NEW TESTAMENT
THEOLOGY
HENRY C. SHELDON

•YAiLE-waravEffisinnf-

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

GIFT OF
Professor Benjamin W. Bacon

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
NEW YORK • BOSTON ¦ CHICAGO
ATLANTA - SAN FRANCISCO
MACMILLAN & CO., Limited
LONDON • BOMBAY • CALCUTTA
MELBOURNE
THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd.
TORONTO

NEW TESTAMENT
THEOLOGY

HENRY C. SHELDON
PROFESSOR IN BOSTON UNIVERSITY
AND AUTHOR OF " UNBELIEF IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY,1
" SACERDOTALISM IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY," ETC.

Weto gorfe
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
191 1
Ail rights reserved j

Copyright, 1906,
By HENRY C. SHELDON.
Copyright, 1911,
By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.

First published elsewhere. New and revised edition published January, T911.

JTortoooB IBrcaa:
Berwick & Smith Co., Norwood, Mass., U.S.A.

PREFACE
It has been our endeavor to prepare a book which, on
the one hand, shall be sufficiently free from scholastic
formality to be fairly acceptable to the general reader,
and, on the other hand, sufficiently compact in state
ment, logical in arrangement, and fundamental in its
treatment of the subject-matter, to be fitted for service
as a text-book. The conviction that there is room for
a treatise which seeks to exemplify these characteristics
is our principal excuse for presenting the volume to the
public. The reader will easily discover the critical standpoint
of the book, and will notice that it is not to be ascer
tained by mere reference to the names of critics which
occur in the volume. We have been quite free to cite
judgments, which seemed to us to be on the side of a
sound consensus, from writers whose general standpoint
is rather emphatically contrasted with our own.
Boston University,
December, 1910.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I
Sources Back of the New Testament Writings.
PAGE
I. General Glance at these Sources .... 3
II. Pharisaism, or the Later Jewish Orthodoxy, and its
Contributions ....... 8
III. Alexandrianism, and its Contributions ... 20
IV. Questions as to the Indebtedness of Certain Special
Portions of the New Testament to Post-Canonical
Judaism  36
CHAPTER II
The Synoptical Gospels and Their Teachings.
I. The Characteristics of these Gospels and the More
Probable Theory as to Their Interrelations . . 39
II. The Story of the Nativity  56
III. The Self-Consciousness of Christ as a Subject of
Development and a Source of Teaching . . 59
IV. Some Distinguishing Characteristics of Christ's
Teaching  68
V. The Trend of Christ's Teaching Respecting the
Nature of the Kingdom of God and the Conditions
of Entrance  73
VI. Leading Conceptions of God as Set Forth by Christ . 87
VII. Leading Conceptions of Man and the World . . 93

vi CONTENTS PAGE
VIII. The Witness of Christ Respecting His Own Person
and Office  99
IX. Christ's Teaching on the Progress and Consummation
of the Kingdom  107
CHAPTER III
Portions of the New Testament More or Less Akin to
the Synoptical Gospels in Their Representation of
a Primitive Type of Christian Teaching.
I. Consideration of the Proper Compass of the Chapter . 123
II. The Teaching of the First Part of the Book of Acts . 140
III. The Teaching of the Epistle of James . . . 153
IV. The Teaching of the Apocalypse . . . .158
CHAPTER IV
The Pauline Theology.
I. The Several Groups of Pauline Epistles . . .172
II. The Sources of the Pauline Theology . . . 188
III. General Conceptions of God, of the World, and of
the Rational Creation, which Underlie the Pauline
Epistles  199
IV. The Chief Pauline Antitheses — Flesh and Spirit,
Law and Grace  . 213
V. The Person of Christ ...... 219
VI. The Holy Spirit  226
tf'II. The Reconciling Work of Christ .... 228
VIII. Justification and Regeneration  235
IX. The Unfoldment and Manifestation of the New
Life ......... 243
X. The Church and the Sacraments .... 252
XI. The Second Advent and the Related Events . . 258
XII. The Teaching of the Pastoral Epistles . . .266

CONTENTS vii
CHAPTER V
Modified Paulinism — Hebrews and First Peter. PAGE
I. Introductory Considerations  270

II. The Conception of God in Hebrews and First Peter
III. Hints on the Nature and Rank of Men and Angels
IV. The Person of Christ 
V. The High-Priestly Work of Christ .
VI. Christian Life, Individual and Collective .
VII. Eschatology 

278 280284286 293297

CHAPTER VI
The Johannine Theology.
I. The Question of Authorship  300
II. Sources and Peculiarities  318
III. Johannine Antitheses  325
IV. The Doctrine of the Father and the Son . . 331
V. The Holy Spirit  340
VI. The Work of Christ . . . . .343
VII. The Initiation and Unfoldment of the New Life . 347
VIII. The Christian Brotherhood  353
IX. Eschatology  356
X. Conclusion  358
Index  ... 361

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

CHAPTER I
SOURCES BACK OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
WRITINGS
I. ¦ — General Glance at These Sources.
The distinctive character of Biblical Theology makes
it appropriate to devote specific attention to the subject
of sources. As distinguished from Systematic Theology
it is very largely a historical discipline. While the former
directs attention to the outcome of revelation, and seeks
an orderly presentation of the doctrines which are de
manded by a preponderance of biblical and rational evi
dences, the latter is interested in the stages of revelation,
and seeks to exhibit the peculiarities of different doctrinal
types in the Bible together with the historical conditions
by which their rise and development were influenced.
In a full survey of the theme of this chapter it will not
be overlooked that the foremost source was the conscious
ness of Jesus Christ, viewed as the spring of His words
and deeds. This consciousness, unique in itself, had a
unique power to generate the new order of life and thought
which is mirrored in the apostolic literature.
A source only second in importance to that named was
3

4 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
the Scriptures of the Old Testament, the books of the
Hebrew canon. These furnished in no small degree
content and coloring to the consciousness of Christ, and
supplied a background to the religious thinking of all
the New Testament writers. Such foundation ideas of the
New Testament edifice as the absolute supremacy of God,
His distinct personality, the intensity of His ethical life,
and His purpose to build up a perpetual kingdom of
righteousness, belonged to the great inheritance which
was transmitted by the Hebrew oracles.
A third source may be described as post-canonical or
extra-canonical Judaism. Very likely it would be no mis
take to affirm a certain analogy between the standpoint
of the primitive representatives of Christianity and that
of the Protestant reformers. As the latter sought to
break through the overgrowth of ecclesiastical tradition,
and to get back to Christian originals, so the former felt
an incentive to disengage religion from Judaic tradition
alism and to appeal directly to the Old Testament Scrip
tures as containing the more incorrupt deposit of truth.
The analogy suggests, nevertheless, that the develop
ments of later Judaism may have exercised considerable
influence upon New Testament doctrine. The Protestant
reformers, notwithstanding their inclination to go back to
the primitive springs of Christian truth, were unquestion
ably influenced by the results of patristic and scholastic
thinking. A system which had leavened the intellect of
generations could not suddenly be renounced at every
point. If antipathy to some of its features drove into
counter tenets of a specially pronounced character, other
features remained unchallenged and entered into the new

THE QUESTION OF SOURCES 5
theological structure which was designed to take the place
of the old. It seems, therefore, in the light of the his
torical parallel, to be probable that post-canonical Judaism
was somewhat of a factor in shaping the theological con
ceptions which have come to expression in the New Tes
tament, and that it wrought in the way of attraction as
well as of repulsion.
Further illustration of the obligations of the New Tes
tament to the first two sources will be left to be brought
out, as occasion may arise, in connection with the various <
subdivisions of our theme. As repects the third source,
since its consideration is somewhat off the track of the
more ordinary theological study, it will be well to give it
specific attention in this connection.
In post-canonical Judaism the principal factors of
which note needs to be taken were the Pharisaic and
Hellenistic systems. The latter of these had its culmi
nating expression in the Jewish community of Alexandria.
We may say then in brief terms, that post-canonical
Judaism made its principal contributions to New Testa
ment theology through Pharisaism and Alexandrianism.
This statement implies that the Sadducean and Essenic
schools exercised a subordinate influence upon Christian
thinking. There is no reason to doubt that this was the
case with the former, and our conviction is that it was
true, though in a less emphatic sense, of the latter.
The Sadducees were more largely an aristocratic and
political party than a theological school. They had place
only so long as Judaism played a political r61e. Nothing
was heard of them after the complete overthrow of the
Jewish people had cancelled opportunities for diplomacy

6 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
and political management. Doubtless the Sadducees
had somewhat of a special theological interest, but it was
not intense enough to exercise any appreciable influence
beyond their own limits. If on one side their position
was acceptable to the Christian standpoint, namely as
respects their rejection of the traditions with which the
Pharisees had supplemented the written law, on another
side, that is, in their negative attitude toward the future
life, they came into sharp collision with Christian senti
ment. On the whole, the connection of the Sadducees
with the rise of Christianity was simply external. It did
not reach to doctrinal content.
A much greater religious earnestness belonged to
Essenism than to Sadduceeism. In some of its teach
ings, also, phases more or less parallel to gospel precepts
may be specified. If Christ reprobated the taking of
oaths, taught His disciples to foster peace as opposed to
warlike violence, inculcated an unworldly temper, spoke
a word of commendation of those practicing continence
for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, and strongly em
phasized the duty of unselfish and brotherly ministering,
He set forth features of an ideal that was recognized in
the maxims of the Essenes. Some writers have supposed
that Christ had a special connection with this Jewish
association, and that His discourses show the tinge of its
tuition. But this conclusion is to be regarded as doubt
ful for the following reasons : (i) Most of the points
mentioned as having their counterpart in the teaching of
the Essenes were the dictate of Christ's fundamental
views of God and man. There was a sufficient source
for them in the clear and balanced religious intuition with

THE QUESTION OF SOURCES 7
which He was so richly endowed. (2) The formal re
semblance between precepts does not exclude at all points
material differences in conception. For example, if
Christ, as reported by the evangelist, spoke favorably of
some who had made themselves eunuchs for the sake of
the kingdom of heaven, He could not have done so in the
interest of the ascetic standpoint which dictated the
opposition of the Essenes to marriage ; for the general
tenor of His teaching is emphatically opposed to that
standpoint. (3) In central and fundamental respects the
system of Christ's teaching is opposed to the Essenic.
The governing point of view of the latter was purity in
the legal and ceremonial sense; on this line it was a
species of high Pharisaism. The former placed absolutely
no stress on ceremonial purity as compared with interior
morality and religion. Again, the one was monastic and
separatists in spirit, seeking for holiness by isolation
from a contaminating world ; the other was animated by
a spirit of world-embracing sympathy, and welcomed
communication with all classes and conditions of men
who needed to be benefited. These are important con
trasts. In the light of them it does not seem too much
to say with Wellhausen : " The Essenes were not fore
runners of Christianity, to which this kind of esoterism
and of separation from sinners was originally entirely
foreign." 1 While claiming this much it is not necessary
to affirm that no sort of stimulus, no element of religious

1 Israelitische und Jiidische Geschichte, p. 296. Compare H. J.
Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie, I. 118 j Har
nack, What is Christianity? p. 32; Schultz, Grundriss der christlichen
Apologetik, p. 146-

8 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
conception or work, came from Essenism. As a part of
the environment inclosing an incipient Christianity it may
have had its effect. Our contention is that there is in
sufficient ground for regarding it as a prominent factor
in shaping Christian thought.
II. — Pharisaism, or the Later Jewish Orthodoxy,
and its Contributions.
Pharisaism stands for the characteristic development
of post-exilian piety in Israel. It names the great central
channel in which earnest religion flowed from the days
of Ezra. As a distinct party the Pharisees may not have
antedated the Maccabean crisis. But the tendency, of
which they represented the matured stage, or rather the
exaggerated development, went back to the era of that
national rebuilding which was undertaken by the returned
exiles. This tendency did not dominate the entire
national life, at least for any considerable interval ;
nevertheless, it was central to the religious movement,
especially of Palestinian Judaism, from Ezra to Paul.
The natural outcome of that movement was the identifi
cation of Jewish orthodoxy with Pharisaism.
In judging of the dogmatic contents of Pharisaism in
the first century it is legitimate to make much use of the
Talmud. For, while this great compendium of Jewish
legal and religious lore was not completed till some cen
turies later, the traditions which it incorporates and the
type which it exhibits were doubtless in large part extant
by the time of Christ's public ministry. This conclusion
is strongly supported by the correspondence between the

THE QUESTION OF SOURCES 9
image of Pharisaism which it mirrors and that which is
given in the Gospels. In addition to the Talmud we may
properly employ a number of writings, mostly pseud-
epigraphic, which were written between 170 b.c and
a.d. 100. Here belong the Book of Enoch, the Psalms
of Solomon, the Assumption of Moses, the Apocalypse
of Baruch, the Fourth Book of Ezra, the Book of Jubilees,
and some of the Sibylline verses.
The adverse associations which go with Pharisaism
should not blind us to the fact that at the start it repre
sented a doctrine of the law which in large part was the
dictate of a praiseworthy zeal for righteousness, and that
it always acknowledged many excellent points both in
practical ethics and in religious doctrine. Its fatal error
was that it ultimately went on to such an exaggerated
and particularistic stress upon the law as brought life
under bondage to positive rules, and left little place for
a consideration of the demands of interior piety.
It is an almost incredible externalization of religion
which is ascribed to Pharisaism in some of the strictures
of Christ. Doubtless His strong words cannot justly be
applied in all their length and breadth to every man who
was enrolled among the Pharisees. But as regards the
controlling animus of Pharisaism, it cannot be said that
they savor of oratorical exaggeration. The sources con
firm the conclusion that in its progressive evolution
Pharisaism reached such a pass, that it could fairly be
described as legality run mad. As is clearly shown in
Weber's learned treatise on the later Jewish Theology,1
1 Jiidische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud und Verwandter
Schriften.

IO NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
the resources of language were exhausted in enforcing
the importance and sanctity of the law. The Scriptures
containing it were represented as written with the highest
degree of inspiration. It was often identified with the
heavenly wisdom, and was therefore viewed as preexisting
in God before the foundation of the world. It was de
scribed as an image of God's spiritual essence, or as the
daughter of God. All things necessary to salvation, it
was asserted, are contained in it. To supplement it is
impossible ; it is complete and is valid for all time, yea,
for eternity. The study of it takes precedence of all
other duties. Everything closely associated with it de
rives from the relation honor and sanctification. The
Hebrew, as the language of the law, is the preferred
speech, the tongue employed by angels. All the moun
tains contended for the honor of being the theatre of the
proclamation of the law. All the world was hushed into
complete silence when God spoke the sacred code. As
the people of the law Israel has a character of special
holiness. The outside peoples are unclean ; they make
no part of the kindom of God, and are not destined to
eternal life. The ministry of angels is confined to Israel,
while the heathen world constitutes the proper field of
demons. The course of nature is sustained for the sake
of the people of the law.1 Were it not for them, God
would not think it worth while to give either rain or sun
shine. The study of the law is not unbecoming even to
the majesty of God. Says one rabbi : "The day has
twelve hours ; in the first three the Holy One sits and
l Compare Fourth Ezra, vi. 55—59, vii. 11.

THE QUESTION OF SOURCES n
busies Himself with the law." Very likely some of these
statements go beyond the average sentiment of Pharisa
ism, but they indicate the goal toward which it tended,
and reflect with approximate fairness the spirit by which
it was ruled.
Somewhat of a deistic character evidently pertained to
this way of thinking, which recognized little else in God
but the lawgiver, and made the way of approach to Him
a long line of legal performances. It does not appear,
however, that Pharisaism was formally deistic in its
theory. It inculcated a strong view of divine providence.
According to the representation of Josephus, the Phari
sees believed both in the divine ordering of events and
in the free will of men.1
The Pharisaic conception of personal salvation corre
sponded to the dominance which was given to the legal
point of view. The ruling idea was legal performance
in the sight of God, rather than transforming fellowship
with God. Repentance, it was taught, secures indul
gence for past sins, while performance of the works pre
scribed by the law creates a title to positive rewards.
In this relation a vicarious function was admitted. It
was conceived that in virtue of the solidarity of Israel
the sufferings of a righteous man, and especially his un
deserved death, might serve to expiate the sins of the
people, and that in general the merits of the forefathers
might help to enlarge the credit of a later generation.
It does not appear that the doctrine of a vicarious ex
piation of sins through suffering was applied in later
1 Antiq. Bk. xviii. chap, i; Wars of the Jews, Bk. II. chap, viii, § 14.

12

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

2

Judaism, at least in its more characteristic teaching, to
the Messiah. The references to a suffering Messiah are
not of sufficient weight, in comparison with representa
tions of an opposite nature, to stand in the way of the
conclusion that later Jewish orthodoxy gave little place
in its Messianic forecast to such a picture as is contained
either in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah or in the gospel
story of the cross.1 Some scholars have supposed that
it was in particular a disinclination to refer to the Mes
siah the Old Testament texts descriptive of suffering
and death that led to the introduction of a subordinate
Messiah of the house of Joseph, to whom the more som
bre element in prophetical anticipation could be applied.2
The information, however, respecting the genesis in
Jewish thought of the Messiah Ben Joseph is very
scanty.3 The conception of the nature and rank of the Messiah
appears to have been a somewhat wavering one in post-
exilian Judaism. In some of the apocalyptic writings,
notably in the second section of the Book of Enoch
(chapters xxxvii-lxxi) and in the Fourth Book of Ezra
(vii., xiii., xiv.), the Messiah is described in language
which imports that he was regarded as a superhuman
and heavenly being, in a peculiar sense the Son of God.
Especially in the Book of Enoch is this high rank dis-

1 Schiirer, Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi,
§ 29; Weber, Judische Theologie, §§ 79, 80; Stanton in Hastings' Dic
tionary of the Bible, III. 354; Lagrange, Le Messianisme, pp. 236 ff.
2 Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, pp. 143-155.
8 A mention occurs in the Talmud, Tract Succah, chap, v, Rodkin-
son's translation, See also the references in Weber, § 80.

THE QUESTION OF SOURCES 13
tinctly asserted. According to its representations the
name of the Messiah was named on high before the sun
and the signs were created, and before the stars of
heaven were made. He is to be a staff to the righteous,
a light to the Gentiles and the hope of all the troubled
of heart. Before him all the dwellers on the face of
the earth are to bow. The sum of judgment is to
be committed to him, and the secrets of wisdom will
stream forth from his mouth. Thus the Book of Enoch
approaches the New Testament point of view respecting
the position of the Christ. And it has a further point
of comparison with the New Testament in that it em
ploys in part the same descriptive titles, such as the
Elect One, the Righteous One, the Son of Man.1
1 The measure of confidence with which this high conception of the
Messiah can be regarded as a mirror of Jewish thinking will of course
depend appreciably upon the evidence for the pre-Christian origin of the
Similitudes, as the second section of the Book of Enoch is called. It is
possible to surmise here an infusion of Christian thought, in case the
origin of Christianity preceded the composition of the Similitudes. On
the question of date scholars are divided. A majority consider that the
Similitudes contain too little of specifically Christian matter to make it
at all probable that they came as a whole from a Christian hand, even if
it be supposed that they include aught from that source. The most re
cent editors find no insuperable difficulty in the way of the supposition
that this entire portion of the Book of Enoch originated before Pom-
pey's invasion of Jerusalem. Such is the judgment of R. H. Charles in
his translation and commentary ; also of Georg Beer in Kautzsch's
Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, II. 230-232.
On the basis of this chronology the recurring phrase " the kings and the
mighty " is made to refer to the Asmonean princes and their Sadducean
allies. Bousset prefers to find in this phrase a reference to foreign rulers,
and thinks that the composition of the Similitudes occurred in the
troubled era between the fall of the Asmonean line and the reign of Herod
(Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, p. 13).

14 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
On the other hand there are descriptions in the later
Jewish writings which do not carry the rank of the Mes
siah above that of an exalted human potentate. The
tendency within the circle of Pharisaic or orthodox
Judaism may be judged to have been in the direction of
the latter view. This was the current theory in the
second century, if we may draw a conclusion from the
words which Justin Martyr put into the mouth of the
Jew Trypho, for they express the belief that the Messiah
was to be simply a man sprung from men.1 Perhaps, as
Holtzmann suggests, the fact that Christianity took up
and propagated the higher view of the rank of the
Messiah, may have helped toward its general renuncia
tion within the bounds of Judaism.2
The office of the Messiah was given very largely an
eschatological relation. It appears that from the Macca-
bean period to the end of the first century of the Chris
tian era Jewish theological thinking was concentrated in
no small degree upon eschatology. The Book of Daniel
was followed by a line of apocalyptic effusions which
present in dramatic colors the events of the last days.
Two of these, the apocalypse of Baruch and the Fourth
Book of Ezra, written, it is supposed, not far from the
year 70 of the Christian era, may be regarded as giving
the outlines of the matured eschatology of later Judaism.
The time of their composition makes it indeed possible
that Christian thinking may have influenced at one point
or another their representations ; but, on the other hand,
the antipathy of Jewish writers of that era to Chris-
1 Dial, cum Tryph. xlix.
2 Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie, I. 84.

THE QUESTION OF SOURCES 15
tianity stood in the way of borrowing from its contents.
Moreover, the two treatises named are congenially re
lated to other Jewish writings which deal with the sub
ject of eschatology. Accordingly, there is no reason to
doubt that they represent with substantial fidelity the
trend of Jewish orthodoxy in that era. Their scheme
of eschatology, as summarized by Schiirer,1 embraces
the following points : (1) A final season of stress and
confusion ; (2) the coming of Elijah as forerunner ;
(3) the appearance of the Messiah ; (4) a final attack of
hostile powers; (5) destruction of the hostile powers;
(6) renewal of Jerusalem ; (7) gathering of the dispersed ;
(8) the kingdom of glory in Palestine ; (9) renewal of
the world; (10) the general resurrection of the dead;
(11) the final judgment and eternal salvation and dam
nation. As regards the resurrection, it may be noticed
that the earlier view confined it to the righteous. The
Psalms of Solomon, composed probably near the time of
Pompey's invasion of Jerusalem, seem to favor this view,2
and it is ascribed to the Pharisees in the sketch of their
beliefs by Josephus.3 The same limitation appears in
some sections of the Book of Enoch.4 In certain in
stances the resurrection of all Israel, but with a possible
exclusion of the Gentiles, was assumed.5 Several writ
ings, aside from those representative of the Alexandrian

1 Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, § 29,
pp. 440-464.
2 Psalms of Solomon, iii. 13, 16, xv. 1.
8 Antiq. xviii. 1 ; Wars of the Jews, II. viii. 14.
i Book of Enoch, xci. - civ.
5 Book of Enoch, li. 1, 2 ; 2 Maccabees xii. 42-44.

i6 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
theology, apparently contemplate only a resurrection of
the spirits of the dead.1
The foregoing exposition affords a basis for estimating
the influence of Pharisaism upon New Testament theol
ogy. That it wrought as a developing force by way of
repulsion is quite evident. Its overstrained legality gave
occasion to a distinct and energetic exposition of the
deep interior demands of true piety. It drew from
Christ the most intense protest against allowing the form
to usurp the place which belongs to the spirit, and served
as the background against which he set forth clearly
denned and imperishable images of a spiritual religion.
With Paul also Pharisaism was a motive-power to intense
stress upon the subjective demands of religion. Had
not the apostle lived within the system and realized in
the depths of his soul its incompetency to bring emanci
pation and true peace, he would not have been prepared
to champion with such marvellous and untiring fervor
the cause of evangelical freedom against the r61e of
legal servitude.
As regards positive influences coming from Pharisaism,
it is not easy to measure them exactly through the whole
range of doctrinal topics, since there is room for the
question whether given aspects of teaching are to be
reckoned as outgrowths of Old Testament principles, or
as showing the imprint of contemporary Jewish ortho
doxy. On various points, however, there are grounds
for a fairly satisfactory inference.
1 Psalms of Solomon ; Book of Jubilees ; Assumption of Moses ; 4
Maccabees. See R. H. Charles, Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish, and
Christian.

THE QUESTION OF SOURCES 17
It was noticed that in the sketch by Josephus the
Pharisees are represented as holding, on the one hand, a
strong view of divine sovereignty over events, and on
the other contending for the fact of free will in men.
As to whether they had any way of reconciling these
contrasted views, or made any attempt to show their
congruity, the historian says nothing. Commentators
have discovered a like uncancelled antinomy in the New
Testament. Especially has this been observed in the
writings of Paul. There are sentences in his epistles
which seem to place no limit upon the divine ordering,
and there are sentences which clearly enough assume
the free and responsible agency of men. Was Paul in
this matter exhibiting points of view which he had in
herited from Pharisaism ? It is quite easy to suspect
that to have been the case. But two things may serve
to check a confident conclusion in that direction. In
the first place, the double view in question — the pro
found stress upon divine ordering and the acknowledg
ment of man's free agency — was no exclusive property
of Pharisaism, but very largely characteristic of the Old
Testament. In the second place, it belongs intrinsically
to the mode of earnest religious oratory both to accentu
ate in strong terms God's overruling wisdom and might,
and to address men as free and responsible. It lies out
side the plane of oratory to reconcile the opposing views.
To do that is the function of philosophical reflection.
It seems to follow, therefore, that Paul, simply as the
Old Testament student and the religious orator, could
very well have been led to use the forms of expression
under consideration. It is to be granted, nevertheless,

1 8 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
that it might not have been so natural for him to use
them had he been reared as a Sadducee instead of being
trained in the school of the Pharisees.
The same order of remark applies to the Pauline stress
upon the connection of the Adamic trespass with the
prevalence of sin and death in the world. That stress
is fully paralleled in Fourth Ezra and the Apocalypse of
Baruch, books which indeed were of later origin than the
Pauline writings, but which may be supposed to repre
sent at least a considerable current of thought in the
Pharisaism of an earlier time.1 There is, therefore, a
certain probability that Paul's Pharisaic training had
something to do with his strong view of the results of
Adam's sin ; though, on the other hand, it is quite con
ceivable that he may have gained the major part of the
incentive to his representations from Old Testament
suggestions and his own earnest contemplation of the
contrast between Adam and Christ.
As respects the person and work of the Messiah, the
Pharisaic view appears far more in contrast than in affin
ity with the New Testament teaching. The one contem
plated preeminently a national deliverer and ruler ; the
other pictures the redeemer of the human race. The
one supposed that the Messiah's reign would be realized
mainly through visible earthly instrumentalities ; the
other makes large account of invisible spiritual agency
1 Fourth Ezra, iii. 7, 21, 22, iv. 30, vii. 118; Apocalypse of Baruch,
xxiii. 4, xlviii. 42, liv. 15. Compare Ecclesiasticus, xxv. 24. In contrast
with these sources, the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees em
phasize the corrupting agency of apostate angels. For a survey of the
subject see Bousset, Die Religion des Juden turns im neutestamentlichen
Zeitalter, pp. 384-391.

• THE QUESTION OF SOURCES 19
and of the efficacy of heart association with an ideal per
sonality. The one tended toward a simple humanitarian
conception of the Messiah; the other, while giving a
much purer and more beautiful ideal of the humanity of
Christ than was grasped by its rival, exhibits unequivocal
tokens of faith in his superhuman dignity and unique
connection with^the divine. The idea of vicarious atone
ment appears in both ; but, as has been noticed, this idea
in the Pharisaic system was given a very faint associa
tion with the Messiah, and reduces to the conception
that in virtue of the solidarity of Israel the doing or suf
fering of one member may serve as a ground of indul
gence toward a less deserving member. It is possible,
as Pfleiderer supposes,1 that Paul proceeded from this
conception as a starting-point when he undertook to
construe the work of Christ. However this may be, it
is not to be overlooked that Paul's total theory is pretty
broadly contrasted with the Pharisaic conception. Not
only does the former give a central importance to the
atoning work of the Christ which was quite unknown to
the latter ; it joins with the notion of an objective atone
ment the idea of a mystical union with Christ, and makes
this no less than the other part and parcel of the divine
plan of salvation. This idea, it does not need to be said,
was quite beyond the Pharisaic circle of thought. On
the whole, the Pauline theory of Christ's work cannot be
regarded as making any very distinct revelation of the dis
ciple of the Pharisees. Even as regards the elementary con
ception of a vicarious atonement, or meritorious doing and
1 Das Urchristenthum, p. 171, edition of 1887.

20 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
suffering on behalf of another, suggestions enough could
have been found by the apostle in the Hebrew Scriptures.
As regards eschatology, it must be granted that the
later Jewish orthodoxy seems to have given considerable
coloring, not to say content, to the New Testament.
The reader of the New Testament cannot fail to notice
that in one connection or another nearly all the points
which have been mentioned as characteristic of the
Pharisaic eschatology come into view. The representa
tions of the former have of course less of a Jewish out
look than those of the latter. The two, however, picture
much the same succession of unfoldments. The germs
maybe found in the Old Testament, but it is known that
eschatology was a vital part of the dogmatic thinking of
Judaism in the post-Maccabean period, and it is probable
that its general framework was well intrenched in the
minds of those who penned the New Testament writings.
It may be added in this connection that on the subjects
of angelology and demonology the New Testament re
flects very largely post-exilic developments. That a dif
ference, however, goes with the resemblance will not be
overlooked by one who reflects on the warm and intense
view of the divine immanence which is characteristic of
the New Testament. Angelic mediation in connection
with such a view naturally assumes less importance than
was given it in later Judaism with its relatively distant God.
III. — Alexandrianism and its Contributions.
Alexandrianism, as the term is used here, denotes
Judaism under the influence of Greek philosophy and

THE QUESTION OF SOURCES 21
animated by a pronounced ambition to show the entire
harmony between itself and the best content of that
philosophy. It found literary expression especially in the
book entitled the Wisdom of Solomon and in the writings
of Philo. The former very likely originated in the cen
tury preceding the Christian era. The latter were written
within the first half of the first Christian century.
Attempts have been made to discover signs of the dis
tinctive Alexandrian style of thinking in some earlier
writings, more especially in Ecclesiasticus, in the Septu-
agint translation of the Old Testament, and in the Third
Book of the Sibylline Oracles. But the signs are too
faint to afford anything more than a doubtful warrant
for associating these writings with the peculiar philosophy
which found in Philo its culminating expression.
In its attitude toward the law Alexandrianism was
characterized by a much freer spirit than that which
ruled Pharisaism. As represented by Philo it taught
indeed that the prescriptions of the law ought to be
literally fulfilled ; but evidently it did not regard them as
possessing in themselves the importance which they had
for the eyes of the Pharisaic doctors. A principal reason
urged by Philo for the literal fulfillment was its adaptation
to prepare one to understand better the deeper meaning
of the law.1 It was mainly the ethical and philosophical
truth which the pentateuchal system was regarded as
shadowing forth that interested Philo and the men of his
school. We find him speaking in the best vein of Jewish
prophecy on the worthlessness of sacrifices apart from
1 Migration of Abraham, xvi. Works, II. 64, Yonge's translation.

22 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
the appropriate inner disposition. " In the eyes of God,"
he says, " it is not the number of things sacrificed that is
accounted valuable, but the purity of the rational spirit of
the sacrificer . . . The altar of God is the grateful soul of
the wise man."1
As respects biblical interpretation, Alexandrianism
cannot be regarded as having resorted to an altogether
exceptional course in its espousal of allegory. In the
later Jewish exegesis generally the door stood open to
allegorical interpretations. The rabbis entertained the
notion that the Scriptures, as the product of an infinite
author, have no such limited significance as pertains to
an ordinary human composition, but contain even in their
individual statements manifold meanings.2 From this
standpoint there was no check upon allegorizing aside
from convenience and custom. The peculiarity of Alex
andrianism was, on the one hand, its extraordinary
industry in drawing out the mystical or allegorical sense
of Scripture, and, on the other, the degree to which it
made allegorical interpretations a means of satisfying its
ambition to represent Judaism as embracing much of the
content of the Gentile philosophies.3

1 On those who offer Sacrifice, iv., v. Works, III. 233—5.
2 In a Talmudic comment on Jer. xxiii. 29 it is remarked: "As a
hammer divideth fire into many sparks, so one verse of Scripture has
many meanings and many explanations." (Sanhedrin, fol. 34, col. 1, cited
by Hershon, Talmudic Miscellanies,p. 11.)
8 As specimens of Philo's allegorizing we note the following : "By the
green herb of the field Moses means that portion of the mind which is
perceptible only by the intellect " (Works, I. 57). " He means by Abra
ham's country the body, and by his kindred the outward senses, and by
his father's house uttered speech " (II. 44). " By his saying of Ishmael,

THE QUESTION OF SOURCES 23
Like other Jewish schools of the age, the Alexandrian
regarded the Scriptures as an out and out communication
from God, and took practically no account of the condi
tioning agency of the human recipients of the revelation.
"The prophet," says Philo, "even when he appears to be
speaking, is silent, and another being is employing his
vocal organs, his mouth and tongue, for the explanation
of what things he chooses." J
In the Alexandrian conception of God and of His re
lation to the world a tinge of transcendentalism and dual
ism may be noticed. God is represented as exalted in
the mystery of His being far above man's power of
insight, so as to be incapable of being defined in any
positive manner. While His presence in the world of
sense is not denied, statements are made which imply a
feeling that the world is not worthy of immediate contact
with God. If we may judge from the trend of reference
both in the Book of Wisdom and in the writings of Philo,

' His hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against
him,' he means to describe the design and plan of life of a sophist, who
professes an over-curious scepticism, and who rejoices in disputatious
arguments " (II. 237). " The five cities of the land of Sodom are a
figurative representation of the five outward senses which exist in us."
(II. 426). " The same relation, then, that a mistress has to her hand
maidens, or a wife, who is a citizen, to a concubine, that same relation
has virtue, that is Sarah, to education, that is Hagar" (II. 162-7). "It
is not without a particular and correct meaning that Joseph is said to
have had a coat of many colors, for a political constitution is a many-colored
and a multiform thing, admitting of an infinite variety of changes in its
general appearance, in its affairs, in its moving causes, in the peculiar
laws respecting strangers, in numberless differences respecting times
and places " (II. 460).
1 On Who is the Heir of Divine Things, liii. Works, II. 147.

24

NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

God is not conceived to be altogether responsible for the
sphere of material being. He is represented as creating
only its form, not its substance. The initial act in the
process of creation is described as the reduction to order
of a formless matter.1
To provide for relating God to the world thus con
ceived to be scarcely worthy of His presence, the Alex
andrian theology made much account of an intermediate
agent, a kind of vicegerent of the Most High in the
visible universe. This agent is described in the Book of
Wisdom under the name of "Wisdom," and is repre
sented as "all-surveying," "pervading and penetrating
all things," "a breath of the power of God," "a clear
effluence of the glory of the Almighty," " an effulgence
from everlasting light," " an unspotted mirror of the
working of God," and "an image of His goodness." 2 In
the writings of Philo the favorite term for designating
the agent of mediation is the Logos, a term which, as
used by him, embraces the gist of the Platonic doctrine
of ideas and of the Stoic doctrine of an immanent reason
in the world. It is the reason of God viewed as taking
a worldward direction. As such it is the image of God,
the archetype of the world, the instrument for fashioning
all things, the dividing and arranging power in the uni
verse and the bond of union therein. While an inter
cessory function in behalf of men is not denied to this
image and instrument of the Divine Being, it is in general
pictured by Philo in its cosmic relations. To predicate
1 Wisdom, xi. 17; Philo, The Planting of Noah, i. Works, I. 416.
Compare James Drummond, Philo Judaeus, I. 188, 299-301.
2 Book of Wisdom, vii. 22-30.

THE QUESTION OF SOURCES 25
an incarnation of the Logos after the pattern of the
Christian conception was entirely foreign to his point of
view.1 In the circle of Alexandrianism the Messianic expec
tation seems to have been of the palest kind. Philo, in
common with his co-religionists, looked forward to a
time when the scattered Israelites should be gathered
into their own land, and the race at large, won to right
eousness, should enjoy the blessings of peace and plenty.
In this sense he believed in a Messianic kingdom. But
if by a Messianic hope one means the centering of expec
tation upon the appearance of a glorious and ideal per
sonage bearing a special divine commission, and destined
to work with marvellous efficiency as the visible leader
and king of God's people, then it must be said that the
writings of Philo do not show any proper trace of a
Messianic hope. As Drummond remarks, " Philo pre
ferred moving in the region of abstract ideas, where there
is more elevation of thought than warmth of personal
affection."2 The cosmic Logos rather than the personal
Messiah was before his mind. It cannot be seen that
he in anywise connected the former with the common
Jewish conception of the latter.
Among the features of the Alexandrian anthropology
which show the influence of Hellenic thinking the doc
trine of the preexistence of souls and a disparaging esti
mate of the body as a clog or fetter to the spirit may be
mentioned. The former is intimated in the Book of
Wisdom in the representation of the writer (who assumes
1 Compare Sheldon, History of Christian Doctrine, I. 67-70.
2 Philo Judaeus, II. 322.

26 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
the role of Solomon) that, being a good soul, he had the
privilege of coming into an undefiled body.1 Philo's
teaching is quite as distinctly on the side of preexistence.
"All the wise men," he says, "mentioned in the books
of Moses are represented as sojourners, for their souls
are sent down upon earth as to a colony."2 This view
appears not to have been confined to the Alexandrian
school. Notwithstanding the utter lack of warrant for
the notion of preexistence of souls in the Old Testament,
later Jewish thought as embodied in the Talmud leaned
decidedly to that notion.3 With Philo the idea of ema
nation seems to have been conjoined with that of pre
existence. " Every man," he says, " in regard to his
intellect is connected with divine reason, being an im
pression of, or a fragment or a ray of that blessed nature." 4
We find also with Philo the distinction between the
generic man and the concrete man. The former was
antecedent to the latter, perfectly immaterial, neither
male nor female, the heavenly archetypal man.5 As
regards the other feature of the Alexandrian anthropology,
the slighting estimate of the body, it was sufficiently
pronounced to serve naturally as a basis for Gnostic
asceticism. The sensuous nature may not indeed have
been formally denounced as intrinsically evil.6 Still the
body was characterized as an undesirable incumbrance,
1 Book of Wisdom, viii. 19, 20.
2 Confusion of Languages, xvii. Works, II. 17.
s Weber, Jiidische Theologie, § 46.
* Creation of the World, li. Works, I. 43, 264.
B Creation of the World, xlvi ; Allegories of the Sacred Laws, I. xii.
Works, I, 39, 60.
6 See Drummond, II. 297-301.

THE QUESTION OF SOURCES 27
a hindrance to the true life of the soul. "It is not
possible," says Philo, "for one who dwells in the body
and belongs to the race of mortals to be united to God,
but he alone can be so whom God delivers from that
prison house of the body." x
Both the lack of a vivid Messianic hope on the part of
the Alexandrian school and its disparaging estimate of
the body naturally affected its eschatology. The idea
of a great crisis, to be inaugurated and led on to its con
summation by the Messianic king and judge, passed out of
view. The thought of a bodily resurrection, as also that
of a great physical catastrophe, was ignored or discoun
tenanced. In place of the concrete representations
which ruled the central current of Jewish belief and ex
pectation, the Alexandrian school presents us with the
general notion of an immortal life of disembodied souls.
In considering the influence of the Alexandrian theol
ogy upon the New Testament writings it behooves us to
remember that parallelisms almost always can be found
in writings which belong to the same general class, ethi
cal, speculative, or mystical, and that accordingly they
do not prove the fact of borrowing except on the score
of being very specific in character or extraordinary in
measure. On account of the wide range of Philo's writ
ings it might be expected that some points of resem
blance could be pointed out between them and any
Christian book belonging approximately to the same age.
With or without a basis in actual historical connections,
resembling items were bound to appear. In fact they
1 Allegories of the Sacred Laws, III. xv. Works, I. 118. Compare
I. 80, 92, 125, II. 208, 209.

