God would be included, and would be subdued to him; as among the heathen, Jupiter is fabled to have expelled his father Saturn from his throne and from heaven. (2.) It might be to prevent the supposition, from what Paul had said of the extent of the Son's dominion, that he was in any respect superior to the Father. It is implied by this exception here, that when the necessity for the peculiar mediatorial kingdom of the Son should cease, there would be a resuming of the authority and dominion of the Father, in the manner in which it subsisted before the incarnation. (3.) The expression may also be regarded as intensive or emphatic; as denoting, in the most absolute sense, that there was nothing in the universe, but God, which was not subject to him. God was the only exception; and his dominion, therefore, was absolute over all other beings and things.

VER. 28. And when all things shall be subdued d unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

And when, &c.-In this future time, when this shall be accomplished. This implies that the time has not yet arrived, and that his dominion is now exercised, and that he is carrying forward his plans for the subjugation of all things to God. Shall be subdued unto him.-Shall be brought under subjection. When all his enemies shall be overcome and destroyed; or when the hearts of the redeemed shall be entirely subject to God. When God's kingdom shall be fully established over the universe. It shall then be seen that he is Lord of all. In the previous verses he had spoken of the promise that all things should be subjected to God; in this, he speaks of its being actually done. Then shall the Son also himself be subject, &c.-It has been proposed to render this, "even then shall the Son," &c.; implying, that he been all along subject to God; had acted under his authority; and that this subjection would continue even then in a sense similar to that in which it had existed; and that Christ would then continue to exercise a delegated authority over his people and kingdom. See an article "on the duration of Christ's kingdom," by Prof. Mills, in Bib. Rep. vol. iii. p. 748, seq. But to this interpretation there are objections. (1.) It is not the obvious interpretation. (2.) It does not seem to comport with the design and scope of the passage, which most evidently refers to some change, or rendering back of the authority of the Messiah; or to some resumption of authority by the Divinity, or by God as God, in a different sense from what existed under the Messiah. (3.) Such a statement would be unnecessary and vain. Who could reasonably doubt that the Son would be as much subject to God when all things had been subdued to him as he was before? (4.) It is not necessary to suppose this in order to reconcile the passage with what is said of the perpetuity of Christ's kingdom and his eternal reign. That he would reign; that his kingdom would be perpetual, and that it would be un

ending, was indeed clearly predicted. See 2 Sam. vii. 16. Psa. xlv. 6. Isa. ix. 6, 7. Dan. ii. 44; vii. 14. Luke i. 22, 23. Heb. i. 8. But these predictions may be all accomplished on the supposition that the peculiar mediatorial kingdom of the Messiah shall be given up to God, and that he shall be subject to him. For, (a) His kingdom will be perpetual, in contradistinction from the kingdoms of this world. They are fluctuating, changing, short in their duration. His shall not cease, and shall continue to the end of time. (b) His kingdom shall be perpetual, because those who are brought under the laws of God by him shall remain subject to those laws for ever. The sceptre never shall be broken, and the kingdom shall abide to all eternity. (c) Christ, the Son of God, in his divine nature, as God, shall never cease to reign. As Mediator, he may resign his commission and his peculiar office, having made an atonement, having recovered his people, having protected and guided them to heaven. Yet as one with the Father; as the "Father of the everlasting age," (Isai. ix. 6,) he shall not cease to reign. The functions of a peculiar office may have been discharged, and delegated power laid down, and that which appropriately belongs to him in virtu of his own nature and relations may be resumed and executed for ever; and it shall still be true that the reign of the Son of God, in union, or in oneness with the Father, shall continue for ever. (5.) The interpretation which affirms that the Son shall then be subject to the Father in the sense of laying down his delegated authority, and ceasing to exercise his mediatorial reign, has been the common interpretation of all times. This remark is of value only, because in the interpretation of plain words, it is not probable that men of all classes and ranks in different ages would err. The Son also himself. - The term "Son of God" is applied to the Lord Jesus with reference to his human nature, his incarnation by the Holy Ghost, and his resurrection from the dead. See Note on Rom. i. 4. It refers, I apprehend, to that in this place. It does not mean that the second person in the Trinity, as such, should be subject to the first; but it means the incarnate Son, the Mediator,-the man that was born, and that was raised from the dead, and to whom this wide dominion had been given,-should resign that dominion, and that the government should be reassumed by the Divinity as God. As man, he shall cease to exercise any distinct dominion. This does not mear. evidently, that the union of the divine and bu man nature will be dissolved; nor that importan purposes may not be answered by that continued union for ever; nor that the divine perfections may not shine forth in some glorious way through the man Christ Jesus; but that the parpose of government shall no longer be exercised in that way; the mediatorial kingdom, as such, shall no longer he continued, and power shall be exercised by God as God. The redeemed will still adore their Redeemer as their incarnate God, and dwell upon the remembrance of his work, and upon his perfections; (Rev. i. 5, 6: v. 12; xi. 15;) but not as exercising the peculiar power which he now has, and which was need

ful to effect their redemption. That God may be all in all.-That God may be supreme; that the Divinity, the Godhead, may rule; and that it may be seen that he is the Sovereign over all the universe. By the word "God,” (ó Oɛòç,) Whitby and Hammond, I think correctly, understand the Godhead, the Divine nature, the Divinity, consisting of the three persons, without respect to any peculiar office or kingdom.

