same. Those who are set in leadership are not granted to act as petty tyrants, or even benevolent overlords. They are called to lead by serving, even as Christ came not to rule with an iron hand, but to serve. It’s not about gaining titles and respect. It’s about serving those entrusted to our leadership. That same mindset is to run through the people of God from top to bottom. It is there in the admonition to consider others as more important than yourself. The church is no place for, “My way or the highway.” The church is not about our preferences. It should, when functioning rightly, shape and inform our preferences, but never will it bring us to the point of standing before God, demanding that He honor our requests. There is a vast gulf set between such demanding, and the expectant, believing prayer of one who has set himself to pray in accord with the Christ he serves.
So, then, while we look to that day when the mediatorial kingdom is joined once for all with the kingdom of glory, we remain busy in such duties as our Lord commands us. We do so joyfully, as best we may, thought oft times we must acknowledge that sorrow accompanies obedience. We experience tribulations in this life, for we remain in a world that refuses Christ and as such, must refuse those who belong to Christ. It is that present tension which we see brought to an end in this passage. The period of mediated existence is over, and the Son has retired from that office.
Yet, He reigns. Yet, He remains one with the Father. But, now, at the culmination, He is found fully in His divine nature. He has not so much relinquished His Lordship in resigning that office as taken up once more that share of governance which was His before the incarnation. In fairness, we must stress that this divine governance never ceased. God does not change. Yet, for a season, a long, long season as we perceive it, He set aside that prerogative to serve out His term in the office of Mediator until that work be complete. Now, He takes up once more the full prerogatives of holy reign, bringing in His train what Barnes points to as the added glory of having redeemed the world. And of His reign, there shall be no end.
If it be asked why the Church celebrates Christmas as one of its most holy days, here is your answer. Unto us, a Child is born, a son is given, and the government will rest on His shoulders. His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this (Isa 9:6-7). Are we called to honor His birth? Insomuch as it has been pointed to since Adam was expelled from the Garden, I think we can say yes. Here is the day in which God fulfilled His ancient promise. Is it right to celebrate? Is it right not to do so? He saw to it that the day of His Son’s birth was marked with great fanfare, and you find cause to wonder if you should celebrate it as well? It boggles the mind.
But, there is the reason, and there alone. Unto us is born a Savior, and of His reign, there shall be no end. This One, this King of kings, has called you, chosen you to be drawn out of darkness and into His light. He has made you, who were ‘not My people’, to be, ‘My people’. In His resurrection that work is seen completed. But, His resurrection required His birth. His birth was marked by celebration in heaven. Fear not to celebrate it here below. Rejoice in your Lord, Who came and dwelt among you. For, He will return and bring you home to be with Him where He IS.