28 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
have been discovered in writings as remote in spirit from
the speculative and mystical system of Philo as are the
Synoptical Gospels and the Epistle of James.1
The New Testament books in connection with which
the question of Alexandrian influence is most appropri
ately raised are undoubtedly the Epistles of Paul, the
Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Johannine books. As
respects the first, it is generally conceded that their his
toric background was formed more largely by Pharisaic
Judaism than by Alexandrianism. It is also admitted,
if not so generally, still by eminent critics, that there is
no decisive evidence that Paul had access to the chief
despository of Alexandrianism in the writings of his
older contemporary, Philo. From this point of view it
is natural to conjecture that, if the apostle actually came
into contact with Alexandrian thinking, so far as this
was not consummated through personal communication
with Apollos and men of his stamp, it was brought about
largely through the Book of Wisdom. Pfleiderer decides
very confidently both for the fact of such contact and
for its effectuation in particular through this writing.
He considers it to be of great historic significance that
the elements at once of Pharisaic Judaism and Hellenic
thinking should have had place in Paul's mind, this com
bination having afforded a natural means of transition to
a system at once transcending the particularism of
Judaism and offering a needful complement or corrective
to Hellenism. In his view the influence of the Book of
Wisdom may be discerned in a number of Pauline partic
ulars. It may be seen in the description of the natural
1 Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria, pp. 310-317.

THE QUESTION OF SOURCES 29
man as incompetent to receive divine verities J ; in the
judgment passed upon the Gentile world, partly indul
gent and partly severe ; 2 in the thought of the continued
existence of the soul in a heavenly dwelling, which
thought in 2 Cor. v. 1. ff. takes the place of a bodily
resurrection ; 3 and in sentences bearing on the subject
of predestination.4 As to the merit of this contention,
we see nothing in the way of the probability that Paul
was acquainted with the Book of Wisdom. At the same
time, when we measure the active and fertile mind of
Paul against the mind of the unknown Alexandrian, and
note that the passages from the two which are brought
into comparison show only a vague and general resem
blance to each other, we are far from sharing the impres
sion of Pfleiderer as to the distinct obligations of Paul
to the Book of Wisdom. It may have been a factor in
Paul's mental furnishing, but we do not find sufficient
evidence for concluding that it was a prominent factor.
In the exegesis of the Apostle to the Gentiles an occa
sional sentence may undoubtedly be found which smacks
of post-exilian methods of interpretation. It is not clear,
however, that herein Paul was following the Alexandrian
school rather than the Pharisaic or rabbinic. His singu
lar rendering of the promise to Abraham's seed (Gal. iii.
16) was not without parallel in the custom of the latter
school to extract special meanings from single words.
1Wisd. ix. 13-17, 1 Cor. ii. 6-16.
2 Wisd. xiii. 1-9, xiv, 21-28, Rom. i. 18 ff., 1 Cor. xii. 2, Gal. iv. 8 ff.
8 Wisd. ix. 15.
4 Wisd. Xv. 7, xii. 10-12. See Otto Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum,
pp. 161, 162, 305, edit, of 1887.

30 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
There was also, as has been noticed, a warrant in Phari
saic custom for allegorizing. That Paul was not borrow
ing specifically from Alexandrianism in the instances of
allegorical interpretation to which he resorted may be
regarded as intimated by the fact that the mystical sense
which he attached to Old Testament characters and in
cidents is quite different from that assigned to them by
Philo. For example, while Paul (Gal. iv. 22-31) con
strues Hagar and Sarah as emblematic respectively of
the state of legal bondage and of evangelical freedom,
Philo makes them typical respectively of education and
of virtue.1
It has been supposed by some that in the Pauline
anthropology the influence of Alexandrian teaching is
discernible. Especially has this alleged influence been
discovered in the strong antithesis between flesh and
spirit which is drawn by the apostle. His language, it is
claimed, is in the line of the Hellenic dualism which was
appropriated by Philo. But it is to be noticed that Paul,
unlike Philo and the Greeks, is on record as a believer
in the resurrection, that is, in the perpetuity of embodied
existence, and that in one connection or another he
spoke of the body, or more specifically of the flesh itself,
as a subject of possible sanctification. These facts show
at least that he was not clearly and consistently com
mitted to the platform of Hellenic or Alexandrian dualism,
and afford ground for the suspicion that his disparaging
references to the flesh are not to be taken in the proper
sense of that dualism. This order of references, it must
xOn Seeking Instruction, ii., iii. Works, II. 158-160.

THE QUESTION OF SOURCES 31
be granted, is not in the vein of the Hebrew Scriptures.
But then Paul may have found the principal incentive to
them in experience and observation rather than in the
maxims of Hellenic philosophy on the incompatibility of
the body with the higher life of man. It is certain to
our mind that the latter source did not control his think
ing; that to some extent it may have tinged his thought,
and especially his speech, can be admitted.
On the subject of christology it is particularly the
contents of the epistles to the Colossians and the Ephe-
sians that have given rise to the surmise that Paul was
influenced by the Alexandrian theology. It is true that
in these epistles Christ, as the Son of God, is depicted as
holding a general cosmic relation, and that He is styled
the image of the invisible God and the first-born of the
creation — representations which have their parallel in
Philo's characterization of the Logos. But it is to be
noticed, on the other hand, that these christological items
had been touched upon in the earlier epistles of Paul,1
and that he was only fulfilling the existing occasion to
combat an incipient Gnosticism if he gave them in the
later instance a special emphasis. These facts legitimate
the conclusion that he was not diverted from his earlier
standpoint in christology by Alexandrian influence. There
remains, of course, the possibility of contending that his
earlier standpoint was itself indebted to this influence.
It must, however, be acknowledged that the further back
a point of view can be traced in the mental vision of the
converted Pharisee, the less likelihood is there that it was
1 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4 ; Rom. viii. 29.

32 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
furnished in whole or in part by a contemporary, or even
by a predecessor, belonging to the Alexandrian school.
Having said this much against giving too large a credit
for Paul's christology to the Alexandrian speculation, we
admit the possibility that in respect of form something
may have come to the apostle from this storehouse.
Whatever may be the verdict respecting the indebted
ness of the Pauline epistles, it cannot reasonably be dis
puted that the Epistle to the Hebrews exhibits distinct
obligations to Alexandrianism. The conclusion is un
avoidable that the mind of the writer had been well
furnished with its characteristic thoughts and forms of
expression before he undertook the task of Christian
authorship. In the opening passage of the epistle there
are phrases which remind of the description of wisdom
in the Book of Wisdom and of the exposition of the
Logos in the writings of Philo. The way in which the
epistle introduces citations from the Scriptures, as being
the words of God rather than the language of such and
such a sacred writer, corresponds to the custom of Philo.
The typology with which the spirited composition is so
largely occupied is quite in the Alexandrian vein, the
author conceiving of the Old Testament institutions not
merely as shadows or types of realities brought to view
in a later and more perfect dispensation, but as copies of
patterns preexisting in heaven. Several individual items
in the epistle have very distinct parallels in the Alexan
drian literature. Thus the representation that God made
oath to Abraham by Himself because he could not swear
by a greater is found in Philo,1 as is also the character-
1 Allegories of the Sacred Laws, III. Ixxii. Works, I. 161.

THE QUESTION OF SOURCES 33
ization of Melchizedek as king of peace and righteousness
and unconnected with father or mother.1 The phrase
"a great high-priest " is found in the epistle and in Philo
alike. Both exceed in like manner the distinct warrant
of the Old Testament in representing the high-priest as
daily offering sacrifice. Both speak of Moses as " faith
ful in all his house." 2 In short the evidences of the
influence of the Alexandrian writings upon the Epistle to
the Hebrews are unmistakable.
On the other hand, it is not to be overlooked that
there are wide contrasts between the two. The author
of the epistle keeps closer in general than did Philo to a
biblical basis, and avoids the fanciful extreme in allego
rizing to which a speculative temper enticed his prede
cessor. The representation of the former respecting the
incarnation of the preexisting Son, His partaking of flesh
and blood and His thorough identification with man in
lot and experience, is entirely alien to Philo's conception
of the Logos. Scarcely less remote from that conception
is the stanch view taught in the epistle respecting the
atoning sacrifice of the Mediator. In truth, it can be
said that the Alexandrianism of the Epistle to the Hebrews
pertains more largely to the domain of color and form
than to that of dogmatic substance.
As respects the Johannine writings — that is, the
fourth Gospel and the epistles of John — criticism com
monly affirms a certain affiliation with the Alexandrian
1 Allegories of the Sacred Laws, III. xxv., xxvi. Works, 1. 128, 129.
2 See other items as cited by Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria, pp.
321-330 ; also by Menegoz, La Theologie de l'fipitre aux H&reux, pp.
187-217.

34 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
literature. In the prologue to the Gospel the author
gives evidence of acquaintance, direct or indirect, with
the Logos doctrine of Philo. The conclusiveness of the
argument for a direct acquaintance can be called in ques
tion ; still it is not improbable that the writer, whoever
he may have been, taking up his pen forty or fifty years
after the works of Philo had been completed, in a time
when a bent to speculative and constructive thought had
begun to manifest itself in the circle of Christianity,
should have looked into the writings of the celebrated
Alexandrian. Another point of comparison with the
Alexandrian literature is discoverable in the predilection
shown in the Johannine books for a typical sense in the
forms and events of sacred history. A still further point
of comparison may be noted in the antithesis which is
drawn between the world, this present sphere of time
and sense, and the realm of invisible and eternal realities.
In some instances the Johannine characterization of the
world is verbally as disparaging as that which is given
forth in the dualistic representations of Philo.1
Too much account, however, is not to be taken of any
one of these resembling features. The Johannine Logos,
while conceived in His preexistence and general world-
relation somewhat after the fashion of Philo, is assigned
to relations and experiences altogether foreign to the
Philonian view. The Johannine typology, while exhibiting
a leaning to mysticism akin to that of Philo, does not
1 Philo says, " It is as impossible that the love of the world can co
exist with the love of God, as for light and darkness to coexist at the
same time with one another" (Fragment, Works, IV. 244). John says,
" If any man love the world the love of the Father is not in him" ( 1 John
a. 15).

THE QUESTION OF SOURCES 35
cover the same range as the Alexandrian. The latter
makes much account of the patterns or archetypes of
things preexisting in a divine or celestial sphere. The
former, omitting this distinctive feature, contemplates the
events of sacred history and the facts and relations of
nature as means of shadowing forth the spiritual truths
of the new dispensation. Finally, the apparent dualism
between the two worlds seems, when the total references
of the Johannine writings are taken into account, to differ
from the Philonian, as depicting not so much an essential
opposition as a contrast of actual ethical condition.1
We conclude, therefore, that while the Johannine type
reflects in a measure the Alexandrian, there is no good
reason to suppose such a fusion of the substance of the
latter into the former as some writers have assumed.
The degree of dependence shown by the fourth Gospel
1 For further points of a possible comparison see Siegfried, Philo von
Alexandria, pp. 317-321 ; also Grill, Untersuchungen iiber die Ent-
stehung des vierten Evangeliums, pp. 106-138. The list of resemblances
between the Johannine and the Philonian sentences, as presented by
these writers, is at first sight quite impressive ; but, as Drummond re
marks, a scrutiny of the parallels brings to view marked differences in
style and phraseology, as well as striking contrasts in thought. In re
spect of vocabulary John seems to have been influenced by Philo in a
very scanty measure. "Philo is fond of compounds .with SW, having
twenty-eight words of this kind j the fourth Gospel has none. Philo has
forty compounds with tv- ; the Gospel has only two common words.
Philo has seventy-three compounds with e*-, not one of which is in the
Gospel, though the latter has fourteen such compounds, nearly all very
common words. Philo has sixty-seven compounds with «rc- which are
not in the Gospel, the Gospel having eleven ordinary words." (James
Drummond, article " Philo," in Hastings' Diet, of the Bible, v. 207, 208.)
So far then as the evidence of vocabulary goes, there is reason to con
clude against the supposition of any protracted and absorbing study of
Philo's writings by the author of the fourth Gospel.

36 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
upon the school of Alexandria is less than that revealed
by the Epistle to the Hebrews.
IV. — Questions as to the Indebtedness of Cer
tain Special Portions of the New Testament
to Post-Canonical Judaism.
The foremost questions respecting the influence of
post-canonical developments upon the New Testament
literature have now been considered. But some points
relating to individual books and passages deserve a few
additional words. The extent to which Pharisaism sup
plied, or anticipated, the framework of the ordinary New
Testament eschatology involves evidently a measure of
indebtedness on the part of the Apocalypse to post-
canonical Judaism. Beyond this general indebtedness it
is supposed by some critics that this book was influenced
by specific specimens of apocalyptic literature which came
forth in later Judaism.
In the Epistle of James a close mental association with
the " wisdom literature " has been detected. It has been
claimed also that the epistle shows a closer affiliation
with the Hellenistic literature of this order than with the
Hebrew. Some have thought that the language and
ideas of James bear evident traces of the maxims of
Ecclesiasticus. A comparison, however, of the two
writings does not reveal any such detailed resemblance
as to make it appropriate to emphasize very strongly the
dependence of the epistle.1
1 In particular compare James i. 2 with Ecclesiasticus ii. i-6 ; i. 27
with iv. 10; i. 19, ii. 14-26 with iv. 29; iii. 2 with v. 13; i. 12-15 with
xv. 11-20; ii. 13 with xxviii. 1, 2 ; iii. 5-8 with xxviii. 13-26; v. 2, 3
with xxix. 10.

THE QUESTION OF SOURCES 37
In proportion to its length, the Epistle of Jude is
especially distinguished by borrowing post-canonical
matter. Not only does it cite directly from the so-called
Book of Enoch, but it also introduces a legendary account
of a contest between the archangel Michael and the devil
over the body of Moses. In 2 Tim. iii. 8 we have simi
larly, in the names given to the Egyptian sorcerers, an
item which has no ground in the Hebrew Scriptures. It
has the appearance of being a traditionary addition to
history. The peculiar reference in 1 Cor. x. 4 to a rock
that followed the Israelites in the wilderness has its
counterpart in the rabbinic notion of a literal rock that
mercifully kept along with the host in the wilderness and
refreshed it with the stream that gushed from its side.
It is not impossible that Paul had this notion in mind
when he referred to the rock as Christ. At any rate it
is difficult to surmise what should have prompted him
to introduce the figure of a moving rock, were not that
figure already at hand in the traditionary representation.
Little account, however, is to be made of this item, since
Paul gives no sanction to the tradition, and seems to
bring it in only by way of literary device to emphasize
the function of Christ in ancient Israel. Once more,
reference may be made to 1 Cor. xi. 10 where Paul in
stances a consideration of the angels as a reason for the
veiling of women. The supposition of some commenta
tors is that the apostle was thinking of Gen. vi. 2, and
considered the incident there recorded as implying that
it is a matter of prudence for women to cover up their
beauty from the gaze of angels. On the side of this
supposition is the indubitable fact that in a widely cur-

38 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
rent interpretation Gen. vi. 2 was understood to teach
that the daughters of men became a source of tempta
tion to the angels.1 It should not be overlooked, how
ever, that many exegetes have preferred to find a different
meaning in the apostle's reference. No more should it
be overlooked that the natural sense of Gen. vi. 2 is that
which Jewish interpretation near the beginning of the
Christian era currently attached thereto, and that accord
ingly the appropriation of that interpretation would not
make the verse in Corinthians an instance of a post-
canonical opinion as opposed to a canonical.
The discussion shows, as the very reason of the case
would teach one to anticipate, that Christianity was not
isolated from the theological thinking of contemporary
Judaism. Both Pharisaism and Alexandrianism supplied
moulds in which the thought of one or another New
Testament writer was cast, not to say influenced the
thinking of one or another writer. It does not follow,
however, that Christianity did not have in general a dis
tinctly closer affinity with the higher levels of Old Tes
tament thought than with the cardinal phases of the
later Judaism. Neither does it follow that Christianity
was not profoundly original. The contrary must be
asserted- in both relations. In the summit of Jewish
prophecy, as recorded in the canonical Scriptures, Chris
tianity had its most congenial antecedent. In spirit and
in subject-matter the New Testament message repre
sented an immense advance beyond the plane of postcan-
onical Judaism, though the latter, by the inevitable work
ing of the law of historical connections, has left its traces.
1 Book of Enoch, vi., vii., x., xii., xv., lxix. ; Book of Jubilees, iv., v.,
vii., x. ; Apocalypse of Baruch, lvi.

CHAPTER II
THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS AND THEIR
TEACHINGS
I. — The Characteristics of These Gospels and
the More Probable Theory as to Their
Interrelations.
An exposition of New Testament Theology properly
begins with the Synoptical Gospels. They embody the
most primitive type of Christian teaching. As compared
with the fourth Gospel their antecedent position will not
be disputed. They were earlier in point of actual com
position, and in subject-matter they show a more primi
tive cast. The fourth Gospel combines a large measure
of theological reflection with the life-story of Christ. In
the Synoptical Gospels the element of theological reflec
tion may not be wanting, but it is certainly less conspicu
ous. Their treatment of the gospel history is more
objective in tone. At least, their general agreement in
form and content, as opposed to the singular cast of the
fourth Gospel, argues for the relatively objective character
of their representations. In the absence of distinct
evidence to the contrary, the three concurring witnesses
must be regarded as repeating the dominant tradition of
their time respecting the sayings and doings of the
Master. If we ask for the verdict of criticism on this
39

40 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
point, it is given with entire unanimity for the conclusion
that the fourth Gospel is relatively of a subjective cast,
and approaches less closely to a verbal reproduction of
Christ's discourses than do the Synoptical Gospels.
If the comparison be made with the Pauline epistles,
it must be granted that in one point the antecedent
position of the Synoptical Gospels is subject to denial. It
is not established that any one of them was extant in its
present form when those epistles were given to the
Church. But the mere temporal priority of the epistles
does not of course necessarily bespeak for them a logical
priority. Christ lived and taught before Paul preached
and wrote. Unless then the Synoptical Gospels were
dominated by Paul's line of teaching rather than by the
impression coming from the life and words of Christ,
they represent the prior doctrinal type. Now we have
no hesitation in saying that it is quite certain that in
the composition of the Synoptical Gospels the Christ
influence was decidedly preponderant over the Pauline
influence. The latter may have wrought to some extent.
Certainly it would be rash to affirm that neither Mark
nor Luke derived anything in the way of thought or
terminology from their companionship with Paul. On
the other hand, several considerations advise against mag
nifying the apostle's influence on the composition of the
Gospels. In the first place it is to be noted that general
affinities with Pauline teaching are no sufficient proof of
borrowing specifically from Paul. No one has ever
proved that Christ did not anticipate in important respects
the essentials of Pauline doctrine, so that a correct report
of His sayings could not be given without including more

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 41
or less of the distinctive features of that doctrine. In
the second place it is to be observed that it is about as
easy to detect Pauline substance in one Synoptical Gos
pel as in another. It is indeed theoretically conceivable
that all the evangelists may have derived a strong doctri
nal bias from the apostolic theologian. But will any one
count it probable that Pauline influence should have
overmastered the primitive evangelical tradition in the
mind of every expositor of the same and caused in every
instance an interpolation of Pauline dogmatics at the
expense of the original type ? It is decidedly improbable,
and the fact that Paulinism of the pronounced type of
Galatians and Romans appears to have been already in
the sub-apostolic age well-nigh out of the field of vision
is right in line with this improbability. In the third
place, it must be contended that the unsophisticated
reader does not naturally discover a specifically Pauline
coloring in the Synoptical Gospels. He fails to find there
a single sentence that recalls the technical Pauline ex
position of the theme of justification and reconciliation,
or the peculiar Pauline manner of putting the antithesis
between law method and gospel method. On the other
hand, he is forced to observe how the distinctive lines of
synoptical representation respecting the "Kingdom" and
the "Son of Man" are wanting in the Pauline epistles.
Indeed, he cannot escape the conviction that the notes
of independence in the Gospels greatly exceed those of
dependence.1 1 As to any alleged influence of Pauline thinking on the historical
substance of the Synoptical Gospels, Somerville well remarks: "That
the value of the record as a source of historic truth has been impaired to
any extent by theological bias proceeding from the school of Paul, is

42 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Of the three Gospels, it is generally confessed, the first
has most of a Judaic impress. In various relations the
Jewish background in the writer's mind is made to appear.
It is seen especially in his forwardness to exhibit the
unity of the two dispensations by specifying how the
whole line of events in the one is prophetically intimated
in the other.1 It is seen in the ease with which he slides
into the use of the Jewish order of theocratic terminology,
as when, for example, he speaks of Jerusalem as the holy
city, or styles it the city of the Great King.2 It is seen,
furthermore, some have contended, in the stress which,
in a given connection, is laid upon the fulfillment of the
law up to its least item,3 and in the distinct enunciation
of the principle that every man is to fare at the hands of
the Judge according to his deeds.4 But it is not to be
overlooked that Matthew's Gospel has an offsetting aspect.
If, on the one hand, it shows Jewish coloring to a special
degree, on the other hand it does not fall below any one
of the Synoptical Gospels in the measure in which it
transcends Jewish provincialism and particularism. It
presents many glimpses of a spiritual and world-wide
what scarcely any one will admit who feels the power of life depicted in
the Gospels. The harmony of the character of Christ as there delineated,
the intermingling of the divine and the human in such a way that ' the
lowly and human never degrade Him in our eyes, nor His power and
greatness remove Him out of our sympathies and understanding,' is in
consistent with the supposition. That such a picture was or could have
been the growth of unconscious theologising is far more incredible than
that it is what it professes to be, the record of a sublime reality." (St.
Paul's Conception of Christ, pp. 225, 226.)
1 Matt. i. 22, 23. ii. 15, 17, 18, 13, iv. 15, 16, viii. 17, xii. 17-21, xiii. 14,
15, xxi. 4, 5, xxvii. 9, 10.
2 Matt, iv. 5, v. 35. 8v. 17-19. *xvi. 27.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING

43

religion. It pictures the Gentile world in the person of
the magi as first recognizing and worshiping the Christ.1
It minifies the exclusive advantages of race connection
by recording the declaration that God is able from the
stones to raise up children unto Abraham.2 It pictures
Christ as setting forth a higher rule than that of the
olden time,3 and as claiming to be lord over such a sacred
institution as the Sabbath.4 It bespeaks tolerance and
consideration for new elements in religion by protesting
against the folly of putting new wine into old wine-skins.5
It represents the little one in the new kingdom as greater
than the most stalwart representative of the old.6 In ex
press terms it declares that many shall come from the
east and the west to occupy a place in the kingdom which
Israelites will be found unworthy to occupy,7 and that
as a people they shall be dispossessed of the Lord's vine
yard and see it let out to other husbandmen.8 It records
a formal injunction for the preaching of the gospel not
simply within Jewish boundaries, but to all nations.9 So
far is it from resting in a mere legal plan of gaining
divine benefits that it invites to the confidence that the
best gifts of God may be obtained by simply asking in
the spirit of childlike faith and sincerity.10 In short, it is
quite plain that, whatever inheritance came over from
Judaism into Matthew's Gospel, it did not prevent the
distinctive spirituality and universalism of Christianity
from gaining emphatic expression therein. It is possible,
however, that the intimacy of the writer's mental associ-
1ii. I, 2, ii. 6ix. 17. "xxi. 33-45.
2 iii. 9. 6xi. 11. 9 xxviii. 19.
8v. 21-49. 'viii. 11, 12. 10vii. 7-11.
*xii. 8.

44 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
ation with Judaism may in part account for the fact that
this Gospel more than any other of the three contem
plates Christianity as an institution, in other words, gives
more place to the churchly element. In virtue of this
characteristic the first Gospel supplied a congenial basis
for the early Catholic tendency — the tendency to the
unification and organization of Christian society.
In Mark's Gospel a special dogmatic interest is not
prominent. At least, such interest is not likely to be
manifest to the reader who has not decided beforehand
as to what type of christology is historically credible.
The writing of the second evangelist is essentially a
descriptive Gospel. Its aim is a vivid reproduction of
the life of Christ, a picture of the Master in His deeds.
With the single exception of the prophetic exposition of
the "parousia" it introduces no lengthy discourses. In
the exercise of its pictorial art it passes rapidly from
scene to scene, giving however such events as it attempts
to delineate with about as much detail as does either of
the companion Gospels.
As compared with Matthew's Gospel that of Luke
shows less of Judaic coloring. The writer seems either
to have had a less vital reminiscence of Judaism, or else
to have kept it purposely in abeyance as not being likely
to edify the Gentile readers whom he more particularly
contemplated. It cannot be said that he pushes Chris
tian universalism beyond the point of view of Matthew ;
for the latter, as has been noticed, passes well-nigh to
the limit ; but his universalism is more largely disengaged
from adjuncts which remind of Jewish antecedents.1
1 For examples of universalism in Luke see ii. 30-32, iii. 8, xiii 29,
xxiv. 47.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 45
That Luke, as a disciple of the free spirited apostle to the
Gentiles, naturally gave this cast to his composition
need not be denied. At the same time, there is little
occasion to find in his Christian universalism a specific
token of his Paulinism. When Luke wrote, Christian
universalism was no party shibboleth. With inconsider
able exception it was the thoroughly accepted maxim of
the community of believers. As a special trait of Luke
we may notice his predilection for the gracious side of
Christ's personality and teaching. He abridges the anti-
Pharisaic polemic, and adds to the matter furnished by
his fellow evangelists not a little that is illustrative of
divine tenderness and compassion.
As to order of composition, criticism may be said to
have established a probability in favor of the priority of
Mark's Gospel among the extant records of the life of
Christ. In the first place, so far as simplicity is a token
of primitiveness, this Gospel has an unequivocal claim to
be placed first in the list. In the second place, it is
very difficult to suppose that certain narratives contained
in the other Gospels would have been omitted by Mark
had they been before him in written form at the time
that he drew up his history. Doubtless a problem re
mains in respect of omitted matters, whatever order of
composition may be assumed ; but this problem is more
easily dealt with on the supposition of the priority of
Mark than on the opposing hypothesis. In the third
place, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke bear distinct
evidences of a composite character, such as are not observ
able in Mark. Luke's Gospel begins with an acknowl
edgment of acquaintance with documentary sources. In

46 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
line with this acknowledgment there is a token of con
tact with a plurality of documents in the occurrence of
a considerable number of doublets, that is, repetitions of
the same or closely similar sentences. Among the sources
which contributed to Luke, a prominent place evidently
belonged to Mark. Thence were taken almost entirely
the contents of three extensive passages, namely iii. i-vi.
19, viii. 4— ix. 50, xviii. 1 5— xxiv. 10, comprising in all about
eleven chapters. This matter, too, is given very largely
in Mark's order. Quite as distinctly as Luke's Gospel
that of Matthew gives evidence of a composite character.
An indication of a plurality of sources is found in the
number of doublets which the latter incorporates, this
number being quite as great as that contained in Luke.1
A further indication of the same fact is discovered by
some critics in the union which, as was noticed above,
this Gospel exhibits between a pronounced affiliation
with Judaism and an equally pronounced leaning to
Christian universalism. The contrasted features are
regarded as due to the differing standpoints of the con
tributors. It is claimed also that a token of the com
posite character of Matthew appears in the fact that
some citations from the Old Testament give evidence of
reference to the Septuagint version, while others show
the influence of the Hebrew. To some of these consid
erations, especially the second, we are not able to attach
any great weight ; but when taken together, and sup-
1 Compare Matt. x. 21 with Matt. x. 35 ; xii. 31 with xii. 32 ; xiii. 12
with xxv. 29 ; xvi. 4 with xii. 39 ; xvi. 24 with x. 38 ; xvi. 25 with x. 39 ;
xviii. 8 f. with x. 29 f. ; xix. 9 with v. 32 ; xxi. 21 with xvii. 20; xxi. 22
with vii. 8 ; xxiv. 23 with xxiv. 26.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 47
plemented by the fact of the superior simplicity and
homogeneity of Mark's Gospel, they certainly favor the
conclusion that Matthew's Gospel is to be esteemed a
composite production, and as such having had in Mark a
source instead of serving as a source to Mark. That
one of the two made contribution to the other is indi
cated by approaches to identity in matter and phrase.
While the Gospels of Luke and Matthew incorporate
the larger part of the narratives of Mark, they appear to
have originated in independence of one another. Several
facts point to this conclusion. The number of narratives
which they have in common over and above those in
Mark is small compared with the narratives that are
special to each. Though they agree in going back of
the story of the second evangelist to the birth and in
fancy of Jesus, they are far from exhibiting an identical
content in these introductory portions. It is to be
noticed also that they differ in respect of the order in
which they reproduce the matter which they have in
common with Mark. Moreover, they give in textual or
verbal respects different renderings of this matter, such
as are well explained on the supposition that each, inde
pendently of the other, worked over the text of Mark.
Specially noticeable variations from Mark's dialect do
not appear to have passed over from one to the other.
In addition to finding a common source in Mark's
narratives, it is believed that Matthew and Luke drew
in common from a collection of sayings, or discourses.
The two evangelists appear to have incorporated an
identical body of the sayings of Christ, giving these in
some instances with a close approach to verbal identity,

48 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
and in others diverging quite appreciably in respect of
form. In individual instances a fair explanation of these
facts of correspondence might be found in the suppo
sition that one of the Gospels supplied the original text,
and that the other reproduced this with more or less free
dom. But a supposition of this kind collides with the
evidence along various lines for the mutual independence
of the two Gospels. The only satisfactory conclusion,
therefore, seems to be that the resembling discourses
were taken from a source no longer extant, from a col
lection of the sayings of Christ to which the two evange
lists independently had access. The first evangelist is
estimated to have derived one-sixth of his matter from
this source, and the third nearly as large a proportion.
A reference to this collection — which is suggested, if
not established as an historical reality, by a comparative
study of the Gospels — may possibly be contained in
this sentence of Papias : " Matthew composed the 'Logia'
(ra, Xojta) in the Hebrew tongue, and every one trans
lated it as he was able."1 Appeal may be made to the
Septuagint, to the New Testament, and to early patristic
usage in favor of understanding by the " Logia " sayings
or discourses. A certain support is thus given to the
inference that Papias could not have referred to the
complete Gospel of Matthew, with its narrative portions,
but rather to a collection of discourses, the composition
of which was antecedent to the Gospel of Matthew as
known to us. We are warned, however, not to make too
much of the significance appropriate to the term " Logia,"
since we find that Papias himself in referring to Mark's
1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING

49

Gospel seems to have included the record both of the
words and deeds of Christ under the phrase ol /evpia/col
\dyot.1 The ground is consequently wanting for an
adequate assurance that in referring to Matthew's Logia
he did not intend to designate the complete Gospel as
known to history.2 In that event it must be said that
he was mistaken in supposing it to have been written
primarily in Hebrew. Criticism does not grant that our
Matthew as a whole could have been a translation from
Hebrew into Greek. We are thus left without any in
disputable historic testimony for connecting the Logia,
as a collection of discourses, with the Apostle Matthew.
The actual existence, however, of the supposed collection
of sayings is not made improbable by the uncertainty of
the reference of Papias. The common content of Mat
thew and Luke is a token of a source, other than Mark,
to which both Gospels were indebted ; while the lack in
them of a common content, aside from that supplied by
Mark, in their narratives of Christ's passion and resur
rection, is a sign that the source in question was adapted
to furnish sayings rather than narratives of events.
In using Mark's Gospel the author of the first Gospel
proceeded in some instances more conservatively than did
the third evangelist. The difference in this respect, how
ever, is riot wide. Both used the earlier narrative of
Christ's life with a freedom which implies that, while
they attached to it a high value, they did not regard it
as a strictly authoritative rendering of the Christian tra-
1 Eusebius, iii. 39.
2 Compare Jiilicher, Einleitung, p. 239 ; Lightfoot, Essays on the
Work entitled Supernatural Religion, pp. 175, 176.

50 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
dition. Matthew's reproduction of the "Logia" very-
likely comes nearer to the original text than does Luke's ;
but the latter offers a compensation in the more probable
association with historical situations which he gives to
the "Logia." It is commonly admitted that Matthew's
Gospel exhibits considerable freedom in massing the dis
courses of Christ.
It is quite possible that the composition of the "Logia"
preceded that of Mark's Gospel. Some scholars sup
pose that there is sufficient ground for concluding that
the second evangelist made use of that source. But,
apart from the eschatological discourse in chapter xiii,
there is little evidence in Mark of the use of any source
that assumed to report the words of Jesus. The borrow
ing from the " Logia " remains therefore a problematical
point. Still more open to question is the theory of an
original Mark (Ur-Marcus) back of the canonical.1 Ac
cording to an early tradition, Mark depended largely in
his writing upon Peter's testimony2. While positive proof
is wanting, the tradition is entirely credible. If, then,
we suppose the "Logia," as is eminently probable, to
have been based on apostolic reminiscence and testimony,
we must recognize an apostolic basis as underlying the
greater part of the whole group of the Synoptical Gos
pels ; for, while some other sources made contribution
to the first and third Gospels, these two were derived in
large part from Mark and the " Logia." 3
1 Jiilicher, Einleitung, pp. 256, 257 ; Moffatt, The Historical New
Testament, p. 264. 2 Eusebius, iii. 39.
8 For convenient summaries of the evidence bearing on the interre
lation of the Synoptical Gospels see Paul Wernle, Die Synoptische Frage;
John C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae; Harnack, The Sayings of Jesus;
Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents, Part II.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 51
Means for determining the precise date of any one of
the Gospels are wanting. Harnack concludes that Mark
was written between 65 and 85 a.d., probably between
65 and 70 ; that Matthew was later than Mark, though
probably written between 70 and 75 ; and that the origin
of Luke is to be placed between 78 and 93.1
While the Synoptical Gospels cannot properly claim the
character of contemporary records, it may still be urged
that they were written at an advantageous date. The
character of Jesus and the significance of His work and
message could be viewed at a little distance from the histor
ical theatre in a truer perspective than would have been
attainable from a contiguous standpoint. As has been
said, " The Gospels in reality do more for us, written
between 65 and 105, than they would have done if com
posed before 35. . . . It needed the four decades between
30 and 70 to render the period before 30 luminous."2
The actual interval was long enough to give to reflection
and experience a chance to bring about something like a
fair understanding of the evangelical history. At the
same time the interval was not so long as to effect a for
feiture of the benefit of the vital reminiscence of those who
had been the companions of the Master during the period
of His public ministry. The impress of that reminiscence
is stamped upon these writings. In the quality and
trend of their teaching they so clearly attest a unique
individuality as to enforce the conviction that they were
generated by a historical reality, and on the whole kept
1 Die Chronologie deraltchristlichen Litteratur, I. 653-655. Jiilicher
prefers somewhat later dates.
2 Moffatt, The Historical New Testament, pp. 14-16.

52 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
close to that reality. The peculiarity of their language,
too, is quite in accord with this conviction. " The Greek
language lies upon these writings like a diaphanous veil,
and it requires hardly any effort to retranslate their con
tents into the Hebrew or Aramaic. That the tradition
here presented to us is, in the main, at first hand is
obvious." J
The survival of the Synoptical Gospels (not to speak
here of the fourth Gospel) is a token that in respect of
trustworthiness and value they could claim a primacy
among the early attempts to record the words and deeds
of Christ. To be sure it is conceivable that adventitious
causes might have worked to suppress worthy rivals.
But what is known of uncanonical Gospels does not lead us
to believe that any of them had an equal title to survival
with the Synoptical. The majority of those whose titles
have come down to us are quite outside the field of com
parison. In the present connection there is scanty
occasion to mention any of them except the Gospel ac
cording to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to the
Egyptians, and the Gospel of Peter.
The references of Clement of Alexandria, of Origen,
of Eusebius, and especially of Jerome, to the Gospel ac
cording to the Hebrews may be taken as indicating that in
its general tenor this version of Christ's life could not
have been very remote from the Synoptical Gospels.
Had it contained much matter adapted to provoke a
sharp antipathy in Catholic minds, the references to it
would naturally have been characterized by a different
tone. Still its title to rank with the Synoptical Gospels
1 Harnack, What is Christianity ? p. 21.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 53
as a treasury of primitive tradition is open to question.
Several of the citations which make up the scanty re
mains of this Hebrew Gospel are not favorable to the
assumption of parity. A dogmatizing element enters in
to its account of Christ's baptism both in the broaching
by Him of the subject of His sinlessness, and in the
characterizing of Him as the Son, the firstborn, of the
Holy Spirit, and the sought-for resting place of that
Spirit. The superior simplicity and sobriety of the
Synoptical representation suggest that it is the more orig
inal version of the baptismal incident. In still more un
favorable contrast with the Synoptical narrative is the
fantastic statement that the mother of Christ, that is,
the Holy Spirit, transported Him by a single hair of His
head to Mount Tabor. Finally a Judaizing preference
for James crops out in the affirmation that the risen Lord
first of all appeared to James — a representation which
contradicts Pauline testimony as well as the Synoptical
records. Items like this certainly justify the very general
disposition which has been manifested by scholars to place
this writing in a rank distinctly secondary to that of the
Synoptical Gospels.1
It might be judged from the title of the Gospel ac
cording to the Egyptians that this writing at one time
had wide currency in Egypt. But too large a conclusion
ought not to be built upon a mere name. It is quite
possible that the title contained an element of exaggera-

1 For a full view of the data which pertain to the topic see Handmann,
Das Hebraer-Evangelium ; Harnack, Die Chronologie der altchristlichen
Litteratur, I. 625-651 j Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents,
Part I. pp. 250-264.

