Eph 1:7, Heb 9:14, 1Pe 1:19, Rev 1:5 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 7. In whom we have redemption . On the meaning of the word here rendered redemption-- (απολυτρωσις) -- . The word here, as there, denotes that deliverance from sin, and from the evil consequences of sin, which has been procured by the atonement made by the Lord Jesus Christ. This verse is one of the passages which prove conclusively that the apostle here does not refer to nations and to national privileges. Of what nation could it be said, that it had "redemption through the blood of Jesus, even the forgiveness of sins?" Through his blood . By means of the atonement which he has made. See this phrase fully explained in the . The forgiveness of sins . We obtain through his blood, or through the atonement he has made, the forgiveness of sins. We are not to suppose that this is all the benefit which we receive from his death, or that this is all that constitutes redemption. It is the main, and perhaps the most important thing. But we also obtain the hope of heaven, the influences of the Holy Spirit, grace to guide us and to support us in trial, peace in death, and perhaps many more benefits. Still forgiveness is so prominent and important, and the apostle has mentioned that as if it were all. According to the riches of his grace . According to his rich grace. See a similar phrase explained . The word riches , in the form in which it is used here, occurs also in several other places in this epistle, . It is what Paley ( Horae Paul ) calls "a cant phrase," and occurs often in the writings of Paul. See . It is not found in any of the other writings of the New Testament, except once, in a sense somewhat similar, in James, ( ,) "Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith"? and Dr. Paley from this fact has constructed an argument to prove that this epistle was written by Paul. It is peculiar to him, and marks his style in a manner which cannot be mistaken. An impostor or a forger of the epistle would not have thought of introducing it, and yet it is just such a phrase as would naturally be used by Paul. (c) "we have redemption" .

Ephesians 1:7

Verse 7. In whom we have redemption. On the meaning of the word here rendered redemption-- (απολυτρωσις) -- Rom 3:24. The word here, as there, denotes that deliverance from sin, and from the evil consequences of sin, which has been procured by the atonement made by the Lord Jesus Christ. This verse is one of the passages which prove conclusively that the apostle here does not refer to nations and to national privileges. Of what nation could it be said, that it had "redemption through the blood of Jesus, even the forgiveness of sins?"

Through his blood. By means of the atonement which he has made. See this phrase fully explained in the Rom 3:25.

The forgiveness of sins. We obtain through his blood, or through the atonement he has made, the forgiveness of sins. We are not to suppose that this is all the benefit which we receive from his death, or that this is all that constitutes redemption. It is the main, and perhaps the most important thing. But we also obtain the hope of heaven, the influences of the Holy Spirit, grace to guide us and to support us in trial, peace in death, and perhaps many more benefits. Still forgiveness is so prominent and important, and the apostle has mentioned that as if it were all.

According to the riches of his grace. According to his rich grace. See a similar phrase explained Rom 2:4. The word riches, in the form in which it is used here, occurs also in several other places in this epistle, Eph 1:18, 2:7, 3:8,16. It is what Paley (Horae Paul) calls "a cant phrase," and occurs often in the writings of Paul. See Rom 2:4, 9:23, 11:12,33, Php 4:19, Col 1:27, 2:2. It is not found in any of the other writings of the New Testament, except once, in a sense somewhat similar, in James, (Jas 2:5,) "Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith"? and Dr. Paley from this fact has constructed an argument to prove that this epistle was written by Paul. It is peculiar to him, and marks his style in a manner which cannot be mistaken. An impostor or a forger of the epistle would not have thought of introducing it, and yet it is just such a phrase as would naturally be used by Paul.

Hebrews 9:14

Verse 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ. As being infinitely more precious than the blood of an animal could possibly be. If the blood of an animal had any efficacy at all, even in removing ceremonial pollutions, how much more is it reasonable to suppose may be effected by the blood of the Son of God!

Who through the eternal Spirit. This expression is very difficult, and has given rise to a great variety of interpretation.--Some Mss., instead of eternal here, read holy, making it refer directly to the Holy Spirit. See Wetstein. These various readings, however, are not regarded as of sufficient authority to lead to a change in the text, and are of importance only as showing that it was an early opinion that the Holy Spirit is here referred to. The principal opinions which have been entertained respecting this phrase are the following.

(1.) That which regards it as referring to the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity. This was the opinion of Owen, Doddridge, and Archbishop Tillotson.