VER. 29. Else what shall they do which fare baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

f Rom. vi. 3, 4.

Else what shall they do, &c.-The apostle here resumes the argument for the resurrection which was interrupted at ver. 19. He goes on to state further consequences which must follow from the denial of this doctrine, and thence infers that the doctrine must be true. There is, perhaps, no passage of the New Testament in respect to which there has been a greater variety of interpretation than this; and the views of expositors now by no means harmonise in regard to its meaning. It is possible that Paul may here refer to some practice or custom which existed in his time respecting baptism, the knowledge of which is now lost. The various opinions which have been entertained in regard to this passage, together with an examination of them, may be seen in Pool's Synopsis, Rosenmüller, and Bloomfield. It may be not useless just to refer to some of them, that the perplexity of commentators may be seen. (1.) It has been held by some that by "the dead" here is meant the Messiah, who was put to death, the plural being used for the singular, meaning "the dead one." (2.) By others, that the word baptized here is taken in the sense of washing, cleansing, purifying, as in Matt. viii. 4; Heb. ix. 10; and that the sense is, that the dead were carefully washed and purified when buried, with the hope of the resurrection, and, as it were, preparatory to that. (3.) By others, that to be baptized for the dead means to be baptized as dead, being baptized into Christ, and buried with him in baptism, and that by their immersion they were regarded as dead. (4.) By others, that the apostle refers to a custom of vicarious baptism, or being baptized for those who were dead, referring to the practice of having some person baptized in the place of one who had died without baptism. This was the opinion of Grotius, Michaelis, Tertullian, and Ambrose. Such was the estimate which was formed, it is supposed, of the importance of baptism, that when one had died without being baptized, some other person was baptized over his dead body in his place. That this custom prevailed in the church after the time of Paul, has been abundantly proved by Grotius, and is generally admitted. But the objections to this interpretation are obvious. (a) There is no evidence that such a custom prevailed in the time of Paul. (b) It cannot be believed that Paul would give countenance to a custom so senseless and so contrary to the Scripture, or that he would make it the foundation of a so

lemn argument. (c) It does not accord with the strain and purpose of his argument. If this custom had been referred to, his design would have led him to say, "What will become of them for whom others have been baptized? Are we to believe that they have perished?" (d) It is far more probable that the custom referred to in this opinion arose from an erroneous interpretation of this passage of Scripture, than that it existed in the time of Paul, (5.) There remain two other opinions, both of which are plausible, and one of which is probably the true one. One is, that the word baptized is used here as it is in Matt. xx. 22, 23; Mark x. 39; Luke xii. 50, in the sense of being overwhelmed with calamities, trials, and sufferings; and as meaning that the apostles and others were subjected to great trials on account of the dead, i. e. in the hope of the resurrection; or with the expectation that the dead would rise. This is the opinion of Lightfoot, Rosenmüller, Pearce, Homberg, Krause, and of Prof. Robinson, (Lex. art. Banriw,) and has much that is plausible. That the word is thus used to denote a deep sinking into calamities, there can be no doubt. And that the apostles and early Christians subjected themselves, or were subjected to great and overwhelming calamities on account of the hope of the resurrection, is equally clear. This interpretation, also, agrees with the general tenor of the argument; and is an argument for the resurrection. And it implies that this was the full and constant belief of all who endured these trials, that there would be a resurrection of the dead. The argument would be, that they should be slow to adopt an opinion which would imply that all their sufferings were endured for nought, and that God had supported them in this in vain; that God had plunged them into all these sorrows, and had sustained them in them only to disappoint them. That this view is plausible, and that it suits the strain of remark in the following verses, is evident. But there are objections to it. (a) It is not the usual and natural meaning of the word baptize. (b) A metaphorical use of a word should not be resorted to unless necessary. (c) The literal meaning of the word here will as well meet the design of the apostle as the metaphorical. (d) This interpretation does not relieve us from any of the difficulties in regard to the phrase "for the dead;" and (e) It is altogether more natural to suppose that the apostle would derive his argument from the baptism of all who were Christians, than from the figurative baptism of a few who went into the perils of martyrdom.-The other opinion, therefore, is, that the apostle here refers to baptism as administered to all believers. This is the most correct opinion; is the most simple, and best meets the design of the argument. According to this, it means that they had been baptized with the hope and expectation of a resurrection of the dead. They had received this as one of the leading doctrines of the gospel when they were baptized. It was a part of their full and firm belief that the dead would rise. The argument according to this interpretation is, that

this was an essential article of the faith of a Christian; that it was embraced by all; that it constituted a part of their very profession; and

record the events of my life, and speak of what has occurred. (4.) Or, I have fought with wild beasts as far as it was possible for man to do it while life survived. (5.) Or, as much as was in the power of man, who had destined me to this; if, so far as depended on man's will, I fought, supposing that the infuriated multitude demanded that I should be thus punished. So Chrysostom understands it. (6.) Or, that Paul actually fought with wild beasts at Ephesus. (7.) Others regard this as a supposable case; on the supposition that I had fought with wild beasts at Ephesus. Amidst this variety of interpretation, it is not easy to determine the true sense of this difficult passage. The following thoughts, however, | may perhaps make it clear.