54 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
tion. Then, too, it is probable that it was designed to
cover only native Egyptians as distinguished both from
those of Jewish and those of Greek descent ; and no
one knows what proportion of the Christians in Egypt
was included in the first of these parties when the title
"according to the Egyptians" was attached to the Gos
pel. . The lack of any reference to it by Eusebius is an
indication that in the sight of the Church at large it
obtained little prominence. As to its content, the means
of judging are scanty. Origen simply mentions it among
heretical Gospels.1 From Clement of Alexandria we learn
that it was associated, whether fairly or unfairly, with the
teaching of the Encratites,2 and Epiphanius informs us
that it was a chief source of a Sabellian or modalistic
christology.3 On the whole the extant data quite de
cidedly fall short of accrediting it as having any just claim
to take rank with the Synoptical Gospels. The Sabellian
feature is certainly the reverse of a sign of primitiveness.
At least critics who are disposed to regard an Ebionite
christology as a sign of early origin cannot consistently
attach a like significance to a Sabellian christology, for
the two were wide apart in dogmatic intention.4
The Gospel of Peter is mentioned by Eusebius as be
ing quite outside the circle of Catholic recognition.5
Notice, however, was taken of an item in it by Origen.6
1 In Luc. i.
2 Strom, iii. 9, 13.
3Panar. lxii. 2.
4 See Harnack, Chronologie, I. 612-622 ; Stanton, The Gospels as
Historical Documents, I. 264-268.
6 Hist. Eccl. iii. 3.
6 In Matt. x. 17.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 55
Back of Origen it is not certainly known to have been
mentioned by any other writer than Serapion. It has
indeed been conjectured that Justin Martyr referred to
this Gospel under the title " Memoirs of Peter " ; 1 but
the point is in dispute.2 The extant portion of the Gos
pel of Peter relates to the passion and resurrection of
Christ. From this portion it is made quite evident that
the author wished to propagate docetic views. Some
what of an occasion for discounting his narrative is also
found in the singular account which he gives of the
authority and agency of Herod in connection with the
trial and crucifixion of Christ. Possibly the Gospel of
Peter may have recorded some extra-canonical items that
were based on genuine tradition ; but what is known
about its contents is not adapted to foster a very high
opinion of its merits. Its fraudulent claim to have ema
nated from the Apostle Peter is justly reckoned as a
ground of limited confidence in its trustworthiness.
As respects sayings which may with any fair degree of
probability be imputed to Jesus, the Apocryphal Gospels,
or more broadly speaking, all extra-canonical sources to
gether, make a very meagre addition to the content of
the New Testament.3 Scholarship must doubtless regret
that better means of acquaintance with these Gospels
are not available. Still there is little reason to modify
1 Dial, cum Tryph. cvi.
2 Compare Harnack, Bruchstiicke des Evangeliums und der Apoka-
lypse des Petrus; Swete, The Akhmim Fragment of the Apocryphal
Gospel of St. Peter ; Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents,
I. 93 «.
8 Ropes, Die Spriiche Jesu ; also in Hastings' Diet, of the Bible, V.
343 «•

$6 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
this judgment of Jiilicher : " The Apocryphal Gospels
of the second century, several of which are known to us
— such as that according to the Hebrews, that according
to the Egyptians, and the Gospel of Peter — are the re
sult of working over the canonical Gospels or the sources
used by them, in conformity to sectarian or heretical
tendencies. Accordingly some individual items of a
primitive character may have found lodgment there. But
Luke and Matthew stand already at the point where the
production of Gospels ceases to be a gain for the Church,
and begins to signify only a peril." 1
II. — The Story of the Nativity.
The special theological item which meets us here is
that of the supernatural conception as taught by Matthew
and Luke. An examination of the story of the nativity
given by these evangelists respectively must convey the
impression that they made up their versions independ
ently. Interesting particulars which are put in the fore
ground by the one are entirely passed over by the other.
It follows then, since neither copied from the other, that
we have here the testimony, not of one, but of two repre
sentatives of early Christianity, to belief in the super
natural conception or virgin-birth of Christ. Joining
this fact with the probable date of the Gospels as noticed
above, we are brought to the conclusion that the item of
the supernatural conception has a pretty fair claim to be
regarded as an apostolic item. It seems to have had a
right of way close upon the border of the apostolic age,
1 Einleitung in das Neue Testament, p. 301.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 57
not to say within the limits of that age. In the absence
then of a dogmatic motive for denying the historical
character of the item, one can rationally be tolerant of
the verdict that it stands for the simple truth.1 At the
same time, from the standpoint of biblical theology there
is no occasion for great stress upon the item of the
supernatural conception. The New Testament treats it
almost exclusively as a matter of history, the one excep
tion being the remark which Luke puts into the mouth
of the angel of the annunciation : " wherefore that which
is to be born shall be called holy, the Son of God." These
1 An adverse consideration has been found in the fact that a Syriac
manuscript of the Gospels (the Sinai-Syriac), which is supposed to be
relatively very early, makes Matt. i. 16 to read " Joseph begat Jesus."
A decisive weight, however, need not be given to this fact for the follow
ing reasons : (1) Joseph was in the sight of the law the father of Jesus.
So far as the latter was a subject at all for a genealogy after the Jewish
pattern He was to be located in the Une of Joseph. In the stereotyped
form of the genealogical table the statement of this fact of being legally
in the line of Joseph might run " Joseph begat Jesus," though of course
a little reflection on the matter would elicit within the company believing
in the supernatural conception a demand for mending such a phrase. A
pretty close approach to this inexact way of speaking may be observed
in Luke. Notwithstanding his unequivocal declaration of the supernatu
ral conception, the evangelist so far accommodates himself to the current
and natural style of reference as to speak of Joseph as the father of
Jesus, and of Joseph and Mary as the parents of Jesus — a form of ex
pression which, curiously enough, Mark has avoided (vi. 3), whether
with or without design. (2) Jesus was commonly reputed to be the son
of Joseph. Supposing the verity of the supernatural conception we
must still conclude that at first it was recognized only by a select circle.
But this circle is not necessarily to be deemed an unreliable witness on
account of its limited compass. It is quite possible that the Catholic
faith in the supernatural conception may have rested back upon more
competent testimony than that underlying the contrasted opinion.
Surely it .would take something more than a single instance of an early

58 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
words indicate a belief that the supernatural conception
was to Jesus a source of extraordinary sanctity and dig
nity. It is quite too much, however, to find in them a
demonstration that the writer regarded the supernatural
conception as the sole basis of the special sonship of
Jesus. Luke certainly could not have thought thus if
his companionship with Paul had any effect upon his
text verbally in line with the ordinary popular conviction to demonstrate
that belief in the supernatural conception was destitute of a substantial
historic basis. (3) All extant manuscripts of Matthew and Luke, not
excepting that which contains the special version of Matt. i. 16, assert
the fact of the supernatural conception. There is some ground, there
fore, for suspecting that the form of Matt. i. 16 in the Sinai-Syriac man
uscript represents the mistake or caprice of a copyist. (4) There are
reasons for thinking that, prior to the composition of the first and third
Gospels, written embodiments had been given to belief in the supernatu
ral conception. " The story as given by our Matthew and Luke," says
C. A. Briggs, " does not come from these writers, but from their sources.
They briefly remark upon it and interpret it, but they do not materially
change it. These sources are poetic in form and also in substance, and
have all the characteristics of Hebrew poetry as to parallelism, measure
ment of lines, and strophical organization. They evidently came from a
Jewish-Christian community and not from Gentile Christians. They
are therefore ancient sources, different from and yet to be classed with
the Gospel of St. Mark and the Logia of St. Matthew, rather than with
our Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John" (Introduction to the Study
of Holy Scripture, p. 523). Thus the memorials of faith in the super
natural conception go back to a point which may reasonably be regarded
as falling within the domain of apostolic tradition.
It is noticeable that Lobstein, though distinctly challenging the fact
of the supernatural conception, fully agrees with the conclusion that
Matthew and Luke recorded upon this point a belief which had been
current for a considerable period. " Matthew and Luke," he says, "only
received and set down in writing far older traditions.'' (The Virgin Birth
of Christ, pp. 77, 78). It is to be observed also that Lobstein thinks it
imprudent to make any special account of the exceptional reading in the
Sinai-Syriac manuscript (p. 121)

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 59
christology. Apart from this incidental and somewhat
indeterminate item, the New Testament builds nothing
upon the postulate of the supernatural conception. In
the more constructive portions it receives no mention.
The supposition, therefore, that the postulate was intro
duced to meet a dogmatic demand belongs essentially to
the sphere of the historic imagination, and needs a much
better substantiation than it has yet received. A like
judgment is to be passed on the supposition that a lively
expectation, current among the Jews, was the source of
belief in the supernatural conception. Proper traces of
such an expectation are not discoverable.1 On the con
trary there is distinct evidence of its non-existence in the
known belief of the stricter party among the Judaizing
Ebionites and in the testimonies of Justin Martyr2 and
Hippolytus.3
III. — The Self-Consciousness of Christ as a
Subject of Development and a Source of
Teaching.
As Christ was born into the visible estate and rela
tions of a child, it is natural to suppose that He had a
progressively unfolding self-consciousness, such as is
essentially characteristic of the child. A human life not
1 " The Jewish common people," says Dalman, " never expected the
Messiah to be born of a virgin ; and no trace is to be found among the
Jews of any Messianic application of Isaiah's words (vii. 14) concerning
the virgin's son, from which by any possibility — as some have main
tained — the whole account of the miraculous birth of Jesus could have
derived its origin " (The Words of Jesus, p. 276).
2 Dial, cum Tryph., xlix. 1.
8 Philosophumena, ix. 25.

60 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
subject in its psychical experience to the law of growth
would be human only in the most superficial sense, that
of mere outward semblance. Unless then we are to
impeach the candor and reality of the gospel revelation,
and to justify a pronounced docetism, we must suppose
Christ to have been a subject of development in His
inner consciousness, as well as in outward or physical
respects. If there is any motive at all for denying this
development it must be on the score of a theoretic
Christology, a supposed necessity that special union with
the divine should have cancelled, on the part of Christ,
all limitation of knowledge, all natural occasion for
growth in the understanding of Himself and of the uni
verse. Now in response to this theoretic Christology it
is to be said, in the first place, that it is by no means cer
tain that it is sustained by any cogent theoretical demand.
Being and consciousness are never commensurate in us,
and least of all are they so at the beginning of our career.
We are born into relations which are far above the plane
of our cognizance in early childhood. The analogy
suggests that in the Christ-child and the Christ-youth
consciousness may not have been by any means com
mensurate with being and essential relations. Granting
that from the start there was an organic bond with the
divine, perfectly unique, never duplicated in creaturely
history, still it might be that in the consciousness of the
Son of Mary this should be unrevealed until some fav
ored moment should afford an initial glimpse of it, and
that advance to a full understanding of it should be
along the path of a widening and deepening experience.
Again it is to be replied to the theoretic christology in

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 6l
question that it is not privileged to put aside facts in the
interest of mere theory.
Turning to the gospel narratives we find their implica
tion unmistakably on the side of a progressive unf oldment
of the consciousness of Christ, or of His understanding
of Himself and the divine kingdom. In the first place
it is to be noticed that one of the evangelists as much
as definitely asserts progressive unfoldment. "Jesus
advanced," says Luke, " in wisdom and in stature " (ii. 52).
In the second place it is to be observed that all three of
the Synoptists distinctly represent Christ as subject to
temptation. Now temptation is properly the experience
of a growing subject and not of one who occupies the
standpoint of omniscience. In the presence of the abso-
lutely unlimited vision any solicitation to defection from
the perfect way should no more be able to subsist than
is a piece of cotton gauze in the intensest flame. More
over, the nature of the temptations which are detailed
by the evangelists is suggestive of an experience of growth
or inward clarification. They seemed to have concerned
especially the method of carrying out the high vocation
to which Christ knew Himself to be called as he passed
from the baptismal scene. Should popular desire and
expectation be gratified by a resort to the method of
power and display, or should the humble and cross-bear
ing method be undeviatingly pursued ? — that appears to
have been the question with which He was called to
wrestle. His spirit was quick to see the affinity of the
former alternative with the kingdom of evil, and to repel
it as a misleading or Satanic suggestion ; but who can
doubt that He passed out of this experience with a clearer

62 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
and in tenser view of Messianic method than that which
previously had been entertained by Him ? His being
tempted was not a mere spectacle for outsiders to con
template. It was in all probability a stage in the unfold-
ment of His own sense of the requirements of His
peculiar vocation. Again, the evangelists use language
which naturally implies that Christ's experience included
the unexpected, that He was capable of the emotion
of surprise. He marvelled, it is said, at extraordinary
instances both of faith and unbelief.1 Once more, in
disclaiming knowledge of a particular future event2
Christ showed that the order of mental life to which He
was subject admitted of an increasing content. We
conclude, then, that the sacred biographies invite us to
believe that Christ had a real childhood, and a real youth,
and a real manhood, as being under the human law of
growth and as advancing not merely from the forseen to
the actual but from the unknown to the known as well.
In making this statement we speak, obviously, only of
the consciousness in our Lord which was immediately
back of His communication with the world, the conscious
ness expressed in such conceptions and forms of speech
as belong to the time sphere in which man lives. How
this consciousness was related to the timeless life of the
eternal Son, the Divine Logos, it is not attempted in
this connection to determine. That is rather a question
for speculative dogmatics than for biblical theology.
In considering the unfoldment of Christ's self -conscious
ness it ill becomes us to assume that we can gauge its
1 Matt. viii. io; Mark vi. 6; Luke vii. 9.
2 Matt. xxiv. 36 ¦ Mark xiii. 32.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 63
progress with anything like precision. The subject has
never been directly reported upon, and the indirect tokens
are not abundant ; for there is no adequate warrant for
supposing that the moment when a truth relative to Him
self was first declared was also the moment of its first
emergence into His own consciousness. Religious dis
cretion may have put a seal upon His lips for long inter
vals. Possibly the visit to Jerusalem at the age of twelve,
when He put the puzzling question to His parents,
" Wist ye not that I must be in my Father's house," or
" in the affairs of my Father," marked a special stage of
inward premonition as to His unique relation and calling.
The tov 7rarpo? fiov of that question was certainly quite
foreign to the ordinary dialect of the Jewish child, and
indicated the dawning of a peculiar sense of intimacy with
the Father in heaven. It is not ascertained, it is true,
that in uttering these words He spoke a sentiment which
had just come into His consciousness. Still there is
nothing improbable in the supposition that the special
occasion was providentially utilized as a means of special
inner revelation. That this was the case in the next
recorded scene of his life, the baptism in the Jordan,
there is no reason to doubt. It is to be noticed that in
the report of this scene by both Matthew and Mark the
manifestation from heaven is represented as directed to
Jesus personally, and not to the bystanders; also that
Luke agrees with Mark in representing the voice owning
Jesus as the well-beloved Son to have been addressed
to Him rather than to the people. We are thus in
vited to believe that, whatever light was already upon
the spirit of Jesus in divine relations, He reached here a

64 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
new stage in His advance toward a perfectly luminous
self -consciousness. As already indicated, the testing to
which He was subjected in the great initial temptation,
was probably also a means of clarifying and settling His
conviction respecting the extraordinary office which He
was to fulfill. Beyond this stage there is in our view,
little ground for attempting to specify, though it is quite
credible that the events of His ministry may have con
tributed to a full-orbed consciousness of Himself and His
position. Some have argued that His foresight of the
cross was stimulated by His discovery of the utter hope
lessness of receiving aught but sharp hostility from the
ruling party in His nation. But this is unverifiable con
jecture. No one can determine in such a matter what
was due to external conditions and what to inward reve
lation. We may suppose the inward and the outward to
have wrought together, but we shall do poor justice to
the personality of Jesus unless we make large account of
the former. The singular openness of His spirit toward
heaven is rationally emphasized as being the medium of
extraordinary illumination.
In the self-consciousness of Christ two cardinal dis
tinctions may be noticed. The first is the utter absence
of any shadow of sin. The tenor of the Synoptical Gos
pels is in accord with the categorical declarations by the
apostles of Christ's perfect sinlessness. These Gospels
do not indeed make a formal declaration on the subject.
The evidence they afford is indirect, but it is not scanty.
In the first place there is no sort of indication that Christ
ever uttered a prayer for forgiveness or cherished an
emotion of penitence. In the second place He is exhibited

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 65
as possessing such an extraordinary balance of the high
est positive virtues that the lack of expressed penitence
cannot reasonably be imputed to a blind self-inflation or
to any sort of mere eccentricity. Thirdly, Christ asso
ciated Himself with the impartation of divine benefits in
a way implying that He felt no need of any friendly offices
in His own behalf, but rather was qualified to fulfill such
in behalf of all others.1 Fourthly, Christ placed Himself
outside the rank of sinners in declaring His blood to be
shed for the remission of sins. Fifthly, He equally ex
alted Himself above the plane of a common sinful
humanity in describing Himself as destined to sit upon
the throne of judgment and to hold in His hands the
awards of eternity. In short, the Synoptical representation
plainly invites to faith in a Christ free from every stain
and trammel of sin. It is not impossible indeed for the
one who is bent upon finding a flaw to read it into two
or three items in the report of Christ's words or deeds.
But there is no reason to suppose that the evangelists
themselves had the slightest misgiving over these items.
It is the stainless Master whom they understood them
selves to be picturing.
The second great distinction of Christ's self-conscious
ness is His luminous sense of sonship in relation to God.
This is to be regarded as closely related to the foregoing.
Just because there was no ground of self-reproach in
Christ, no shadow of condemnation on His spirit, He was
qualified to exemplify the filial character as it was never
exemplified by any other member of the race. He had
no cause for faltering or abashment in His approach to
1 Matt, xviii. 19, 30,

66 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
the Father. Not merely in some moment of special ex
altation, but habitually, He dwelt in the light of the
Father's face, and knew that He was the recipient of His
complacent love. In the Synoptical account there may
not be, it is true, so direct an assertion of unbroken union
and fellowship as is embodied in the Johannine words,
"I and my Father are one." But there is an implication
of the same truth in the strong words recorded by both
Matthew and Luke : " All things have been delivered
unto me of my Father ; and no one knoweth the Son,
save the Father; neither doth any know the Father,
save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to
reveal Him." 1 This consciousness of an exclusive pre
rogative to reveal the Father argues a perfectly unclouded
assurance of moral unity with Him. It testifies to a
sense of perfect sonship.
This was the source of Christ's teaching. Christianity
was born in this holy of holies — the consciousness of
Christ as the stainless Son, having the full-orbed sense
of sonship. He could give an authentic exposition of
God because He was so perfectly in touch with the Father.
He could set forth in clear outlines the kingdom of heaven,
for He was the ideal citizen of that kingdom, and fulfilled
its aim and end in His perfect harmony and loving fel
lowship with the Father. He could point out to men the
way of life, for He knew by inner possession what is the
true life of man's spirit. Here was the source of His
matchless confidence. He could teach with authority
because He had authority in Himself. The constitu
ents of His self-consciousness were His credentials.
1 Matt. xi. 27 ; Luke x. 22.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 67
No spiritual dynamic, no mere afflatus from without,
could have taken the place of these. The luminous per
sonality was the spring of the illuminating utterances.
He gave of His own, and that is why He spoke with
such freshness and simplicity. He had no need of the
compiler's art. The truth was in His spirit, and He had
but to express it in the intelligible images which His eye
was quick to discover in nature and human society. As
Beyschlag remarks, " His speech is all directness, living
perception, pure genius ; everything in it flows, not from
any mediated or artificial world of ideas, but from native
spiritual wealth, from the fullness of His inner life."1
This is a truth which merits to be profoundly empha
sized. Christ was and is the religious teacher of man
kind because of the habitual and ideal realization of the
highest truths in His own consciousness. Doubtless He
deferred to and took from the Old Testament. It was
matter of the plainest discretion in dealing with an Old
Testament community to move not a little in the field of
Old Testament imagery. But Christ, at least at the
stage of His public ministry, really appropriated from
the Jewish oracles only because their best was in har
mony with His moral and religious intuition. The
superior standard was in Himself, and He had no hesi
tation in setting maxims of His own above the ancestral
code. Were we to judge from His silence, we should
be led to conclude that there were broad tracts of the
Old Testament which had a very subordinate significance
to His mind. 1 New Testament Theology, I. 32.

68 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
IV. — Some Distinguishing Characteristics of
Christ's Teaching.
We have just mentioned one of these in specifying the
intimate connection which subsisted between the teach
ing of Christ and His unique consciousness as the Son
who enjoyed perfect communion with the Father. A
second characteristic is not undeserving of being placed
alongside of this, namely, the inseparable union which
the words of Christ from first to last assume to subsist
between morality and religion. The misadjustment into
which the historical religions generally have run, mostly
in the line of subordinating the ethical to the formally
religious, but occasionally also, in the line of a relative
slighting of the properly religious, has no counterpart in
the scheme set forth by Christ. The most casual peru
sal of the Synoptical Gospels cannot fail to reveal with
what absolute decision the notion is repudiated that any
performances in the name of religion can take the place
of a conscientious and straightforward discharge of duty
to one's fellows. Stress upon the ethical appears at
every turn. It appears in blessings pronounced upon
the merciful and the peace-makers; in the strong con
demnation uttered against anger and intemperate railing ;
in the requirement to be first reconciled, so far as pos
sible, with one's brother before approaching God's altar ;
in the demand for a chastity which imposes full restraint
even upon the thoughts and the desires ; in the inculcation
of a charity and good-will which are broad and earnest
enough to do good not merely to friends but to enemies
also; in the instruction that consistent and effectual
prayer for divine forgiveness must be accompanied by

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 69
the spirit of forgiveness towards those who have tres
passed against us; in insistence upon transparent sin
cerity and singleness of purpose ; in reprobation of that
haste in judgment which leads one to rebuke the faults
of his fellows before taking time to discover his own ; in
emphasis upon the duty to order conduct towards others
as one would wish to have conduct ordered toward him
self ; in lifting up the requirement of equal love to the
neighbor to a place of honor beside the supreme obligation
of a man. It appears, moreover, in the whole attitude of
Christ toward the Pharisaic model. Upon nothing did
He so fix the imprint of scornful reprobation as upon the
disposition to rate ceremonial scrupulosity above careful
ness to fulfill the common duties springing out of the
relations of man to man. To His mind this was a
shabby, whitewashed substitute for religion, a lying sem
blance deserving the very acme of righteous indignation.
On the other hand, Christ was very remote from sub
stituting simple ethics for religion. His point of view
was not that of Confucius with his pale regard for the
thought of the Divine Being. Still less was it that of
Gautama with his virtual exclusion of the Divine Being
altogether from the sphere of practical consideration.
As clearly as He held in view the ethical province, so
clearly He held in view the all-encompassing presence
of the divine. The thought of the heavenly Father was
to Him as the sun in the sky. Divorce from fellowship
with Him was equivalent in His conception to doom to
outer darkness. Spiritual victory He regarded as depend
ent upon cleaving closely to God ; and the pathway to
true peace and superiority to earthly trouble which He

70 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
set before men was the path of self-delivery to God, and
of simple trust in His minute unceasing care. From
first to last in the teaching of Christ there is no sugges
tion but that the true life for man is one insphered in
the thought of God and in the grateful consciousness
of His presence. In short, religion in no wise falls be
hind morality as a subject of profound emphasis. The
two are combined in beautiful unity.
Another characteristic of Christ's teaching is the
union of simplicity and elevation which it exemplifies.
The ideal which He sets forth is very lofty, but at the
same time it is thoroughly human. This is especially
true of His teaching in the Synoptical representation.
In the fourth Gospel a mystical element finds place, and
if we accept the substantial fidelity of this Gospel to his
tory we shall be led to conclude that Christ did not
wholly avoid those mystical aspects which in fact pertain
to the spiritual world and to man's connection therewith.
But it accords with our view of the relatively objective
cast of the Synoptical Gospels to suppose that they
reflect the dominant tone of Christ's teaching. We
conclude then that Christ kept the mystical element
within bounds, and occupied His discourse mainly with
the more intelligible aspects of truth. He sketched an
ideal which any one who contemplated it might feel was
made for a real world and real human beings, adapted
rather to lead on to the attainment of manhood than to
put something unknown and strange in its place. No
where in His words do we find a hint that union with
God implies a swamping of self-consciousness, a species
of annihilation such as is involved in the Neo-Platonic

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 71
doctrine of ecstasy and the Brahmanical doctrine of
reabsorption. Nowhere do we hear a summons to lose
self save in the sense of a rational absorption in the pur
suit of great, holy, and benevolent ends. The call is
homeward. The marked tendency of Christ's teaching
is, in truth, to make the man who truly appropriates it at
home both with himself and with God. It rebukes nothing
that is purely and truly human. Equally free from false
asceticism and fanciful mysticism, it is sane and practical
without being prosaic or commonplace.
In respect of form the teaching of Christ was in the
line of genial address, as opposed to formal disquisition.
It partook of the qualities of vivid, poetic, imaginative
conversation. With scholastic elaboration it had no
affinity. It was popular oratory, discourse adapted in
respect of its terms to penetrate to the understanding of
the average man. As being in the line of popular oratory,
Christ's speech was necessarily distinguished by a meas
ure of accommodation. Speech that falls under that
category can never be in an unknown tongue. At what
ever new conception it may aim, it must make large use
of current expressions and forms of thought. In follow
ing the path of this rational accommodation Christ simply
chose the effectual way to get his message into the world.
Not otherwise could he have secured for it the needful
lodgment in the minds and the hearts of men. Doubt
less it is possible to push the notion of accommodation
too far ; but it may legitimately be given a considerable
scope. In picturesque, popular discourse it was practi
cally necessary for Christ to weave into His speech nu
merous items from the intellectual and religious environ-

72 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
ment. Matters of this kind often served as a framework
or scaffolding for setting forth His proper message, and
the design which went with their use is better described
as pictorial or rhetorical than as dogmatic. No one
supposes that Christ meant to teach astronomy when He
spoke of the rising of the sun, or to meddle with ques
tions of geographical location when He spoke of laying
up treasure in heaven. With little better right can a
dogmatic intent be imputed to His use of customary
forms in citing Old Testament literature, or to His casual
employment of popular conceptions on such themes as
angelology, demonology, and eschatology. Sober inter
pretation of Christ's teaching requires, therefore, careful
discrimination between the main truth elucidated and the
simple accessory. The latter may indeed belong within
the province of revelation, but a merely incidental use of
it in a given connection is inadequate ground for assigning
it to that province.
The popular form of Christ's discourse may explain an
occasional resort to hyperbole. A principle embodied in
a clear-cut, unqualified aphorism was better suited to
seize hold of the attention of men and to enlist memory
and interest in its behalf than a principle wrapped up in
limiting clauses. What way of setting forth the duty of
avoiding the vengeful spirit could be more striking and
effective than to speak of offering the other cheek to the
smiter ? How could the duty of uniting simplicity with
transparent sincerity in speech, as opposed to an artificial
and arbitrary scheme of oaths, be more vividly impressed
than by an injunction to swear not at all ? Instructions
of this kind picture the ideal spirit which ought to rule

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 73
conduct. It is not necessary to suppose that they were
designed to be fulfilled with strict literalness, or with un
bending refusal of accommodation to modifying conditions
beyond the control of the individual. Indeed, if we may
trust the testimony of the fourth evangelist, Christ Him
self intimated as much by the rebuke which He ministered
to the one unlawfully smiting Him when arraigned before
the high priest.

V. — The Trend of Christ's Teaching Respecting
the Nature of the Kingdom of God and the
Conditions of Entrance.
The kingdom of God, or the kingdom of heaven, as
Matthew, differing herein from Mark and Luke, preferred
to call it,1 appears undoubtedly as a central theme of the
Synoptical Gospels. Jesus is represented as beginning
His ministry by preaching the gospel and declaring to
the people that the kingdom of God was at hand.2 He
is said to have put the like message upon the lips of
His disciples, instructing them in every city they should
enter to proclaim, " The kingdom of heaven is at hand,"
"The kingdom of God has come nigh unto you."3 In
many of His parables and discourses Jesus directly
occupied Himself with expounding the kingdom and
setting forth the relation of men thereto. What his
own preferred phrase was, whether " kingdom of heaven "
or "kingdom of God," is not determined, and is of no
1 Instances in which Matthew uses the former phrase are xii. 28, xix.
24, xxi. 31, 43.
2 Mark i. 14, 15. 8 Matt. x. 7 ; Luke x. 9.

74 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
consequence. It is not improbable that He used the
two interchangeably. Their sense is evidently identical ;
for the "kingdom of heaven" is not indicative of loca
tion, but rather of kind or origin.1 It is the kingdom in
which the will of God rules and which has its possibility
of growth in His gracious presence. It comes to earth
when He is obeyed on earth as in heaven. It is simply,
therefore, the kingdom of God, the theatre of His moral
sovereignty, as realized in particular through the media
torial work of the Son.
A full review of the references in the Synoptical Gos
pels to the kingdom must give an impression of two con
trasted aspects. These may be designated respectively
the spiritual and the apocalyptic. On the one hand is
a line of statements which presupposes that the kingdom
is a present and an essentially interior reality. On the
other hand is a line of statements which implies that the
kingdom is a future reality, and is to come to manifesta
tion, or be inaugurated, by a great crisis. As between
these two orders of views there is no reason to doubt
that popular thinking inclined to the latter. The cur
rent conception of the kingdom was apocalyptic, and
with the apocalyptic aspect a very decided political color
ing was associated. The dominant view of the Mes
sianic time was that of an era when a powerful external
intervention, a putting forth of divine might, should
1 Bousset regards Matthew's expression as illustrating a tendency
which had grown up among the Jews to substitute an abstract term for
the name of God. "Heaven is here simply an equivalent conception
for God." (Die Religion des Judenthums im neutestamentlichen Zeit-
alter, pp. 307, 308.)

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 75
crush the hostile forces of the world and exalt the peo
ple of Israel to a ruling position.
The teaching of Jesus was at least in form so far cor
respondent to popular conception that it gave a place to
a future crisis. It practically discarded, however, the
political associations which ruled ordinary Jewish antici
pation at that day. The idea of a proper national
supremacy cannot be seen to have entered into the
eschatalogical discourses of Jesus. Thus the apocalyptic
phase, as admitted by Him, had its manifest point of
distinction from the popular version. But the greater
distinction in Christ's teaching lay in the qualification
which His very decided stress upon the spiritual aspect
of the kingdom, as a present and interior reality, virtually
put upon the apocalyptic aspect. Some recent critics, it
is true, have contended that the apocalyptic was the
ruling point of view in Christ's mind. But evidence to
the contrary is interwoven with the gospel narratives.
In the first place, Christ seems to give a present and
spiritual character to the kingdom when He says, refer
ring to the still living John the Baptist, " He that is
little in the kingdom of God is greater than he." 1 A
like implication of a present and spiritual realm is con
tained in the connected words representing the attain
ment of the kingdom as the result of eager pursuit :
" From the days of John the Baptist until now the king
dom of heaven suffereth violence and the men of vio
lence take it by force." 2 A present reality is also given
to the kingdom when Christ says to the Pharisees, " The
1 Luke vii. 28; Matt. xi. II. 2 Matt. xi. 12; Luke xvi. 16.

76 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God before
you," 1 or when He charges against them, " Ye shut the
kingdom of heaven against men ; for ye enter not in your
selves, neither suffer ye them that are entering in to
enter." 2«The same inference belongs to Christ's approving
response to the scribe, " Thou art not far from the king
dom of God." 3 It is by no means to be supposed that
proximity in the sense of time or place is mentioned
heVe. The evident reference is to inner disposition, and
so the kingdom is conceived as a present and spirit
ual reality. This character is likewise very distinctly
assigned to the kingdom in the condition that is speci
fied for entrance, that of being converted and becoming
as little children.4 A parallel significance belongs to the
injunction and promise, " Seek ye first His kingdom and
His righteousness ; and all these things shall be added
unto you." 6 Here it is the one who seeks, and pre
sumably gains the kingdom, that is represented as author
ized to put aside anxiety about temporal necessities.
The kingdom therefore is placed under the category of
a personal and present possession — an inference which
is supported, so far as Matthew's version is concerned,
by the coupling of righteousness with the kingdom as an
object of pursuit. As little is the coming of the king
dom put off to a future crisis in the words with which
Christ replied to a Pharisaic calumny, " If I by the
Spirit of God cast out devils, then is the kingdom of God
come unto you." 6 This imports that a driving out of
devils, an abridgment of the evil kingdom, is equivalent
1 Matt. xxi. 31. 8 Mark xii. 34. 6 Matt. vi. 33 ; Luke xii. 31.
2 Matt, xxiii. 13. 4 Matt, xviii. 1-4. 6 Matt. xii. 28; Luke xi. 20.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 77
to that extent to an introduction of the divine kingdom.
Again the list of parables in which the kingdom is lik
ened to the mysterious sprouting and growth of grain
sown in a field, to the development of a mustard seed
into a large plant, and to the working of the minute sub
stance of leaven through whole measures of meal,1 dis
tinctly favors the thought of the kingdom as a present
and gradually unfolding reality. Likewise the compari
son of the kingdom to a treasure hid in the field, for
which a man gladly barters all his possessions,2 or to a
goodly pearl which the merchantman values above his
whole stock besides,3 manifestly makes the kingdom a
present means of personal enrichment, an essentially
spiritual treasure.4 Once more, the collocation of peti
tions in the Lord's prayer implies that the coming of
the kingdom is identical with the doing of God's will on
earth as it is done in heaven. Finally, the sentence of
Luke xvii. 20, 21, "The kingdom of God cometh not
with observation ; neither shall they say, Lo, here ! or
There ! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you," is
decidedly on the side of the spiritual as opposed to the
apocalyptic sense of the kingdom. It is true that the
expression eWo? v/n&v eanv can be translated " is among
you " or " in your midst.'' But the rendering given is
1 Mark iv. 26-29; Matt. xiii. 31, 33. 2 Matt. xiii. 44.
8 Matt. xiii. 45, 46.
4 On the substance of the parabolic teaching Gould well says : " The
teaching of the parables is the clearest teaching in the New Testament
in regard to the manner of establishing the kingdom,'and this teaching
is clearly at variance with the supposition of a sudden or early winding
up of the world's affairs." (Biblical Theology of the New Testament,
P- 47-)

78 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
quite as agreeable to the antecedent statement. It is to
be noticed, moreover, that the alternative translation
does not eliminate from the passage a spiritual concep
tion of the kingdom. If the kingdom was among those
addressed by Christ, and yet undiscovered by them, the
inference would be that it was rather a spiritual domin
ion than an external visible kingdom ushered in by
power.1 Our conclusion then is that it is a decidedly
faulty exegesis which supposes that the spiritual aspect
was overshadowed in Christ's thought or teaching by the
apocalyptic. So strongly is the former inculcated in the
Gospels that consistency can be given to Christ's teach
ing as a whole only on the supposition that He meant to
indicate by the apocalyptic picture the fact that the
ethico-religious process going on in the world is to reach
a decisive consummation and have its results perfectly
manifested. So comprehensive a theme naturally provided for a
variety of representations. Viewed as to its source and
central principle, the kingdom is the realized moral rule
of God ; viewed as to the relations of its subjects, it is
an ideal society. Regarded as a sum of spiritual goods
which accompany or result from the realized rule of God,
the kingdom can be spoken of as a treasure to be received ;
regarded as the domain where a divine and heavenly
regime obtains, it can be described as a province or
sphere which is to be entered. As already inaugurated
and in process of development, the kingdom is here and
1 Compare Klopper, Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie, 40th
year, 3d number ; Bacon, The Beginnings of Gospel Story; Sharman, The
Teaching of Jesus about the Future.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 79
now ; as awaiting a great consummating stage it is yet
to come. Obviously these various aspects need not be
regarded\as necessarily involving any contradiction.
With the spiritual character of the kingdom, as recog
nized in Christ's thought, there was naturally associated
a free attitude toward the Mosaic law, a qualifying of the
distinction between Jew and Gentile, a bent to religious
universalism. He did not indeed make any formal
declaration that the time had come for setting aside the
Mosaic law. Nevertheless He gave a distinct stress to
the new cast of the kingdom, as in the parables on the
wine-skins and the garment. Moreover He enumerated
principles which as good as abrogated parts of the
ancient code. If what He said about the powerlessness
of things external to defile a man were to be accepted,
then a considerable section of the Levitical legislation1
must seem to have a very slight ground for continued
subsistence. If his instructions on the subject of divorce
were to be taken as authoritative, then Deut. xxiv. 1, 2
must needs be reckoned as obsolete. The lordship which
He claimed over the Sabbath may also be regarded as a
hint that to His consciousness the legal system of Israel
did not possess finality. An outlook passing quite beyond
an exclusive Judaism was moreover indicated in the speci
fication in the parable of the sower, that the Son of
Man is the sower, and the field is the world.2 With
this sentence may be joined many others which are in
like manner indicative of a transcendence of Jewish
boundaries. We need not repeat them here, for we
gave a list of them while attempting in the first section
1 Lev. xi.-xv. 3 Matt. xiii. 37, 38.

80 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
of this chapter to establish the Christian universalism of
Matthew's Gospel. There is one passage, it is true,
which might be thought to make for the perpetuity of
the Mosaic law in all its details. In the sermon on the
mount Christ is reported to have said that He came not
to destroy the law but to fulfill, and that not one jot or
tittle of the law shall pass away till all be accomplished.1
But an isolated passage like this cannot be allowed to
nullify the force of multiplied statements. If the words
are to be accepted as correctly reported, it is necessary
that they should not be taken in their bald verbal sense.
We shall not be at fault perhaps in construing them as
a strong rhetorical expression for the twofold truth that
Christ had no intention to carry on His reform by the
method of excision from the ancestral code, and that the
real intent of that code, its essential religious purpose,
should have complete fulfillment in the kingdom pro
claimed by Himself.2 Christ's declaration is not that
everything in the law will perpetually be obligatory in
the letter, but that nothing in the law shall fall short of
fulfillment. That the fulfillment was actually achieved
will not be denied by anyone who duly considers how
the whole ideal aim and striving of the Old Testament
dispensation came to realization in the truth and grace
of which Christ was the bearer and the expression.
1Matt. v. 17-19. Compare Luke xvi. 17.
2 " He fulfills," says Bruce, " by realizing in theory and practice an ideal
to which Old Testament institutions and revelations point, but which they
do not actually express. Therefore in fulfilling He necessarily abrogates
in effect, while repudiating the spirit of a destroyer. He brings in a law
of the spirit which cancels the law of the letter, a kingdom which realizes
prophetic ideals, while setting aside the crude details of their conception
of the Messianic time." (The Expositor's Greek Testament, I. 104.)

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 8 1
The conditions of entrance, as laid down in the
Gospels, correspond with the spirituality and univer
sality of the kingdom. Repentance is clearly indicated
as one of the foremost conditions. The disciples of
Christ going forth under His instructions are said to
have preached that men should repent.1 Christ described
it as a part of His vocation to call sinners to repentance,2
and declared that there is joy in heaven over one sinner
that repenteth.3 Not less distinctly he indicated the
necessity of faith. His initial message as reported by
Mark was "repent ye, and believe in the gospel."4 To
the woman who washed His feet with her tears He said,
"Thy faith hath saved thee, go in peace."5 To the
Syrophcenician woman, to blind Bartimaeus, and to the
woman with an issue of blood He gave a gracious
response according to their faith,6 bestowing indeed in
these instances temporal benefits, but certainly convey
ing an impression by His emphatic words that no sort of
divine benefit would be denied to faith, and that it must
be the key to the kingdom. As much as this is signified
in His pithy declaration, " All things are possible to him
that believeth."7 And what else is it than the method
of faith which He commends for gaining what God has
to give, when, He says, " Ask and it shall be given you ? "8
The Synoptical representation, then, makes repentance
and faith the principal conditions of entrance into the
kingdom, and the major stress seems to be placed upon
1 Mark vi. 12. 6 Luke vii. 50.
2 Luke v. 32. 6Matt. xv. 28; Mark x. 52 ; Matt. ix. 22.
8 Luke xv. 7. ' Mark ix. 23.
1 Mark i. 15. 8 Matt. vii. 7.

