Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

structive nature and character. His reasoning upon these is from the greater to the less. The conclusion contained in the text is not only irresistible in itself, but necessarily involving, and leading us back to the whole process of reasoning in the argument;—by glancing shortly at each of these steps in the process, we will not only be prepared to join issue with the Apostle, “that much more being reconciled by the death of Christ, we shall be saved by his life,”—but in conducting the illustration, we shall, by the teaching of the Spirit, be also enabled to judge whether we have part or lot in this matter.

And the term or phrase, “being reconciled," being applicable, either unto God's reconciliation to man, or man's reconciliation to God, or to both-and both of them being included in the Apostle's reasoning, and strengthening most materially the conclusion which he draws; we shall therefore in the subsequent remarks, illustrate the subject in reference to both. And,

First, More immediately in reference to God. The term reconciliation and its adjuncts, as occurring in Holy Scripture, present before us truths of vast importance indeed—truths entering deeply into the very vitals, if I may so speak, of the economy of redemption--and truths concerning which it is of incalculable consequence towards the commencement and furtherance of our own salvation, that we form accurate and somewhat adequate scriptural ideas.

Reconciliation is the restoring to a state of friendship parties who had been at variance with each other. To reconcile, is indicative of the change of the state of matters, by removing the grounds of difference between the parties at variance. Disagreement always implying error or fault on the one side or the other ; reparation or redress satisfactory to the injured party, becomes hereby necessary in order to reconciliation. The parties presented by the Apostle in the passage before us, being God and man-God being necessarily the justly-offended party, it belonged to guilty rebellious man to reconcile himself to God. But wherewithal could man thus come before God? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or ten thousands of rivers of oil? No! Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof for a burnt-offering ; the redemption of the soul is precious,--and as to any thing that man could do, it must have ceased for ever.

What man, however, could never have solved, nor the solution being made, would he ever have been able to remove the obstacle, God hath both unravelled and removed. “He was in Christ reconciling the world to himself; not imputing to men their trespasses.” Mark here the peculiarity in the Scripture application of the term reconciling. It is not the offending party who comes to repair the injury, or make satisfaction to the justlyoffended and injured lawgiver, but it is God who steps forward and reconciles the world to himself, or rather himself unto the world. And that this peculiarity in the application of the term reconciliation, is not confined to the subject of human redemption, several passages of Scripture clearly shew. Thus when Saul's anger against David burned so hot, that he and his attendants were obliged to seek safety among the Philistines, structive nature and character. His reasoning upon these is from the greater to the less. The conclusion contained in the text is not only irresistible in itself, but necessarily involving, and leading us back to the whole process of reasoning in the argument;-by glancing shortly at each of these steps in the process, we will not only be prepared to join issue with the Apostle, “ that much more being reconciled by the death of Christ, we shall be saved by his life,”—but in conducting the illustration, we shall, by the teaching of the Spirit, be also enabled to judge whether we have part or lot in this matter.

And the term or phrase, “being reconciled," being applicable, either unto God's reconciliation to man, or man's reconciliation to God, or to both—and both of them being included in the Apostle's reasoning, and strengthening most materially the conclusion which he draws; we shall therefore in the subsequent remarks, illustrate the subject in reference to both. And,

First, More immediately in reference to God. The term reconciliation and its adjuncts, as occurring in Holy Scripture, present before us truths of vast importance indeed—truths entering deeply into the very vitals, if I may so speak, of the economy of redemption-and truths concerning which it is of incalculable consequence towards the commencement and furtherance of our own salvation, that we form accurate and somewhat adequate scriptural ideas.

Reconciliation is the restoring to a state of friendship parties who had been at variance with each other. To reconcile, is indicative of the change of the state of

matters, by removing the grounds of difference between the parties at variance. Disagreement always implying error or fault on the one side or the other ; reparation or redress satisfactory to the injured party, becomes hereby necessary in order to reconciliation. The parties presented by the Apostle in the passage before us, being God and man--God being necessarily the justly-offended party, it belonged to guilty rebellious man to reconcile himself to God. But wherewithal could man thus come before God? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or ten thousands of rivers of oil? No! Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof for a burnt-offering ; the redemption of the soul is precious,—and as to any thing that man could do, it must have ceased for ever.

What man, however, could never have solved, nor the solution being made, would he ever have been able to remove the obstacle, God hath both unravelled and removed. “He was in Christ reconciling the world to himself; not imputing to men their trespasses.” Mark here the peculiarity in the Scripture application of the term reconciling. It is not the offending party who comes to repair the injury, or make satisfaction to the justlyoffended and injured lawgiver, but it is God who steps forward and reconciles the world to himself, or rather himself unto the world. And that this peculiarity in the application of the term reconciliation, is not confined to the subject of human redemption, several passages of Scripture clearly shew. Thus when Saul's anger against David burned so hot, that he and his attendants were obliged to seek safety among the Philistines, when Israel and the Philistines were about to engage in battle, and David going down with the latter against his countrymen, the princes of the Philistines fearing treachery, were displeased at David's presence, and say unto Achish their king, “ wherewith should this fellow reconcile himself to his master; should it not be with the heads of these men ?” meaning their own friends. Here Saul is considered as the offended party, and David as the offender-yet it is not said that David should reconcile his master to him, but himself to his master—that is, should make his peace with him, by presenting the heads of his enemies as a kind of satisfaction or atonement. Again, our Saviour says (Matt. v. 23, 24.) “If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother bath aught against thee; leave thy gift before the altar and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” Here the person offering the gift is represented as the offender; yet he is not commanded to go and reconcile his brother to him, but himself unto his brother. The import, however, of which command is, that he is to make satisfaction to his brother for his offence, and thereby obtain his forgiveness.

This is the meaning of the term reconciliation and its adjuncts when applicable to God in his actings throughout the plan of redemption. He so far reconciled himself to man, when he devised the plan whereby he could continue the just God, whilst the justifier of the ungodly who believe on Jesus. He so far reconciled himself to man, when he gave his only-begotten Son

« EdellinenJatka »