under Him, that God may be all in all.

Now precisely in consequence of the singularity of this revelation, and especially in consequence of its mysterious nature-the mystery of the relation which subsists between the Father and the Son, and the subordination of the Son to the Father-great caution must be exercised in its exposition. We cannot here compare the statements which it contains, or at least we can only inferentially support them with other declarations of Scripture. When we consider the nature of God-His unfathomable essence, His unity combined with His triune existence-we feel that we are standing on holy ground, that we have penetrated into the innermost shrine of the Divinity. Here, if anywhere, we must confess our ignorance, and proceed with faltering steps. Truly this passage is one of those things in the Epistle of Paul concerning which Peter says, "Wherein are some things hard to be understood, which the ignorant and unsteadfast wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction."

There is no important diversity in the readings of the different manuscripts, so that we have here the very words which the apostle wrote; nor is there much difficulty in the translation, as is evident from a comparison of the authorized and revised versions; but the exegesis of the passage is difficult, and requires attention.

Then cometh the end (eira Tò TÉλOC). Different meanings have been attached to the term 'end." Meyer supposes that by it is meant the end of the resurrection, when the wicked shall be raised; others understand by it the end of the world; and others think that the word is to be taken generally-the final consummation, the conclusion of the whole mediatorial dispensation, when all the elect shall be saved and all the enemies of Christ's kingdom subdued. We are, however, inclined to adopt Hofmann's interpretation. It is to be observed that there is no equivalent in

the original for the word "cometh ;" it has to be supplied for the sake of the sense. Hofmann accordingly takes rÒ TÈλoç adverbially, in the sense of "finally;" and reads the whole passage thus: "Then, finally, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule, and authority, and power (for He must reign till He hath put all His enemies under His feet) shall death, the last enemy, be destroyed." This translation is admirable in a linguistic point of view (comp. 1 Peter iii. 8), suits the connection, and saves the insertion of a word.

When He, namely Christ, shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father. Here also there is a great variety of opinions. Augustine supposes that it alludes to the presentation of the Church of the redeemed before God the Father; and Bengel that the reign of grace ceases and the reign of glory commences. The evident meaning is that Christ shall surrender to God the kingdom which was conferred upon Him for a special purpose, when that purpose shall have been accomplished. Its analogy of a victorious general who, having conquered his enemies, resigns his command to his sovereign, may help us to understand it. Lias finds an illustration in Titus' returning from the capture of Jerusalem, and laying the spires of the holy city at the feet of his father, Vespasian. When He shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power. A similar list is given in the Epistle to the Ephesians: 'When He raised Christ from the dead, and set Him at His own right hand, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named." Some understand by this all powers hostile or opposed to Christ's kingdom, not only wicked men, but evil spirits. Others understand that all authority whatsoever, whether good or bad, shall be brought to an end. Thus Calvin says: "Hence, as the world will have an end, so also will all government, and magis

There

tracy, and laws, and distinction of ranks, and different orders of dignities, and everything of that nature. will be no more any distinction between servant and master, between king and peasant, between magistrate and private citizen. Nay, more, there will be then an end put to angelic principalities in heaven, and to ministries and superiorities in the Church, that God may exercise His power and dominion by Himself alone, and not by the hands of men or angels."

For He must reign (δεῖ γὰρ αὐτὸν Bartkeverv). There is a necessity in the continuance of Christ's reign until the final victory is secured, both in accordance with God's government and in conformity with the nature of the case. Christ's kingdom cannot be defeated till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The words are taken from Psalm cx.: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool;" a Messianic Psalm applied by Christ to Himself, as being at once David's Son and David's Lord (Matt. xxii. 42-44); and by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews to Christ (Heb. x. 12, 13). In the Psalm it is God the Father who puts all things under the Son; but here the subject to the verb is Christ: "Till He Himself hath put all enemies under His feet."

The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. This rendering does not give the full force of the statement; for it might be said that although death should be the last enemy who would be destroyed, yet there might be other enemies still remaining. The original is much more forcible, and implies that after the destruction of death there is no longer any enemy to be destroyed. Hence we should read, "Death, the last enemy, shall be destroyed;" then the victory is complete. Death shall be destroyed when the bodies of believers shall be raised from their graves and invested with immortality; when what was sown in corruption shall be raised

in incorruption. Death and Hades shall both be cast into the lake of fire.

For He hath put all things under His feet. The reference here is to Psalm viii. 6. The words primarily apply to the dominion of man over creation; but the apostle here refers them to Christ, the ideal or representative man. A similar personal application of them is made by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. ii. 6-8). Here the subject of the verb is God, as is obvious from the words of the psalm, and from what follows. But when He saiththat is, when God in His holy Word saith, All things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under Him." God gives to the Son the government of all things, but evidently in subordination to Himself.