82 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
faith. The fact that where the two are named in con
junction repentance stands first is no token that it has a
logical priority. The order followed in the gospel state
ments maybe regarded as the homiletical order. Under
certain conditions the preacher may very properly begin
with insisting upon the need of repentance. Still in the
logical order faith is the prius of repentance. It is the
positive side of the total transaction of which repentance
is the negative. The latter is the turning away from the
soiled and imperfect. But no one gains any effective
incentive to this turning away except through an appre
ciative vision of something better. He must perceive
and give at least initial assent to a higher ideal in order
to motive and strength for parting from the lower.
Now this initial assent, or inner movement toward self-
committal, is faith begun. The positive force, or motive-
power, is thus with faith, and repentance is logically
secondary. No definition of faith is recorded to have been given
by Christ. But if He does not define He describes, and
He leaves no doubt as to the true character of faith as a
religious potency. The a fortiori argument which He
builds on the willingness of earthly parents to give good
gifts to their children, His stress upon the right and the
duty of untroubled reliance upon the heavenly Father's
care when once His kingdom has been made the first
concern, His commendation of the publican's prayer,
and His insistence upon the childlike disposition, clearly
imply that by faith He meant a filial, humble, earnest
spirit of self-committal to God. It is legitimate to add
that He regarded the message of which He Himself was

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 83
the bearer as especially inviting and obligating to this
self -committal.
The kingdom which Christ proclaimed was not form
ally styled a kingdom of grace. It is not difficult,
however, to discover that it was conceived to be of that
character. Doubtless not a little was said by Christ
about work and reward. As reported by Matthew, He
declared in so many words that the Son of Man would
render to every man according to his deeds,1 and in His
picture of the great assize He described the awards as
being made according to this principle.2 But in all this
there is no denial of grace or gratuitous favor. In all
earnest religious oratory a like strain ever recurs. It is
found with Paul notwithstanding his vehement repudia
tion of salvation by works. The truth is that deeds are
tokens of the character upon which destiny hinges, and
that a wholesome incentive to the formation of a right
character is imparted to the average man by the dis
closure that at the end of one order of deeds great
reward lies, and at the end of another dire loss and
punishment. In popular address, therefore, it is natural
to put emphatically the notion of work and reward. So
Christ did. Nevertheless His total representation is far
from paying tribute to the servile and legal conception of
salvation. He imposed no system of austerities, leaving
such a matter as fasting to the option of His followers.3
He commended no strained scheme of self-denial, no form
of self-imposed hardship as having saving virtue in itself.4
1 xvi. 27. 2 Matt. xxxv. 34-45.
8 Matt. ix. 14, 15; Mark ii. 18-20; Luke v. 33-35.
* The requirement which Christ laid upon the rich young man, to

84 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
He represented the acquisition of spiritual goods as the
result simply of using a treasure primarily committed by
the Lord to men and not gained by their activity.1 He
excluded boasting over one's doings by instructing His
disciples to still reckon themselves unprofitable servants-
after having done all that was commanded.2 He spoke
of the kingdom as a gift bestowed by the Father's good
pleasure.3 In His stress upon faith and His indication
of its nature He as much as inculcated that it is the
child, not the hireling, that God wants and is ready to
bless. By the parable of the prodigal son He made it
as clear as the day that it is the Father's love and not
man's merit which is the great source of benefits, and
that this love only asks for the receptive subject. By
His own practice of consulting only the need and recep
tivity of the wretched and the outcast he illustrated most
vividly the truth that the kingdom which He represented
was a kingdom of grace. His picture therefore of work
and reward, when viewed in the light of His entire teach-
sell all his property and give to the poor, is obviously not to be taken
as a sign of a legal or monastic point of view. The requirement was of
the nature of a special test such as was suitable to the moral condition
of that individual. No similar test, so far as we know, was imposed
upon Zacchaeus or any other. Jesus had an acute sympathy with
the poor ; but He did not discountenance private property or magnify the
virtue of its renunciation. The blessing which in Luke's version of the
beatitudes is pronounced upon the poor, if it is taken as the original,
must be regarded as signifying not that the poor have the kingdom of
heaven because of their poverty, but that in spite of all the distresses
of poverty they are to be counted blessed, inasmuch as the kingdom of
heaven is so fully accessible to them in answer to their humility and
faith. 1 Matt. xxv. 14-30. 2 Luke xvii. 10. 8 Luke xii. 32.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 85
ing, is seen to have no affiliation with a mercenary type of
piety. Back of it is the understanding that the one who
works and is rewarded must have the spirit of the child
and not of the hireling, and that above and behind all
work and reward is the benevolent will of the heavenly
Father. A few sentences in Christ's discourses might seem to
favor the notion that grace makes an independent or
arbitrary choice of subjects. This is more especially
true of Mark iv. 1 1 , 1 2, where Christ says to His disciples :
" Unto you is given the mystery of the kingdom of God ;
but unto them that are without all things are done in
parables ; that seeing they may see, and not perceive ;
and hearing they may hear and not understand ; lest
haply they should turn again, and it should be forgiven
them." In respect of this passage it is to be noticed in
the first place that the parallel verses in Matthew repre
sent Christ's method of speaking as chosen not for the
purpose of producing blindness, but because of already
existing blindness. " Whosoever hath," it is said, " to him
shall be given, and he shall have abundance ; but whoso
ever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that
which he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables ;
because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not,
neither do they understand." 1 According to this ver
sion there is no purpose expressed to withhold a real
treasure from any party, but simply a declaration that
men are dealt with according to their receptivity. In
the second place it is to be observed that if Mark's ver
sion be accepted, the purpose which it records must be
1 Matt. xiii. 12, 13.

86 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
regarded as proximate rather than ultimate. Retribu
tion for insensibility may be indicated, but as respects
the great mass of those referred to it is incredible that
anything more than a temporary forfeiture of the proper
gospel benefit could have been meant. Christ's teach
ing respecting His mission to seek and to save the lost,
and respecting the value to the heavenly Father of even
one straying soul, makes it unthinkable that He wished
any company of men to be given over to permanent
blindness and obduracy. Moreover, we seem to be
required by the tenor of the New Testament to conclude
that His disciples were being educated to serve, after
His departure, as the bearers of His gracious message
to the general body of the Jewish people, and therefore
to the multitude contemplated by the words in question.
Thus the conditions exclude the thought of an arbitrary
or irreversible rejection which might be suggested by
the form of words in Mark's version. It should be
noted, too, that in Mark's account of the speaking in
parables there is a hint of benevolent intent. Jesus
spoke the word, it it said, to the people in parables, " as
they were able to hear it." 1
The sense in which Christ acknowledged the notion
of election is clearly indicated in the parable of the
marriage feast.2 At the close of that parable it is said,
" few are chosen ; " but it is said also that " many are
called," and the tenor of the story shows plainly that it
was nothing but lack of response to a cordial invitation
which kept the majority from participation in the feast.
In fine it empties out substance and sincerity from the
1 Mark iv. 33. 2 Matt. xxii. 1-14.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 87
gospel message to suppose that Christ conceived the
grace of the kingdom which He proclaimed to be under
the bonds and fetters of an arbitrary election. The elect
in His view were elected not merely to personal salva
tion, but to the office of extending salvation as far as
possible, called to be the light of the world and the salt
of the earth.
We mentioned among the distinctive features of
Christ's teaching the inseparable union which it incul
cates between the ethical and the religious, a union
which does not permit the former ever to be sacrificed
in the name of the latter. This truth is pertinent to the
present connection, as reminding us that the doctrine of
the gracious character of the kingdom has no sort of
affinity with the notion of indifference on the divine side,
but subsists in the gospel scheme right alongside of
a mighty stress upon the ethical ideal. These two ele
ments, the unbending ideal, on the one hand, to which
a man is solemnly bound to conform, and the grace, on
the other hand, which appeals to confidence, saves from
despair, and rescues in spite of ill-desert, are in their
close union and reciprocal action distinctive of the gospel
and principal sources of its virtue. Neither can be put
out of sight without detriment. As Sabatier has said,
" To decompose the gospel salt is to destroy its savor."1
VI. — Leading Conceptions of God as Set Forth
by Christ.
Old and new were combined on this theme. Out of
1 Outlines of a Philosophy of Religion, p. 164.

88 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
the treasury of Jewish thought came such lofty elements
in the conception of God as His absolute supremacy,
His distinct personality, and His ethical intensity. The
teaching of Christ in the Synoptical Gospels, while remote
from formal theologizing, distinctly implies every one of
these elements. He represented God as One with whom
all things are possible, and evidently conceived that every
thing both small and great in nature rests in His hand.
To Christ's consciousness nothing was more thoroughly
certain than the reality of fellowship with the Father as
of one person with another. Not one trace of pantheistic
vagueness can be found in His speech. No more does
His point of view show any affiliation with deistic remote
ness and indifference. It is a God thoroughly alive to
the conduct and character of men, ethically intense, that
His discourse pictures.
But with all this appropriation of conceptions from
the higher ranges of law and prophecy, the teaching of
Christ makes a decided impression of newness. It seems
to transport one into an atmosphere and a territory quite
other than those of the Old Testament. The explana
tion of this impression lies in the fact that Christ's
exposition of the thought of God flowed out of His
unique consciousness of sonship. No sage or prophet
in Israel ever had anything like an equivalent of that
conciousness. As has been noticed, He knew Himself
as the well-beloved Son, having unhindered access to the
Father, and dwelling habitually in the light of His com
placent love. Dowered with a supreme sense of sonship
He was prepared to be in a supreme way the expositor
of divine fatherhood. His exposition was not a specula-

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 89
tion but a shining forth of the light that was within
Him. This was the view with which Christ illuminated the
religious landscape — this vivid, warmly-colored repre
sentation of God as the Father in heaven. The name
of Father, it is true, had long had a place among the
terms with which Israelitish thought described the Divine
Being. But in the usage of the Hebrew Testament the
name was descriptive rather of a national than an indi
vidual relation. It was the nation to which Jehovah
stood in the character of Father, or possibly the king as
the representative of the nation. Seldom did the thought
gain expression that the individual is privileged to address
the Holy One as Father. A suggestion of such a privi
lege was indeed contained in one and another sentence,
especially in the words of the Psalm, " Like as a father
pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear
Him." 1 A step beyond this, at least as regards verbal
approach to the gospel, is observable in the Apocrypha.
In Ecclesiasticus occurs the appeal, " O Lord, Father and
Master of my life," 2 and in the Book of Wisdom it is
intimated that the righteous man may be termed a son
of God.8 Still the adequate, unequivocal, inspiring assur-
1 Psalm ciii. 13. Compare Hos. i. 10; Isa. i, 2, lxiii. 16 ; Mai. ii. 10.
2 Ecclesiasticus xxiii. 1, 4.
8 Wisdom ii. 18. (Compare Psalms of Solomon, xiii. 9.) This logi
cally implies that God stands in a fatherly relation to the individual.
The direct appeal to God as Father is nevertheless wanting. Instances
of such appeal were evidently very rare till after the appearance of the
New Testament. " In Palestinian circles," says Dalman, " in harmony
with the Old Testament view, it is generally the Israelites as such who
have God in relation to themselves as ' their father.' ... In the

90 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
ance of the fatherly relation of God to the individual
first came when Christ out of the fullness of His own
filial consciousness talked of the Father. This name
stood in his speech for a thoroughly individual relation.
It lies in the whole tenor of His teachings, as well as in
the verbal expression which He put into a formula of
prayer for the disciple, that He had no thought but that
each and every man should come to God as Father, and
cultivate toward Him the spirit of the confiding child.
Some discussion has been expended on the question
whether Christ taught the universal fatherhood of God —
that is, His paternal relation to men generally, whether
spiritual or unspiritual, obedient or disobedient. It must
be granted that the Synoptical Gospels do not formally
proclaim such a relation. Still it must be claimed that
the Synoptical representation is decidedly on the side
of the meaning which naturally goes with the phrase
" universal fatherhood." It pictures God as ready to act
toward men universally as though He recognized a
paternal relation toward them. Christ as much as
assumed to know thoroughly, and truly to represent, the
mind of God. When therefore He declared His voca
tion to be the seeking and the saving of the lost, and
showed how His compassion and solicitude went forth to
the sinful and the outcast, He was giving an object les
son on the essential attitude of God to the underserving.
By the whole tenor of His ministry He enforced the
Pseudepigrapha the name of father is nowhere used as a designation of
God. The dicta of the Rabbis, from the end of the first Christian
century onwards, are the earliest source of instances." (Words of Jesus,
pp. 184-189.) Compare Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums, p. 357.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 91
lesson which is to be gathered from the story of the
prodigal son and the related parables. It matters little,
then, that the formal affirmation of universal fatherhood
is wanting. God is revealed as having fatherly compas
sion and goodwill toward the least worthy, and so by
necessary inference toward every man. He is the gen
erous being whose example of gratuitous kindness to the
unjust perpetually invites men to love and bless their
enemies. He is the absolutely good, the ayadds, whose
benevolence is without stint. This does not imply that
He makes small account of distinctions of character.
The Christ who pictured so strongly the consequences of
unrepented sin, and urged the cutting off of the right
hand that offends, had obviously no place for such a
notion. As was stated above, He imputed to God the
full measure of ethical intensity. It made no incon
gruity for His mind to suppose fatherly compassion and
ethical intensity to coexist. Nor can it be seen that
this point of view was illogical. Next to the actuality
of sonship a potentiality of sonship is the most precious
thing that the eye of God discovers among men. It is
not inappropriate then for God to exercise fatherly for
bearance and pity toward the sin-stained and unworthy
man who still has in himself this potentiality. It is
worth while to use some pains to prevent this pearl of
great price from being lost.
The proper correlate to God's fatherhood is of course
man's sonship. Still an affirmation of the one does not
amount precisely to an affirmation of the other. By
reason of human sinfulness a distinction is necessarily
made between the fact and the potentiality of sonship.

92 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
In the Synoptical Gospels there is an implicit recogni
tion of this distinction. In common with the rest of the
New Testament they assume that it is through conform
ity to the divine pattern that men gain the title to be
called in the full and proper sense sons of God.1 While
God in His disposition is constantly the Father, men
need to attain to true sonship.
The dominant representation of God in the gospel
gives the standard for the conception of prayer. It is
consistently regarded as the trustful approach of the
child to the supreme Father. So Christ represented it,
not only in the form of prayer which He gave to His
disciples, but also in the distinct appeal to the parental
relation which he employed when He sought to inspire
them with undoubting confidence in the presentation of
their petitions. As may be judged from His reproba
tion of vain repetitions,2 He considered it a senseless
profanation of prayer to use it as a piece of magic or a
merit-winning performance. He regarded it rather as
the simple, unsophisticated expression of desire and need,
the humble approach of the dependent member of the
great spiritual household to the supreme and gracious
Head of that household.
God as the prayer-hearing Father could but be con
ceived as exercising a minute and comprehensive provi
dence. Christ took special pains to lighten up this
aspect of divine relations. No more charming piece of
optimism has ever been embodied in human speech than
that contained in the word-pictures of Christ, which reveal
the heavenly Father as noting the fall of the sparrow,
1 Matt. v. 45 ; Luke vi. 35, xx. 36. 2 Matt. vi. 7, 8.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING

93

numbering the very hairs upon the heads of His children,
and exercising for them a loving foresight which makes
it unnecessary to borrow an anxious thought about the
events of the morrow. Doubtless Christ was perfectly
aware that the appearance of divine providence is not
always friendly. Perhaps in the parables of the selfish
neighbor1 and the unjust judge2 He meant to give a
suggestion that at times God may seem to take the un
heeding attitude. In His own experience even, for at
least one dark moment of overwhelming anguish, He
illustrated how this cheerless appearance may dominate
the outlook. But His unequivocal teaching was that
God's notice and care extend to the minutest item of
human interests, and He invited to a faith vital and buoy
ant enough to triumph over every adverse appearance.
In the postulate of universal fatherhood there is evi
dently latent a postulate of universal brotherhood. In
fact Christ distinctly indicated that the two were closely
related in His mind when He pointed to the merciful
Father who bestows His gifts upon the undeserving as a
model for the conduct of men. Furthermore in His in
terpretation of the requirement of equal love" to the
neighbor, as given in the parable of the good Samaritan,
He plainly signified that the spirit of brotherly love
should reach out to race-wide limits.
VII. — Leading Conceptions of Man and the
World.
In sketching Christ's view of the kingdom and of the
1 Luke xi. 5-9. 2 Luke xviii. 1-8.

94 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Father in heaven we have already intimated the most
essential elements in His teaching respecting man. To
His contemplation man was above all a child of God and
a subject of His kingdom .of righteousness. This was
the ideal which He regarded as at least potential in
every man, and in the light of which he estimated man's
worth. Among the tokens which Christ gave of His sense of
man's worth was the stress which He placed upon the
individual considered by himself, or stripped of all ex
traneous recommendations. No poverty or social abject-
ness removed a man in the least degree beyond the pale
of His sympathy. Any one, however circumstanced,
who was disposed to do the will of God, He received into
cordial fellowship and pronounced worthy to be owned
as mother, sister, and brother. To lose the individual
in the mass He regarded as diametrically opposed to
divine procedure. However great the number in the
fold, the one straying sheep must be sought after and
the finding of the lost one makes the most fitting occa
sion in the world for a jubilee.
Again, Christ expressed His sense of man's high place
and worth by setting before him as the goal of attain
ment an image of divine perfection. "Ye therefore
shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." 1
As the context indicates, it is especially the generous,
overflowing, diffusive love of God that is to be copied.
Similarly what is said of the obligation of the disciple to
forgive trespasses and to seek occasion for ministering,
rather than for being ministered unto,2 contemplates him
1 Matt. v. 48. 2 Matt. xx. 28.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 95
as an associate and imitator of the perfect Father in
heaven. Still further, Christ attached a high worth to man in
distinctly contemplating him as a candidate for immor
tality. His conception of the interrelation between God
and man as that of Father and child naturally carried
with itself a vital impression of the vocation of man
to live an immortal life. This is essentially the point
of His argument against the Sadducean negation. It
flashes out the truth that the God who revealed Himself
to Moses as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, mani
fested thereby that He had received these fathers into
sympathetic fellowship with Himself, and that the rela
tion between Him and them was too intimate and real
to allow the supposition that they had lapsed into the
estate of remote nonentities. Those whom the paternal
God recognizes as His own must survive the stroke of
death. Corresponding to the living Father there must
be living children, subjects of immortality.1
There is then no reason at all to doubt that the ideal
which was recognized in Christ's habitual thought of
man was a very lofty one. He gave unequivocal testi
mony on this subject. If we ask what was His estimate
of the actual condition of men, we find the data for a
conclusion somewhat less distinct. Not a statement can
be found in the Synoptical Gospels which sounds much
like the definite specifications of later times on original
sin or innate depravity. Indeed were the words of
Christ, which affirmed respecting little children, "of
such is the kingdom of heaven," 2 to be taken unquali-
iMatt. xxii. 32 ; Mark xii. 26, 27 ; Luke xx. 37, 38. 2 Matt. xix. 14.

96 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
fiedly, the conclusion would be that birth into this world
brings no entail of sin or depravity. But the warrant is
not clear for taking the words in so large a sense.
Christ saw in the simplicity and unsophisticated trust
fulness of little children beautiful traits which ought to
characterize mature life, and he undoubtedly regarded
such subjects as embraced in God's kindly thought and
standing within the bounds of the kingdom rather than
outside. But that does not necessarily imply that He
regarded these innocent and uncondemned citizens of
the kingdom as having no tendencies by birth which
would jeopardize their continuous standing in the king
dom and their unfoldment in harmony with its standard.
He might have used just the words that He did, and
still have held the conviction that man is so far by birth
inclined to sin that he needs to be met on the threshold
of moral activity by the regenerating agency of the
Divine Spirit. The author of the fourth Gospel quite
distinctly imputes to Him this conviction. The Synopti
cal representation, too, if falling short of an affirmation,
contains at least a suggestion that Christ's thought took
account of an element of moral infirmity and bondage in
man's natural condition. In the line of this suggestion
is the contrast which is drawn between the divine and
the human in the question : " If ye then, being evil,
know how to give good gifts unto your children, .how
much more shall your Father which is in heaven give
good things to them that ask Him ? " 1 This language
seems to take for granted that those addressed admitted
the common sinfulness of men. A like implication may
iMatt. vii. ii.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 97
be discovered in what is said of the facility with which
men enter into the broad as opposed to the narrow way.1
The same may be said of the stress put upon repentance
and upon the necessity of turning or being converted in
order to gain entrance into the kingdom of heaven.2 It
is true that in each of these instances Christ pictured
the actual moral state which is characteristic of grown
men, and did not definitely assert that any part of the
evil in that state is a matter of birth or inheritance.
Still when we consider the trend both of Jewish and
apostolic thinking, the more natural supposition is that
Christ thought of the proneness of men to go astray as
being in some measure an inborn tendency. His concep
tion was not of the sombre Augustinian order. Neither
was it of the Pelagian type. He regarded man as a
mixed subject, having in himself the potentiality of a
lofty ideal, but possessed also of wayward impulses,
needing to pray habitually for forgiveness, and to watch
incessantly against the wily assaults of evil.
It may be noticed, in respect of Christ's terminology
as reported in the Synoptical Gospels, that it less defi
nitely associates the moral evil in men with the flesh
than is characteristic of the Pauline and the Johannine
representation. The nearest approach to the phraseology
of these later types is contained in the sentence, "Watch
and pray that ye enter not into temptation : the spirit
indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." 3 This is as
much as saying that the characteristic infirmity of man,
or his susceptibility to temptation, is closely associated
with the flesh as tending under certain conditions to
1Matt. vii. 13, 14. 2Matt. xviii. 3. 8Matt. xxvi. 41.

98 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
lassitude. On the other hand, however, it is not to be
overlooked that Christ strongly accentuated the truth
that the heart, as the centre of the moral personality, is
the source of all the varieties of wickedness that come to
manifestation in conduct.1 This is the distinctive point
of view in the Synoptical Gospels. The association of
sin with the flesh is decidedly subordinate.
For the Christ who admitted so much of brightness
into His thought of God and man in their mutual rela
tions it was not natural to take a dark view of the world.
He regarded it with a measure of sympathy and appre
ciation for which there was scanty precedent in Jewish
thought and representation in the times proximate to
His own age. Many touches in His discourses show
that nature had to Him the worth of visible poetry. He
saw upon it the light of His Father's countenance, and
recognized in its varied forms tokens of His care and
painstaking. The gospel representation, it is true, sug
gests that Christ's vision of the world was not without
its shadowed side. He recognized the presence of an
enemy who sows tares in the Lord's field. His language
implies that He confessed that there was much of truth
in the current Jewish conception respecting the working
of Satan and his minions. But this recognition of a
hostile force did not interfere with a predominant cheer
fulness in His outlook upon the world. He knew the
hostile force as one that quailed before His own word of
authority, and viewed it as doomed to certain and utter
defeat. In most striking and graphic expression of this
1 Matt. xv. 18, 19; Mark. vii. 20-23.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 99
confidence He exclaimed, "I beheld Satan fallen as
lightning from heaven." x

VIII. — The Witness of Christ Respecting His
Own Person and Office.
An element of testimony is contained in the titles by
which Christ preferred to designate Himself, among
which "Son of Man" is the most frequently recurring.
It is used in more than fifty distinct instances in the
sayings of Christ as reported by the Synoptists. It has
often been urged, and with a good degree of probability,
that Dan. vii. 13 afforded an influential precedent as
respects the use of this name. In that passage, it is
true, no distinct individual is certainly specified. " One
like a Son of Man," it is said, " came with the clouds of
heaven " — that is, one in a human form, and therefore
representing a kingdom of a higher order than those
symbolized by the animal forms previously pictured.
1 Luke x. 18. As was intimated in another connection, on such a
theme as the agency of angels and demons it might be expected that
Christ, to a considerable extent, would accommodate Himself to current
forms of representation. Just how far He went in this accommodation
is a question that is difficult to settle. Opinion is divided, but leans
increasingly to the conclusion that very little dogmatic content ought
to be put into the words of Christ in this relation. A writer as little
given to adventurous criticism as Professor Stevens remarks : " The
language of Jesus is pictorial and His purpose in speaking on such
topics always terminates on ethical and spiritual instruction, and not
on giving information respecting the acts of superhuman spirits. . . .
Whether demon-possession be in reality a fact or a superstition, the
authority of Jesus cannot fairly be cited for either the one or the other
view of it." (The Theology of the New Testament, pp. 90, 91.)

IOO NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
But in proportion as a vital Messianic expectation
wrought in Israel it was natural that the picture of a
son of man should be made to denote a specific person
ality, the ideal king who was to come. If we may trust
the conclusions of eminent investigators as to the pre-
Christian origin of the middle portion of the Book of
Enoch, the picture of Daniel had already been construed
in this sense, at least by individuals, before Christ began
His public ministry. Still there is no reason to suppose
that in popular thought the term Son of Man was clearly
understood to be an equivalent of Messiah. It might
be understood in that way ; at the same time it was not
so well naturalized in this significance as spontaneously
and uniformly to be so interpreted.1 Accordingly it was
admirably adapted to the use of Christ. His discretion
warned Him against an open proclamation of His Mes-
siahship at the beginning of His public teaching. The
current notion respecting the office of the Messiah was
decidedly unlike His own. An open assumption of the
name, therefore, would at once have brought upon Him
the pressure of a clamorous expectation which He must
needs disappoint to the certain embarrassment of His
ministry. The term Son of Man was indicative of a
special vocation, but its sense was so far veiled that men
were left to query whether it stood precisely for the
Messiah. It was suggestive without being too openly
declarative.2 1 Compare Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 306.
* Professor Charles concludes that the Book of Enoch served as the
more immediate source of Christ's characterization of Himself as the
Son of Man, but also that an altered signification was given to the term

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING IOI
From this exposition it follows that in calling Himself
the Son of Man Christ was employing a modest and
prudent form for the expression of His Messianic con
sciousness. The central meaning of the name, as He
used it, was Messianic. It was not chosen specifically
as a means of attesting His sense of complete partner
ship in human nature. Nevertheless in a negative way
it does bear evidence to that truth. Christ could never
have been partial to a name which was distinctly con
trary to his self-consciousness. His habitual use of the
term " Son of Man " shows at least that there was no
opposition in his thought or feeling to the idea of genu
ine implication in the human race.1
by importing into it Isaiah's conception of the Servant of Jehovah.
" Whilst, therefore, in .adopting the title ' the Son of Man ' from Enoch,
Jesus made from the outset supernatural claims, yet these supernatural
claims were to be vindicated not after the external Judaistic conceptions
of the Book of Enoch, but in a revelation of the Father in a sinless and
redemptive life, death and resurrection " (Book of Enoch, pp. 314-316).
The direct borrowing on the part of Jesus from the pseudepigraphic
. writing may be doubted, but His use of the title in question does in
\ruth remind both of the lofty personality depicted in the Book of Enoch
and of Isaiah's suffering servant of Jehovah.
i A few words on an eccentric theory may be in place, the theory,
namely, that Jesus never used the term Son of Man " either to claim
Messiafiship in any sense, or to hint that He was a ' mere man,' or ' the
true man,' but in some pregnant utterances used it in reference to ' man '
in general, his duties, rights, and privileges" (Nathaniel Schmidt, The
Prophet of Nazareth). The ground for the theory is the contention that
Son of Man (bar naska) in Aramaic is a generic term for man. The
contention may be admitted, and still the conclusion based upon it be
regarded as decidedly incredible. Indeed it is vastly easier to believe
that Jesus gave such connections to the generic term as to make plain
His design to apply it in a specific sense to Himself than either that He
uttered some general statements about man, or that the evangelists

102 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
In applying to Himself the complementary term " Son
of God" (or at least "the Son" in connections where
the sense requires the name of God to be understood)
Christ undoubtedly meant to claim a relation of special
fellowship and moral identity with the Father in heaven.
He could not have meant less than this. The tone of
His teaching implies, it is true, that it is the common
privilege of men to be the sons of God. But it is to be
noticed that in no instance does He place Himself on a
parity with men in general in respect of sonship. On
the contrary, the unmistakable import of the connections
in which he names himself the Son is that He enjoys
singular intimacy with the Father and has singular pre
rogatives over the divine kingdom. It may not be
capable of proof from the Synoptical accounts that He
meant by this title to claim sonship in the metaphysical
sense. What is certain is that His use of the title in
the Synoptical Gospels indicates a consciousness of an
unique and lofty union with God, and that a union so
exceptional, even though the primary stress be upon its
ethical character, is a congenial basis for the idea of a
metaphysical sonship.
Beyond the use of these titles Christ gave manifold
illustrations of the order of self-consciousness which
represented Jesus as customarily using a form of self -designation which
he never employed. The entire New Testament outside of the Gospels
testifies by its mode of referring to Jesus that the early Christians had
no inclination on their own account to name their Master the Son of
Man, and thus supplies a cogent reason for inferring that the report of
the evangelists about the employment of the term by Jesus rested on a
vital tradition. As respects the verdict of New Testament scholarship,
while several names are cited in favor of the theory in question, it is
emphatically repudiated by the majority of critics.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 103
dwelt in Him by the position which directly or indirectly
He assigned to Himself. A review of His words com
pels the conclusion, that, with all the tokens He gave of
real identification with humanity, His self-consciousness
rose to a great height above the common human plane.
He makes no account of His Davidic lineage and inti
mates to the Pharisees that the true thought of the
Messiah, in harmony with the commonly accepted signif
icance of a sentence in the Psalms, accounts Him
David's Lord.1 In the parable of the vineyard He
represents servants of the owner as being sent to
receive the fruits, and last of all the beloved Son,2 thus
placing Himself in a distinctly higher category than the
prophetical messengers to Israel. In emphasizing the
impossibility of forecasting the day of judgment, He notes
that the day is hidden from the knowledge of men,
angels, and the Son, indicating by this order of subjects
His consciousness that the Son's prerogative stands
above that of the whole creaturely universe.3 He so
identifies Himself with the kingdom of heaven which He
proclaims as to allow of no antithesis between relation
to it and relation to Himself. He pronounces those
blessed who are persecuted for His sake.4 He declares
that the giving of a cup of cold water in His name shall
have its reward.5 He claims love and allegiance superior
to those demanded by any earthly ties.6 He represents
that confession or denial of Him before men shall earn
confession or denial before the Father and the angels.7
1 Matt. xxii. 45 ; Luke xx. 44. 2 Matt. xxi. 33-39; Luke xx. 9-15.
8 Matt. xxiv. 36; Mark xiii. 32. 4Matt. v. 11.
6 Matt. x. 42 ; Mark ix. 41. 6 Matt. x. 37 ; Luke xiv. 26.
7 Matt. x. 32, 33 ; Mark viii. 38 ; Luke xii. 8, 9, ix. 26.

IO4 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
He pictures the awards of the great day of judgment as
apportioned according as affection or despite has been
shown to Himself.1 He declares Himself greater than
the temple,2 Lord of the Sabbath,3 qualified to forgive
sins.4 He characterizes Himself as the stronger than
the strong man, the one able to vanquish Satan.5 He
makes Himself the one competent revealer of the mind
of God, since no one knoweth the Son save the Father,
neither doth any know the Father save the Son.6 He
promises to be in the midst where two or three are
gathered in His name,7 and to supply speech and wisdom
to His disciples when they shall be called to answer
before adversaries.8 He utters His message directly, or
in His own name, instead of employing the customary
prophetical formula, " Thus saith the Lord." He claims
to be endowed with all authority in heaven and earth.9
He describes the angels, whom Jewish thought made the
retinue of Jehovah, as sent forth at His behest and
serving as His messengers or servants.10 He represents
finally that all nations are to be gathered before Him and
to receive at His hands the awards of eternity.11 To
suppose such a line of expressions to come from a
simple human consciousness, in one too clear and well-
balanced to be subject to measureless illusion, is to sup
pose what our own experience can never make credible.
1 Matt. xxv. 34-46. 2 Matt. xii. 6.
8 Matt. xii. 8; Mark ii. 28; Luke vi. 5.
4 Matt. ix. 2-6; Mark ii. 4-10; Luke v. 20-24, v"- 47-
6 Matt. xii. 28, 29; Mark iii. 27; Luke xi, 21, 22.
6 Matt. xi. 27 ; Luke x. 22. 7 Matt, xviii. 20.
8 Luke xxi. 15. 9 Matt, xxviii. 18.
10 Matt. xxiv. 30, 31 ; Mark xiii. 27. n Matt. xxv. 31-46.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 105
A sane mind in beings conditioned as we are knows
itself to be vastly remote from such an order of self-
consciousness as is reflected in the Synoptical Gospels.
In respect of trinitarianism the Synoptical Gospels
furnish data for inference rather than formal statements.
The closest verbal approach to the trinitarian conception
is contained in the injunction of baptism as reported by
Matthew.1 The larger basis, however, for trinitarian
conviction is given in the total representation of the
position and offices of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The heinousness of the sin against the latter argues
plainly for His divine rank.2 As respects the distinct
personality of the Holy Spirit the Synoptical Gospels
afford no more explicit indication than that contained in
the baptismal injunction.
The redemptive work of Christ as related to His
death is treated very briefly in the Synoptical Gospels.
The scantiness of the reference, however, is no cause for
surprise. The disciples were not well prepared for a
message on the theme of the redemptive virtue of
Christ's death. The notion that the Messiah should go
the way of suffering and death was decidedly foreign to
their minds. The gospel narratives show that they were
stumbled by this thought, and had not become reconciled
to it up to the consummation of the tragedy on Calvary.
To minds thus inappreciative and resisting the accom
plished fact of the death of their Lord and Master must
be present before they could be in the proper mood to
explore its meaning. It accords therefore with the his-
1 Matt, xxviii. 19. a Matt. xii. 31 j Mark iii. 29 ; Luke xii. 10,

106 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
torical conditions that on this theme only a few sentences
fell from the lips of Christ. That these assign a high
importance to the freely accepted death is indisputable.
Sentences like these, " The Son of Man came to give
His life a ransom for many,"1 "This is my blood of
the covenant shed for many unto remission of sins,"2
leave no room to doubt that in the thought of Christ His
death was a crowning factor in the establishment of the
gracious economy which He represented. The precise
ground or reason of the efficacy attached to His death
is not stated ; neither is it suggested with any such degree
of definiteness as to give a basis for a clear-cut exclusive
theory. The advocate of the moral influence theory can
find support for his contention in the fact that in one of
the connections in which Christ forecast His sufferings
and death He went on to speak of the necessity and the
fruitfulness of self-denial in His disciples generally.3
This order of association, it may be urged, suggests that
Christ's death is to be reckoned as simply the supreme
specimen of the power of self-sacrifice to further the
interests of righteousness. On the other hand, the one
who prefers to find an element of vicarious satisfaction
in the death of Christ can point to the fact that in the
1 Matt. xx. 28; Mark x. 45.
2 Matt. xxvi. 28 ; Mark xiv. 24 ; Luke xxii. 20. The fact that only
in Matthew's report of the words of Christ is the shedding of the blood
expressly associated with the remission of sins, is very inadequate
ground for denying that such association was intended. All three
Gospels designate the blood as the blood of a covenant shed for others.
This is sacrificial language, and under the given conditions is most
naturally construed as pointing to a ground or means of remission.
8 Matt. xvi. 21-25 ; Mark viii. 31-35 ; Luke ix. 22-24.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 107
sentence on giving His life as a ransom for many the
preposition used is ami, the very word which would
have been employed if the design was to express the
notion of substitution. To neither theory, however, do
the words of Christ, taken by themselves, give any dis
tinct and exclusive right of way. To reach a definite
outcome on this subject it is necessary to go beyond
the Synoptical representation and to take the unfolding
apostolic consciousness as presumably reaching the essen
tial points in the meaning of the death upon the cross.
IX. — Christ's Teaching on the Progress and
Consummation of the Kingdom.
Notice was taken in a preceding section of the fact
that many sayings of Christ picture the kingdom as
destined to a gradual unfoldment in the world. It was
observed also that in some of these sayings the kingdom
was viewed preeminently as an interior personal treasure.
It remains to be noted here that Christ's conception
of divine fatherhood and human brotherhood logically
implied a very decided stress upon the social character
of the kingdom. In appropriating the word iK/cXr/a-la,
or Church, He made use of a term which gives expres
sion to this social character. The Church is the king
dom viewed particularly in respect of the interrelation
of its subjects. It is the society formed under the new
covenant. The name Church conveys somewhat more
of an impression of organization, definiteness, and visi
bility than does the companion term as employed in the
Gospels. Only in its ideal character, or in so far as it

108 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
stands for the actualized reign of God in the world, is
the Church identical with the kingdom. The human
and accidental elements which are inevitably connected
with any organization upon earth, and which began to
modify the Christian Church from the start, differenced
it in a measure from the ideal which Christ expressed by
the phrase kingdom of God or kingdom of heaven.
It is somewhat remarkable that only in the first of
the Synoptical Gospels does the word Church occur.
Matthew introduces it in two instances.1 In the view of
some critics this exclusive mention is a ground of sus
picion, and they are inclined to argue that it is a sign of
a catholicizing tendency, or a leaning to a pronounced
ecclesiasticism, lying back of the composition of this
particular Gospel. But this conclusion is not likely to
win very wide acceptance. In the first place, Christ was
debarred from speaking of a distinct society, apart from
the Jewish communion, until it became appropriate to
announce His certain rejection by organized Judaism ;
discourse respecting the Church that was to be founded
upon His person and message was naturally deferred to
the closing part of His ministry and rarely had place.
Again the contents of the first Gospel do not agree with
the supposition that its references to the Church were
due outright to a catholicizing tendency. Whatever of
churchly import one influenced by later ecclesiastical
associations may attach to some of its sentences, it
certainly contains statements which breathe the very
opposite of a spirit of high ecclesiasticism. Once more,
in dialect or verbal peculiarity Matthew's references to
1 Matt. xvi. 18; xviii. 17.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING

109

the Church are such that it is difficult to believe that
they were the offspring of a doctrinaire temper in the
compiler. They sound rather like the unstudied products
of the energetic spirit of Christ. Why Matthew alone
should have recorded them is doubtless somewhat of a
puzzle. But no one of the evangelists undertook to
record everything, and in general it is impossible to
explain every instance of selection or rejection on the
part of a compiler. Matthew's record may indicate a
superior interest in church organization ; that he went
outside of the facts is by no means proved.
While Christ forecast the existence of the Church,
there is no evidence that He devised for it a specific
constitution or scheme of polity. To take the words
wherewith Christ responded to the confession of Peter in
the sense of an ecclesiastical constitution does violence
to the connection and to the whole spirit of Christ's
message. The words square with the confession. In
the unwavering intelligent confession of his Master as
the Christ, the Son of the living God, Peter stood forth
as the first Christian. Accordingly Christ appropriately
contemplated him on the spot as the beginning of the
foundation of His church, the first stone or rock upon
which He might build the spiritual edifice that it was
His vocation to establish in the world. It was the
spiritual character of Peter revealed in the confession
which suggested his serviceableness as a foundation.
As this character was plainly not a matter for a legal
transfer, so no hint was given of a transfer of Peter's
place in the foundation to a line of official successors.
The rational inference to be drawn was rather that those,

110 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
and those only, who might be assimilated to the character
of Peter as true confessors of Christ would be fitted to
share the honor of a place in the foundation of the
Church. To divorce the honorary words addressed to
the apostle from their close association with a definite
spiritual character in him, and to turn them into a
charter for a perpetual official Roman primacy, is to
indulge in such violence and wooden insipidity of exe
gesis that it is almost a wonder that even an intemperate
hierarchical ambition could have reconciled itself to this
shift. The foregoing exposition of Peter's place in the founda
tion is very decidedly sustained by a consideration of the
total message of Christ on the subject of binding and
loosing. The prerogative which is associated with Peter
in this matter is extended in a later reference to the
disciples generally. In Matt, xviii. 18—20 we read,
"Verily I say unto you, What things soever ye shall
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and what things
soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on
earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall
be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For
where two or three are gathered together in my name,
there am I in the midst of them." The passage taken
in its entirety, as it promises the helpful presence of
Christ to any company of faithful disciples, favors mani
festly the possible execution by any such company of the
office of binding and loosing. The foregoing context
too is entirely favorable to this interpretation, as it
points to duties universally incumbent on Christians and

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING m
not merely on ecclesiastical rulers. Peter then in the
matter of binding and loosing appears only as the first
Christian, the typical disciple. No sort of exclusive
lordship is assigned to him here. By parity of reasoning
we may conclude that in the matter of serving as the
foundation he figured simply as the first Christian, the
typical disciple, and that it was not in the thought of
Christ to affirm for him any exclusive function. How
far the mind of Christ was from the notion of concen
trated ecclesiastical authority is intimated by these words :
"Ye know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over
them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.
Not so shall it be among you : but whosoever would
become great among you shall be your minister; and
whosoever would be first among you shall be your
servant." x
It is quite evident that in the strong language about
binding and loosing addressed to Peter, and then to
Christian disciples generally, Christ contemplated the
Church in its ideal character. Only an ideal Church, or
one thoroughly dominated by the spirit of Christ, has a
guaranty that its binding and loosing on earth will agree
with the binding and loosing in heaven. In so far as
the Church gives place to an unchristian temper, and
departs from the path of spiritual illumination, it must be
seriously exposed to faulty procedure in binding and
loosing. The notion of an infallibility which is capable
of divorce from holy character belongs to a magical and
pagan scheme, and is utterly contrary to the ethical
standpoint of Christ. As respects the meaning of the
1Matt. xx. 25, 26.

