‘In whatever I do,’ says the apostle, ‘I act for God and his church, for the love of Christ constraineth me.’ The connection is thus pain. The love of Christ here means Christ’s love for us, not the love of which he is the object. This is obvious, because the apostle goes on to illustrate the greatness of Christ’s love to us, and not of our love to him. Comp.
<480220>
Galatians 2:20, where the same idea is expressed by the words “who loved me.” See <450835>
Romans 8:35; <490319>
Ephesians 3:19. Constraineth us, i.e.
controls and governs us. The word sune>cw means also to restrain, a sense which many adopt here. ‘The love of limited sense, and is not required by the usage of the word, which is often used to express the idea of being pressed as by a crowd, or figuratively, by calamity or sorrow. There is no better version for it in this passage than that adopted by our translators.
‘The love of Christ constraineth us.’ It coerces, or presses, and therefore impels. It is the governing influence which controls the life. This is a trait of Paul’s experience as a Christian, and is therefore common to all
Christians. It is not benevolence which makes a man a Christian, for then all philanthropists would be Christians. Nor is it mere piety, in the sense of reverence for God, which makes a man a Christian, for then all devout Mussulmans and Jews would be Christians. Morality does not make us religious, but religion makes us moral. In like manner benevolence and piety (in the wide sense) do not make men Christians, but Christianity makes them benevolent and devout. A Christian is one who recognizes Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, as God manifested in the flesh, loving us and dying for our redemption; and who is so affected by a sense of the love of this incarnate God as to be constrained to make the will of Christ the rule of his obedience, and the glory of Christ the great end for which he lives. The man who does this perfectly, is a perfect Christian. The man who does it imperfectly, yet with the sincere desire to be entirely devoted to Christ, is a sincere Christian. On the other hand, the man who lives supremely for himself, or his family, for science, for the world, for mankind, whatever else he may be, is not a Christian.
Whosoever loveth father or mother, son or daughter, more than me, saith our Lord is not worthy of me, <401037>
Matthew 10:37. He that hateth not his own life, cannot be my disciple, <421426>
Luke 14:26. The great question is, What constitutes a Christian? It is being so constrained by a sense of the love of our divine Lord to us, that we consecrate our lives to him. Hence, faith in his divinity, faith in his love, faith in his having died for us, is the
principle or source of the Christian life. And this is the only form in which true religion can now exist. That is, the only true religion now possible is, the worship, love, and service of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is impossible for a man to turn his back on Christ and worship the God of nature or the God of the Jews. Should a man reveal himself to us first as an
acquaintance, then as a friend, and then as a father, filial reverence and devotion would be the only form in which sincere and true regard for him could exist. To deny him as father, would be to reject him as a friend and acquaintance. Since, therefore, the same God who revealed himself first in nature, and then as the Jehovah of the Hebrews, has revealed himself in the flesh, loving us and dying for our redemption, to deny him in this the clearest revelation of his being and perfection, is to deny him altogether.
“Whoso denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father,” <620223>
1 John 2:23. It is the practical or experimental form of this great truth, which is presented in this passage.
Because we thus judge. This clause assigns the reason why the love of Christ exerted the constraining power referred to. It was because the apostle judged that the death of Christ for his people not only placed them under the strongest obligation to devote themselves to his service, but it secured this devotion. They died in him. <450604>
Romans 6:4, 5. As the
participle (kri>nantav) is in the aorist, it would be more strictly rendered, because we judged. That is, ‘I live for Christ, because when I became a Christian I regarded his dying for me as involving the obligation and necessity of my living for him.’ This was the aspect under which he embraced Christianity; the judgment which he formed of it from the
beginning. That if one died for all. The contrast presented, especially in the epistle to the Hebrews, between the priest and sacrifices of the old
economy on the one hand, and the high priest and sacrifice of the gospel on the other, is that those were many, these are one. The ancient priests could not continue by reason of death. Our high priest, being a divine person, and therefore possessed of an endless life, ever lives to save. The sacrifices of the law were daily repeated, because it was impossible that they should take away sin; Christ by the offering up of himself hath forever perfected them that are sanctified. His blood cleanses from all sin.
The apostle here presents him as the one priest and the one sacrifice. Died for all. The words are uJpe<r pa>ntwn. The preposition uJpe>r, may have
the general sense, for the benefit of, in behalf of, or the stricter sense, in the place of, as in v. 20 of this chapter. <570113>
Philemon 13; <490620>
Ephesians 6:20. In many places the choice between these senses depends on the context. In all those passages in which one person is said to die for another, as
<450506>
Romans 5:6, 7, 8; <451415>
14:15; <520510>
1 Thessalonians 5:10; <580209>
Hebrews 2:9.
Comp. <422219>
Luke 22:19; <540206>
1 Timothy 2:6; <560214>
Titus 2:14. etc., etc., or in which the reference is to a sacrifice, the idea of substitution is clearly expressed. The argument does not rest on the force of the preposition, but on the nature of the case. The only way in which the death of the victim benefited the offerer, was by substitution. When, therefore, Christ is said to die as a sacrifice for us, the meaning is, he died in our stead. His death is taken in the place of ours so as to save us from death. That the
preposition uJpe>r in this and similar passages, does mean instead of, is admitted by the great body of even Rationalistic commentators. See De Wette, Ruckert, etc. Christ, it is said, died for all, i.e. for all the subjects of redemption. This limitation is not an arbitrary one, but arises of necessity out of the nature of the case, and is admitted almost universally. He did not die for all creatures; nor for all rational creatures; nor for all apostate rational creatures. The all is of necessity limited by what the Scriptures teach of the design of his death. If his death was merely didactic, intended to reveal and confirm some truth, then he may be said to have died for all benefited by that revelation, and therefore for angels as well as men. If designed to make it consistent with the interests of God’s moral
government for him to pardon the sins of men, then he may be said to have died equally for all men. But if his death was intended to save his people, then it had a reference to them which it had not to others. The true design of the death of Christ is to be learned from express assertions of Scripture, and from its effects. It is so obvious that the death of Christ was designed to save those for whom it was offered, that many of the recent as well as ancient commentators justify their explaining uJpe<r pa>ntwn as meaning all men, by attributing to Paul the belief that all men are to be saved. This is an admission that the all for whom he died, are the all who are saved by his death. One of its effects is stated in the following clause; Then were all dead, or, Then all died. The word is ajpe>qanon. It is the same verb, and in the same tense. ‘If one died, (ajpe>qanen) then all died, (ajpe>qanon), The word must have the same sense in both clauses. It cannot mean were dead, because that is inconsistent with the force of the aorist. All, (literally, the
all, of oiJ pa>ntev,) i.e. the all for whom the one died. His death involved, or secured their death. This was its design and effect, and, therefore, this clause limits the extent of the word all in the preceding clause. Christ died for the all who died when he died. The meaning of this expression has, however, been variously explained.
1. It is made to mean, ‘Then all died to themselves and sin.’ His dying