(2.) That which refers it to the divine:nature of Christ. Among those who have maintained this opinion are Beza, Ernesti, Wolf, Vitriuga, Storr, and the late Dr. J.P. Wilson, MSS. Notes.

(3.) Others, as Grotius, Rosenmuller, Koppe, understand it as meaning endless or immortal life, in contradistinction from the Jewish sacrifices which were of a perishable nature, and which needed so often to be repeated.

(4.) Others regard it as referring to the glorified person of the Saviour, meaning that, in his exited or spiritual station in heaven, he presents the efficacy of blood,

(5.) Others suppose that it means Divine influence; and that the idea is, that Christ was actuated and filled with a Divine influence when he offered up himself as a sacrifice--an influence which was not of a temporal and fleeting nature, but which was eternal in its efficacy. This is the interpretation preferred by Prof. Stuart. For an examination of these various opinions, see his "Excursus xviii." on this epistle. It is difficult, if not impossible, to decide what is the true meaning of the passage amidst this diversity of opinion; but there are some reasons which seem to me to make it probable that the Holy Spirit is intended, and that the idea is, that Christ made his great sacrifice under the extraordinary influences of that Eternal Spirit. The reasons which lead me to this opinion are the following.

(1.) It is that which would occur to the great mass of the readers of the New Testament. It is presumed that the great body of sober, plain, and intelligent readers of the Bible, on perusing the passage, suppose that it refers to the Holy Ghost, the third person of the Trinity. There are few better and safer rules for the interpretation of a volume designed like the Bible for the mass of mankind, than to abide by the sense in which they understand it.

(2.) This interpretation is one which is most naturally conveyed by the language of the original. The phrase, the spirit τοπνευμα has so far a technical and established meaning in the New Testament as to denote the Holy Ghost, unless there is something in the connexion which renders such an application improper. In this case there is nothing certainly which necessarily forbids such an application. The high names and classical authority of those who have held this opinion are a sufficient guarantee of this.

(3.) This interpretation accords with the fact, that the Lord Jesus is represented as having been eminently endowed with the influences of the Holy Spirit. Comp. Jn 3:34. Though he was Divine, yet he was also a man, and as such was under influences similar to those, of other pious men. The Holy Spirit is the source and sustainer of all piety in the soul; and it is not improper to suppose that the man Christ Jesus was, in a remarkable manner, influenced by the Holy Ghost in his readiness to obey God, and to suffer according to his will.

(4.) If there was ever an occasion on which we may suppose he was influenced by the Holy Ghost, that of his sufferings and death here referred to may be supposed eminently to have been such an one. It was expressive of the highest state of piety--of the purest love to God and man--which has ever existed in the human bosom; it was the most trying time of his own life; it was the period when there would be the most strong temptation to abandon his work; and, as the redemption of the whole world was dependent on that act, it is reasonable to suppose that the richest heavenly grace would be there imparted to him, and that he would then be eminently under the influence of that Spirit which was granted not "by measure unto him." Jn 3:34.

(5.) This representation is not inconsistent with the belief that the sufferings and death of the Redeemer were voluntary, and had all the merit which belongs to a voluntary transaction. Piety in the heart of a Christian now is not less voluntary because it is produced and cherished by the Holy Ghost, nor is there less excellence in it because the Holy Ghost imparts strong faith in the time of temptation and trial. It seems to me, therefore, that the meaning of this expression is, that the Lord Jesus was led by the strong influences of the Spirit of God to devote himself as a sacrifice for sin. It was not by any temporary influence--not by mere excitement; it was by the influence of the Eternal Spirit of God; and the sacrifice thus offered could, therefore, accomplish effects which would be eternal in their character. It was not like the offering made by the Jewish high priest, which was necessarily renewed every year, but it was under the influence of one who was eternal, and the effects of whose influence might be everlasting. It may be added, that if this is a correct exposition it follows that the Holy Ghost is eternal, and must therefore be Divine.

Offered himself. That is, as a sacrifice. He did not offer a bullock or a goat, but he offered himself. The sacrifice of one's self is the highest offering which he can make: in this case it was the highest which the universe had to make.

Without spot. Marg. "Or, fault." The animal that was offered in the Jewish sacrifices was to be without blemish. See Lev 1:10, 22:19-22. It was not to be lame, or blind, or diseased. The word which is here used and rendered "without spot" αμωμος--refers to this fact, that there was no defect or blemish. The idea is, that the Lord Jesus, the great Sacrifice, was perfect. See Heb 7:26.

