 |  |
verses, for by so attempting, we discover that we either prove too much or involve the
teaching in self-destruction.
If we maintain that the Father alone is God, then we shall have to exclude from His
promise the words "through Whom are all things and we through Him" for these belong
only to the Lord. This would cut across the teaching of Rom. 11: 36, where we find that
of the Lord it is said, not only are all things "by Him", as is found in I Cor. 8: 6, but
"of Him" and "for Him" which is exclusively ascribed to the "one God" in that same
passage. The Mediatorial office of the Saviour is the key to these apparent enigmas.
"There is one Body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling:
One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, Who is above all, and
through all, and in you all" (Eph. 4: 4-6).
In this sevenfold unity of the Spirit, the one Lord holds the central place as Mediator,
and the references here to the one Lord and the one God fall under the same category as
these same terms do in I Cor. 8: 6.
"Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the
uncircumcision through faith" (Rom. 3: 30).
Here we approach a parallel argument to that which is found in I Tim. 2: 1-5. There
is no question of the Being of God in Rom. iii; the chapter deals with the justification of
the believing sinner, whether he be Jew or Gentile.
"There is no difference", Jew and Gentile alike stand guilty before God, and are
justified freely by the same grace, through the exercise of the same faith. Because of this,
the Apostle says "Is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes of
the Gentiles also", and proceeds to demonstrate this by saying "Seeing it is one God
which shall justify the circumcision by (ek) faith, and the uncircumcision through (dia)
faith". Exactly what distinctions the Apostle intended by ek and dia may be difficult to
decide. Not a few commentators bluntly say that there is no difference, but this hardly
accords with the scrupulous choice of language that we have found marks the Scriptures
of truth. Calvin suggests a shade of irony: "This is the grand difference: the Jew is
saved ex fide, the Gentile per fidem!"
At the moment we are not concerned about this question. What is to the point is that
the Apostle introduces the expression "one God" as a proof and a protest against any
exclusion of "all men", whether Jew or Gentile, and if the reader were to be asked, what
does the writer of this article mean here when he says `all men', can he by any possibility
be advocating "Universalism", the reply would have to be--NO, the context decides most
emphatically that he uses the term `all men' to mean all without distinction not all without
exception, and this is the meaning of the Apostle in I Tim. 2: 1-6.
When he says that prayers should be offered for "all men" he immediately follows by
explaining his intention, saying "For kings, and for all that are in authority". It is
understandable that the early Christians, living as they were in an atmosphere of
persecution and oppression, might hesitate to include kings and rulers in their prayers.