joined to the Lord, from being one Spirit. If Luther’s interpretation and distinction with respect to the term ‘flesh’ is admitted, a third must at least be added — viz. this sense which comprehends the whole human substance, and so constitutes a title which distinguishes man from all other creatures. As a hint to show this, I would mention Psalm 145.21; Luk 3.6; Isa 40.5,6; Joh 17.2; 1Cor 1.29; to which countless others might be added. Luther speaks with sufficient exactness about the presence and withdrawal of the Spirit to make it clear that he did not understand Him to have dwelt in the ungodly — while he omits a very important part of the Spirit’s agency. (See above, note m .)
[←599]
Erigere. See Part iii. Sect. 38. note n .
[←600]
See above Part iii. Sect. 22. etc.
[←601]
See Part ii. Sect. 1.
[←602]
There is a vengeance connected with the preaching of Christ; yes, and a necessary part of that preaching. “To preach the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God.” The kingdom of God has enemies who would not be reigned over by the King, to be trodden under foot, as well as princes to be seated on thrones. There are souls to be cut off among the people by not hearing that Prophet, as well as souls to be gathered by hearing him. “We are to God a sweet savour of Christ in those who are saved and in those who perish. To the one we are a aavour of life unto life; and to the other a savour of death unto death.” 2Cor 2.15-16 The Lord Jesus said of his Jewish opposers, “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin.” Joh 15.22 The manifestation of what is in man — of the Satanic enmity of the human heart — is peculiarly effected by the preaching of Christ. But it is not the form of that dispensation to condemn (“God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world” Joh 3.17), though aggravated guilt and increased condemnation are the actual result of his coming. Nor is Luther’s argument invalidated by this result: the people to be comforted are not objects of vengeance, but of favour.
[←603]
Grammatistis. Not grammaticus, but grammatista, a name of reproach, which he applies here to the Jewish Rabbins who were sciolists in literature [self-proclaimed experts], though vast pretenders, and took great liberties with the sacred text. See above, Sect. 4. note t .
[←604]
2Tim 2.3; 1Tim 6.12; 1Cor 9.24-27; 2Tim 2.5; Eph 6; 1Th 5; 2Tim 4.7.
[←605]
Exod. 38.8. Compare 1Sam 2.22.
[←606]
Legem exprimere. Properly, ‘to press, wring, strain, or squeeze out;’ hence, it is applied figuratively to models in wax, marble, or canvass.
[←607]
Militantem. The word ‘milito,’ which occurs in diverse forms throughout this passage, expresses ‘the whole state of a soldier’ as to doing and suffering, in preparation, conflict, and endurance. — Luther goes far afield for his solution and defence of this text. 1. Warfare is her legal service. 2. She only sinned in that service. 3. She was rewarded for sin, not merit. — The truth, if I am not mistaken, lies nearer home. Why not understand “double for all her sins” as a phrase to denote that, ‘great and manifold as her sins had been, she was receiving double in divine favour.’ Double is a finite put for an infinite. (So in Isa. 61.7; Jer 16.18; 17.18; Zec 9.12; Rev 18.6 .) Her warfare is the whole interval of her toil and labour. — I cannot help but think that the prophecy in its consummation is still future; though it has already received a partial fulfilment. Jerusalem’s warfare is not yet accomplished: but the whole space from the Lord’s first coming in the flesh to his coming in glory hereafter, is comprehended in this prophecy in which it will at length be seen that the Jerusalem which then was, had an interest. The visible church received this double at the coming, or rather at the ascension, of the Lord Jesus; when her covenant of condemnation was exchanged for a covenant of righteousness. But the prophecy looks farther; even to the end of that new dispensation which John Baptist began, when the true church “the church of the first-born, which are written in heaven” shall receive its consummation and bliss; and the national Israel, which has been running parallel with it throughout the whole of its history, shall receive and enjoy what it has never yet truly possessed: its Canaan and its Temple. Thus, I neither understand the ‘warfare,’ nor the ‘double,’ with Luther’s strictness. I might rather say, farfetched-ness. Nor do I place this text where he would place it, as a testimony against Freewill. It is only by implication a testimony against Freewill; it is a broad, palpable testimony to “reigning grace.” Sin is requited with superabounding, free favour; and it is implied that there has been, and could be, nothing but sin going before. The hypothetical and therefore questionable nature of Luther’s interpretation, is manifested by his own testimonies: all rest upon ‘militia,’ which he makes law-service. But does he not cite the Gospel, which is also called a warfare? To whom are these sayings in Timothy, the Corinthians, Ephesians, etc. addressed?