112 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
power to bind and loose, it may be taken either in a
legislative or a disciplinary sense. In the former sense
it denotes a prerogative of prohibition and permission in
matters of conduct, a faculty of judging as to what is
compatible with the Christian standing. In the latter
sense it signifies a faculty to put on and to take off
censures. Either of the two senses naturally implies
the other, since rules of conduct are made to be admin
istered, and administration rests back upon rules or
maxims. The words of Christ in this relation, therefore,
contemplated a spiritual brotherhood in which the collect
ive moral sense, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,
should sustain an essentially correct standard of conduct
and effect a corresponding administration of discipline.
The special training which Christ gave a special group
of His disciples implies that He designed for this group
a sort of leadership. As originally instituted, however,
the apostolic office was rather in the prophetical line
than in that of the ecclesiastical magistrate. The
apostles were first of all preeminent witnesses and
teachers as having had the advantage of a preeminent
tuition. Doubtless their leadership in these respects
caused their judgment to be deferred to, and tended as
the years passed to clothe them with a very considerable,
though not strictly defined, jurisdiction. But this came
about by a natural evolution and the unforced consent
of the Christian body. There is not a line of evidence
for the notion that Christ made out for the apostles any
precise scheme of administrative prerogatives. He sent
them forth as missionaries and prophets of the new dis
pensation, to win such authority as the faithful fulfill-

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING

"3

ment of their missionary and prophetical vocation might
bring to them.
It accords with the profoundly ethical character of
Christ's teaching that very little prominence was given
therein to rites and ceremonies. All that the Synoptical
Gospels contain in this line is a few sentences relative
to baptism and the eucharist. Respecting the former
indeed positive injunction is limited to one sentence
recorded by a single evangelist.1 This one sentence
too has not lacked a challenge from the side of criti
cism. It is alleged that the sentence in which Matthew
publishes the command to baptize, with its trinitarian
phraseology, is not after the style of speaking char
acteristic of Christ, and furthermore that it disagrees
with the implication of the New Testament that baptism
was primarily in the name of Christ simply. In reply,
it may be said on the first point that the doctrine of
Christ was eminently the doctrine of Father, Son, and
Spirit, and that, while ordinarily He did not take pains
to collocate these names, there is nothing incredible in
the supposition that He may have done so in issuing
a final commission to His disciples. As regards the
second point, a twofold consideration is properly brought
forward. On the one hand the assumption that the so-
called formulary in Matthew, supposing it to have been
extant in the apostolic era, would necessarily have been
taken as a formulary proper, may be questioned. A
parallel instance legitimates a doubt on this particular.
The New Testament gives no indication of the use of
the Lord's prayer as a liturgical form. But, as has been
1 Matt, xxviii. 19.

114 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
aptly urged, " this does not prove that the Lord's prayer
was not spoken by Jesus. It only proves that the age
of the apostles was an age of freedom from forms.
When, however, we come to the Didache (viii. 2, 3), we
find Christians enjoined to repeat the Lord's prayer
three times a day." x On the other hand, there is room
to question whether in the references to baptism in Acts
and the epistles there was a design to give the precise
formula that was used or counted obligatory. The stress
was undoubtedly upon the confession of Christ in bap
tism. In connection with the first converts it was a
matter of course that they confessed faith in the Father
and in the Holy Spirit. The specifically new element
of belief which they were called upon solemnly to pro
fess was faith in Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ, the
Son of God, sent to be the Saviour of the world. Natu
rally, therefore, emphasis was put upon the fact of their
being baptized into Christ or in the name of Christ.
That this expression could be used in a non-liturgical
sense at the very time when the liturgy prescribed bap
tism in the threefold name is illustrated in the Didachd.
While this writing describes the initial Christian rite as
"baptism into the name of the Lord " (ix. 5), in its litur
gical instruction it enjoins that the rite shall be per
formed in " the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost " (vii. 1). Very likely for a consider
able interval there was no distinct sense of obligation to
follow a stereotyped phrase. We conclude, then, that
an overplus of dogmatism enters into the assertion that
Christ could not possibly have spoken the words which
1 Lambert, The Sacraments of the New Testament, pp. 50-52.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING

"5

Matthew records relative to baptism.1 At the same
time, there is little motive to insist that Matthew repeats
here the precise words of the Master. It serves every
practical end to suppose that they express essentially
His intention. That Christ purposed and sanctioned
such a rite as baptism is made probable by the fact that
its administration seems to have been treated as a mat
ter of course from the first days of Christianity.
As in connection with baptism, so also in relation to
the eucharistic celebration, little in the way of formal
injunction can be cited from the lips of Christ. The
Gospels represent the Master as taking the eucharistic
elements, delivering them to the disciples, and express
ing their significance.2 No plain command is recorded
for a repetition of the symbolic acts on future occasions,
unless it be in the words of Luke, " This do in remem
brance of me " ; and it is possible to regard these words
as an unauthorized addition to a more authentic text in
Matthew or Mark. A suspicion that this is the case
finds harborage in the fact that manuscript authority on
the text of Luke is divided.3 But while the special
1 Against such an assertion the following words of a very competent
investigator, relative to Matt, xxviii. 19, may appropriately be cited:
" I have no trouble in referring back this form of baptism to the Lord
Himself, and think that Matthew's Gospel derived the formulary from
the practice of the church at Jerusalem." (Kattenbusch, Zeitschrift fiir
Theologie und Kirche, 5te Heft, 1901.)
2 Matt. xxvi. 26-29; Mark xiv. 22-25 ; Luke xxii. 15-20.
8 See Sanday, Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, II. 636 ; Lambert,
The Sacraments of the New Testament, pp. 245, 246. The former fol
lows Westcott and Hort in excluding the phrase in question. The
latter notices that recent criticism tends very largely to retain the phrase.
On this side are mentioned Jiilicher, Schmiedel, Cremer, Schultzen,
Schaefer, Clemen, Schweitzer, Bering, and Menzies.

Il6 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
statement in the third Gospel may not be an unequivocal
ground of belief in our Lord's intention to found a per
manent rite, a basis for such a belief is not wanting.
The association which the several Gospels make between
the transactions of the last supper and a covenant con
veys the impression that these transactions were meant
to have an institutional character, since a covenant in
Christ's blood is a matter which concerns the disciples
of Christ to the end of time, and is intrinsically suitable
for a recurring celebration. Very decidedly reinforcing
this impression are the traces of a dominant conviction
in the early Christian body. Paul writing within about
twenty-five years of the death of Christ, expressed the
most undoubting conviction that He established the
eucharist as a memorial rite to be repeated in His Church
till His coming.1 Now Paul was not so much of a
ritualist that he should have had the slightest disposition
to invent a rite on his own account. In the essentials
of his interpretation he undoubtedly expressed the con
sensus of apostolic conviction. We hold then that the
historic evidence favors the institution of baptism and the
eucharist by Christ, that is, His institution or commen
dation of the emblematic rites bearing those names.
JThe words of Paul, "I received of the Lord that which also I
delivered unto you " ( I Cor. xi. 23), must be understood to mean that his
instructions to the Corinthians had been based on trustworthy reports
as to what transpired at the last supper, these reports being the medium
through which the will of the Lord had been transmitted to himself.
The supposition that the apostle meant to claim that he received through
direct revelation from heaven, at a time when living witnesses of th«
facts were at hand, a detailed knowledge of Christ's procedure at the
supper which preceded His crucifixion, is simply incredible.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 117
Of baptism and the eucharist viewed as parts of a scheme
of ecclesiastical magic there is no proper suggestion in
the Synoptical Gospels.
In the gospel picture no wide interval is interposed
between the beginning and the end of the dispensation.
It is more natural for a fervent religious idealism to
glance toward the final outcome than to give prolonged
attention to intermediate stages. In the case of Christ
there was, moreover, a special occasion to paint the
scene of glory lying at the end. He was obliged to
admit deep shadows into the foreground, to outline a
painful and enigmatic scene of suffering, shame, and
death. In face of these things it was necessary to
hearten the disciples with a glimpse of the triumph lying
beyond the shame and the seeming defeat. Therefore
Christ passed rapidly over the nearer events in the prog
ress of the Church or kingdom and cheered the disciples
with a vision of the grand consummation.
As Christ felt authorized to assume a most intimate
connection between the kingdom and His own person,
He could consistently identify a triumph of the kingdom
with His own triumph, and in pictorial language describe
it as a coming of the Son of man, that is, a manifestation
of the victorious life and activity of the Christ whom
Jewish hatred sought to bind with the fetters of death
and the grave. A spiritual outburst like that of Pente
cost, or a great judgment like that which sealed the fate
of Jerusalem, as it marked a signal era in the progress of
the kingdom, showed forth Christ as the living head
of the kingdom, and could be accounted in a manner

118 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
His coming or self -manifestation. Some sentences in
the Synoptical Gospels are perhaps construed with least
difficulty when the reference to Christ's coming is taken
in this sense.1 But there are other sentences, such as
some of those in the eschatological discourse reported in
Matt, xxiv and Mark xiii, which certainly seem to refer
to a coming that is coincident with the closing up of the
dispensation, a great final coming which is to supplement
the office of every preceding visitation and bring the
triumph of the kingdom to a perfect fulfillment.
With respect to the time of His coming Christ de
clined to make a statement. He declared indeed that
it was unknown to men, angels, and even to the Son.2
Some exegetes, it is true, have concluded on the basis
of the connected statement, " This generation shall not
pass away till all these things be accomplished," 3 that
Christ expected the end of the dispensation to fall with
in the generation then living. But this involves irrecon
cilable disagreements. How could Christ confidently
affirm that the end was so near and then solemnly dis
claim knowledge of the day and hour ? It has been said
indeed that He thought of the great consummation as
close at hand, certain to overtake that generation, but
wished to declare Himself uninformed of the precise day
and hour. Such an explanation, however, supposes a
technicality which is to be declared alien to the speech
of Christ. To locate a supreme crisis within the limits
1 Matt. xvi. 28 ; Mark ix. 1 ; Luke ix. 27. On the probable displace
ment of Matt. a. 23 see Stevens, Theology of the New Testament,
p. 150. 3 Matt. xxiv. 36; Mark xiii. 32. 'Matt. xxiv. 34; Mark xiii. 30.

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 119
of a specific generation was coming to such close quar
ters that it is immensely improbable that after doing this
Christ would have felt called upon solemnly to asserv-
erate that the day and hour of that crisis were unknown
to all beings in the universe except the Father. More
over it contradicts foregoing statements of Christ to
suppose that He looked for the end in that generation.
For example, shortly before He uttered the eschatologi
cal discourse, He had intimated in the parable of the
marriage of the king's son1 that judgment should befall
the Jews in the destruction of their city, and that the
outside peoples should be brought in to take their place
in the kingdom. A representation like this naturally
implies a very considerable interval between the over
throw of Jerusalem and the closing up of the dispensa
tion. To conceive that Christ thought that the untu
tored Gentile nations could be instructed and brought to
the status of intelligent and faithful subjects of the king
dom in a few months or years is to conceive of a thing
that is contradictory both to the extraordinary insight of
Christ and to His explicit teaching on the method of the
unfoldment of the kingdom. Our conclusion then is
that the evangelists in compiling the sayings of Christ
respecting the end, either by omission or imperfect
arrangement, have obscured the original' connection of
some of His words.2 It involves too much of self-con
tradiction on the part of Christ to grant that He fixed
1 Matt. xxii. 1-10.
2 Compare the verdict of Moffatt: "As they stand the Synoptic
apocalpyses cannot be brought within the limits of a single personality
or situation without self-contradiction "(The Historical New Testa-

120 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
the end of the dispensation within the limits of that gen
eration. It may have been observed that in the above discus
sion we have declined a means of escaping difficulty
which has commended itself to a number of commenta
tors, namely the assumption that the discourse in Matt.
xxiv and Mark xiii does not look beyond the catastrophe
of Jerusalem's downfall. It belonged, they contend, to
the graphic prophetical style to portray any great histori
cal crisis by figures indicative of a general convulsion.
It is not necessary therefore to suppose that the strong
imagery employed was meant to picture the end of the
world. The foresight of the overthrow of the holy city
and the nation was a sufficient warrant, before the pro
phetical standard, for the language used. Now, in re
sponse to this plea, we grant that prophetical language
is not to be measured by the rules of sober prose.
Nevertheless we are not able to persuade ourselves that
the evangelists who recorded such words as are contained
in Matt. xxiv. 29-31 and Mark xiii. 24-27 believed that
anything less was pictured therein than the supreme
crisis, the end of the dispensation. The coming de
scribed in this connection has every appearance of iden
tity with that which in Matt. xxv. 31 is made the im
mediate antecedent of universal judgment.
It should be noticed that in the Synoptical representa
tion the final coming of Christ is treated as if identical
ment, p. 641); also the conclusion of Haupt, that the eschatological
discourses in question are a mosaic, composed of many pieces, some of
which in the process of combination have not gained an appropriate
setting (Die eschatologischen Aussagen Jesu, pp. 21-45).

THE SYNOPTICAL TEACHING 121
with His glorious manifestation. No definite local asso
ciation is given to it. Nothing is said about installation
upon an earthly theatre. The coming is placed in imme
diate conjunction with the act of judging men and por
tioning out eternal rewards.
Concerning the resurrection which New Testament
thought closely associated with the final coming of Christ
the Synoptical Gospels offer no very definite specifica
tions. In responding to the Sadducees Christ spoke of
the dead as being raised, and He must have understood
that His language would naturally be taken by the peo
ple in the sense of a bodily resurrection.1 At the same
time, it may be noticed that the argument which He
adduces makes rather for the general truth of a vital im
mortality than for the fact of a reinvestment of the dead
with bodies. It is to be observed also that His language
is somewhat antagonistic to the idea of a literal reproduc
tion of the present body, since He likens the subjects of
the resurrection to the angels in heaven. Whether the
wicked are included in the resurrection is not definitely
indicated. Some find in the statement that participants
in the resurrection are to be as the angels in heaven a
token of the exclusion of the wicked. But the inference
has a very slender basis, since in the given connection
the main intent of Christ was not to define who shall
share in the resurrection, but to bring out the fact that
family institutions are foreign to the resurrection state.
Two phrases of Luke's Gospel may be cited with some
plausibility for the limitation of the resurrection to the
righteous, mention being made of the " resurrection of
1 Matt. xxii. 23-32 ; Mark xii. 18-27.

122 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
the just," x and the " sons of the resurrection " being
characterized as " sons of God." 2 On the other hand,
Luke represents Christ as saying that all live unto God.3
Moreover, it may be noticed that the language of Christ,
as reported by the Synoptists generally, assumes that all
men are subjects of the final judgment, and that it is in
line with New Testament thought to reckon those called
to judgment as subjects of the resurrection.4
The language associated with the theme of the gene
ral judgment implies that the awards rendered therein
were meant to be understood as expressing final destiny.5
The word ab&vim, it is true, does not necessarily sig
nify endless duration ; but that is the only natural sense
to give it in a passage which has so distinct an air of
finality as belongs to the sentences descriptive of the
great day of judgment. As respects the infliction of
fire which is foreshadowed, it needs only to be remem
bered that it belonged to the prophetical dialect to sym
bolize retribution by the element of fire. There is no
more occasion to take the word in a literal sense than
there is to so construe the outer darkness which also
was used as an emblem of punishment.6
1 Luke xiv. 14. 2 Luke xx. 36. 8 Luke xx. 38.
4 John v. 28, 29; Rev. xx. 12, 13; Acts xxiv. 15.
6 Matt. xxv. 46 ; Mark ix. 43-48.
6 Matt viii. 12, xxv. 30.

CHAPTER III
PORTIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT MORE OR
LESS AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS IN
THEIR REPRESENTATION OF A PRIMITIVE TYPE
OF CHRISTIAN TEACHING
I. — Consideration of the Proper Compass of the
Chapter.
The qualifying clause, " more or less," which is put
into the title of the chapter, is by no means superfluous.
No subsequent portion of the New Testament reflects
precisely the content of the Synoptical Gospels. Either
a falling short of the level of the Synoptical teaching is
noticeable, or else there is a perceptible advance, in
respect of theological construction, beyond the letter of
that teachmg. Still it is not wholly arbitrary to assign
to certain books somewhat of a special association with
the type of the first three Gospels. They do not show,
at least in a conspicuous degree, the effect of the great
currents which came in during the apostolic age to color
New Testament speech and thought, whether in the
masterful influence of Paul, or the idealistic speculation
of Alexandria. They have, moreover, this direct bond
of association with the Synoptical Gospels, that they
reflect very largely a Jewish environment. However
much they may differ from one another, they reveal in
common an intimate connection with Judaism.

124 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
i. Under this description belongs in the first place the
earlier part of the Book of Acts (chaps, i-xv). In re
spect of time of composition, it is true, no claim to a
specially primitive character can be asserted for this
book. While there is no adequate reason for question
ing the unanimous verdict of the early Church that the
Luke whose name is connected with the third Gospel
was its author,1 it cannot be proved that he wrote it
before the closing decades of the first century. It has
been argued that the writer of the history must have
laid down his pen by the year 64, otherwise he would
have recounted events of such marked interest as the
Neronian persecution and the martyrdom of the great
heroes of his story. But this is a precarious ground for
a positive conclusion. A politic regard for the interest
of a party that had no certain standing-room in the
empire may have led to silence on a Roman persecution ;
or the author may have been interrupted in his task
and had no opportunity to complete it ; or it may have
answered the purpose of his treatise, as being very largely
1 The principal considerations which may be urged for the Lucan
authorship have been rendered as follows : " It is the one assumption
which gives a natural and adequate explanation (i) of the fact that at
the end of the second century and at the beginning of the third, St.
Luke was accounted its author by writers representing the chief churches
of Christendom ; (2) of internal characteristics of the Book, the traces
of medical phraseology in the language and the abrupt transition from
the third person of the historian to the first person of the eye-witness.
Further (3) it enables us to give a reasonable account of the sources
whence the writer derived his knowledge of the events, widely separated
in time and place, which he records." (Chase, The Credibility of the
Book of the Acts of the Apostles, p. 28. See also Hawkins, Horae
Synopticae, pp. 148-154.

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL 125
a missionary sketch, to have traced the progress of
Christianity from Jerusalem to its establishment under
apostolic oversight in the imperial capital. It is thus
quite gratuitous to identify the point at which the history
closes with the time of composition. Two or three
decades may have intervened. To grant this, however,
does not necessarily collide with the supposition of a
relatively primitive cast in the teachings of the first part
of Acts. Written memorials probably antedated the
time when Luke wrote, and were utilized by him.
Many scholars think that they find evidence that this
was the case, though the documentary basis does not
stand out prominently on account of the free way in
which Luke used his materials.1 But let the method of
composition have been what it may, the theology of this
portion of the New Testament has unmistakably a simple,
unelaborated, archaic cast. Critics like Holtzmann, while
very free to challenge the historical character of various
features in the opening chapters of Acts, confess that
their theology, especially as embodied in the reported
speeches of Peter, conveys an impression of a primitive
Christian consciousness.2
2. The second of the canonical books which may be
given a place under the title of the present chapter is
1 Among those who have expressed doubt as to the possibility of dis
tinguishing successfully the sources of Acts are Baur, Schwegler, Hil-
genfeld, Weizsacker, Holtzmann, Beyschlag, Pfleiderer, and Riehm.
On the other hand, Zeller, Overbeck, Wendt, J. Weiss, and Jiingst have
favored the possibility of discriminating these sources, at least to a con
siderable extent.
2 Neutestamentliche Theologie, I. 374. Compare Schmiedel, article
"Acts" in Encyclopaedia Biblica.

126 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
the Epistle of James. As in case of Acts, the warrant
for including this epistle here has little to do with chro
nology. In fact, on the point of the date of the Epistle
of James critical opinion is widely divided. One theory
makes it among the earliest, if not the earliest, book of
the New Testament. According to another theory it is
a second century writing and one of the very latest in
the canon. The advocates of the former allege : (i) One
who wished without good warrant to pose as a leader,
and to assume the prerogative to address fellow-Christians
at large, would naturally have been inclined to borrow
a high title. Accordingly the modest title employed,
namely, " servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,"
bespeaks faith in the honesty of the writer, and makes
it credible that he was actually a man of essentially
apostolic rank, such as James of Jerusalem is known to
have been. (2) The absence of any reference to the
antithesis between the Mosaic law and the grace of
Christ is a token of a time anterior to the controversy in
which Paul faced the Judaizers and argued so vehemently
for Christian freedom. (3) If it is to be concluded that
either of the two took note of the statements of the
other, it is more likely that Paul repeated words of James
and guarded against a one-sided meaning that might
easily be put upon them chan that James undertook to
criticise statements of Paul. (4) Were the Epistle of
James a late writing, we should expect to find in it more
traces of the Christian dialect as modified by the in
fluence of Paul's writings.
In behalf of the opposing view it is claimed : (1) There
is no certain witness to the existence of the Epistle of

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL 127
James before the time of Origen. Some portions of
First Peter, First Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas
resemble, it is true, statements in the Epistle of James.
But the resemblances in most instances are not very
specific, and can be explained on the ground of the
familiarity of the writers with the same sources. More
over, if this explanation should be regarded as inadequate
for certain items of resemblance, it would still stand in
question whether James was not the borrower. So far
at least as First Peter is concerned criticism is inclined
to affirm that the debt was on the side of James. (2)
The epistle in several passages gives a picture of a world-
liness and spiritual poverty which cannot be supposed to
have been characteristic of an age of primitive zeal and
purity, a picture which is first paralleled in the second
century writing, the Shepherd of Hermas. (3) The epistle
in its references to law never denotes the Mosaic code in
its historic sense. It uses the word rather in an abstract
and general sense, such as one brought up in Judaism
and imbued with its associations would not naturally
have appropriated. The usage is a sign of a very con
siderable journey from the plane of Jewish thought and
association. (4) The epistle is shown to be post-Pauline
in that it presupposes an abuse of Pauline formulas and
takes pains sharply to correct the abuse.
Our purpose does not make it necessary closely to
weigh the relative force of these opposing lines of argu
ment. We content ourselves with expressing the con
viction that the Epistle of James must be regarded as
post-Pauline, at least subsequent to the Epistle to the
Romans. Mayor and Zahn, who contend for the early

128 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
date of the epistle, equally with Harnack, Jiilicher, and
Holtzmann, who argue for a late date, admit that the
parallelism between certain expressions in the two epistles
shows that one of them took account of the other. The
parallelism is certainly very marked. Paul says, "If
Abraham was justified by works, he hath whereof to
glory " (Rom. iv. 2.) James says, " Was not Abraham
our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac
his son upon the altar ? " (ii. 21). Paul says, " We reckon
therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the
works of the law" (Rom. iii. 28). James says, "Ye
see that by works a man is justified and not only by
faith" (ii. 24). It is to be noticed too that in citing
Gen. xv. 6, in connection with the verses quoted, both
epistles differ in the same way from the Septuagint,
reading eirlaTevaev 6e instead of Kal iirurTevcrev. Now, it
is next to impossible that such a list of verbal corres
pondences should have been simply accidental ; and we
are only left to ask which epistle took account of the
other. Here we cannot agree with Mayor and some
others who hold that the reference is on the side of
Romans. The language of James gives more the im
pression of a direct challenge than that of Paul, and the
natural conclusion is that the challenged sentiment had
already been given unequivocal expression. Moreover,
there is nothing known to us in the early history of
Christianity which suggests that any occasion for such a
strain as that of James could have arisen before Paul's
struggle with the Judaizers had led him to proclaim in
most emphatic terms the primacy of faith in the matter
of justification. The supposition that the occasion came

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL 129
to James from the side of Judaism is not by any means
adapted to carry conviction. Sentences emphatically
laudatory of faith may indeed have been spoken by
some of the rabbis. But there is no assurance that
expressions of this order, even if extant at all in the
apostolic age, were sufficiently current to be likely to
influence those addressed by James. Then, too, it is to
be noticed that the use of strong words in praise of the
virtue of faith is quite a different matter from openly
drawing an antithesis between faith and works to the
abridgment of the province of the latter in relation to
salvation. We surmise that investigation can never
make credible the supposition that a procedure of this
sort was sufficiently current in the Judaism of the first
century to create a strong demand for rebuttal. Surely
not a sentence of the Gospels or of the Pauline epistles
conveys the impression that it was characteristic of con
temporary Judaism to hold up the notion of salvation by
the way of faith as opposed to that of works. The
natural inference from these records is the very opposite.
Let it be observed that the question here is not whether
James was seriously apart from Paul in doctrinal thinking.
The question is rather, Did he criticise verbal statements
which are actually found with Paul, and which may be
presumed to have come to his notice either by the cita
tion of another from an epistle of Paul or by his own
perusal of such epistle ? This latter question we are
constrained to answer in the affirmative on the grounds
just stated.1 But while granting chronological posteri-
1 Mayor, in his Commentary, endeavors to support his contention for
the priority of the epistle of James by citing several statements in the

130 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
ority, we may still affirm affiliation with a primitive
theological type. Whether later than Romans by a
short or a long interval, the Epistle of James is asso
ciated with an early stage of doctrinal construction. By
general consent it has numerous points of connection
with the Synoptical teaching, especially with the sermon
on the mount as reported by Matthew.1 It is essentially
a compendium of Jewish-Christian ethics. In so slight
a degree does it reflect matured Christian theology that
a respectable critic has contended that the epistle, with
the exception of two or three brief interpolations, was
of pre-Christian origin.2 But this is an extreme view,
and is of course refuted by all evidence of reference to
the letter of Paul's teaching, not to speak of the non-
Jewish sense in which the term " law " is used.
3. A third writing may be included under the title
of the chapter, though perhaps by a right somewhat
more subject to dispute than that which can be claimed
for the foregoing writings. Some features of the Apoc-

Pauline writings which resemble sentences in the former. But the
resemblance is quite vague ; and when it is observed that the same
writer specifies not less than seventy points in which the epistle shows
connection with the canonical Hebrew Scriptures, as many points of
connection with Philo, more than thirty with Ecclesiasticus, and not less
than forty with the Synoptical tradition as reported by Matthew, it must
be felt that the approaches in Paul to the words or sentiments of James
are in general explained by reference to the common sources, written
and oral, which influenced their thought and speech. Furthermore the
superior force and originality of Paul suggest that, in so far as there is
any evidence of copying, the probability is that James was the copyist.
1Compare in order Matt. v. 3, v. 34-37, vi. 19, vi. 24, vii. I, vii. 16
with James ii. 5, v. 12, v. 2, 3, iv. 4, iv. 11, 12, iii. 10-13.
2 Such was the theory of Spitta.

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL 131
alypse associate it in a measure with the Johannine
Gospel and Epistles. But, on the other hand, it is
rather broadly contrasted in its tone with these books,
and it contains distinct points of connection with the
primary stage of Christian thought. While purely
Christian ideas are not wanting, there is much of a Jew
ish-Christian cast to the book. Jerusalem is viewed as
the religious centre of the world, and is spoken of as the
"holy city" and the "beloved city." 1 Heaven is repre
sented as containing a temple in which the ark of God's
covenant is revealed.2 Christ is described as the root of
David and the Lion of the tribe of Judah, and in una
dulterated Old Testament phrase is set forth as ruling
the nations with a rod of iron.3 The hundred and forty-
four thousand servants of God who are sealed upon their
foreheads are represented as taken from the tribes of
Israel, twelve thousand from each tribe,4 and the names
of these tribes are inscribed upon the twelve gates of
the heavenly city.5 There is also a reminder of the Ju
daic standpoint in the prominence which is given to the
fear of God as an element of piety.6 Moreover, the
intense antipathy to Roman rule which breathes through
the Apocalypse is in line with the implacable Jewish
hostility which precipitated the desperate struggle with
the overmastering power of Rome, and stands in marked
contrast with the deferential attitude toward the imperial
government which is characteristic of the Pauline Epis
tles and the Book of Acts. This contrast, it may be
1 xi. 2, xx. 9. * vii. 3-8.
2xi. 19. Cf.xv. 5, 8. s xxi. 12.
8 xii. 5, xix. 15. *xi. 18, xiv. 7, xv. 4, xix. 5.

132 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
granted, is partly explained, at least so far as relates to
the Pauline Epistles, by the extraordinary provocation
which was given by the Neronian persecution.
It is this implication of the Apocalypse with Judaism
which justifies its being associated with a primitive type
of Christian teaching. In respect of date there is no
reason to doubt that the Apocalypse is post-Pauline.
Though Epiphanius in the early Church used language
which suggests that he associated its origin with the
reign of Claudius, it has been a well-nigh universal opin
ion among scholars that the book as a whole was com
posed at least after the reign of Nero.
If the Apocalypse be taken as a unity and its com
position be assigned to a definite limited period, then
the competing dates will be the reign of Domitian (81-
96) and the years intervening between the death of Nero
and the destruction of Jerusalem (68-70). In behalf of
the later or Domitian era the following considerations
have been urged: (1) Early tradition, as reported by
Irenaeus, places the composition of the Apocalypse in
this era, and there is no opposing tradition to which
equal weight can be attached. (2) The picture of Chris
tian suffering and martyrdom in the book implies a per
secution of wider extent than the local onset of Nero at
the capital, and reflects conditions which are not known
to have prevailed before the time of Domitian. (3) The
Apocalypse contains traces of the legend of Nero's des
tined return after his supposed death. According to the
earlier form of this legend, which seems to have had
considerable currency, the tyrant did not really die, but
was hidden away in the East among the Parthians, and

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL 133
was destined to regain the sovereignty of the empire.
According to the later form of the legend he was to re
appear as raised from the dead. This form naturally
superseded the earlier as time wore on, and there was
reason to doubt the fact of Nero's having been preserved
alive. In either form the legend might be expected to
require an appreciable interval to gain recognition in
Christian literature, while an outcropping of the second
form in any writing would be an unequivocal token that
it was composed two or three decades after the death of
Nero. Now the representation that the beast, which
may be regarded as a symbol of the tyrant, was and is
not and is about to come up out of the abyss (xvii. 8), at
least suggests the notion of an invasion from the region
of the dead, and so may be taken as a mark of the Do
mitian era. (4) The inclusion in the list of the Asiatic
churches of several not brought to notice in the career
of Paul, the rebuke of some of them for a decline in
Christian zeal, and the mention of the presence of hereti
cal teachers are items that are best explaimed on the
supposition that the record was made quite late in the
century. A like import may be ascribed to several other
items, such as the appearance of the phrase " the Lord's
day" (i. 10), and the representation that the twelve
apostles have their names inscribed on the foundations
of the wall of the heavenly city (xxi. 14) — a stretch of
honor more likely to have been accorded in the post-
apostolic age than in the apostolic.
In this line of evidences those under the first and
second specifications may properly be regarded as hav
ing most weight. The third specification deals with a

134 NEW TESTAMENT, THEOLOGY
problematical topic, while most of the items under the
fourth have very little evidential value.1
The principal grounds for preferring the earlier date •
are the following : (i) The most primitive tradition in
the main assigned the Apocalypse to the same author to
whom it accredited the fourth Gospel, and identified this
author with the Apostle John. Now this tradition, so
far as it has any weight, speaks for a relatively early
date as the probable time of the composition of the
Apocalypse. It is next to impossible to believe that it
could have been written by the apostle after the com
position of the fourth Gospel, and it greatly facilitates
the explanation of the contrast between the two to sup
pose that it was written a couple of decades earlier.
Its fiery energy is consonant with the supposition that it
belonged to the era when the Boanerges spirit in John
had not been fully toned down. Its Hebraic tinge also
favors the earlier stage in the author's development,
while both the milder tone and purer Greek of the
fourth Gospel point to mature years and a prolonged
residence in a Greek-speaking community. The tradi
tion respecting identity of authorship on the part of the
Apocalypse and the fourth Gospel may indeed be chal
lenged, but if Irenaeus is to be followed in ascribing both
writings to John, there are very fair reasons for doubting
the correctness of his report as to the date of the former.
(2) The interval between 68 and 70, lying between the
fearful onslaught of Nero against the Christians and the
impending downfall of Jerusalem, was a time well calcu-
1 Compare Terry, Apocalyptics, p. 257; Hirscht, Die Apokalypse
und ihre neueste Kritik, pp. 25-28, 158, 159.

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL 135
Iated to stir to such an impassioned outburst as is con
tained in the Apocalypse. (3) There are items in the
book which are most easily and naturally interpreted on
the ground that its composition fell within the specified
interval, not having taken place later than the first
months of the year 70. For example, the maximum
ordeal represented as visited upon Jerusalem is simply
an earthquake which destroys a tenth part of the city
and seven thousand of the people (xi. 13). A more
emphatic description of harm and desolation would natu
rally have found place had the writer been able to look
back upon the tragic fate of the city at the hands of the
Roman spoilers. Again in chapters xiii and xvii a line
of seven emperors, corresponding to the seven heads of
the beast symbolizing Roman rule, is mentioned. Five,
it is said, have fallen, one is, and the seventh is still to
come. If we begin the count with Octavian (Augustus),
we find the fifth in Nero, and identify the time of writ
ing as the reign of Galba ; or, if Galba, Otho and Vitel-
lius be supposed to have been passed by, as not gaining
a proper place in the succession, then the first days of
Vespasian in 69—70 would be the time of writing.1 At
least this would be the conclusion, unless it be supposed
that the apparent standpoint of the author was a mere

1 In virtue of the eminence of his position Julius Caesar might con
ceivably be reckoned as the first in the list. But the regular imperial
succession began with Octavian. It was first upon him that the title
Augustus — S^Saoros — was bestowed, and there is some reason to
think that this name, which was claimed likewise by his successors, is
referred to in the mention of " names of blasphemy " as inscribed upon
the heads of the beast. Any reason for identifying the wounded head
with Nero would also direct to Octavian as the first in the list.

136 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
device, and that what is pictured in these chapters as
future was not really future ; but this is a strained as
sumption, the motive for choosing the viewpoint after
the fifth king being quite decidedly in need of explana
tion, if that was not the real viewpoint of the writer.
Taken in conjunction with the item in chapter xi
respecting the limited judgment on Jerusalem, the con
tent of chapters xiii and xvii favors the time proximate
to the death of Nero.
The evidence deduced from these two chapters may
be regarded as affected by the presence of the legend of
Nero's return, if indeed that legend is found here, and
especially if it is found in its later form. That the
legend is properly discoverable in any form is not the
unanimous verdict of criticism. It must be admitted,
however, that recent criticism shows a marked tendency
to take the affirmative on this point. It must also be
granted that what is said in chapters xiii and xvii of
one of the seven heads appearing as though smitten
unto death, then being healed, and subsequently reap
pearing and in conjunction with allies taking vengeance
on the great city, has rather remarkable points of corre
spondence with the popular legend about Nero. It is in
place, therefore, to inquire, supposing the legend to be
actually mirrored in these representations, have we here
a decisive note of a date near to the end of the century ?
To this question it is possible to render a negative
answer. The Nero legend in its first form appeared
soon after the death of the tyrant, which occurred in
June of the year 68. Within a year from that time a
pseudo Nero had come forward and been the cause of

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL 137
commotions in Asia Minor and Greece.1 In the region
of the apocalyptic writer there may have been at this
time a specially intense excitement over the matter, and
hence as tempting an occasion to enrich apocalyptic
symbolism from this source as was ever afforded. It is
not incredible, then, that the Nero legend in its first
form should have been thus early appropriated. In its
second form, doubtless, it could not have been appropri
ated at that juncture, unless the thought of the revelator
was quite in advance of popular expectation. The perti
nent inquiry concerns, accordingly, the form in which
the legend appears. On this point the grounds of judg
ment are not very decisive. It may be said, however,
that there is no compelling evidence for the assumption
that the first form of the legend is transcended in the
viewpoint of the Apocalypse. Nero robbed of all the
glory of imperial rule, driven out as a fugitive, under
going apparently a fatal wounding by the sword, could
be described, without any excess of poetical license, as
being the subject of a deadly stroke and as brought to
naught, even though it was suspected that he did not
actually die. The fact that his reappearing is pictured
as an issuing from the abyss may seem indeed to con
nect him with the region of the dead. But it is to be
noticed that the torturing locusts with their prince are
also represented as issuing from the abyss, (ix. 2, 3, 1 1 .)
A suggestion is thus given that this form of expression
was used in connection with Nero rather to emphasize
his association with the demoniacal power which rages
up from beneath than to depict an actual resurrection.
1 Tacitus, Hist. ii. 8, 9.

138 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
It may be affirmed, too, that a writer who was thinking
of the resurrection of one who had been dead for a score
of years could scarcely have been inclined to describe
his being raised up as the healing of a wound. The
reference to the beast as one "who hath the stroke of
the sword and yet lived " (xiii. 14) conveys rather the idea
of a marvellous recovery from a deadly thrust than the
notion of a resurrection of one long dead. Thus the
evidence adduced from the list of kings in chapters xiii
and xvii for the earlier of the competing dates is not
necessarily regarded as cancelled by the Nero legend in
the form in which it has gained a place in the Apocalypse,
if indeed it has gained a place there.
Whatever may be thought of the relative weight of
the two lines of evidence bearing on the date of the
Apocalypse, it is not easy to nullify altogether the force
of one or another evidence in either line. This fact has
come very largely to be recognized by scholars, and has
led to qualifications of one kind or another being placed
upon the unity of the book. The judgment has been
gaining currency that if the writing was composed in the
age of Domitian it must have incorporated materials
belonging to an earlier period, and if it was written no
later than the first days of Vespasian it was probably sup
plemented and published in Domitian's reign. Among
those who regard the evidences for a more or less com
posite structure as conclusive, much variety of opinion
has been manifested. Some have supposed that the
writer dealt with documents of very appreciable extent,
others that his borrowing was confined to matters of
limited compass, such as single visions. Some have

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL 139
magnified the tokens of a Jewish basis, others have re
garded the sources as predominantly, if not exclusively,
Christian.1 Without looking specifically into these theo
ries or attempting to weigh their merits in detail, we
content ourselves with expressing the conviction that a
predominantly Christain character pertains to the Apoca
lypse, and also that it is marked to so large a degree by
unity of style that it seems probable that the greater
part of it at least was from the hand of a single writer,
who used a good degree of freedom to shape his materials
according to his own bent. At the same time, we are
quite willing to grant with Weizsacker, Bousset, Porter,
and others, that the writer was ambitious to utilize
apocalyptic materials at hand, and so gave place to some
things that he could not bring into a unified and well-
connected scheme.2 We can readily admit, furthermore,
the possibility that the publishing of the book may have
been separated by a considerable period from the time
of the original composition, and that some items may
have been incorporated at the time of publication. The
theme is not one that invites to complete confidence.
1 Classifying from this point of view, Rauch distinguishes these
groups : (1) Those who hold that the Apocalypse has a purely Christian
character — Volter, Weizsacker, Erbes, Pressense. (2) Those who re
gard the book as a Jewish work wrought over by a Christian hand —
Vischer, Iselin, Rovers, Weyland, P. Schmidt, O. Holtzmann, O. Pflei
derer. (3) Those who regard the Apocalypse as a Christian work with
Jewish additions — Schoen, Sabatier, Spitta.
2 Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, II. 173; Bousset, Die Offenbarung
Johannis (Meyer's Series), pp. 143-154; Porter, The Messages of the
Apocalyptic Writers, pp. 180, 181. Among the passages which inter
fere with the continuity of the writing, vii. 1-8, x-xi. 13, and xii are
specified.