66

And when all things shall be subdued unto Him-when His final subjection of all His enemies shall be effected, then shall the Son also Himself be subject to Him that put all things under Ilim. In this the great difficulty of the pas sage consists. What is meant by the subjection of the Son to the Father? How and in what respects is the Son subordinate to the Father? This is a great mystery-one of those secrct things which belong to God. Reserving the further explanation of the passage, we would advert to the different interpretation which has been given to it. Some suppose that it is the ex pression of the entire harmony of Christ with the Father (Chrysostom); others refer it to the subjection of Christ in His human nature to God; that while according to His Divine nature He is the equal with the Father, according to His human nature He is subordinate (Augustine); others that Christ will transfer the kingdom from His humanity to His glorious divinity (Calvin); and others interpret the words " then the Son also Himself" as referring to His mystical body, the Church (Theodoret). The only passage of Scripture which seems to bear on the subject is the state

ment of Paul in the Epistle to the Philippians, where it is said that Christ, "being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself" (Phil. ii. 6), that God may be all in all; the ultimate purpose of His subjection, that God may be recognized as the supreme Lord and King. The expression denotes absolute sovereignty.

An Exegetical Study of 1 Peter iii. 18-22. BY D. F. BONNER, D.D., FLORIDA, N. Y.

(Concluded from page 559.)

AND now the question is, Was this their condition when Christ's spirit preached to them? The current answer to this question is an affirmative one. Is that answer the true one?

It

In attempting to determine the point, let us remember the third principle of interpretation with which we started. In accordance with it, the right answer must unfold the apostle's argument and manifest its conclusiveness. The point the apostle is seeking to establish, is that the sufferings of Christ's flesh intensified the power of His spirit. can only be established by comparison. If this preaching by Christ's spirit to the spirits in prison was to the disembodied spirits of those who perished in the flood, it must have been preceded by a preaching to these spirits in their embodied condition in the days of Noah. That there was such preaching may be accepted as a historic fact. In Gen. vi. 3 we are told that God said: "My spirit shall not always strive with man." This implies that God's spirit had been striving with man and striving ineffectually. This being the historic fact, it is certainly legitimate to claim that this striving included the preaching of Christ s spirit to the spirits of the antediluvians. This answer, then, meets the first requirement of the apostle's argument. It supplies a first preaching by Christ's spirit to the ante.

diluvians with which a subsequent preaching can be contrasted.

Was there a subsequent preaching? If so, when did it occur, and what were its results ? The current interpretation answers the first of these questions also affirmatively, and holds that this second preaching was that described in our passage, and that it occurred in the interval between Christ's crucifixion and His resurrection. Does this meet the requirements of the apostle's argument? It must be remembered that he is seeking to prove that the sufferings of Christ quickened the spirit of Christ. If so, the second preaching must be more effective than the first. In the first instance the mass of the antediluvians were disobedient to the gracious message addressed to them. What evidence does our passage furnish that the preaching to these disembodied and imprisoned spirits by Christ's disembodied spirit was more effectual? It is not necessary to resort to a critical examination of the passage to secure an answer, for the reason that the advocates of this view themselves frankly admit that it furnishes none. "What was the intent of that preaching and what its effect is not here revealed; the fact merely is stated." (Alford, Greek Testament, in loco.) So also Archdeacon Farrar: "Of the effect of the preaching nothing is said." (“Early Christianity," p. 93.)

This interpretation, then, fails to make clear and conclusive the argument of the apostle, and hence, for that reason alone, if there were no other, is to be rejected.

But besides this, the interpretation is liable to another objection. It presents a doctrine not elsewhere found in the writings of Peter. More than this. It teaches a doctrine which seems to be excluded by other plain teachings of the apostle. In his second epistle the apostle refers again to the destruction of the antediluvian world. He does so in connection with two other signal illustrations of the power and justice of God. One of these is the punishment

of the fallen angels and the other the destruction of the cities of the plain. In two of these three cases there was signal illustration of God's grace, as well as of His justice; and hence to both features of His Providence attention is called in the general conclusion drawn from a consideration of the whole series of providences. That conclusion is thus expressed : The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished" (2 Peter ii. 9). The Revision renders better: "And to keep the unrighteous under punishment unto the day of judgment." The words "under punishment'' are the translation of the present passive participle of the verb "to punish." It means literally "being punished." The thought seems to be that as God's punishment overtook these objects of His wrath, His power grasped them and holds and will hold them in unchanged condition till the day of judgment. This is evidently the idea in the expression, "in prison." The spirits of these antediluvian sinners remain fixed in the condition in which they were when God's justice overtook them and destroyed their bodies. They are in prison-that is, in the custody, primitive safe-keeping of Divine justice. And there they are to remain until the day of judgment. This being the case, there is no room in the theology of Peter for a gracious visit to the spirits of the antediluvians on the part of Christ and an offer to them of salvation. An interpretation, then, which thus explains this passage is to be rejected for the two reasons: 1. That it fails to meet the requirements of the apostle's argument, and 2. That it is at variance with his theology.