Purge your conscience. That is, cleanse, purify, or sanctify your conscience. The idea is, that this offering would take away whatever rendered the conscience defiled or sinful. The offerings of the Jews related in the main to external purification, and were not adapted to give peace to a troubled conscience. They could render the worshipper externally pure, so that he might draw near to God, and not be excluded by any ceremonial pollution or defile. merit; but the mind, the heart, the conscience, they could not make pure. They could not remove that which troubles a man when he recollects that he has violated a holy law and has offended God, and when he looks forward to an awful judgment-bar. The word conscience here is not to be understood as a distinct and independent faculty of the soul, but as the soul or mind itself reflecting and pronouncing on its own acts. The whole expression refers to a mind alarmed by the recollection of guilt--for it is guilt only that disturbs a man s conscience. Guilt originates in the soul remorse and despair; guilt makes a man troubled when he thinks of death and the judgment; it is guilt only which alarms a man when he thinks of a holy God; and it is nothing but guilt that makes the entrance into another world terrible and awful. If man had no guilt he would never dread his Maker, nor would the presence of his God be ever painful to him, Gen 3:6-10; if a man had no guilt he would not fear to die--for what have the innocent to fear anywhere? The universe is under the government of a God of goodness and truth, and, under such a government, how can those who have done no wrong have anything to dread? The fear of death, the apprehension of the judgment to come, and the dread of God, are strong and irrefragable proofs that every man is a sinner. The only thing, therefore, which ever disturbs the conscience, and makes death dreadful, and God an object of aversion, and eternity awful, is GUILT. If that is removed, man is calm and peaceful; if not, he is the victim of wretchedness and despair.

From dead works. From works that are deadly in their nature, or that lead to death. Or it may mean from works that have no spirituality, and no life. By "works" here the apostle does not refer to their outward religious acts particularly, but to the conduct of the life---to what men do; and the idea is, that their acts are not spiritual and saving, but such as lead to death. See Heb 6:1.

To serve the living God. Not in outward form, but in sincerity and in truth; to be his true friends and worshippers. The phrase, "the living God," is commonly used in tile Scriptures to describe the true God as distinguished from idols, which are represented as dead, or without life, Ps 115:4-7. The idea in this verse is, that it is only the sacrifice made by Christ which can remove the stain of guilt from the soul. It could not be done by the blood of bulls and of goats--for that did not furnish relief to a guilty conscience--but it could be done by the blood of Christ. The sacrifice which he made for sin was so pure and of such values that God can consistently pardon the offender, and restore him to his favour. That blood, too, can give peace--for Christ poured it out in behalf of the guilty. It is not that he took part with the sinner against God; it is not that he endeavours to convince him who has a troubled conscience that he is needlessly alarmed, or that sin is not as bad as it is represented to be, or that it does not expose the soul to danger. Christ never took the part of the sinner against God; he never taught that sin was a small matter, or that it did not expose to danger. He admitted all that is said of its evil. But he provides for giving peace to the guilty conscience by shedding his blood that it may be forgiven, and by revealing a God of mercy who is willing to receive the offender into favour, and to treat him as though he had never sinned. Thus the troubled conscience may find peace; and thus, though guilty, man may be delivered from the dread of the wrath to come.

(a) "who through" 1Pet 3:18 (1) "spot" "fault" (b) "purge" Heb 10:22 (c) "serve" 1Pet 4:2

1 Peter 1:19

Verse 19. But with the precious blood of Christ. On the use of the word blood, and the reason why the efficacy of the atonement is said to be in the blood, Rom 3:25. The word precious (τιμιος,) is a word which would be applied to that which is worth much; which is costly. Comp. for the use of the noun (τιμη) in this sense, Mt 27:6, "The price of blood;" Acts 4:34, 5:2,3, 7:16. See also for the use of the adjective, (τιμιος,) Rev 17:4, "gold and precious stones." Rev 18:12, "vessels of most precious wood." Rev 21:11, "a stone most precious." The meaning here is, that the blood of Christ had a value above silver and gold; it was worth more, to wit,

(1.) in itself--being a more valuable thing and

(2.) in effecting our redemption.

It accomplished what silver and gold could not do. The universe had nothing more valuable to offer, of which we can conceive, than the blood of the Son of God.