[←608]
A bouquet or corsage. Libro suo inseruerit. I have ventured to maintain Luther’s figure of ‘decerpserit.’
[←609]
We receive the Spirit at conversion. Till then, all our righteousness is as filthy rags (Isa 64.6). Only at conversion does the blood of Christ cleanse our sins, and the grace of God in Christ cover us. Thus, the Spirit’s presence is evidence of that faith which makes us wholly acceptable to God (Rom 8.9), and which turns our sinful works into “good works.” For without faith, it is impossible to please God (Heb 11.6). To say that our works prior to conversion “prepare us for grace,” is to say they make us worthy of receiving grace. It is to proclaim salvation by works, not of grace. God’s grace, His favor, is a gift that cannot be earned, or else it is not a gift — it is only wages due the worker (Rom 4.4). – WHG
[←610]
He was declared clean by God (Act 10.15, 28), through faith (10.30-31), not by works. However, he did not yet have an object for his faith (as with those in the Old Testament). He was an elect of God, drawn to Christ by God, for salvation (Joh 6.44). God sent Peter to him with the only means of salvation, which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Cornelius believed the Gospel (10.43). The union with Christ was then consummated with the gift of the Holy Spirit (10.44). See Vaughan’s next note concerning regeneration (“quickening”). – WHG
[←611]
Cornelius, if I distinguish rightly, was a quickened man, but not a converted man: one begotten again from death by the Holy Ghost, but not yet turned to the Lord — for how could he be turned to whom he did not know? And how could he know of whom he had not heard? But he had already been brought by the Spirit of Christ into a state to receive Him when he was manifested by preaching; and the Lord had reserved, and still reserves, this honour for his outward word, and for his accredited ambassadors.
[←612]
Virg. Æn. iv. 93.
[←613]
Luk 1.51-52.
[←614]
Etiam Philippum sugillabas. Philip Melancthon maintained a good deal of friendly intercourse with Erasmus, and was much more to his mind than Luther and the rest of the reformers: this explains the use of etiam here.
[←615]
To hgemonikon, hegemonikon.
[←616]
Referring to his challenge above; ‘provided he but show,’ etc.
[←617]
1Joh 5.1; Joh 10.35; 2Cor 5.17.
[←618]
Luther’s argument is, Freewill is called ‘flesh’ here; for it is part of ‘the people’ — which, with all that is in it, gets the name of ‘flesh’ here: for ‘people,’ ‘flesh,’ ‘grass,’ are declared by Isaiah himself to be the same thing. — You should submit according to your own previous confession, therefore; and with respect to the real nature of flesh, we have it from our Lord’s own mouth in John 3. — I do not fall in with his reasoning: if flesh means what he says it does in John, then must it also mean the same here? But why must it mean what he says, in John? Why not there as well as here mean ‘the whole substance and constitution of man,’ not ‘body only,’ nor ‘ungodly affection.’ (See above, Sect. 37. note i.) ‘All flesh,’ is ‘all human beings;’ ‘the people’ generally distinguishes the Jews from the rest of the world; and so gives emphasis here. It is man’s mortality, moreover, rather than his sin, which is brought into view here; as set in contrast with the immutability of God. (See the whole context from ver. 3 to ver. 8, and compare with 1Pet 1.24-25.) The great subject of the prophecy is, the glory Jehovah shall be revealed. God — who is not, like man, grass and a liar — has spoken it. In the word ‘grass,’ I follow our English version, which has the authority of the original text — חָצִיר herba virens a חָצִיר viruit. But Luther has faenum; grass in the state of ‘cut and withered.’ Thus, again we have a testimony against Freewill by implication only. And though we need not wonder, as Erasmus does, how this should be dragged into the dispute (for if man is grass, what is his will?), I cannot help remarking what I will have occasion to do hereafter more freely: that Luther would have done wisely in keeping back some