140 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
To assume to know all about the composition of the
Apocalypse is a sure way to make conspicuous one's
Jack of adequate information.

II. — The Teaching of the First Part of the
Book of Acts.
i. This book begins with the thought of the kingdom,
and then goes on to give an account of the progress of
the Church in the face of Jewish opposition. Primarily
both the one and the other term had in the minds of the
disciples a close association with Judaism. The form of
the question which the assembled disciples asked, namely,
" Dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel ? "
indicates that they still clung to the idea of the Messianic
kingdom as a visible realm having its centre in the Old
Testament community. The import of Christ's message
on the kingdom had not yet been adequately grasped.
It took time to spiritualize their thought and bring it up
toward the plane of the gospel conception.
Probably in the first instance the Church, or the con
gregation of believers, was regarded in large part as
rather preliminary to the kingdom than as properly
identical with the same. The grand distinctive era of
the kingdom, it was conceived, would begin when Christ
should return. Then His sovereignty would be glori
ously displayed. But naturally, as the Christian mes
sage went on winning victories, increasing account was
made of the actual exercise of Christ's lordship in and
through the believing community, and the thought of

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL 141
the Church and that of the kingdom became in a meas
ure blended together.
The history in Acts indicates plainly that in the years
immediately following Christ's ascension the disciples
esteemed the Church to be not so much a new creation
as the consummation of the Old Testament order of
things, the assembly of the true spiritual Israel, the elect
portion of the Jewish people which had enough of the
spirit of faith and obedience to receive the Messiah.
Doubtless they expected that the Gentiles would share
in the benefits of the gospel message, but not as free
from the claims of the Jewish legal system. They had
no design to assert independence of that system. The
new-born life, however, was mightier than the inherited
form. The old wine-skin could not hold the new wine.
By the irrepressible impulsion of the spirit and teaching
of Christ the company of Christ's disciples was carried
forward to an independent position. This was the inner
power working toward a transcendence of Judaism. The
outward power was a succession of events well adapted
to promote the same result. Four or five of these are
specially noteworthy. First came the appointment to
official position of Hellenists, Jews whose native lan
guage was Greek, and who on that account had some
what of a bond of sympathetic connection with the Gen
tile world. Some of the men thus appointed appear also
to have been of a rather bold and progressive spirit.
Commentators have discovered in Stephen a kind of
forerunner of the apostle to the Gentiles. It is noticed
that he was charged with speaking against the temple
and the law. This charge in the form in which it was

142 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
preferred most likely was false ; but it is to be observed
that Stephen in his speech before the Sanhedrim took
pains to disparage the notion that the divine presence
can be confined to any temple which man may build.
In saying this he was not indeed going outside of ideas
formally acknowledged by the Jews; but the fact that he
said it in that particular connection may be construed as
a hint of a somewhat free attitude toward the Jewish
ceremonial system. Following close upon the martyr
dom of Stephen came the persecution which scattered
the disciples from Jerusalem and forced them into a
broader field. Then came the preaching of Philip in
Samaria, and the foundation of a new Christian centre
at Antioch. The lesson which Peter received in con
nection with Cornelius and his household set the door
fairly ajar into the Gentile world. Finally the conver
sion of the most stringent and persecuting Pharisee and
the penetration of his soul with the conviction that the
way of faith, as opposed to ceremonial bondage, is the
way of salvation, prepared for a resolute discarding of
Jewish restrictions and for the distinct acknowledg
ment- of the universal character of Christianity. A close
approach to this consummation was reached at the
Council of Jerusalem, held not later than the year 52,
and placed by some recent scholars as early as 47.1
Even after this date the traditional preference for Juda
ism asserted itself here and there, but it was a waning
factor, and the rapid expansion of the Church in the
Gentile world soon condemned it to impotence.
The only church officials who come to view in the first
1 Harnack, Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur, I. 237.

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL 143
five chapters of Acts are the apostles. That they exer
cised leadership is very evident; that they claimed or
possessed a distinct governing supremacy is not appar
ent. What was urged in connection with the choice of
one of the disciples to fill the place of Judas emphasizes
more a teaching function than anything else. It was
needful, it was said by Peter, to fill up the list of
accredited witnesses of the resurrection. In the dis
charge of their leadership the apostles proceeded rather
by way of advice and suggestion than by that of com
mand. Matters of common concern were submitted to
the whole assembly, as appears in the choice of Matthias
to the apostolate and the selection of the seven to serve
in the distribution of charities. Peter's prominence in
leadership is explained by the traits of his personality,
his readiness in speech and his resoluteness in action.
Not a word appears in the Book of Acts which implies
that he had a constitutional primacy, or a headship of
governing authority.
Next after the apostles the first officers mentioned are
the seven whose appointment is recorded in the sixth
chapter. In the thought of the Church in subsequent
centuries the designation of these men to their special
duties was the origin of the diaconate. More properly
it may be considered the historical germ of that institu
tion. The diaconate came by a development. The ap
pointment of the Hellenists to serve in the distribution
of charities marked an initial stage of the development.
Of bishops there is no mention in the Book of Acts
prior to the account of Paul's last missionary journey be
fore his Roman captivity.1 Elders are first mentioned
1 Acts xx. 28.

144 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
in connection with the Church at Jerusalem as being at
hand to receive the contribution brought by Barnabas
and Paul.1 Some writers on apostolic history are of
opinion that at this stage the term elders denoted rather
the senior members of the congregation than officials
proper. To our mind there is nothing incredible in the
supposition that at an early date the demands of local
supervision, which naturally became urgent as congrega
tions were gathered in new and distant places, gave rise
to more or less organized boards of elders. It must be
granted, however, that the earlier epistles of Paul, deal
ing as they do with congregations as a whole, give the
impression that officialism had not made any great ad
vance by the middle of the century. If then we suppose
boards of presbyters to have been constituted at an early
date, we are led to conclude that no wide line of cleavage
subsisted for some time between them and the congre
gations which they served.
2. In relation to the person and work of Christ the
teaching in the first part of Acts is comparatively unde
veloped, and has some special marks of connection with
Jewish thinking. These characteristics may have been
due in some measure to an accommodation in apostolic
discourse to the standpoint of those addressed. Even
had Peter's mind been filled with such phrases relative
to Christ as are found in Colossians, Hebrews, and the
Johannine literature, it would have been poor discretion
to dispense them in a speech to unconverted Jews.
There was reason for not departing too widely from the
Jewish plane of thought on the nature and vocation of
1 Acts xi. 30. See also xiv. 23.

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL 145
the Messiah. But the motive for accommodated speech
is not the whole explanation of the forms of expression
that were used in characterizing Christ's person and
work. The minds of the disciples were at an initial
theological stage on this theme, and they naturally ex
pressed themselves in terms which stand somewhat in
contrast with the completed New Testament phraseology.
Especially noticeable is the recurring reference to Christ
as the Servant of God, 7raZ? deov.1 It gives us the im
pression of being transferred back to the Old Testament
to find this designation. The language of Isaiah evi
dently governed the choice of words here rather than
the customary phraseology of Christ. It is also an Old
Testament form of description which is employed when
Christ is identified with the prophet like unto Moses
who was to be raised up.2 Such forms of description
evidently do not necessitate the predication of any super
human rank in Christ. They could be placed alongside
the words, "Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of
God," 3 as being agreeable to the theory of the simple
humanity of Christ. But on the other hand they cannot
be cited as denying superhuman rank. In the point of
view of the New Testament writers generally Christ was
what these terms imply. That He was also more a
1 Acts, iii. 13, 26, iv. 27, 30. While usage on the whole dictates that
Trail should be taken in the sense of " servant," it is to be observed
that instances occur both in Jewish and early Christian literature where
the word may be regarded as closely affiliated in meaning with the term
"child" or "son." See Wisdom of Solomon, ii. 13, 16, 18; Matt. xii.
18 ; Clement of Rome, Epist., lix. 2-4 ; Didachd, ix. 2, 3, x. 2, 3 ; Cle
ment of Alexandria, Strom, vii. 1.
2 Acts iii. 22. 8ii. 22.

146 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
number of them took pains to teach with sufficient defi
niteness. These chapters of the Acts, too, are not with
out intimations of the transcendent rank of Christ. He
is represented as having poured forth the divine influ
ences whose working astonished the multitude.1 The
virtue of His name is represented to be the source of
miracles at the hands of the apostles.2 He is character
ized as the Holy and Righteous One and the Prince of
Life.3 He is addressed by Stephen as Lord and invoked
to receive his departing spirit.4 It is said of the con
verted Paul that straightway he proclaimed Jesus that
He is the Son of God,6 and Peter in his address to the
household of Cornelius mentioned as a part of the obliga
tory Christian message the setting forth of Christ as
ordained to be judge of the quick and the dead.6 In the
same address he also spoke of Christ as Lord of all, that
is, of men universally, of Gentiles as well as of Israel.7
These expressions taken together may indeed fall short
of a complete christology ; but it cannot be denied that
their tenor is in the direction of assigning to Christ the
rank which more dogmatic and constructive portions of
the New Testament do assign to Him.
In defining the office of Christ the chapters before us
observe complete silence about the function of His death.
They indeed witness to an effort to remove the offence
attached to the death of the Messiah in the thought of
the Jews, by proving from the Old Testament that it
was included in the divine purpose.8 It is also natural
to suppose that the disciples who were so sure that God
1 ii 33. 8 iii. 14, 15. 6ix. 20. 7x. 36.
2iii. 6, 16. 4 vii. 59, 60. 6 x. 42. 8 ii. 23, iii. 18, iv. 27, 28.

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL 147
had a purpose in the death of Christ took some pains to
form an opinion on the nature or content of that purpose.
But no such opinion comes to expression in the first part
of Acts. Either because they felt that their views were
not sufficiently matured, or because they regarded the
minds of their auditors as in no fit state to receive a
message on the subject, those who preached Christ in
the first days of the Church made, so far as the record
shows, no attempt to define the relation of His death to
the economy of grace. Their impression that salvation
is through Christ was undoubtedly strong and vital.
They speak of Christ as " exalted to be a prince and
saviour, to give repentance to Israel and remission of
sins." 1 They declare, " In none other is there salva
tion ; neither is there any other name under heaven,
that is given among men, wherein we must be saved." 2
They announce that "through His name everyone that
believeth on Him shall receive remission of sins." 3 By
statements like these they clearly manifested their hearty
faith in Christ's saving office. But at the same time no
recorded word of theirs definitely relates the death of
Christ to that office or shows its place therein. On the
whole it must be said that in respect of the person and
work of Christ this portion of the New Testament falls
below the plane of the data contained in the Synoptical
Gospels. The declarations of Christ and the revelations
of His self-consciousness afford ground for larger induc
tions than are made here.
3. A prominent feature in this section of the New
Testament is the way in which the agency of the Holy
*v. 31. 2iv. 12. 8x. 43.

148 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Spirit is brought to the front. The primitive disciples
evidently regarded themselves as a theopneustic society.
Within the first fifteen chapters of Acts there are nearly
two score references to the Holy Spirit. The narratives
show an unhesitating conviction on the part of the Church
that it was favored with the immediate presence and
guidance of the Spirit in all important transactions.
Tokens of His energetic working in such signs as the
speaking in tongues seem to have been regarded as
appropriate accompaniments of the introduction of men
into the faith and fellowship of Jesus.1
Stress upon the guidance and working of the Spirit
naturally gave much scope to the idea of personal char-
isms, as opposed to officialism and ritual. The man who
furnished evidence of being inspired was granted large
liberty to exercise his gift. Thus we find that some of
the seven went entirely beyond the eleemosynary func
tion to which "they were appointed, and freely shared in
the ministry of the word which the apostles counted
their special function.
As respects rites, no further description is given of
the eucharist than a mere reference to the breaking of
bread.2 From a consideration of such data as early
Christian history affords it may be concluded that this
language refers to a common evening meal, which was
concluded with such emblems as Christ employed at the
last supper with His disciples.
The central significance attached to baptism is that of
JActs viii. 15-17, *. 44-46.
2 Acts ii. 42, 46. Compare 1 Cor. a. 16, xi. 24. See comment of
Knowling on Acts ii. 42 in Expositor's Greek Testament, II 94.

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL 149
an open profession of faith in Christ and acceptance of
Him as the ground of hope for salvation. In one in
stance, it is true, a verbal connection is made between
baptism and the remission of sins.1 But even here bap
tism is assumed to have its logical antecedent in repent
ance, with which faith holds a necessary relation. In
all the other references to the remission of sins this is
made dependent upon repentance, faith, and calling upon
the name of the Lord.2 It is quite evident, therefore,
that the apostle did not think of the bare rite of baptism
as bringing remission, but profoundly emphasized all that
properly went with the rite in the way of spiritual con
ditions, including repentance, faith, and sincere confes
sion of Christ. Viewed with a true perspective the first
chapters of early Christian history must be seen to assign
to baptism a subordinate place in the appropriation of
salvation. In several instances water baptism is-put in
distinct antithesis with baptism by the spirit.3 It may be
said indeed that in these cases the reference is to John's
baptism. But it is to be noticed that in relation to
Christian baptism the performance of the external rite
and the impartation of the Holy Spirit are by no means
viewed as necessarily coincident. On the contrary, the
two events are assigned to different occasions in relation
to those candidates of whose experience we have any
considerable account.4 It was evidently no part of the
conviction of the primitive disciples that the working of
the Spirit is tied to baptism.
In a single instance, namely in the account of the
1 Acts ii. 38. 8 i. 5, xi. 16.
2ii. 21, iii. 19, x. 43, xiii. 38, 39. * viii. 16, 17, x. 44-48.

150 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Samaritan converts, a special instrumentality seems to
be assigned to the laying on of hands in connection with
the impartation of the gift of the Holy Spirit. The
apostles, it is said, prayed for those who had been re
cently baptized in the name of Jesus that they might
receive the Holy Ghost. " Then laid they their hands
upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost." x Ra
tionally, of course, it is not to be supposed that the mere
laying on of hands brought the Spirit in His regenerating
and sanctifying presence to these persons. Moreover,
the ethical standpoint of the New Testament forbids
such a notion. The question in this instance, it should
be observed, is not so much about a regenerating or
sanctifying presence as about a charismatic presence —
a working attended with some unmistakable manifesta
tion, like the speaking with tongues,2 which indeed would
seem misplaced in an unregenerate person, but yet is
not necessarily associated precisely with the effectuation
of regeneration. A working of this sort had the virtue
of a sign or credential, and served the same purpose as
extraordinary or miraculous occurrences in general. The
Samaritan incident, therefore, as belonging to an age of
special credentials for Christ's servants, is no good war
rant for the idea of a permanent tactual arrangement
for imparting the grace of the Spirit. Furthermore,
nothing prohibits us in this particular case from suppos
ing that the prayers of the apostles had quite as much
to do with the result attained as did the imposition of
hands. 1 viii. 15-17.
2 Compare Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, p. 54.

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL 151
In referring to the speaking with tongues as an extra
ordinary sign or token of spiritual agency we have ex
pressed the practical import which is assigned to this
peculiar gift in the New Testament representation as a
whole. While a portion of the vivid account of the
Pentecostal scene might convey the impression that the
gift of tongues was designed to serve as a means of com
municating information in strange languages, the issue
of the story shows that even in this instance the gift
was rather a sign adapted to arrest attention and to stir
feeling than a means of conveying instruction, since the
informing message was first imparted in any adequate
measure by the speech of Peter. The narrative does
not necessarily imply that anything more was included
in the extraordinary utterances than brief exclamations
in glorification of the marvellous grace of God. It is
also to be noted that there is no need to assume that the
languages in which these exclamations were embodied
were as numerous as the nationalities or countries men
tioned ; in fact, it is probable that the Jews, gathered
from the fifteen districts enumerated, spoke either Greek,
Eastern Aramaic, or Western Aramaic, though possibly
with some varieties of dialect.1 What has to be admitted,
accordingly, if the Pentecostal narrative is to be approved
as based in fact, is simply this : In a state of ecstasy the
disciples were empowered to utter snatches from one or
another of several languages with which they were not
supposed to have the requisite acquaintance. Thus in
terpreted the Pentecostal narrative will not appear widely
contrasted with other accounts of the speaking with
1 Compare A. Robertson, Hastings' Diet, of the Bible, IV. 795.

152 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
tongues.1 The distinguishing item is that the utterances
at Pentecost were sufficiently intelligible to convey a dis
tinct meaning to some at least of the hearers, whereas
Paul emphasizes the need of special interpretation of
any communication in a tongue. In the primary, as in
all the later instances, the speaking in tongues was an
ecstatic experience, an experience rather of transporting
emotion than of reflective thought. Its principal virtue
was to serve as a very sensible and impressive token of
the presence and agency of the Holy Spirit.
From what has been said on the functions accorded to
Christ and the Holy Spirit, it is evident that a practical
trinitarianism runs through the first chapters in Acts.
In the religious life of the primitive Christian commun
ity there was a vital recognition of Father, Son, and
Spirit. This recognition, however, so far as discoverable,
did not go beyond the practical stage. Of any attempt
at formal trinitarian construction not a trace is found.
4. In point of eschatology the chapters under consid
eration in no wise go beyond the intimations of the
Synoptical Gospels. They contain only the simple an
nouncements that Christ is to come again in unmistak
able personal manifestation of Himself;2 that He is
appointed to the office of judging the race ; 3 and that
the heaven must receive Him till the time of restitution
of all things.4 This last statement is best understood
in the light of the Old Testament forecast of a glorious
consummation of the Messianic kingdom. It points to
a time when the message of the Messiah shall have been
1 Acts x. 46, xix. 6; 1 Cor. xiv. 8 x. 42.
2 i. 11. 4 iii. 21.

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL 153
spread abroad through the world and the nations very
largely shall have become obedient to its behests.

III. — The Teaching of the Epistle of James.
1. Reference has been made to the Jewish tinge of
this writing. It has in fact less of a specifically Chris
tian cast than any other epistle in the New Testament
of equal length. There is no reference in it to the
death or resurrection of Christ and no clear intimation
on the relation which faith in Him sustains to salvation.
His name occurs but twice. All that is said of Him is
comprised in these particulars : He is the Lord Jesus
Christ ; the Lord of glory ; the Lord whose coming is at
hand ; the judge who standeth before the doors.1 The
predominance of the ethical interest over the theo
logical may account in part for the paucity of reference
in the epistle to distinctively Christian tenets, though it
may be noticed that in some other New Testament
epistles occasion is taken to enforce ethical points by
reference to the example of Christ.
2. In relation to the nature of God, James gives prom
inence to immutability and absolute righteousness. God
is He "with whom can be no variation, neither shadow
that is cast by turning." 2 He cannot be tempted with
evil, and He Himself tempteth no man."3 In two in
stances James applies to God the title "Father" ;4 but
it is to be observed that in the first of these the title has
reference only to the divine authorship of nature, to
1 James i. I, ii. I, 7, v. 8, 9. 8 ii. 13.
2 ii. 17. * i. 17, iii. 9.

154 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
the fact that God is the creator of the heavenly orbs
and the ultimate source of their light. In the second
instance it is possible that the term may have been
employed more after the analogy of its use in the
Gospels. An express reference to God's fatherly rela
tion to men, or to man's filial standing before Him, does
not occur in the epistle. Indirectly, however, an ap
proach is made to the statement of this evangelical truth,
since emphasis is put upon God's readiness to respond to
the prayer of faith,1 and it is said that " the Lord is full
of pity, and merciful."2
3. Very little is contained in the epistle that can be
construed into a declaration of opinion on man's natural
condition. James evidently had a vivid impression of
man's actual weakness and temptability. He had no
thought of encountering a faultless human being. "In
many things," he says, "we all stumble."3 The main
ground of this sinful errancy he locates within. He
acknowledges indeed the existence of a devil who needs
to be resisted ; 4 but the characteristic process of sin, he
says, is on this wise : " Each man is tempted when he is
drawn away by his own lust and enticed. Then the
lust, when it hath conceived, beareth sin ; and the sin
when it is full grown bringeth forth death." 6 The origin
of this lust which thus serves as the ground of personal
transgression is not stated. That in some sense men
retain the likeness of God is implied in the way in which
the author reprobates the cursing of men.6 The language
1 i. 5. 4 iv. 7.
2 v. 11. 5 i. 14, 15.
8 iii. 2. 6 iii. 9.

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL 155
used, however, throws little light on his view of the
moral condition in which man begins his earthly life.
The epistle falls short of a theory of original sin.
4. The conception of religious life which .dominates
the epistle is much after the Old Testament order.
There is not indeed any reference to the ceremonial
requirements of the old dispensation. To that extent
the outlook is Christian. But Christianity itself is viewed
preeminently as a scheme of law or a code of duty.
Stress is placed upon the unity of this law. To violate
it in one point is to show lack of respect to it as a whole.1
In two instances James characterizes the code obliga
tory on Christians as the law of liberty.2 The context
does not throw any special light upon the sense in which
the peculiar phrase is used. The suggestion, however,
lies very near that it was designed to signify a law which
is adapted to lead its faithful subjects into a true liberty.
A principal part of this law no doubt was identified in
the thought of the writer with what he calls the " royal
law," that is, the law of equal love to the neighbor.3
5. Faith is put by James in contrast with wavering
and doublemindedness.4 It is thus made equivalent to a
hearty confidence in God and a steadfast repose upon Him.
There is no reason to doubt that this was the author's
ruling conception of faith. But in discussing the subject
of justification he permits the term to be applied to mere
intellectual assent, inasmuch as he speaks of it as some
thing which a devil might exercise. Very likely James
would not have denied that a faith of this sort is scarcely
worthy of the name.
Hi. 10. 2i. 25, ii. 12. 8ii. 8. 4i. 6, 7.

156 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
The fact that in his reference to justification James
admitted into the field of vision this empty sort of faith
invites the verdict that between his real position and that
of Paul there was less difference than might be inferred
from their verbal antagonism. If in addition it be con
cluded that James was thinking rather of the. justificatio
justi than of the justificatio injusti, that is, of a seal of
divine approbation put upon the career of a servant of
God, instead of the primary entrance into a state of
reconciliation with God, then the difference will be still
further abridged. It becomes us, however, not to overdo
the matter of reconciliation by asserting that James gives
indubitable evidence of full agreement with Paul. After
all just allowances have been made for a special use of
terms, the fact remains that the language of James does
not safeguard Paul's doctrine of the primacy of faith.
While some of the statements of the former suggest
that faith is viewed as the life of works, others can be
construed as meaning that works contribute to faith
quite as much as they receive therefrom. The total
discussion leaves the reader free to suppose that works
are coordinate with faith in the ground of justification.
James guards well against an antinomian abuse of the
office of faith ; he does not clearly secure to faith, in
this relation, its primacy in the attainment of salvation.
In relation to regeneration the noticable feature is
the instrumentality in its effectuation which the epistle
assigns to truth. The following are its statements rela
tive to this point : " Of His own will He brought us
forth by the word of truth." 1 " Receive with meekness
the implanted word which is able to save your souls."2
M. 18. 2i. 21.

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL

157

Herein the Epistle of James has a bond of association
with the first Epistle of Peter and with the fourth
Gospel. 6. The epistle gives very little information respecting
the Church. It is addressed to the twelve tribes of the
Dispersion, and refers to the place of religious meeting
as a synagogue. The contents, however, show that it
was meant for Christian Jews ; or, possibly, for Chris
tians indiscriminately, since " the twelve tribes of the
Dispersion" can be understood to be a symbolical
designation of the whole Christian body. The epistle
contains a single mention of the Church, namely in the
injunction that the elders of the Church should be called
in to pray for the sick. The fact that this function is
devolved upon a plurality of members, taken in conjunc
tion with the direction for a mutual confession of sins,
speaks rather for a democratic than for a priestly or
hierarchical regime.
7. In the practical teaching of the epistle one of the
most striking features is the vehemence with which the
author lashes a disposition to do obeisance to the rich
and the severity with which he calls the rich to account.1
Another special feature is the stress placed upon com
plete abstinence from oaths.2 With many other portions
of the New Testament the epistle is characterized by
an energetic inculcation of patience under trial.
In early Christian tradition the James, who has gener
ally been supposed to have been the author, was reputed
to have been an unsparing ascetic in his personal habits.
The epistle by no means discredits the tradition ; but
1l 9-1 1, ii. 1-7, v. 1-6. 2v. 12.

158 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
on the other hand it affords no certain means of confir
mation. Its attitude toward the rich may have been
dictated by special manifestations of worldliness and
selfishness on their part, and is not necessarily taken as
an indication of out and out hostility to the idea of accu
mulating property. Aside from this, if the epistle con
tains any manifestation of a predilection for asceticism,
it is to be found in this strong language on the necessity
of renouncing the world : " Know ye not that the friend
ship of the world is enmity with God ? Whosoever there
fore would be a friend of the world maketh himself an
enemy of God." 1 Whether this is to be regarded as
savoring of asceticism depends upon what is understood
by the "world." As the context suggests, James prob
ably meant by the term the province of the unregen-
erated life, the sphere of intemperate sensuous pleasures.
On this supposition his thought would not be unlike
that contained in the Johannine injunction against love
of the world. In general it may be said that the Epistle
of James shows a high degree of ethical intensity. There
breathes through it a healthy scorn for a religion of mere
creed and profession.
IV. — The Teaching of the Apocalypse.
1 . The numerous attempts which have been made to
read into the Apocalypse the outlines of all history since
the time of its composition suggest that first of all we
inquire how far its prophetical outlook reaches, or how
much it attempts to teach in a detailed fashion respect-
1 James iv. 4.

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL 159
ing future events. An analysis of its contents must
show, it strikes us, that it makes no pretence of depict
ing age-long developments of earthly history, but rather,
in harmony with its own definition of its scope, deals
almost entirely with "the things which must shortly
come to pass." 1 Its horizon is essentially the horizon
of the Roman empire. All that is depicted beyond that
is depicted in general terms and within the compass of a
few verses. The concluding statement respecting the
judgment on the beast 2 is separated by only the fraction
of a chapter from the description of the final judgment.3
Now the beast is identified in the foregoing characteriza
tions, beyond all shadow of real ambiguity, with the
dominion of pagan Rome. It has its seat upon seven
mountains,4 in Babylon the great,5 is a world-dominating
power,6 and makes war upon the saints.7 It is not a
monster that is to come on the stage in some future era.
Its beginning lies back of the seer's own day. It is a
seven-headed beast, and these seven heads " are seven
kings; the five are fallen, the one is, the other is not
yet come."8 Such language is obviously incompatible
with the notion of any reference to an overgrown eccle
siastical power — a thing not yet on the field at all in
the author's day. It is plainly the Roman imperium
that the seven-headed beast symbolizes. And the other
evil mundane powers that are mentioned (with the ex
ception of Gog and Magog) belong within its sphere.
The beast with the two horns9 most likely represents

1 Rev. i. 1, xxii. 6.

4 xvii. 9.

7 xiii. 7.

2 xix. 20.

6 xvii. 5.

8 xvii. 10.

8 xx. 11-15.

8 xiii. 2-5.

9 xiii. 11-13.

160 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
the system of pagan superstition and sorcery, full of
enmity toward the followers of Christ and in close alli
ance with the persecuting demigods enthroned over the
empire ; 1 or else, a fanatical and antichristian power from
out the midst of Judaism. The interpretation of the
ten kings symbolized by the ten horns2 is, indeed, in
question. Some exegetes have supposed them to denote
heads of Roman provinces; others have seen in them
the rulers of regions bordering the empire. In any case
— and this is the point of emphasis here — they are
viewed as contemporary with the empire of pagan Rome.
They are the allies of the last in the list of the emperors,
that is, of the " eighth who is of the seven." To this
impersonation of Roman sovereignty, to this form of the
beast, "they give their power and authority."3 They
join with him in the enterprise of establishing his supre
macy and are joint cause with him of the burning of the
city of Rome. Here ends the detailed prediction with
the sketch of this eighth who seems to be regarded as
in some sense a reproduction of one of the seven,4 and
who with his allies and worshippers is cast into perdition.
As the seer, according to his own statement, wrote in

1 It is to be noticed that in another connection there is added to the
dragon and the beast, as the third member of the evil trio, the false
prophet (xvi. 13, xix. 20).
2 xiii. 1, xvii. 7, 12.
8 xvii. 13.
4 It has been alleged that the expression, " of the seven," indicates
only descent, and that the numeral eis would have been expressed if the
meaning had been " one of the seven." But this contention is not
specially convincing. A precisely parallel instance of the omission of
els is found in Acts xxi. 8.

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL 161
the time of the sixth king, that is, the sixth Roman
emperor, did not expect the imperial line to run beyond
the eighth, and has interposed nothing between this
closing embodiment of Roman power and the thousand
years' reign of Christ, it is quite evident that his forecast
did not touch the field of modern history. If the num
ber seven be taken literally, and not as a symbol of the
complete succession of emperors, it will need to be con
cluded that nearly the whole bulk of his predictions con
templated events falling within the limits of the first
century. In any event his vision rested on no details
of future earthly history beyond the course of the empire
then existing. The only mundane power which undeni
ably emerges beyond the Romanes that described by the
names Gog and Magog and pictured as the ally of Satan
in his final onslaught.1 As is usual in prophecy, the
events near at hand fill up the greater part of the field
of vision. The remote is sketched in very general out
lines and is closely, associated with the closing up of the
dispensation. 2. The prominence of the imperial power of Rome in
the revelator's contemplation is indicated by the fact
that the function of Satan is made to consist very largely
in furnishing that power for its ungodly work. The
symbol of the one is parallel to that of the other.
Satan is the dragon with seven heads and ten horns.2 He
gives to the beast with seven heads and ten horns " his
power, and his throne, and great authority." 3 With this
striking index of the writer's standpoint other graphic
tokens are combined. Indeed, as Ramsay has remarked,
Jxx. 7-9. 2xii. 3. s xiii. 2.

162 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
"the shadow of the Roman empire broods over the
whole of the Apocalypse." l
The abhorrence of the Roman imperium which led the
revelator to picture it as the preferred agent of Satan
was not due merely to the fact that it was looked upon
as a centre of persecuting malignity. He regarded it
also as the centre of a colossal and corrupting idolatry.
The earth, as he represents, was seduced into worship
ping the beast.2 At the time when he wrote, the im
perial cult had not been pushed to its full extreme ; but
already emperor-worship had gone far enough to sug.
gest that the Csesar was a rival to any god that men
might be urged to respect. Already the custom of
deifying the dead emperor was in vogue. Already an
Augustus and a Tiberius had been honored with religious
rites, and a Caligula had "instituted a temple and priests
with choicest victims in honor of his own divinity."8 To
the stanch Jewish sentiment of the writer this was of
course exceedingly revolting. It is no wonder, when he
contemplated this power, at once greedy of the incense
of the world and drunk with the blood of saints, that he
thought of it as the foremost embodiment of the disposi
tion and energy of Satan. Imperial Rome at the worst
was, in truth, a sufficiently genuine specimen of diabol
ism. 3. Against this colossal embodiment of evil and vio
lence what form does the revelator bring into the field
of conflict ? Above all the form of a lamb. The beast
and its allies make war upon the Lamb, and " the Lamb
1 The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia, p. 93.
2 xiii. 4, 5, 12. 8 Suetonius, " Caligula," xxii.

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL 163
shall overcome them."1 It is the peculiarity of the
Apocalypse that with images of majesty and resistless
authority, with the throne and the iron sceptre, it com
bines this image of gentleness. Through all its delinea
tion of might and wrath and judgment runs the thor
oughly Christian sentiment that the supremacy is with
the spirit of gentleness and sacrifice, that the Lamb is
the conqueror of the beast. In the greater part of the
book the chosen title of the Redeemer is the Lamb. It
occurs twenty-nine times, whereas the term Jesus ap
pears less than a dozen times and Christ only about a
half-dozen times.
As respects the rank belonging to Christ, the Apoca
lypse renders a somewhat more explicit testimony than
the other writings in the group under consideration. In
some of its christological phrases and conceptions it
touches upon both Pauline and Johannine representa
tions. Especially does the declaration, " His name is
called the '- Word of God'," 2 remind of the prologue of
the fourth Gospel. Moreover the total picture given of
Christ cannot be said to fall below a Johannine level.
While He appears in the form of a son of man in the
midst of the golden candlesticks, he bears features which
Jewish descriptive art was wont to attach to the Ancient
of Days.8 He characterizes Himself as "the first and
the last and the living one," and claims to hold the
keys of "death and Hades."4 He fulfills the function,
ascribed in the Old Testament to Jehovah, of searching
the reins and hearts.5 The pneumatic virtue operative
Jxvii. 14. 8 Compare i. 14 with Dan. vii. 9. 6ii. 23.
2 xix. 13. 4i. 17, 18.

164 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
in the world is from Him : " He hath the seven spirits
of God."1 The heavenly potentates fall down before
Him and hail Him as " worthy to receive power and
riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory." 2 He
is made joint object of homage with Him that sitteth
upon the throne in the ascription which is rendered by
the whole creation.3 He is described as " Lord of lords
and King of kings." 4 With the Lord God He consti
tutes the temple of heaven, and He is the lamp thereof.5
The river of life issues from the throne of which He is
joint occupant with the Father.6 Such ascriptions in a
book which shows a clear sense of the distinction between
the divine and the creaturely by reprobating obeisance to
angels 7 certainly imply that in the thought of the writer
Christ stood above the creaturely sphere. If a few sen.
fences seem to associate Him with that sphere,8 it is
scarcely surprising in consideration of the truth that He
was accounted the offspring of David,9 and brother of
men,10 as well as the Son of God.11
The references of the Apocalypse to the Holy Spirit
are not sufficiently specific to afford much ground for
dogmatic inference. They emphasize a single function,
namely that of inspiration or revelation. The Spirit is
not mentioned as a source of regeneration or sanctifica
tion, unless it be in a general way in the greeting to the
seven churches.12 He appears essentially as the author
1 iii. I, v. 6. 8v. 13, 14, vii. 10. 6xxi. 22, 23.
2v. 12. 4xvii. 14, xix. 16. 6xxii. 1.
'xix. 10.
8i. 6, iii. 12. Over against the apparent inclusion in the created
sphere in iii. 14 may be cited the apparent exclusion in v. 13.
•xxii. 16. 1° xii. 17. "ii. 18. "i. 4.

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL 165
or bearer of a message.1 In one of the forms of descrip
tion used He is placed in a relation of very intimate
union with the Son. The Son is said to have the seven
spirits of God2 — another name probably for the Holy
Spirit viewed as inclusive of the complete circle of pneu
matic powers and able to penetrate to all parts of the
world with His glance.3
4. In pronounced contrast with the greater part of the
Book of Acts and with the Epistle of James, the Apoca
lypse distinctly emphasizes the fulfillment of Christ's
redemptive work in and through His death. The first
doxology to Christ which it records pays tribute to Him
as the one who "loosed us from our sins by His blood."4
Again He is celebrated as the Lamb that was slain and
that purchased unto God with His blood every tribe and
tongue and people and nation.5 Once more, the innumer
able host of those who celebrate their victory in heaven
are represented as owing their perfect cleansing to Him.
They have washed their robes and made them white in
the blood of the Lamb.6 These are broad and unequivo
cal statements of the fact that human redemption depends
upon the death of Christ. The manner or ground of this
dependence, on the other hand, they do not make mani
fest. The most that can be said is, that the great stress
1 i. 10, ii. 7, 17, 29, iii. 6, 13, 22, iv. 2, xiv. 13, xvii. 3, xxi. 10, xxii. 17.
2 iii. I, v. 6.
8 Compare Zech. iv. 10. A different interpretation of the seven spirits
makes them an exalted rank of angels. The difficulty with this inter
pretation is the association of them with God and Christ as a source of
grace and peace. Such association is accordant neither with the tenor
of the Apocalypse nor with that of any other New Testament book.
4i. 5. sv. 9. • vii. 9-14.

166 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
put upon the slain Lamb, taken in connection with the
trend of Old and New Testament thinking on the sub
ject of sacrifice, renders it probable that the apocalyptic
writer attached an objective value to Christ's death, con
sidered it to be, from the divine point of view, in some
sort a condition of a general economy of grace or a
fundamental factor in such an economy.
The pictorial character of the book dictated that it
should represent religion more largely on its objective
side than in its more interior characteristics. The extent
moreover to which it deals with the theme of judgment
gave a natural occasion to speak often of the works of
men as an index of their deserts and prospects. As a
matter of fact works are mentioned much more fre
quently than faith, and Christ is presented rather in His
exterior relations than as a sacred power and presence
in the inner life. One statement indeed brings out the
thought of intimate companionship with Christ in the
present. In the message to the Church in Laodicea He
is represented as saying, "Behold I stand at the door
and knock; if any man hear my voice and open the
door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and
he with me." 1 This is beautifully significant of close
companionship ; but generally speaking the Apocalypse
stands in contrast with the Pauline and Johannine writ
ings with their warm interest in the thought of an interior
life-communion in the present between Christ and His
disciples. The lofty position assigned to Christ and the profound
emphasis which is placed upon His blood as a means of

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL 167
cleansing imply that a normal religious faith reposes very
largely upon Him. It is noticeable, however, that in
very rare instances is there any direct mention of faith
in Christ,1 and that these instances are paralleled by
others in which faith seems to be used in a broad way
as equivalent to steadfast fidelity.2 Concerning faith as
distinctively the principle of justification before God
there is no discourse whatever. With an evangelical
valuation of Christ's sacrifice there is conjoined a some
what legal representation of Christian piety. One state
ment, if taken literally, reads like a tribute to the ascetic
standpoint; but there are reasons for construing the
statement in a different sense.3
5. The Apocalypse gives a glowing picture of the per
fected community of Christ, but says very little respect
ing the arrangements of the Church upon earth. It
speaks rather of churches than of the Church. No
nearer description of the church officiary is given than
that contained in a bare mention of apostles and prophets.
Some have indeed supposed that the angels of the Asi
atic churches denote bishops. But there is no proper
occasion for such a supposition. It belongs to the pic-
Jii. 13, xiv. 12. 2ii. 19, xiii. 10.
8 Rev. xiv. 1-5. The exegesis which finds here a commendation of
celibacy proper is thus criticised by Titius (Die vulgare Anschauung
von der Seligkeit im Urchristenthum, p. 102) : " At once the compari
son with vii. 4 ff. (also with xx. 12 ff.) makes it improbable that we have
to do here with only a troop of ascetics and not with the whole militant
host of Christ. . . . The defilement with women cannot be meant sim
ply of marriage, since that would directly collide with the universally
prevalent Christian view ; it must refer rather to whoredom. This in
fact is an oft-employed image for God-forgetting worldliness (Apoc.
xvii. 1-5, etc.; James iv. 4 ; Hermas, Simil. IX. xiii. 8 f.)." Compare
Stevens, The Theology of the New Testament, p. 548.