As of a lamb. That is, of Christ regarded as a lamb offered for sacrifice. Jn 1:29. Without blemish and without spot. Such a lamb only was allowed to be offered in sacrifice, Lev 22:20-24, Mal 1:8. This was required,

(1.) because it was proper that man should offer that which was regarded as perfect in its kind; and,

(2.) because only that would be a proper symbol of the great sacrifice which was to be made by the Son of God. The idea was thus kept up from age to age that he, of whom all these victims were the emblems, would be perfectly pure.

(a) "lamb" Jn 1:29,36, Rev 13:8

Revelation of John 1:5

Verse 5. And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness. Rev 1:2. He is faithful in the sense that he is one on whose testimony there may be entire reliance, or who is entirely worthy to be believed. From him "grace and peace" are appropriately sought, as one who bears such a testimony, and as the first-begotten from the dead, and as reigning over the kings of the earth. Thus grace and peace are invoked from the infinite God in all his relations and operations :--as the Father, the Source of all existence; as the Sacred Spirit, going forth in manifold operations upon the hearts of men; and as the Son of God, the one appointed to bear faithful testimony to the truth respecting God and future events.

And the first-begotten of the dead. The same Greek expression-- πρωτοτοκος--occurs in Col 1:18. Col 1:18. Compare Barnes on "1Co 15:20".

And the prince of the kings of the earth. Who has over all the kings of the earth the pre-eminence which kings have over their subjects. He is the Ruler of rulers; King of kings. In Rev 17:14, 19:16 the same thought is expressed by saying that he is the "King of kings." No language could more sublimely denote his exalted character, or his supremacy. Kings and princes sway a sceptre over the millions of the earth, and the exaltation of the Saviour is here expressed by supposing that all those kings and princes constitute a community over which he is the head. The exaltation of the Redeemer is elsewhere expressed in different language, but the idea is one that everywhere prevails in regard to him in the Scriptures. Compare Mt 28:18, 11:27, Jn 17:2, Eph 1:20-22, Php 2:9-11, Col 1:15-18 The word prince --οαρχων--means properly ruler, leader, the first in rank. We often apply the word prince to an heir to a throne who is not invested with absolute sovereignty. The word here, however, denotes that he actually exercises dominion over the rulers of the earth. As this is an authority which is claimed by God, compare Isa 10:5 seq. Isa 45:1 seq. Ps 47:2, 99:1, 103:19 Dan 4:34 and which can only appertain to God, it is clear that in ascribing this to the Lord Jesus it is implied that he is possessed of Divine attributes. As much of the revelations of this book pertained to the assertion of power over the princes and rulers of this world, there was a propriety that, in the commencement, it should be asserted that he who was to exert that power was invested with the prerogative of a ruler of the nations, and that he had this right of control.

Unto him that loved us. This refers undoubtedly to the Lord Jesus, whose love for men was so strong that nothing more was necessary to characterize him than to speak of him as the one "who loved us." It is manifest that the division in the verses should have been made here, for this commences a new subject, not having any special connexion with that which precedes. In Rev 1:4, and the first part of this verse, the writer had invoked grace from the Father, the Spirit, and the Saviour. In the latter clause of the verse there commences an ascription of praise to the Redeemer; an ascription to him particularly, because the whole book is regarded as a revelation from him, (Rev 1:1) because he was the one who especially appeared to John in the visions of Patmos; and because he was to be the great agent in carrying into execution the purposes revealed in this book.

And washed us from our sins in his own blood. He has removed the pollution of sin from our souls by his blood; that is, his blood has been applied to cleanse us from sin. Blood can be represented as having a cleansing power only as it makes an expiation for sin, for considered literally its effect would be the reverse. The language is such as would be used only on the supposition that he had made an atonement, and that it was by the atonement that we are cleansed; for in what sense could it be said of a martyr that he "had washed us from our sins in his blood?" How could this language be used of Paul or Polycarp; of Ridley or Cranmer? The doctrine that the blood of Christ cleanses us from sin, or purifies us, is one that is common in the Scriptures. Compare 1Jn 1:7, Heb 9:14. The specific idea of washing, however--representing that blood as washing sin away-- is one which does not elsewhere occur. It is evidently used in the sense of cleansing or purifying, as we do this by washing, and, as the blood of Christ accomplishes in respect to our souls, what washing with water does in respect to the body.

(a) "witness" Jn 8:14 (b) "first-begotten" Col 1:18 (c) "loved" Jn 13:1 (d) "washed" Heb 9:14