(1.) Paul refers to some real occurrence at Ephesus. This is manifest from the whole passage. It is not a supposable case.

(2.) It was some one case when his life was endangered, and when it was regarded as remarkable that he escaped and survived. Comp. 2 Cor.

i. 8-10.

(3.) It was common among the Romans, and the ancients generally, to expose criminals to fight with wild beasts in the amphitheatre, for the amusement of the populace. In such cases, it was but another form of dooming them to certain death, since there was no human possibility of escape. See Adam's Rom. Ant. p. 344. That this custom prevailed in the East, is apparent from the following extract from Rosenmüller; and there is no improbability in the supposition that Paul was exposed to this:-" The barbarous custom of making men combat with wild beasts has prevailed in the East down to the most modern times. Jurgen Andersen, who visited the states of the Great Mogul in 1646, gives an account in his Travels of such a combat with animals, which he witnessed at Agra, the residence of the Great Mogul. His description affords a lively image of those bloody spectacles in which ancient Rome took so much pleasure, and to which the above words of the apostle refer. Alamardanchan, the governor of Cashmire, who sat among the chans, stood up, and exclaimed, It is the will and desire of the great mogul, Schah Choram, that if there are any valiant heroes who will show their bravery by combating with wild beasts, armed with shield and sword, let them come forward; if they conquer, the mogul will load them with great favour, and clothe their countenance with gladness.' Upon this, three persons advanced, and offered to undertake the combat. Alamardan-chan again cried aloud, None should have any other weapon than a shield and a sword; and whosoever has any breastplate under his clothes should lay it aside, and fight honourably.' Hereupon a powerful lion was let into the garden, and one of the three men above mentioned advanced against him; the lion, on seeing his enemy, ran violently up to him; the man, however, defended himself bravely, and kept off the lion for a good while, till his arms grew tired; the lion then seized the shield with one paw, and with the other his antagonist's arm, so that he was not able to use his weapon; the latter, seeing his life in danger, took with his left hand his Indian dagger, which

he had sticking in his girdle, and thrust it as far as possible into the lion's mouth; the lion then let him go; the man, however, was not idle, but cut the lion almost through with one stroke, and after that entirely to pieces. Upon this victory, the common people began to shout, and call out, 'Thank God, he has conquered.' But the mogul said, smiling, to this conqueror, Thou art a brave warrior, and hast fought admirably! But did I not command to fight honourably only with shield and sword? But, like a thief, thou hast stolen the life of the lion with thy dagger.' And immediately he ordered two men to rip up his belly, and to place him upon an elephant, and, as an example to others, to lead him about, which was done on the spot. Soon after, a tiger was set loose; against which a tall, powerful man advanced with an air of defiance, as if he would cut the tiger up. The tiger, however, was far too sagacious and active, for, in the first attack, he seized the combatant by the neck, tore his throat, and then his whole body in pieces. This enraged another good fellow, but little, and of mean appearance, from whom one would not have expected it. He rushed forward like one mad, and the tiger on his part undauntedly flew at his enemy; but the man at the first attack cut off his two fore paws, so that he fell, and the man cut his body to pieces. Upon this, the king cried, What is your name?' He answered, My name is Geyby.' Soon after, one of the king's servants came and brought him a piece of gold brocade, and said, 'Geyby, receive the robe of honour which the mogul presents you.' He took the garment with great reverence, kissed it three times, pressing it each time to his eyes and breast, then held it up, and in silence put up a prayer for the health of the mogul; and when he concluded it, he cried, May God let him become as great as Tamerlane, from whom he is descended. May he live seven hundred years, and his house continue to eternity! Upon this, he was summoned by a chamberlain to go from the garden up to the king; and when he came to the entrance, he was received by two chans, who conducted him between them to kiss the mogul's feet. And when he was going to retire, the king said to him, Praised be thou, Geyby-chan, for thy valiant deeds, and this name shalt thou keep to eternity. I am your gracious master, and thou art my slave."-Bush's Illustrations.

(4.) It is the most natural interpretation, to suppose that Paul, on some occasion, had such a contest with a wild beast at Ephesus. It is that which would occur to the great mass of the readers of the New Testament, as the obvious meaning of the passage.

(5.) The state of things in Ephesus when Paul was there, (Acts xix.,) was such as to make it nowise improbable that he would be subjected to such a trial.

(6.) It is no objection to this supposition, that Luke has not recorded this occurrence in the Acts of the Apostles. No conclusion adverse to this supposition can be drawn from the mere silence of the historian. Mere silence is not a contradiction. There is no reason to suppose that Luke designed to record all the perils which Paul endured. Indeed, we know from 2 Cor. xi.

Ο