An interpretation of the passage, meeting all the requirements of the case, is obtainable through identification of this preaching to the spirits with the historical striving of God's spirit with the antediluvian contemporaries of Noah. And such identification is justifiable. 1. It is a historic fact that

God's spirit strove with the antediluvians. Peter here affirms that Christ, in His unembodied spirit, preached to their spirits. It is not necessary to suppose that this striving consisted solely of this preaching. It is enough to believe that it included it, and that in his assertion about Christ's preaching Peter had reference to it.

2. God's striving with the antediluvians was ineffectual. So, on this assumption, was the preaching of Christ's spirit to their spirits. It is upon this that Peter dwells. They were disobedient. In consequence of disobedience they are in prison. The mass of the antediluvians perished. Only eight entered the ark graciously provided for them, and so were saved.

3. The historic reason for the failure of this striving was the fact that God's spirit was unembodied, while the antediluvians were embodied spirits. "My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh" (Gen. vi. 3). Pure spirit cannot successfully strive with incarnated spirit; and hence God will not always attempt it. Man has body as well as spirit, and is to be reached through the senses as well as the perceptions; hence a being must be incarnate in order to successfully influence him. It is worthy of notice that even Satan, the great tempter of mankind, succeeded in seducing our first parents and alienating them from God only by assuming a physical form, and so enforcing his suggestions to the mind of Eve by appeals to her senses.

Now all this is in closest keeping with the apostle's line of thought. He is endeavoring to justify his assertion that Christ's endurance of the extremest degree of physical suffering has resulted in His spiritual quickening. And his proof is furnished by contrast between the power of the pre-incarnate and the post-incarnate, risen, glorified Christ.

4. The historic failure indicates the line of present and current success.

words, Peter affirms that salvation today through baptism is analogous toliterally, antitypical of salvation by water through the ark in the days of Noah. It is not likely that Peter meant to say that the waters of the flood were a type of that of baptism in the modern technical sense of the term. In fact, the current theological signification of the term does not seem to be its scriptural one. The word is used but twice in the New Testament-in Heb. ix. 24 and here. In the passage in Hebrews its meaning is clear. The tabernacle to be constructed by Moses was to be a copy--antitype is the word in the original of that shown him in the mount. So here. The plan of salvation to-day is modelled after that of the days of Noah. This being the case, there is opportunity to contrast the effectiveness of the two plans, and this opportunity Peter embraces.

:

But how does he do it in such way as to prove that the sufferings of Christ quickened the spirit of Christ ? He does so 1. By declaring that the water of baptism is more graciously effective than the waters of the flood. The latter saved eight souls; the former is saving you. Peter is not exactly mathematical. The number saved in the flood is historic. He gives that. The number being saved now is known only to God; but no matter. those Christians of the That was enough to them. at least greatly more numerous than those in the ark; and yet, however numerous they were, they were being saved by baptismal water.

It includes Dispersion. They were

Left unqualified, this declaration of the apostle would inevitably be used to prove the extremest doctrine of baptismal grace; hence he explains that he has reference to real and not to ritual baptism, to the formal and sacramental response of the loyal soul to God, and not the external application of water to the body.

2. By declaring that the efficacy of baptismal water is owing to the resurrection of Christ (ver. 21). But resur

rection implies death. The sufferings of Christ, then, as leading to the resurrection of Christ, have wondrously increased the gracious power of Christ.

Nor is this all. Not only have the sufferings of Christ wondrously increased the efficacy of His present as compared with His former method of salvation-baptism now saving multitudes while the ark saved but eightthey have also secured for Him wondrously increased facilities for the accomplishment of His purposes of grace. As the risen, triumphant Redeemer, He has gone into heaven, and is now on the right hand of God, and has control of the entire host of heaven, "angels and authorities and powers being subject to him" (ver. 22).

It thus becomes evident that the pas sage under consideration does present proof of the apostle's assertion that suffering for good, when God's will wills it, is promotion of good. That proof is furnished by the contrasted results of two methods of salvation. Our race has twice been exposed to destruction. Once it was exposed to temporal destruction by a flood. Now it is exposed to eternal ruin by the punishment of sin. In both instances God has sought to avert the peril and save the race. In the case of the antediluvians He wrought simply as spirit. The effort failed. Now God works upon a different plan. Christ has become incarnate. Having become incarnate, He has suffered and died and risen again. The result is a wondrous increase of His saving power. Of this fact those to whom the apostle wrote were themselves grateful witnesses. In the light, then, of their own experience of the gracious power of their risen Saviour, the apostle urges those to whom he wrote to arm themselves with the same mind and seek, through similar patience under sufferings, a like increase of gracious power. "Forasmuch, then, as Christ hath suffered . . arm yourselves," etc. (iv. 1).

Thus interpreted, the passage becomes the logical as well as the textual nexus