168 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
torial character of the book to bring forward angels at
every turn. In all probability the angels of the churches
stand for ideal representatives, and the command to de
liver a message to the angels of the churches is to be
considered as only a more picturesque way of directing
that a message be carried to the churches. This view
is distinctly favored by the fact that the message in each
instance has nothing to do with the standing or history
of an individual official, but is wholly occupied with pic
turing the condition and needs of a Christian community.1
That the writer's standpoint was not sacerdotal is indi
cated by his characterization of Christians generally as
priests.2 It is to be noticed further that no sacrament
is mentioned, and that in the line of sacrificial service
only the offering of incense is specified, which incense
in one instance is identified with the prayers of the
saints,3 and in another instance is said to be mingled
with the prayers.4 The highest honor among glorified
saints is ascribed to the twelve apostles, in that their
names are said to be written upon the foundations of the
wall of the New Jerusalem.5 No reference to the Virgin
Mary occurs. The woman pictured as arrayed with the
sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a
crown of twelve stars, denotes the Jewish theocracy (or
the Church as based in the Jewish theocracy), from
which the Messiah springs, and the rest of her seed
which is subject, with the Messiah, to the persecution of
the dragon denotes the true children of the Messianic
1 Compare Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, IV. 320; Ramsay, The
Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia, pp. 69-72.
i. 6, v. 10. 8v. 8. 4viii. 3, 4. 6xxi. 14.

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL 169
community who keep the commandments of God and
hold the testimony of Jesus.1 This mention of the seed
of the woman is a clear enough intimation that it was
not the Virgin Mary that the writer was depicting.
6. In the eschatology of the Apocalypse the most
distinctive feature is doubtless the doctrine of the mil
lennial reign of Christ with the martyred saints.2 No
where else in the New Testament is this subject intro
duced. As near an approach to it as any is contained
in Paul's declaration that Christ must reign till He hath
put all His enemies under His feet.3 But there is no
distinct assertion here that the fruits of Christ's triumph
are to be seen for a prolonged era upon the earth. The
statement of Paul, therefore, differs from the apocalyptic
representation of the millennial kingdom. The evident
sense of the latter is that the cause of Christ, issuing
from scenes of mortal struggle, is to enjoy an era of
relative ascendency and peaceful triumph in the earth ;
that a favored company of Christ's servants is to antici
pate the general resurrection ; and that this company is
to share in some special way in the glory and dominion
of their Lord during the interval preceding the general
resurrection and judgment. That the millennial reign
is to be inaugurated by the visible coming of Christ and
is to proceed as a visible administration of Christ and
the risen saints is not said. It is a fair question whether
it was thought by the revelator. Those, therefore, who
would make a positive tenet of the idea of a future
visible reign of Christ upon earth must build upon a
very scanty foundation. They have not so much of a
lxii. 17. 2xx. 4-6. 8 1 Cor. xv. 25.

170 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
foundation as one definite expression in a single passage
of a single biblical writer, but only what may possibly
have been the thought of the revelator in penning a
single passage.
Aside from the millennial reign the most noticeable
feature, perhaps, in the eschatology of the Apocalypse
is the fact that the earth comes to view beyond the
judgment scene. Heaven does not absorb the whole
outlook. Together with the new heaven a new earth
appears. The new Jerusalem, too, stands not apart in a
heavenly enclosure. It comes down out of heaven from
God. In all this representation there was probably little
design to make much of locality. The thought is that
throughout the regenerated universe a scene of beauty
is to be spread and the glory of God made signally mani
fest. The heavenly model is to be perfectly reflected
even in the lower province.
7. In estimating the Apocalypse the thought lies near
at hand that its value is not to be measured by the
extent of its dogmatic content. There is a healthful
tonic in its religious intensity. It supplies a great store
of riches to the religious imagination. It dignifies the
Christian warfare as part of a great drama that is being
led on to a transcendently glorious issue. Well has it
been called the epic of Christian hope. Many of its
outlooks have perennial charm, and many of its words
descend generation after generation like strains of celes
tial music upon the troubled hearts of men. Let it be
granted that some of its delineations were better suited
to win appreciation in that age of apocalyptic production
than in the present ; let it be granted also that it has

TEACHING AKIN TO THE SYNOPTICAL 171
some stones of stumbling for the most clear-sighted and
unbiased exegete ; it is still a book which, through the
wealth of its content, fulfills the high function of being
profitable unto righteousness.

CHAPTER IV
THE PAULINE THEOLOGY
I. — The Several Groups of Pauline Epistles.
i. The two Epistles to the Thessalonians stand by
themselves, not only as being probably the earliest in
the order of composition, but also as possessing in com
mon a character which distinguishes them from the other
epistles of the apostle. This character may be defined
negatively as a relative lack of insistence upon doctrinal
features which are powerfully inculcated in the central
group of epistles. In neither epistle do we discover a
line which speaks of justification by faith, or shows up
the futility of the legal method of salvation, or paints in
strong colors the contrast between the natural and the
spiritual man. One line only contains a reference to the
death of Christ. Indirectly some of these points may
be touched upon in the stress which is placed upon the
" grace of Christ " and the " work of faith." It is to be
conceded also that a characteristic Pauline conception
comes to expression in the view which is taken of the
Holy Spirit, as being an abiding resident and principle
of sanctification in believing souls, as well as a source of
extraordinary gifts. Still there is a noticeable lack of
what any one familiar with the sum total of Paul's writ
ings would be disposed to describe as distinctive features
172

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 173
of his teaching. Positively considered, the special char
acter of the Thessalonian Epistles appears in the approxi
mation of their line of thought to the primitive apostolic
type, as this is reflected in the early chapters of the Book
of Acts. This approximation may be noticed in the
prominence which is given to the anticipation of Christ's
return, and in a close association of the office of Christ
with the great events which belong at the end of the
dispensation, as opposed to an explicit emphasis upon
His present indwelling. The thought of a mystical union
with Christ, which is seen elsewhere to have commanded
the intense enthusiasm of the apostle, recedes in these
writings behind the objective phases of the Redeemer's
work, as these were commonly apprehended in the early
days of Christianity.
In explaining the relatively simple and primitive form
of teaching which we find here, it is not forbidden to
take some account of the consideration that Paul may
not have obtained his entire theological outfit all at
once. But we are advised against making too much of
the notion that he was himself at an elementary stage in
his thinking at the time he wrote to the church at Thes-
salonica, when we consider the moderate interval between
these communications and one which represents such a
radical and advanced type of Paulinism as does the
Epistle to the Galatians. It is altogether probable that
in the score of years which had elapsed since his con
version he had pretty well thought through his system.
But in dealing with a newly founded community of be
lievers, within which theological speculation and con
troversy had not yet been fairly started, there was no

174 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
need of disquisition of the more subtle kind. Accom
modation to those addressed is, therefore, the best part
of the explanation of the special cast of the Thessalonian
Epistles. We may suppose that, in a like use of mission
ary discretion, the apostle often gave forth a message as
little distinguished by subtlety and theological elabora
tion. His profounder epistles, written to meet great
theological issues, are not to be taken as samples of his
uniform method as a religious teacher.
Opposition to the Pauline authorship of the First
Epistle to the Thessalonians may be said to have been
reduced so nearly to the vanishing point as no longer to
deserve consideration. In respect of the Second Epistle
more doubt is entertained, though the tendency of criti
cism is clearly toward a favorable judgment. One of
the main grounds for suspicion is the passage in the
second chapter relative to antichrist or the man of sin.
This, it is alleged, agrees ill with the picture of the
imminence of Christ's coming in the former epistle,
since it projects that coming into the distance, placing
it beyond a culminating manifestation of ungodliness.
It is also alleged that the apocalyptic passage in ques
tion shows dependence upon the Johannine Apocalypse.
Neither objection, however, has any great weight. The
second epistle corrects indeed an over-feverish expecta
tion respecting the speedy coming of Christ, but it does
not dissuade the Thessalonians from the belief that it is
relatively near at hand, so as possibly to fall within the
existing generation ; and the first epistle does not deny
that important historical developments are to precede
the advent. That great event, it is true, is depicted as

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 175
likely to overtake the unheeding as a thief in the night ;
but it is not stated that "the sons of the day" are to be
destitute of all faculty to detect signs of the approaching
crisis.1 As regards the assumption of dependence upon
the Johannine Apocalypse, it may be replied, that it is
quite gratuitous to suppose that the writer drew from
that source. If we are to conclude, as exegetes very
commonly assume, that by the " one that restraineth "
the Roman government is to be understood, then we
have in the Thessalonian passage a prominent element
to which nothing in the Johannine Apocalypse properly
corresponds. As respects the delineation as a whole, we
need not suppose any such dearth of sources that Paul
could not have written it in advance of the composition
of the seer of Patmos. Hints in the eschatological dis
courses of Christ, Paul's own reflection, and the broad
stream of apocalyptic representations in preceding and
comtemporary Judaism may reasonably be regarded as
affording sufficient materials for the picture of antichrist
that is given. In no other connection, it is true, has
Paul furnished us an equivalent picture ; but, then, it is
also true that we are not informed that he had a like
occasion again to curb a too exciting expectation of the
second advent.
Among remaining objections the reference to a spuri
ous epistle2 and the marked literary dependence upon
First Thessalonians receive the most emphasis. As to
the former, it must be granted that we should not natu
rally expect the appearance of a spurious epistle at so
early a date ; but it is to be observed that there is no
1 1 Thess. v. 1-5. 2 2 Thess. ii. 2, iii. 17.

176 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
decisive evidence of the existence of such an epistle.
The facts are simply these : Paul found that the enthu
siasts were appealing to a letter of his in behalf of their
mistaken notions. He was unwilling to admit that a
proper basis for these notions could be found in anything
which he had written ; and so he cast up the question
whether a false epistle had not found its way to Thessa-
lonica. His words embody only a surmise of a possible
fact. As respects literary dependence, it is doubtless
true that Second Thessalonians reproduces to a marked
degree the phraseology of First Thessalonians.1 But it
is no unheard-of thing for an author, with or without de
sign, to reproduce from a previous writing. Moreover,
it is scarcely more of an enigma that Paul should in a
measure repeat himself than that a forger should be at
pains to imitate closely the language of Paul through the
compass of several chapters, just for the sake of insert
ing a brief item of apocalyptic representation.
It may be noticed that a couple of time marks, as
making for the early origin of the epistle, are favorable
to the supposition of Pauline authorship. On the one
hand, the reference to the temple (ii. 4) — presumably
to that in Jerusalem — points to a date prior to the year
70. On the other hand, the reference to " one that re-
restraineth " (ii. 6, 7), in so far as there are grounds for
applying this phrase to the Roman government, points
to a time anterior to the year 64 ; since, after the atroci-
1 Wrede makes this the foremost objection to the Pauline authorship
of the epistle. He concedes that the content of the apocalyptic pas
sage in the second chapter is not an insuperable obstacle to attributing
the epistle to the apostle. (Die Echtheit des zweiten Thessalonicher-
briefs.)

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 177
ties perpetrated under the hand of Nero, there would be
very little incentive in a Christian mind to portray the
Roman government as a safeguard against fanatical vio
lence. 2. In the second group of epistles we have a much
fuller expression of the intellectual energy, spiritual afflu
ence, and matured theological reflection of Paul than in
the one just characterized. The terms which Pfleiderer
applies to one of them, in describing it as a " glorious
monument of a great religious genius," may with equal
right be applied to each one of them. Here belong the
epistles to the Galatians, the Corinthians, and the Ro
mans. These writings undoubtedly contain the concep
tions which filled and fired the soul of Paul at the zenith
of his apostolic ministry. There is no question as to
their genuineness, except on the part of a kind of mad
house criticism, such as might disport itself in a pre
tended proof that Napoleon Bonaparte never had any
place in European history. An inquiry can indeed be
raised as to whether the list of salutations in the six
teenth chapter of Romans and also some lesser portions
of the same chapter belong with this particular writing.
There is room likewise for a query as to whether the last
four chapters of Second Corinthians did not form origi
nally a distinct communication to the Corinthian congre
gation. But these are questions of place and time, and
involve no objection of any consequence to Pauline au
thorship. Biblical theology does not need to discuss them.1
 r- 
1 Not a few scholars are of opinion that Ephesus is to be accounted
a much more probable destination than Rome for such a list of saluta
tions as is given in xvi. 1-16. On the other hand, it is urged that the

178 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Among these epistles that to the Romans has the
least appearance of having been dictated by special local
conditions. Very likely there was somewhat in the situ
ation of the Christian community at Rome which made
it appropriate for Paul to address to them the special line
of thought to which he had recourse. Still there is
some reason for the conjecture that the apostle, after a
season of spirited controversy, wished to put on record a
connected statement of the truths which he counted it
his vocation to champion, and was aware that in address
ing the congregation at the great capital he was likely to
give his apostolic message to the Church at large. In
its contents the Epistle to the Romans repeats the cardi
nal antitheses of the Epistle to the Galatians, namely
those between law method and gospel method, between
flesh and spirit. It elucidates, however, the antitheses
more at length, branches out into related themes, and
sketches in fuller outline a theory of history and a philos
ophy of salvation. The tone of the later writing, though
very spirited, is less polemical than that of the earlier ;
at least, the former gives more indication of a disposition
to qualify the radical disparagement of Judaism which
proportion of the names which are Roman in form, or which occur in
sepulchral inscriptions in the neighborhood of the great capital, makes
for the conclusion that this section may properly be reckoned a part of
the original epistle to the church of Rome.
Recent criticism has exhibited a tendency to rate the last four chap
ters of Second Corinthians as an independent epistle. However, in the
absence of adequate means of decision, the modest suggestion of Jiili
cher is quite in place. "There remains for us," he says, " matter for
surprise in the change of tone and bearing, but we have a much more
imperfect knowledge of the situation of the writer than did the first rea.
ders by whom alone Paul wished to be understood." (Einleitung, p. 78.)

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 179
the Pauline theory might be thought to imply. Through
its varied contents the Epistle to the Romans illustrates,
to a special degree, the many-sided ability of Paul.1 In
the Corinthian Epistles we have glimpses of the dog
matic postulates contained in Romans and Galatians.
But they are made to share the field of vision with a
great variety of practical questions, such as the adminis
tration of a restless, inquisitive Greek society, under the
pressure of a sensuous civilization, naturally had to con
front. More than any other of his writings they give
us a full length picture of Paul as man and administrator.
At the same time their theological contribution is impor
tant. No where else has the apostle given anything like
so full an expression of his thought on the subjects of
the Lord's supper and the resurrection.
3. A distinct group among the Pauline writings is
constituted by the series of prison epistles, or those ad
dressed to the Philippians, to Philemon, to the Colossians,
and to a circle of Asiatic churches. This last came to
be styled the Epistle to the Ephesians. But historical
evidence favors the conclusion that Ephesus was not
mentioned in the original letter, and its contents are de
cidedly adverse to the supposition that it was specially
meant for a congregation in which the apostle had la
bored for a long interval. Recent scholarship to a very
large extent regards it as a circular letter, designed for a
list of churches some of which at least Paul had not
visited in person.
1 " Here the entire Paul," says Jiilicher, " presents himself to our con
templation : the rabbinical scholastic, the inspired poet, the sober far-
sighted pastor of souls, and the keen thinker, who with unsparing reso
lution carries out the lines which make all to proceed from God and to
end in Him." (Einleitung, p. 92.)

180 NEW STATEMENT THEOLOGY
In this group of epistles there are indications that the
mind of the writer was still tenacious of the points of
view which had been championed in Galatians and
Romans. But these are not thrust to the front as they
were in the earlier epistles. The author proceeds as
though the crisis of the battle against Judaic legality
and exclusiveness had passed, and there was a good
prospect for the cause of Christian freedom and univer
salism. He contents himself therefore with brief state
ments or intimations of the principles for which he had
contended in the controversy with the Judaizers, and
gives room, if not to strictly new points of view, at least
to a fuller consideration of special features of his faith.
This is true in particular of the teaching respecting
Christ and the Church contained in Colossians and
Ephesians. The substance of this teaching, it is not to
be denied, had already been brought to view, since in
the preceding group of epistles large views are broached
respecting the headship of Christ and respecting the
significance of redemption for the creature universe in
general.1 But it is characteristic of these prison epistles
that they exhibit a special interest in asserting the uni
versal lordship and unifying function of Christ, and that
they make more distinct account of the Church as one
great unity than appears in any previous writing of the
apostle. We speak here in particular of Colossians and
Ephesians, since Philippians is a confidential and affec
tionate communication to a beloved congregation, and
shows only in minor degree a dogmatic purpose.
On the question of the authorship of these epistles a
1 1 Cor. viii. 6; Rom. viii. 19-22.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 181
relative unanimity has been reached in favor of the com
position of Philippians by Paul. A very considerable
consensus has also been established for the Pauline
authorship of Colossians. Ephesians meets a somewhat
larger current of doubt ; but is favored nevertheless with
a good list of scholarly defenders of its Pauline origin.
A principal ground of challenge, as brought forward
against both Colossians and Ephesians, is the advance
in theological construction shown in these epistles. In
reply, three facts are properly noticed. The advance,
as was indicated above, was no leap to a new position
discordant with that previously advocated; it consisted
only in a more emphatic putting of points of view already
broached.1 Again, since writing the last in the foregoing
group of Epistles, Paul hacTpassed years in imprisonment,
and it is quite conceivable that in his relative retirement
1 This is very clearly illustrated, as respects Ephesians, in the follow
ing: " The exalted christology might seem incredible at so early a period
but for the simple fact that in every essential feature it is corroborated
in undeniably genuine passages. Disregarding the parallels in Colos
sians, as disputed, we find the same conception of Christ as preexistent
in 2 Cor. viii. 9, Phil. ii. 5-1 1 ; as the image of God, archetype of
redeemed humanity, in Rom. viii. 29, 2 Cor. iii. 18, Phil. iii. 21 ; as begin
ning and end of creation in association with God in 1 Cor. viii. 6, xv.
22-28; as lord of all created being in heaven and earth and under the
earth, triumphant over angelic and demonic powers in Phil. ii. 9-1 1,
1 Cor. xv. 24 ff . ; as agent of a cosmic redemption in Rom. viii. 19-22.
And this is but the negative half of the argument; for in 1 Cor. i. 24.
30, ii. 6-10, 16 we have hints that Paul also has a philosophy wherewith
he could put to shame the speculations of the Corinthians, had he
deemed them prepared for it, — a philosophy which was concerned with
Christ as the power of God and the wisdom of God. It consisted of a
revelation of the ' hidden mystery of God which he preordained before
the worlds unto our glory' (1 Cor. ii. 7; cf. Rom. xvi. 25-27; Eph. i.

182 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
from active work he had matured theological construction
in one direction or another. Finally, it is not improba
ble that Paul had a special occasion for the amplification
and strong putting of the distinctive themes of these
epistles. As many commentators have observed,1 they
seem to contemplate an incipient Judaic type of Gnosti
cism, a scheme in which ceremonial and ascetic peculiar
ities were combined with an exaggerated view of the
mediation of angels. In combatting this form of error
the apostle naturally emphasized strongly the unique
headship of Christ and the universality and complete
ness of his reconciling office ; and from this standpoint
he could not well do otherwise than give a certain
emphasis to the Church as a great spiritual unity af
fording an exemplification of the unifying work of
Christ. The objection that phrases of second century Gnosti
cism, such as " pleroma," occur, is by no means formi
dable. This term was not unknown to Paul's earlier
vocabulary, and he was sufficiently in repute with many
of the Gnostics to make it entirely credible that they bor-
4-12, iii. 9-10), and set forth the divine plan in creation and redemption
(1 Cor. ii. 9-11). Again, what have we in Romans as a whole but this
same theme of the revealed purpose of God in creation and redemption
(xi. 31-36) ? Here the full extent of what is meant by the cosmic atone
ment is but darkly hinted in chapter viii, and the union of Jew and Gen
tile in the new people of God in chapters ix-xi is only a hope. But in
Ephesians, with the supplemental parallels of Colossians, Paul opens
wide to us, as no imitator could, the doors of that comprehensive cosmic
philosophy of his faith " (B. W. Bacon, Introduction to the New Testa
ment, pp. 118, 119).
1 Among others Von Soden, Haupt, Lightfoot, Moule, and T. K.
Abbott.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 183
rowed from his phraseology.1 In general it may be said
of Paul's vocabulary that variation through a wide scale
is nothing intrinsically improbable. The creative force
of the man, joined with a continuous change of environ
ment, naturally wrought for the use of new terms. As
Mahaffy has noticed, the roving Greek writer, Xenophon,
presents a parallel in respect of a progressive vocabulary.
His later tracts abound in words — many of them used
only once — that are not contained in his earlier writings,2
In reply to the further objection that one of the epis
tles under consideration incorporates, in moderately varied
phrase, portions of the subject-matter of the other, 3 it
may be said that the admission of this fact does not
make seriously against the Pauline authorship of either.
Indeed, the most satisfactory explanation of the resem
bling features in the two lies in the supposition that they
were composed near the same time, and that much in
one was sufficiently in the memory of the writer to be
reproduced in the other. Another than the author of
Colossians, attempting to blend parts of it with matter
of his own, would almost inevitably have given more of
1 Criticism manifestly tends to the conclusion that nothing in the
references to heresy in Colossians necessarily points to a time subse
quent to the rise of the great Gnostic systems. In the opinion of
Jiilicher the Gnosticism opposed here was even older than Christianity
(Einleitung, p. 105). "That there existed," says Harnack, "a Jewish
Gnosticism, before there was a Christian or Jewish-Christian, is indubi
table" (Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur, I. 144).
2 Cited by Salmon, Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books
of the New Testament, p. 470.
8 A marked relation of this sort is undeniable. It is estimated that
out of the one hundred and fifty-five verses contained in Ephesians
seventy-eight show a distinct kinship, in point of phraseology, with
Colossians (Salmond in Expositor's Greek Testament, III. 215).

184 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY »
the appearance of patchwork to his composition than
Ephesians actually presents ; and the same may be said
of Colossians, should Ephesians be deemed the prior
epistle. As respects the relation of contrast between the two
epistles, a satisfactory explanation, it may be admitted,
is not quite so readily afforded. And here the burden
of objection falls undoubtedly upon Ephesians. For
Colossians a weighty attestation is provided in the fact
that it reflects the same historical situation which is
implied in the letter to Philemon, the genuineness of
which is so thoroughly evidenced by its tone and con
tent that the criticism which attempts a challenge inevi
tably discredits itself.1 Along with this advantage the
Colossian epistle can claim to stand apart from the
general body of the Pauline writings by a somewhat
narrower margin of peculiarity than that which distin
guishes the Ephesian epistle. The latter carries to a
greater extreme the feature of complex sentences —
sentences formed by the addition of clause to clause in
long succession. It gives also a special impression of
mysticism, and shows the most points of approximation
to the Johannine type of any writing which bears the
name of Paul.2 But while the case is stronger for

1 Well does Renan say of this little epistle : " Few are the pages
which show so pronounced a tone of sincerity. Paul alone, so far as it
appears, was capable of that short masterpiece." (Saint Paul, p. 13.)
2 Ephesians shows a likeness to the fourth Gospel in the stress upon
both love and knowledge, in the symbolical use of the terms " light "
and " darkness," in the reference to the indwelling of Christ, in the
description of regeneration as a quickening of the dead, in the repre
sentation of sanctification or cleansing as taking place by the medium

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 185
Colossians than for Ephesians, it does not follow that
the Pauline authorship of Ephesians is made improbable.
In a man of such versatility as was Paul variation in
mood and in the absorbing point of view may be sup
posed to have been capable of effecting very appreciable
differences in writings adjacent to one another in the
chronological order. Then, too, the fact that Ephesians
was, at least in a relative sense, a general epistle, written
without respect to the local conditions of any specific
congregation, may be regarded as favorable to the free
movement of reflective thought, and so tending to impart
to this product of the mellower years of the great apostle
a distinctive tone. But whatever remains to be explained,
we find in the deep soul of Paul the probable source of
this mighty effusion, as against any man who would
venture to impersonate Paul. It carries in itself no
mean attestation of genuineness in the vitality of senti
ment with which it is pervaded. As Findlay remarks :
" For our author the revelation has lost none of its
novelty and surprise. He is in the midst of the excite
ment it has produced, and is himself its chief agent and
mouth-piece. This disclosure of God's secret plans for
the world overwhelms him by its magnitude, by the
splendor with which it invests the divine character, and
the sense of his personal unworthiness to be intrusted
with it. We utterly disbelieve that any later Christian
writer could or would have personated the apostle, and
of the word, in making the gift of the Holy Spirit dependent on the
ascension of Christ. Compare i. 4 in Eph. with xvii. 24 in John ; ii. 2
with xii. 31 ; ii. 5, 6 with v. 21, 25 ; iii. 6 with x. 16; iii. 17 with xiv. 20,
23 ; iv. 7 with iii. 35 ; iv. 8-10 with iii. 13, xvi. 7 ; v. 8 with xii. 35 ; v. 1 1,
13, with iii. 20, 21 ; v. 26 with xv, 3, xvii. 19.

1 86 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
mimicked his tone and sentiments in regard to his voca
tion, in the way the critical hypothesis assumes. The
criterion of Erasmus is decisive : Nemo potest Paulinum
pectus effingere." 1
4. The Pastoral Epistles, or those addressed to Timo
thy and Titus, must be regarded as composed an appre
ciable interval after all other extant writings associated
with Paul. As Zahn states, there is no tenable ground
for maintaining their Pauline authorship unless the release
of the apostle from the Roman imprisonment described
in Acts and his renewed missionary activity are accepted
as facts.2 If from the hand of Paul, the Pastoral Epistles
must have been written at a stage in his life quite dis
tinct from that represented by Philippians, Colossians,
and Ephesians.
As respects external evidences, the genuineness of
the Pastoral Epistles is fairly well supported. The
ground for doubt lies mainly in their spirit and contents.
On this score the following objections are urged : (1) It
is difficult to believe that Paul in writing to his familiar
companions in labor could have thought it necessary to
speak in such a defensive strain respecting his apostolic
vocation as appears in various sentences of these epistles.3
(2) The tone of the addresses to Timothy and Titus is
excessively paternal. We should not expect that the
apostle, in communicating with men who had been for
years trusted colaborers, would think it necessary to re
mind them of the most ordinary duties. Then, too, the
reference to Timothy's youth cannot be regarded as apt,
'The Epistle to the Ephesians in Expositor's Bible, p. 6.
2 Einleitung, I. 435. 8 1 Tim. i. 12-17, "• 7 i 2 Tim. i. 3, 11.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 187
when it is considered that he must have been older than
was Jesus at the time of His crucifixion and quite as old
as was Paul at the beginning of his apostolic ministry.
(3) As regards language, these letters afford a very
equivocal testimony for Pauline authorship. The list of
words that do not occur elsewhere in the writings of the
apostle is relatively large ; and moreover there is a
marked absence of the characteristic Pauline particles.1
(4) The way in which the writer lumps together hereti
cal teachings, and simply denounces rather than refutes
them, is below the plane of Paul's discrimination and in
tellectual fertility. (5) In respect of force and conti
nuity of thought there is a decided falling short of the
Pauline measure. (6) While a certain base of Pauline
conceptions is apparent in the epistles, the governing
tone is more akin to post-apostolic moralism, or the early
Catholic system, than to the tenor of Paul's dogmatics.
In place of the Pauline stress on faith, as a means of
reconciliation and transforming union with God, and on
the life of sonship, we have a recurring mention of the
good conscience, of godliness, of sound doctrine, and of
faith viewed as one of the virtues or even as a sum of
truth to be confessed. 2
On the other hand, it is urged that there are personal
items in the Pastoral Epistles which cannot reasonbly be
xThe following particles and prepositions are mentioned by Bacon
(Introduction, p. 139) as being wanting: apa, 816, Sioti, errura, en,
18c, l8ov, p.-tyKmv, otto)?, ovk€ti, oinru), onrre, iraXiv, iv iravrC, wore,
irov, axrirep, avrl, a\pi, ip.TrpocrBe.v, eyeKev, impd with the accusative,
0~UV. 2 The use of faith in this objective sense occurs in 1 Tim. iv. 1, vi.
10, 21; Titus i. 4.

1 88 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
attributed to any other hand than that of Paul ; that they
contain genuinely Pauline turns of expression ; that they
include not a few names of which there is no mention
either in the Acts or in the epistles of Paul, whereas
one attempting to impersonate the apostle would natu
rally have borrowed from these sources such names as
it might be convenient to use; and that Paul, feeling
that he had paid his debt to constructive theology, might
very naturally in communications to administrators di
verge from the line pursued in his earlier epistles, and
put a special stress upon matters pertaining to church
order. That there is a very appreciable weight in some
of these considerations is intimated by the tendency of
recent criticism, even when denying the Pastoral Epis
tles as a whole to Paul, to admit that they were based
upon notes or fragments of genuine epistles. So have
decided among others Hesse, Harnack, McGiffert, and
Bacon. Among those who accept this conclusion it is
the common verdict that of the three epistles Second
Timothy bears most of a Pauline impress. As the sub
ject now stands, we consider that we shall be rendering
sufficient tribute to critical objections by separating this
group of epistles from the rest, and treating of their sub
ject matter in the concluding section of the chapter.
II. — The Sources of the Pauline Theology.
The question of Paul's relation to Pharisaic Judaism
and to the Alexandrian theology, as having already been
discussed,1 does not need to be considered in this con-
lSee Chapter I.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 189
nection. There are other factors, however, which may
be supposed to have entered into his equipment. Here
belong the evangelical tradition, the familiarity of the
apostle with the Old Testament, and special features of
his experience and personality.
1. The scanty reference to matters pertaining to the
life of Christ which is found in Paul's epistles cannot be
taken as any sure token that he did not entertain a lively
interest in the facts of that marvellous biography. The
epistolary literature of the New Testament in general
is relatively silent respecting the works and the words
of Christ. In brief productions of this order the writers
not unnaturally occupied themselves with cardinal induc
tions from the whole sum of gospel facts, and left to the
teacher, present with the congregation, to give by word
of mouth the more concrete picture of the Master.
That Paul did not reserve a place for extracts from the
gospel story cannot, then, be regarded as by any means
significant of an indifferent attitude. No more is a
trustworthy evidence of lack of interest to be found in
that remark to the Corinthians in which he disparages
the notion of knowing Christ after the flesh.1 To know
after the flesh is to know according to mere externals, to
judge by things secondary and adventitions, a Jew for ex
ample by his lineage, a rich man by the trappings of
wealth, a scholar by his use of technical language. From
such artificiality and externalism Paul says that he had
graduated. Since God had revealed His Son in him he
had known Christ in the spiritual wealth belonging to
His person and office. This revised point of view does
12 Cor. v. 16.

190 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
not imply that henceforth he took no interest in the facts
of Christ's life ; it denotes rather that he was disposed
to judge them by a better than an external standard, be
ing now in condition to grasp and appreciate their signi
ficance as being manifestations of the Lord and Saviour
of men, and not merely incidents in the career of a cer
tain Nazarene teacher.
On the side of positive considerations for the conclu
sion that Paul took pains to acquaint himself, as far as
was possible, with the content of the evangelical tradi
tion, we may adduce the natural effect of his enthu
siastic love and devotion to Christ. How should not
the earthly ministry of Him in whom was centred his
hope for himself and the race be an object of earnest and
affectionate interest ? Then, too, it is in evidence that
at an early point in his course he took pains to confer
with one of those who were best able to recount the
gospel story.1 No record, it is true, is afforded us
respecting the subject of conversation in his fifteen days'
interview with Peter ; but it is difficult to believe that
the converted Pharisee did not utilize the occasion to
learn what a foremost eye-witness of the life of Christ
was able to impart. It may also be suggested that Paul's
companions, Barnabas and Mark, in virtue of their asso
ciation with the primitive disciples, were able in a measure
to supply him with the content of the genuine evangelical
tradition. Again, he has indicated quite explicitly that
he took pains to acquaint himself with that tradition in
sofar as it bore on certain important matters.2 Further
more, in the language of Paul an occasional echo of the
1 Gal. i. 1 8. 2 i Cor. xi. 23, xv. 3-7.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY

191

words of Christ may be discovered.1 Once more, while
it is true that the apostle seems to place the maximum
stress upon the death of Christ rather than upon his
life, yet it is quite manifest that he could not have disso
ciated the import of the death from the quality of the
life by which it was prefaced. Indeed, he has pro
foundly emphasized the fact that the one who gave him
self to death upon the cross was the perfectly obedient
Son of God who knew no sin.2 Occupying this point of
view he must be supposed to have been interested in the
content of Christ's life as affording ground for confidence
in His actual realization of the ideal of sinless obedience.
It results from the foregoing that it does poor justice
to Paul's theology to regard it as a speculative system
projected from his own mind and swinging clear of a
historical basis. It was founded upon historic ante
cedents. Back of it all was the revelation in and
through Christ. According to his own conception the
apostle figured, not as a free-handed system-maker, but
as an expounder of the import of indubitable facts. In
respect of form his exposition is no doubt somewhat
remote from Christ's teaching. In place of the calm,
overmastering, intuitional method of the latter, we have
the struggle of the disputant, earnest argumentation run
ning here and there into a subtlety that taxes the exe-
getical faculty of the reader. The difference is like that
between the appearance of the stars when viewed on the
face of the overarching sky and their appearance when
iGal. v. 21; 1 Cor. vi. 9, vii. 10, ix. 14, xv. 50; Rom. xii. 19-21; 1
Thess. ii. 15, 16, iv. 15-17, v. 1-6; 2 Thess. ii. 2.
2 Rom. v. 19; 2 Cor. v. 21 ; Phil. ii. 8.

192 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
they are reflected in the moving and uneven sea.1 Still,
with all its contrasting features, the Pauline exposition
has very close affinity with the teaching of Christ. In
apprehending the interior and gracious character of the
kingdom, as it was conceived by his Master, the apostle
to the Gentiles was in advance even of the most free-
spirited leaders within the group of the original disciples.
2. In estimating the extent of Paul's dependence upon
the Old Testament two things need to be kept in mind.
In the first place it must be granted that the spiritual
revolution through which he passed and the task to
which he was assigned made him in an emphatic sense a
man of the new dispensation. He regarded the message
of God in Christ as the unrivalled disclosure of divine
wisdom and love. His heart was enkindled in the thought
of the greatness of the gospel consummation. It seemed
to him to outshine all the glory of past religious history.
To be conformed to it he regarded as nothing less than
becoming a new creature and getting into a new world.
From this standpoint he naturally did not hesitate, when
the occasion came, to cast a disparaging glance at the
legal system of the Old Testament. He described it as
a system more properly symbolized by the estate of a
handmaid than by that of a free woman, corresponding
rather to the earthly Jerusalem under a yoke of servitude
than to the free city of God, the Jerusalem that is above.
It has been concluded by many exegetes that Paul meant
also to disparage the legal system in his representation
that it was ordained through the ministry of angels,2
and was thus entitled to inferior honor as compared with
1 Compare Beyschlag, II. 25. 2 Gal. iii. 19.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY

193

the scheme of grace which obtained a primary illustra
tion in God's dealing with Abraham, and came to its full
manifestation in the Lord Jesus Christ. This rendering
is favored by the antithesis which the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews makes between the Old Testa
ment message voiced through angels and the more glori
ous message voiced through the Son of God.1 But on
the other hand, it is to be observed that the connection
of angels with the giving of the law is mentioned in the
speech of Stephen as a means of emphasizing the sanctity
and importance of the law.2 It is to be noticed also that
the New Testament picture of the second advent shows
that it was in line with the religious custom of the age
to dignify a great event by associating the ministry of
angels therewith. In the absence, then, of a formal con
trast between direct divine agency and angelic agency,
there is room for a shade of doubt as to the meaning
which the apostle designed to put into his words. He
may have brought in the reference to the mediation of
the law through angels in deference to the current Jewish
description. It may be granted, however, that the refer
ence seems to acquire increased pertinency if taken as
designed to mark the secondary place pertaining to the
law. The other consideration which needs to be kept in
mind is, that Paul's vital consciousness of the new in
the gospel dispensation is not to be regarded as so far
displacing the Old Testament content from his mind but
that he retained a large residuum from its teaching. In
the background of his theological construction there re-
1 Heb. ii. 2, 3. 2 Acts vii. 53.

194 NEW TESATMENT THEOLOGY
mained continuously the general conceptions of God's
nature and attributes, of divine providence in the world,
of man's nature, and of his metaphysical and ethical re
lations to God, which are set forth in the Hebrew Scrip
tures. It is to be observed furthermore that Paul's
formal attitude toward the law is not to be taken as pre
cisely descriptive of his attitude toward the Old Testa
ment. As his reference to the justification of1 Abraham
indicates, he found upon its pages anticipations of the
divine method which he regarded as distinctive of the
gospel dispensation.
Putting the two considerations together, we reach the
conclusion that the enthusiasm of Paul's soul was centred
upon points of view special to Christianity, but that
nevertheless, as a natural result of his training, he held
fast a considerable framework of Old Testament concep
tions. He cherished but little independent interest in
the oracles of the older dispensation ; yet his interest
was not meagre, inasmuch as he regarded that dispensa
tion as fulfilling a great providential office in preparing
for the effectual publication of the gospel.
In his formal estimate of the Hebrew revelation the
apostle probably did not take time to revise the current
view of inspiration. Where he found matter that was
not well suited to edify, a favorite exegetical expedient
of the age invited him to help out the lessons of holy
writ by recourse to typical or allegorical meanings.
Still, instances of this style of interpretation do not
abound in his epistles. For the most part they are such
as might easily be suggested to a mind filled with the
vision of Christ and convinced that the real function of

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY

195

the Old Testament was to prepare the way for Christ.1
To a mind thus conditioned it could seem only an un
worthy impoverishment of the significance of the sacred
oracles to tie them down continuously to the plain literal
sense. And in truth, whatever may be thought of the
apostle's manipulation of typical meanings in Old Testa
ment passages, it cannot be denied that in the very na
ture of the case an earlier stage in a progressive unfold-
ment evolves types of things pertaining to the later and
more perfect stage. Evolutionary science of the most un-
poetic description will not shun to acknowledge this
truth. 3. The experience of Paul cannot be reckoned a sub
ordinate factor in his theological equipment. In both
of its divisions, Jewish and Christian, it served to fur
nish him with intense convictions. For a man of his
earnestness of spirit to attempt to work out salvation by
the legal method was naturally fruitful of insight into
the difficulties of the method. His attempt to measure
up to the law, however successful in outward and super
ficial respects, he knew to be a failure in respect of the
deeper requirements. Renewed struggle brought a re
newed sense of his shortcomings. The inward schism
seemed past healing. He recognized the goodness of
the standard which the law set before him, but mastery
was wanting over the impulses which were continually
exciting to rebellion. So the commandment which was
ordained unto life became like a sentence of death. The
ordinary Pharisee would have eliminated much of the
bitterness of the situation by dwelling on the grounds of
1 See Gal. iv. 21-31 ; 1 Cor. x. 4; 2 Cor. iii. 13-17.

