is the correct view. I admit fully that the Greek preposition, here rendered ''for," is only found in three senses in the G-reek Testament,— viz. : " In the room or place of." (Matt. li. 22.) " In return for." .(Rom. xii. 17.) and '' On account of" (Acts xii. 23 ; Ephes. V. 31.) Ill composition it also signifies " opposition," but with that we have nothing to do here. In the present case I think the meaning is " grace in the place of grace, constant, fresh, abundant suppUes of new grace, to take the place of old grace, and therefore unfaihng, abundant grace, continually fill- ing up and supplying all our need."
17. — [For the law was given, Sc] This verse seems intended to show the inferiority of the law to the Gospel. It does so by putting in strong contrast the leading characteristics of the Old and New dispensations, — the religion which began with Moses, and the religion which began with Christ.
By Mose5 was given the law, — the moral law, full of high and holy demands, and of stern threatenings against disobedience ; — the ceremonial law, full of burdensome sacrifices, ordinances, and ceremonie.^, which never healed the worshipper's conscience, and at best were only shadows of good things to come.
By Christ, on the other hand, came grace and truth, — grace by the full manifestation of God's plan of salvation, and the offer of complete pardon to every soul that believes on Jesus, — and truth, by the unveiled exhibition of Christ Himself, as the true sacrifice, the true Priest, and the true atonement for sin.
Augustine, on this verse, says, " The law threatened, not helped; commanded, not healed; showed, not took away, our feebleness. But it made ready for the Physician, who was to come with grace and truth."
18.— [A^o man hath seen God, c&c] This verse seems intended to show the infinite personal superiority of Christ to Moses, or to any other saint that ever lived.
No man hath ever seen God the Father ; neither Abraham nor Moses, nor Joshua, nor David, nor Isaiah, nor Daniel. All these, however holy and good men, were still only men, and quite incapable of beholding God face to face, from very weak- ness. What they knew of God the Father, they knew only by report, or by special revelation, vouchsafed to them from time to time. They were but servants, and " The servant knoweth not what his lord doeth." (John xv. 15.)
Christ on tne other hand, is the only begotten Son, which if in the bosom of the Father. He is one who is most intimately united fiora all eternity to God the Father, and is equal to Him in all things. He, during the time of His earthly ministry here, fully showed to man all that man can bear to know concerning
41
His Father. lie has revealed His Father's wisdom, and hoKnes^, aud compas-ion, and power, and hatred of siu, and love of sin- ner.?, in the fullest possible way. He has brou,2:ht into clear light the great mystery how God the Father can be just, and yet justify the ungodly. The knowledge of the Father which a man derived from the teaching of Moses, is as ditferentfrom that derived from the teaching of Christ, as twilight is different from noon-day.
We must carefully remember that none of the appearances of God to man, described in the Old Testament, were the appear- ances of God the Father. He whom Abraham, and Jacob, and Moses, and Joshua, and Isaiah, and Daniel saw, was not the First Person in the Trinity, but the Second.
The speculations of some commentators on the sentence now before us, as to whether any created being, angel or spirit, has ever seen God the Father, are, to say the least, unprofitable. The sentence before us speaks of man, being written lor man's use.
The expression, " Which is in the bosom of the Father," is doubtless a figurative one, mercifully accommodated to man's capacity. As one who lies in the bosom of another is fairly sup- posed to be most intimate with him, to know all his secrets, and possess all his affections, so is it, we are to understand, in the union of the Father and the Son. It is more close than man's mind can conceive.
The Greek word rendered " declared," means Hterally, "hath expounded." It is the root of the words, which are well known among hterary students of the Bible, " exegesis and exegetical." The idea is that of giving a full and particular explanation. (Acts XV. 14.) Whether the " Declaring of God the Father," here described, is to be confined to Christ's oral teaching about the Father, or Avhether it means also that Christ has in His Person given a visible representation of many of the Father's attributes, is a doubtful point. Perhaps both ideas are included in the expression.
In leaving this passage, I must say something about the dis- puted question, To whom do the three verses beginning, " And of his fulness," belong? Are they the words of John the Bap- tist, and a part of his test'mony ? Or are they the words of John the Gospel-writer, and an explanatory comment of his, such as we occasionally find in his Gospel? — There is something to be said on both sides.
(a.) Some think that these three verses were spoken by John the Baptist, because of the awkwardness and abruptness with