196 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
self-approval. But Paul was not an ordinary Pharisee
any more than Martin Luther at Erfurt was an ordinary
monk. So he pushed on in the attempt to work out his
justification before the law, and knew full well the smart
and pain of conscious failure. Here was the preparation
for his transformation into the Christian apostle. It has
been conjectured that the reasonings and the demeanor
of the Christians whom he pursued in his persecuting
zeal had wrought in some measure to undermine his as
surance that he was serving the truth in his onslaught
upon them. In point of theory this is not incredible.
There is, however, no warrant for it in recorded history.
The New Testament gives no hint of such an antecedent
of Paul's conversion. The only preparation for conver
sion to which it points us is the negative preparation in
volved in the painful striving for salvation on a legal
basis, which is sketched in the seventh chapter of the
Epistle to the Romans. The experienced impotence of
the Pharisaic method to bring spiritual life and inward
satisfaction disposed him to embrace a method which
should approve itself as really successful, and to advo
cate it with whole-souled ardor.
With the revelation of the risen Christ came the vision
of the new and the better method. What he could not
achieve by the way of self -subjection to the law he found
attainable by faith upon Christ. It was as if a friendly
hand had reached down from the sky and lifted him up
to a new plane of living. In union with Christ he had
peace, sense of emancipation, power for overcoming self
and the world. His horizon was at once greatly widened
out and greatly illuminated. His sympathies broke over

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY

197

their old bounds, and an end was brought into view, so
glorious and so vividly apprehended, that in its pursuit
suffering and privation could be regarded as subtracting
practically nothing from the sum total of personal well-
being. These contrasted orders of experiences could not fail to
act potently upon Paul's theological thinking. They seem
to have borne fruit very speedily. The Pharisaism of
their subject was inverted, or turned in respect of cardi
nal features into the opposite. The experience of legal
bondage and the experience of emancipation through
Christ combined to divert his appreciation from the
method of legal performance to the method of faith, of
trustful self-committal, of heart union with a gracious
Redeemer. In renouncing dependence upon the legal
method he relinquished the main support of Jewish exclu-
siveness, for it was in particular the law which fenced
Israel away from the rest of the world. In a scheme of
grace no good reason could appear for maintaining divid
ing lines between Jew and Gentile. Paul advanced,
therefore, readily to the standpoint of Christian univer
salism. The method and the greatness of his own deliver,
ance dictated that he should look to Christ as representing
an economy gloriously transcending the old legal economy.
By natural sequence he regarded Him as not merely the
Jewish Messiah but the world's Saviour. He was true
to the lessons of his experience in that he gravitated
into a theology Christo-centric and world-embracing in '
its outlook.
The special manner in which Christ was revealed to
Paul before the gates of Damascus had doubtless its

198 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
effect upon his habitual representation of his Master.
The image which remained before his mind was that of
a transcendently glorious being, so that spontaneously
he confessed His lordship, and through his ministry
continued by preference to call Him the Lord Jesus
Christ. Still it would be a mistake to suppose that
Paul's glance was directed solely to the glory of Christ
as the ascended Lord. He has indicated very distinctly
that the humiliation of his Master was much in his
thought. The one conception wrought with the other to
enkindle simultaneously reverence and affection. The
result was a devotion, an absorption in Christ marvel
lously intense and unwavering. Next to Christ's own
sense of union with the Father in heaven the most
unique expression of the inner life of the spirit in the
New Testament is found in Paul's sense of union with
Christ. The characteristics of Paul's personality cannot be
regarded as holding an indifferent relation either to the
espousal or the propagation of his special theological
type. At the foundation was genuine earnestness.
Half-hearted allegiance to what he esteemed to be the
truth was foreign to his disposition. Depth of feeling
and energy of will were quite as much factors in his
make-up as strength of thought. He was far from being
the passionless logician or hard-headed scholastic. Doubt
less he had a certain fondness for argument and a good
degree of argumentative force and dexterity.. But the
fire of emotion was ever blending with his thinking and
inciting his speech to pass over from the plane of logic
to that of oratory. This combination gives great vitality

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 199
to his writings and makes them a perpetual source of
spiritual impulse, though of course it involves some lia
bility of mistaken interpretation, especially on the part
of those who refuse to recognize the element of fervid
oratory and insist on construing the apostle as a mere
logician. His nature was too broad to be described by
a single category. It was after an ecumenical type.
Jewish depth of religious feeling, Hellenic zest for argu
ment and speculation, and Roman energy of will and
consequent ability for conquest had each a counterpart
in the apostle to the Gentiles.
III. — General Conceptions of God, of the World,
and of the Rational Creation, which Under
lie the Pauline Epistles.
Paul's conception of God may be defined as the
Hebraic modified by the revelation in Christ and by
personal experience. On the metaphysical side he
manifests no ambition to serve as an expounder of the
divine nature. The ideas which he brings forward in
this relation are the same as those to which Old
Testament prophecy at its zenith gave expression. He
abides by its combination of distinct personality with
transcendent greatness. So far as can be judged, he
attributes the being as well as the particular forms of
things to creative efficiency. The creation was a means
of bringing to manifestation the invisible power of God.1
He is the one God of whom are all things.2 He is able
to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or
1 Rom. i. 19, 20. 2 I Cor. viii. 6; 2 Cor. v. 18 ; Eph. iii. 9.

200 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
think.1 Instrumentalities which the natural judgment
of men condemns as feeble and ineffective He is com
petent to arm with victorious potency. The foolishness
of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is
stronger than men.2 All striving is empty of result
apart from His cooperation. Neither is he that planteth
anything, nor he that watereth, but God giveth the in
crease.3 To glory in men is to fail of all sense of per
spective. Before God's unsearchable wisdom and omnipo
tence any creaturely endowment passes utterly out of
the field of competition.4
In portraying the ethical nature of God the apostle
takes account preeminently of love and righteousness.
His tribute to the former is limited only by the resources
of his vocabulary. To his thought the love of God mani
fested in Christ is like a luminous abyss whose height
and depth and length and breadth surpass all the meas
urements of the human understanding.5 It is the primal
motive power in the divine heart, a spring overflowing
with benefits in advance of all desert. " God com-
mendeth His love toward us, in that while we were yet
sinners Christ died for us." 6 It shapes the divine admin
istration throughout its wide domain. To those who are
responsive to its claims all things are made to work
together for good.7 It is exceedingly tenacious, holding
those whom it has won with bonds which neither life
nor death nor angels nor principalities nor powers can
sever.8 It is the pattern to which appeal may be made
1 Eph. iii. 20. 2 I Cor. i. 18-25. 8 I Cor. iii. 7.
4 I Cor. iii. 18-23 ; Rom. viii. 31, xi. 33. 6Eph. iii. 18-19.
6 Rom. v. 8. 7 Rom. viii. 28. 8 Rom. viii. 38, 39.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 2OI
in behalf of all gracious conduct among men. The
tenderness of heart which prompts one freely to forgive
his fellow has its archetype in God with His generous
message of forgiveness.1 He is the God of love and
peace.2 The indirect tributes which the apostle renders to the
love of God vie with the direct. Among these must be
reckoned the incomparable hymn contained in the thir
teenth chapter of First Corinthians. It is not indeed
specifically the love of God that is celebrated in this
lofty strain. But such an eulogy as is here recorded
must be regarded as containing an implicit reference to
the divine nature. To commend love as the highest
possible endowment in those who are born of God and
exalted into His likeness is equivalent to declaring that
it is supremely characteristic of God Himself. The
apostle may also be regarded as celebrating the praise of
divine love in all his discourse about the grace of God.3
For what is grace, on the divine side, but love viewed as
operative in the bestowment of unearned benefits ? Once
more, Paul renders tribute to the same theme in his
emphasis upon the divine fatherhood, since this is a
name for deep and enduring affection. His exposition
of this aspect of divine character and relationship does
not, it is true, carry us back fully into the atmosphere of
the Gospels. Jesus had a prerogative in the exposition
of this theme which has fallen to no other. He spoke
as the child of the household who dwelt in unclouded
intimacy with the Father. Paul could speak only as the
*Eph. iv 32. 22 Cor. xiii. 11.
8Rom. iii.24, iv. 16. v. 15-21 ; 2 Cor. viii. 9; Eph. 1, 6, 7, ii. 7, 8, iii. a.

202 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
converted man and the theologian. He leaves no room
for doubt, however, as to his lively interest in the sub
ject. At the opening of every epistle he makes refer
ence to God as Father. He indicates that a chief part
in the ministry of the Holy Spirit consists in producing
a sense of love and fellowship which shall call forth the
name of Father in the spontaneous utterance of the
heart.1 Furthermore, he characterizes fatherhood in God
as reaching to the widest limits. He is the Father from
whom every family in heaven and earth is named.2
The divine righteousness, of which Paul prefers rather
to speak than of the divine holiness, was doubtless funda
mental to his thought of God. As used by him it stands
for essential rectitude, conformity in feeling and in con
duct to the ethical reality of things as it is disclosed to
His all-penetrating glance. It is incompatible with any
artificial judgment or attitude, and so excludes respect
of persons.8 For the same reason it is a ground of
wrath, not as though it shuts out compassion, but be
cause in the fitness of things, in proportion as a man
gives himself to sin and cancels in himself the poten
tiality of goodness, he becomes an object of displeasure
to Him who cannot have pleasure in sin. In fact the
apostle speaks of an expenditure of goodness, forbearance,
and long suffering upon those who at the same time by
their impenitence are treasuring up wrath against the
day of wrath.4 Righteousness, as true to the reality of
things, dictates wrath against the sinner in the man, while
simultaneously it permits, not to say requires, compassion
!Rom. viii. 15, 16; Gal. iv. 6. 8 Rom. ii. n ; Gal. ii. 6.
2 Eph. iiii. 15. 4 Rom. ii. 4, 5.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 203
toward the man in the sinner.1 As regards the relation
of righteousness to love Paul has not intimated that there
is any disharmony between the two. Nothing that he
has said stands in the way of the rational consideration
that righteousness puts no veto whatever on the benevo
lent aim of love, and merely conditions, as wisdom may
be conceived to do also, its manifestation.
Along with stress upon the love and righteousness of
God the apostle urges a very emphatic view of the
sovereign control of God over the course of history.
Taken by themselves some of his sentences, it must be
granted, may seem to carry over the notion of a master
ful providence into an affirmation of arbitrary power, and
so to collide with the proper conception of both love and
righteousness. But it is a well-approved canon of inter
pretation that fervid oratorical discourse must be taken
according to its tenor. Now it is beyond question that
Paul teaches the freedom, responsibility, and gracious
opportunity of men in general.2 Expressions in this line
have no less claim to notice, in a judgment on his posi
tion, than expressions which magnify the overshadowing
prerogative and might of God. Holtzmann, it is true,
prefers to discern in the latter the philosophy of the
apostle, and to take the former as spoken in a homileti-
cal or oratorical vein.3 We find, however, no warrant
for this discrimination. On the contrary, there are no
passages in Paul's writings which have more the appear-
1 Augustine, Tract, in Joan, ex. 6 ; Beyschlag, New Testament The
ology, II. 93.
2 Rom. i. 28, 32, ii. 4-1 1, 26, 27, vi. 12, 13, x. 12, xi. 19-23.
8 Lehrbuch der neutest. Theol. II. 169,

204 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
ance of fervid oratory than those which push to the ut
most the notion of divine sovereignty. This is clearly
the fact in relation to the passage which more than any
other repudiates limitations upon divine choice and ac
tion.1 The apostle is engaged here in an ad hominem
argument. He wishes to disarm the man who, in his
conviction that a preferred place belongs to Israel, is
stumbled over the advancement of the Gentiles. Hence
he exalts the will of God to the utmost as against all
grounds of precedence recognized by men. He puts
forward the most extreme instances that he can find.
He disparages utterly man's ability to call God to ac
count, and compares the prerogative which He has over
creaturely instruments to that of the potter over the clay.
He thus asserts the right of God as against any human
challenge. But does he go on to say that God, on His
part, is minded to exercise this right with unfeeling arbi
trariness? Just the reverse. Having silenced the parti
san of Judaism who would limit the divine choice accord
ing to his own narrow preference, he proceeds to illustrate
that the actual policy of God is in the highest degree
benevolent, accordant with the conduct and the needs
of men, and directed to the end of bringing as many as
possible to the salvation in Christ.2 Are the Jews cast
off for the time being ? It is on account of their lack of
faith. Are the Gentiles elected? It is because they
follow after righteousness by faith, and their admission
is not designed to shut out the Jews, but to provoke
them to jealousy and to bring about ultimately that all
Israel should be saved. Are the Jews brought in ? It
1 Rom. ix. 14-24. 2 Rom. x., xi.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 205
is not that the opportunity of the Gentiles should be
abridged, but that the receiving of them should be to
the world at large life from the dead.1 God's hand is
doubtless conceived as a powerful factor in the historic
process which leads to the great end in view. But the
historic process itself, with its special expedients and
combinations, becomes an inept play except as it is
viewed as a necessary means of operating with free
agents, who are open to persuasion and whose consent
needs to be won. It is out of reason to suppose that the
apostle did not regard such a process as having a princi
pal ground in the freedom of its subjects. Thus, in
spite of the hard sayings with which he rebuked the
Jewish assumption of a special claim upon God, the
tenor and outcome of the apostle's argument show his
conviction that the divine procedure is at once directed
by the largest benevolence and respectful of man's free
agency. In no other connection has he used language
which certifies to a different conviction. The divine
election of which he speaks in several instances2 is
viewed indeed as being before the standard of man's de
serts perfectly gratuitous, but there is no declaration
that it is irrespective of the consent of the individual to
divine overtures, or that it arbitrarily secures to one, and
arbitrarily excludes from another, the measureless boon
1 So greatly does Paul modify in the following chapters the picture
of overmastering sovereignty given in the ninth, that this remark of
Garvie can hardly be counted extravagant : " The arbitrary omnipotent
potter is a caricature of controversy, not a portrait of faith ; and Paul
has himself to abandon his own work.'' (New Century Bible, Romans,
p. 224.) 8 Rom. viii. 29, 30; Eph. i. 5, 6.

206 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
of eternal life. The conditions on man's side, which
the apostle so distinctly recognizes when he discourses
on the appropriation of salvation, he must have supposed,
in all consistency, to have been regarded by God in the
shaping of His eternal purpose.
In the view of Paul, God is revealed in the natural
world, in conscience, in human history at large, in the
life of the Jewish nation, and finally in Christ as the
image of God's perfection and the complete expression
of His gracious will. Upon the revelation in nature he
touches but lightly, noticing in general terms that the
visible world testifies to the power and divinity of the
Creator.1 Possibly in popular discourse he may have
made more ample reference. Were we to judge, how
ever, from his writings, we should conclude that nature
was no such book of divinity to him as it was to Jesus.
The poetic sensibility toward the objects of the natural
world which has left its tinge upon the Gospels is not
discoverable in his epistles. Not a passage can be cited
which shows that he was penetrated with the charm of
natural scenery. He has indicated, nevertheless, that
in one point of view he had a sympathetic bearing to
ward nature. He felt the shadow of transitoriness and
decay hovering over her domain. It seemed to him that
she had been despoiled of her ideal, in order to keep
company with the despoiled children of God. By a
figure of speech he represents her as if conscious of the
cleft between her state of vanity and the ideal designed
for her in the divine mind, and so describes her as groan-
1 Rom. i. 19-20.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 207
ing after the glorious era when, in conjunction with the
completed redemption of the sons of God, she shall be
redeemed from bondage, and present thenceforth a scene
unsullied by corruption and death.1
No formal exposition is given by the apostle of his
conception of the cosmic system. We gather, however,
that he recognized an ascending series of spheres. He
makes a passing mention of an under world.2 Recalling
an ecstatic experience of his own, he represents himself
as caught up to the third heaven.3 Again, he pictures
the risen Christ as ascending far above all heavens.4
Probably in all this there was little aim at exactness.
We take sufficient account of his language, if we regard
it as recording simply a general impression that in the
world system there is a gradation of spheres to which
belong severally different measures of divine manifes
tation.5 As in relation to the cosmic spheres, so also in relation
to the classes or ranks of spiritual being, Paul is not to
be regarded as having attempted to define with precision.
It is quite evident that he thought of angels, and like
wise of evil spirits, as constituting a sort of hierarchy ;
but as is intimated by variation in the terms used, he
did not assume to have an exact knowledge of gradations
within the hierarchy, and enumerated them rather for
the sake of extending the point of view which he
1 Rom. viii. 19-23. 2 Phil. ii. 10. 8 2 Cor. xii. 2. i Eph. iv. 10.
6 That Paul does not mention specifically a sphere above the third
cannot be regarded as decisive of the scheme which he had in mind. It
is known that Jewish thought very generally assumed a series of seven
heavens. (Salmond, article " Heaven," in Hastings' Diet, of the Bible.)

208 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
happened to be enforcing to the widest possible limit,
than for the purpose of giving a lesson in angelology.1
The angelic powers, as he conceived, share in the benefit
of Christ's reconciling work, in the sense that that work
removes barriers between different parts of the rational
creation, and fulfills its aim in joining all closely together
in one spiritual unity.2 On the functions of angels he
says next to nothing. Incidentally he refers to them as
witnesses of the extremity of despite and suffering
appointed to the apostles.3 According to one interpre
tation of the enigmatic passage in i Cor. xi. io, he had
in mind the Jewish thought that angels are guardians
over the constituted order of the world and interested
in keeping each rank to its proper place.4 If this was
actually the thought of the apostle, it implies an emi
nence and jurisdiction in angels that do not harmonize
well with the supposition that he thought of men as
qualified to judge angels of the unfallen class. More
over the general New Testament picture of good angels
as trusted agents of the heavenly kingdom, and as render
ing an ideal service to that kingdom, is far from suggest
ing their amenability to human judgment. It is to be
esteemed doubtful, therefore, that Paul, when he spoke
of Christians as destined to judge angels,5 distinctly in
cluded the obedient order in his thought.
1 See Eph. i. 21 ; Col. i. 16, ii. 10; Rom. viii. 38; 1 Thess. iv. 16;
also 1 Cor. xv. 24 ; Eph. vi. 12.
2 Col. i. 20. 8 1 Cor. iv. 9.
4 Heinrici, Sendschreiben an die Korinther. Compare Toy, Judaism
and Christianity, p. 153. A competing interpretation makes the refer
ence to be to the respect due to angels viewed as heavenly guests,
present at the meeting for worship.
6 I Cor. vi. 3.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 209
In relation to evil spirits, Paul indicates his recognition
of a certain headship in Satan by naming him the prince
of the power of the air.1 This expression, joined with
the reference to the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the
heavenly places,2 makes it probable that he thought of
the lower or atmospheric heaven as the special seat of
evil spirits. His language in 1 Cor. x. 20, 2 1 points to
a belief that demons were patrons of heathen idolatries,
and the vivid description of spiritual antagonists in Eph.
vi. 12 makes it quite evident that he credited the evil
host with a considerable agency in the world. Still, we
are warned against attributing to him a too emphatic
notion of diabolical workings when we observe that in
his most sombre picture of the origin and progress of
sin among men, as given in the Epistle to the Romans,
he makes no reference to Satan or to the evil spirits
confederated with him. It is properly observed also
that Paul was not at all minded to concede that the
natural world is the property of Satan. As was noticed
above, he associated its destiny with the ideal consum
mation awaiting the children of God. Moreover the
cosmic significance which he assigned to Christ implies
that the world falls under divine ownership, and that
Satan has no real title to its rule. Thus a point of view
which seriously compromises the divine headship over
the world cannot be charged against the apostle.
In his description of man Paul is distinguished among
New Testament writers by the extent to which he in
clines to the use of trichotomist terminology. To desig-
!Eph. ii. 2. 2Eph. vi. 12.

210 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
nate the highest in man he employs the term " spirit "
(irvevfjba). In referring to this factor his language is
not always so definite as to exclude the inquiry as to
whether he means the Holy Spirit resident in men, or
the human spirit regarded as the proper organ for com
munication with the divine and as quickened and illumi
nated thereby. This naturally results from the fact that
the aim of the Holy Spirit and of the human spirit ruled
by the influence of the former must be identical. That
Paul considered a finite spirit to be a constituent of the
human individual as such is made abundantly evident
by his references.1 While the apostle, on the whole,
assigns a certain preeminence to the spirit, it may be
questioned whether he went so far as to distinguish it
from the soul (^rvxfi) in respect of substance, i Thess.
v. 2 3 may indeed be cited in favor of an affirmative con
clusion ; but the apparent distinction here may be
regarded as due to amplification for the sake of empha
sis.2 In various connections the apostle seems to in
clude under the term soul the whole nature of man as a
subject of emotional and volitional experience.3 His total
usage, however, implies a certain contrast between soul
and spirit. The former may be said to denote the
interior man in close relation to the sensuous side of
his being, the latter the interior man as holding God-
ward relations. This contrast is especially conspicuous
in the adjective forms i/r^wcd? and TrvevfiaTiicos? The
iRom. i. 9, viii. 16; I Cor. ii. n, v. 4, 5, vii. 34, xiv. 14, xvi. 18; 2
Cor. ii. 13, vii. 1, 13 ; Gal. vi. 18; 1 Thess. v. 23.
2 Compare Luke x. 27.
8 Rom. ii. 9, xiii. I ; 2 Cor. i. 23, xii. 15 ; Phil. i. 27.
*i Cor. ii. 14, 15.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 211
apostle's use of the word mind (vow) answers partially to
that of spirit, as being put in opposition to the flesh.1 It
denotes in such connection the seat of the reflective
intelligence. In 1 Cor. xiv. it is associated with the
ordinary sphere of consciousness, while the spirit is
viewed as capable of being rapt up into ecstatic fellow
ship with 'God.
A further distinction of the Pauline anthropology is
an explicit stress upon race connection. No other New
Testament writer has made any specific account of the
bond with the sinning Adam. Paul distinctly accentu
ates such a bond. Exegesis has sometimes concluded,
on the basis especially of Romans v. 12, that he even
thought of the whole race as sinning in Adam and un
dergoing condemnation with him. Attention has been
called to the force of the aorist tense in the clause " all
sinned " (iraine* rj/iapTov), as indicative of a definite past
act of sin, and not merely of the fact that all who have
lived have fallen at one time or another into sin. And
where, it is asked, is this definite act to be found except
in the trespass of Adam? But this argument rests on
a very unsubstantial ground. The aorist of apaatavm is
repeatedly used in the New Testament in the sense of
the perfect, and has been so rendered by the translators.2
In short it is quite gratuitous to charge upon Paul the
artificial notion that the whole race sinned and incurred
guilt in the sin of Adam. What the apostle may reasona
bly be regarded as designing to teach is, that the Adamic
trespass was the fountainhead of the general tendency
1 Rom. vii. 23, 25.
2 Rom. ii. 12, iii. 23; Luke xv. 18, 21 ; 1 Cor. vii. 28.

212 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
in men to sin, and thus a source of ultimate condemna
tion, since a pronounced tendency commonly passes on
into act. The sin of Adam was the sin of his posterity
only in the sense of being a potentiality of sin in them,
just as the crucifixion of Christ was a potentiality of
the crucifixion of the sinful nature in men.1' Nothing
that the apostle has written requires us to suppose that
he thought that the condemnation strikes men before
the evil potentiality issues into act. The words in Eph.
ii. 3, " by nature children of wrath," are to be compared
with the statement in Rom. ii. 14, that " the Gentiles
do by nature the things of the law." In neither case
is the reference to a birth condition proper. The Gen
tiles are not so much born doers of the law as born
with a nature the unfoldment of which brings them in
due time to a sense of the obligations of the moral law.
In like manner Jews and Gentiles are not literally born
children of wrath, but born with natures which universal
experience shows tend to the order of works which invite
the divine displeasure.2
The darker phases of human condition are doubtless
sketched in the Pauline writings with much vigor. But
the counterpart is also painted with a powerful hand.
The apostle indeed runs into a glowing optimism when
he considers the possibilities and certainties of human
destiny on the side of connection with the Second
Adam. 1 Rom. vi. 6; 2 Cor. v. 14.
2 On the character and scope of the suggestions which antecedent
Judaism may have furnished to Paul respecting the relation of Adam's
sin to the race, see F. R. Tennant, The Sources of the Doctrines of the
Fall and Original Sin.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 21 3
If we put together the elements of the Pauline view
of ' the world system, we must acknowledge that it has a
somewhat imposing aspect. It is notably a world that
is under a law of movement. Things are in procession.
The various ranks of being are directed toward a lofty
consummation. Not only are all things from God ; all
things are likewise to Him.1 For the creation generally
the goal lies in a sphere of incorruption and transfigured
existence, where God is all in all, not as overbearing dis
tinctions of individuality, but as beatifying and harmo
nizing all beings through their close relation to Himself.

IV. — The Chief Pauline Antitheses — Flesh and
Spirit, Law and Grace.
The reader of the Pauline epistles very soon discovers
that the term flesh (a-dp^) is frequently used in a larger
than the plain physical signification. While literally it
denotes the pliable substance of a living physical organ
ism, and thus is related to body (a-aspa) as the specific to
the general, in many instances it evidently incorporates
an ethico-religious sense.2 From what point of view did
the apostle attach to it this meaning ? Did he proceed
from the standpoint of Hellenic dualism, and thus regard
the flesh in virtue of its material as intrinsically evil,
from its very nature antagonistic to the spirit in man
with its sense of obligation to a moral ideal ? Or, did he,
putting a part for the whole, intend to denote by the flesh
unrenewed human nature, man viewed as dominated by
1 Rom. xi. 36.
2 For example in Rom. vii. 18. viii. 4-9; Gal. v. 16-24.

214 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
the desires and passions which have their sphere of mani
festation especially in the bodily members ? The latter
we believe to be by far the more credible interpretation.
The main reasons for preferring it, as against the nar
rower meaning in the direction of Hellenic dualism, are
the following : (i) The apostle includes in his catalogue
of the works of the flesh various orders of sins which
have no special association with the physical members.1
The natural inference is that by flesh he meant more
than the mere instrument of the sensuous life. (2) The
connections in which the phrase, " our old man," is used
are such as to show that its meaning is substantially
equivalent to that assigned to the flesh.2 We have
accordingly a plain hint that the latter term connotes
something beyond the sensuous nature proper. (3) The
apostle refers to Christians as those who can appropri
ately be reckoned as being no longer in the flesh.3 This
is as much as indicating that flesh is not a name for an
intrinsically evil substance ; for, in that event disengage.
ment from its contamination and thraldom could not well
be thought of as realized anterior to its literal destruc
tion or severance from the spirit. (4) Paul dignifies the
body by representing it as worthy to be quickened by
the Spirit of God, as fit to be offered to God in sacrifice
or consecration, as being the temple of the Holy Spirit,
as being a subject along with soul and spirit for complete
sanctification.4 It may be alleged, it is true, that body
as form is to be distinguished from flesh which is a term
1 Gal. v. 19-21.
2 Rom. vi. 6 ; Eph. iv. 22 ; Col. iii. 9. 8 Rom. vii. 5, viii. 9.
* Rom. viii. 11, xii. 1 ; 1 Cor. vi. 19; 1 Thess. v. 23.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 215
descriptive of substance. But certainly in most of the
instances just cited the distinction is impertinent. Who
can believe that the apostle meant to give such terms as
sacrifice, sanctification, and indwelling an exclusive appli
cation to corporeal outlines ? He has plainly discounte
nanced such artificial construction in that, on the one
hand, he has represented the flesh itself to be a subject
for sanctification,1 and on the other has pictured the body
as the seat of the same disorderly motions which he has
ascribed to the flesh.2 (5) The apostle indicates that he
did not regard the flesh, in the character of material sub
stance, to be intrinsically evil, inasmuch as he conceives
Christ both to have come in the flesh and to have been
sinless. The latter point is unequivocally asserted in 2
Cor. v. 21. The former point is implied in Paul's ascrip
tion of real birth and real death to Christ.3 It is also
intimated in the statement that Christ came in the like
ness of sinful flesh (ev 6/ioiat/iaTi aapicix; a/iapTiWi), and
was instrumental in condemning sin in the flesh.4 The
interposition of the word " likeness " in this text is to be
regarded as a token of the apostle's unwillingness to
attribute sinful flesh to Christ while yet he attributes
flesh to Him. (6) In treating of the origin of sin in the
Epistle to the Romans Paul does not make it a necessary
offspring of the sensuous nature with which man was
originally endowed, but ascribes it to the trespass of
Adam.5 It has been contended indeed that the con
trast which, in another connection, he draws between
the first Adam and the last Adam6 implies that the
12 Cor. vii. 1. 8 Rom. i. 3 ; Gal. iv. 4 ; Phil, ii. 8. 6 Rom. v. 12-19.
1 1 Cor. ix. 27. 4 Rom. viii. 3. 6 I Cor. xv. 45-47.

2l6 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
former from the start, as possessed of flesh, had in him
self a positive ground of sin. But there is inadequate
reason for supposing that the apostle fell into the self-
contradiction implied in this interpretation. In the pas
sage under consideration he takes Adam in general as a
type, without pausing to discriminate closely between
his state before the fall and that which was character
istic of him afterwards. As he stands out in history he
appears, on the whole, weak, earthly, corruptible, and so
may be placed in contrast with the thoroughly incor
ruptible and pneumatic nature of the risen and ascended
Christ. As respects man before the fall, it is not at all
necessary to suppose that the apostle thought of him as
characterized by a positive bent to evil, as well as by
immaturity and lack of firm grasp on the higher good.
Thus the teaching in Romans, ascribing the origin of
sin to an act rather than to a necessity of nature, may
stand as truly representative of the apostle's conviction,
and serve to confirm the conclusion that by flesh he
means, when he gives the term an ethico-religious signifi
cance, not the physical substance of the body, but the
natural or unrenewed man, whose passions and desires
find a special vehicle of manifestation in the bodily
members. (7) Had Paul thought of the fleshly sub
stance as intrinsically evil, he would naturally have been
driven to show a larger predilection for ascetic theory
and practice than he has exhibited. On that basis we
should not expect from him such sentences as appear in
the Colossian Epistle.1 No one who was immersed in
the postulates of asceticism would naturally have written
in that strain. 1 Col. ii. 16, 20-23.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 217
The Pauline antithesis between flesh and spirit de
notes that man's being is a battlefield of opposing tend
encies, and that there is no chance for him to fulfill his
true end save in alliance with a power which is able to
reinforce the Godward tendency, and to make it more
than a match for the earthward. A similar meaning
belongs to the antithesis between law and grace.
By the law, as the term is employed in the more
formal discussions of the apostle, is meant the Mosaic
law in its entirety. This in its moral part distinctly pro
claims the law which is written upon man's conscience,
and thus deepens responsibility for obedience. The
great office of the law, as described in the epistles to the
Galatians and Romans, is so to convict men of their sin,
and so to reveal to them their bondage in sin, that they
shall be prepared to accept the divine remedy. It pro
vokes to sin, that is to concrete sinful acts (Trapa/3da-ei$,
7rapairrd>naTa), in the sense that it challenges the natural
impulses of men, and thus brings their latent sinfulness
(afiapria) to manifestation. By reaction against it the
sinner comes to a knowledge of himself as a sinner con
demned and in thraldom. There is no question about
its sanctity. It is holy, righteous, and good.1 The
trouble with it is its practical impotence to bring salva
tion. Here it always fails. Its office is rather to con
vince of the need of salvation than to save. It is a
schoolmaster to bring men to Christ. It educates up to
receptivity for the method of grace, the method of self-
committal to a Redeemer and of personal heart union with
1 Rom. vii. 12.

2l8 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Him. At the point of this consummation the law in
one sense is abrogated. Christians are not under law
but under grace.1 That is, their standing is not meas
ured by their record of legal obedience but by their pre
sent relation to God in Christ. This relation, however,
inevitably involves willing compliance with the ethical
requirements of the law. The renewed heart in virtue
of a spiritual dynamic coming from a personal affiance
with the Saviour yields a measure of obedience which it
could not render on the plane of mere legal striving.
Thus, in another sense, the law is established. While
it ceases to be the object toward which the Christian be
liever looks for justification, it becomes in its ethical con
tent the ideal toward which a power of life, as well as
his own continuous endeavor, transports him.
Criticism has been passed upon Paul's exposition of
the function of Old Testament law. It has been said
that the whole intent of the law was not exhausted in
merely bringing the sinfulness of men to manifestation,
and so convincing them of the need of a gracious rescue
at the hands of God ; that the law in fact aimed to de
velop a positive righteousness, which, if not of an ideal
type, had nevertheless a certain worth for human society
and the divine kingdom. The criticism would not be
wholly unjust, if Paul's silence on this aspect of the sub
ject were to be taken as equivalent to denial. But it is
not necessarily so taken. Paul had occasion to check
mate an attempt to thrust the law forward into the place
of a rival of the gospel. Naturally therefore he consid
ered the law preeminently, not to say exclusively, in its
relation to the gospel, and dwelt upon the fact that its
1 Rom, vi. 14.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 219
office was fulfilled in preparing for a more potent and
gracious dispensation by convincing men of their sinful
ness and need. Over against the partisans of an ultra
legal scheme he considered it important to set forth the
incompetency of the law to reach the supreme end —
assured, personal salvation. He was passing judgment
upon it in relation to this end. That he counted it in
competent to bring to this high goal is no sure token
that he would not have been willing to concede to it a
useful office in modifying individual and community life.
The exigencies of the time in which he wrote called
forth the apostle's exposition of this theme. In its
main tenor, however, that exposition is of perennial sig
nificance. It remains for ever true, that at the stage of
maturity religious living must be on the basis of heart
fellowship and spiritual dynamic, and that a scheme of
formal rules belongs to a preliminary and inferior stage.
V. — The Person of Christ.

of'

Since Paul did not attempt a minute exposition of
christology, it is little cause for surprise that his lan
guage falls short of an explicit declaration of Christ's
possession of a complete human nature. The tenor
theological discussion in his day did not call for an une
quivocal expression on that subject. We have, however,
measurably satisfactory hints of his position. In stat
ing that Christ was " born of the seed of David according
to the flesh," that He was of the stock of Israel, that He
was born of a woman under the law, that He was made
in the likeness of men, and that He holds a position

220 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
which entitles Him to be spoken of as the last Adam,1
the apostle has given indubitable evidence that he con
sidered the Redeemer to be truly implicated in the race,
and has made it credible that he ascribed to Him the full
complement of human attributes. Weiss contends that
the ascription of flesh (o-a/af) to Christ is decisive of the
fact that a human soul was recognized in Him, since in
the Pauline anthropology flesh in the living man is al
ways understood to be ensouled.2
That the Pauline christology assigns real preexistence
to Christ is so obvious that it can be denied only in a
most unworthy spirit of dogmatic desperation. Critics
of the most varied schools admit the assumption by the
apostle of a personal preexistence.3 No other meaning
can reasonally be ascribed to his emphatic description of
a voluntary transition of Christ from an estate of riches
and glory to one of poverty and humiliation.4 The cos
mic function of Christ and the office assigned to Him
under the Old Testament economy involve quite obvi
ously the same conclusion.5
Another indisputable feature of the Pauline christol
ogy is its ascription to Christ of a nature and rank vastly
transcending the proper human scale and reaching up-
1 Rom. i. 3, ix. 5 ; Gal. iv. 4 ; Rom. viii. 3 ; Phil. ii. 7 ; 1 Cor. xv. 45.
2 Bib. Theol. des. neuen Testaments, § 78.
8 Orello Cone by no means takes an uncommon position for the lib
eral critic when he says: "The terms employed by Paul relative to
Christ's coming in the flesh can only by the most violent exegesis be re
garded as applicable to an ideal being or principle existing in the divine
purpose, when we consider how they must have been understood by his
readers." (Paul, the Man, the Missionary, and Teacher, p. 305).
4 2 Cor. viii. 9 ; Phil. ii. 6-8. 5 Col. i. 16, 17 j 1 Cor. x. 4.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 221
ward to a divine plane. A glance at the more salient
features of that christology will show that the above
terms are not too emphatic, (i) Christ is represented/
as having a distinct headship over all creaturely ranks.'
No kind of dignitary beneath the divine throne is allowed
to come into competition with Him.1 (2) The names
applied to Christ are such as naturally associate Him
with a divine sphere. He is in a preeminent and dis
tinctive sense the Son of God, manifested indeed to be
such by His resurrection,2 but in nature and relation th4
Son before, as well as after, His appearance in the flesh.3!
He bears the name of Lord (/cvpios), and that in the
midst of statements analogous to or identical with those
which in the Old Testament set off the name of Deity.4
It is not disproved that in one instance, outside of the
Pastoral Epistles, the term 0eo? is applied to Christ,
namely in Rom. ix. 5. If, on the one hand, exegetes of
a conservative tendency are not entirely unanimous in
connecting the high ascription of this verse with Christ,
some who are quite the reverse of conservative in tem
per do not deny the propriety of so interpreting. Pflei
derer, for example, decides that to separate the ascription
at the end of the verse from the name of Christ in the
preceding part is forced, and also unnecessary in con
sideration of the fact that in Pauline usage 0eo? is not
always used in a different sense from that of «i5/>to?.5
(3) In various instances an office like that of the Holyj
iCol. ii. 10, 15, 19; Eph. i. 21-23.
2 Rom. i. 4. 8 Rom. viii. 3 ; Gal. iv. 4 : Col. i. 13-15.
4Rom. x. 9-13 ; 1 Cor. x. 21, 22 ; 2 Cor. iii.j 16; 2 Thess. i. 9.
6 The Influence of the Apostle Paul, p. 55.

222 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Spirit in respect of spiritual presence and efficacy is as
signed to Christ. His inner nature is described as " the
spirit of holiness."1 He is designated as the spiritual
rock which followed and refreshed the fathers in the
wilderness.2 He is described as being in the sphere of
His ascension a "life-giving spirit."3 In opposition to
the Mosaic letter, He is declared to be the Spirit whose
presence brings liberty.4 Even as the Holy Spirit is
resident in believers, so Christ is conceived to dwell in
their hearts in answer to their faith.5 It is needless to
add that this coordination of the agency of Christ's
pneumatic nature with that of the Holy Spirit is sugges
tive of a personality quite above the creaturely range.
(4) Endowments and functions are assigned to Christ
which are appropriate to a divine plane of being. All
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are said to be
•bidden in Him.6 In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the
Godhead bodily.7 He is the one Lord through whom
land unto whom are all things; and He is before all
things, and in Him all things consist.8 The awards of
-the judgment day are in His hand, and before the ulti
mate display of His glory and might all that opposes
shall sink into impotence.9 He is the source of grace,
being so designated in every epistle, either by Himself,
or in conjunction with the Father. In the presence of
the greatness and universality of His saving office earthly
1 Rom i. 4. See Meyer, Lipsius, Godet, Sanday, and Denney.
2 1 Cor. x. 4. 6 Col. ii. 3.
8 1 Cor. xv. 45. ' Col. ii. 9.
* 2 Cor. iii. 17, 18. 8 1 Cor. viii. 6; Col. i. 16, 17.
6 Eph. iii. 17 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 5. 9 2 Cor. v. 10 ; 2 Thess. i. 7, 8, ii. 8.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 223
distinctions fade away. He is all and in all.1 The true
believer acknowledges Him as his life, and looks toward
Him as the goal of His intensest aspiration.2 In short,
it is as clear as the daylight that in Paul's view ChristV
rose transcendently above the ordinary creaturely plane. I
In manifold ways he ascribes to Him the practical value -
of divinity. It cannot fairly be doubted that he esteemed
Him to be in an altogether unique way related to the
Father, metaphysically the Son of God and as such an
terior to the created universe.
On the other hand Paul seems to have recognized a
certain subordination of the Son to the Father. This
feature in his christology may have been due in part to
the measure in which he unfolds the subject from an
economic standpoint. One contemplating Christ fulfill
ing in the servant form His historic office could very
naturally apply to Him forms of expression which would
never be suggested in considering Him solely as the
preexisting Son of God. Since He was actually the
Son of Man, it is no cause for surprise that one or
another phrase appropriate to that category should be
in evidence, as well as a long list of expressions appro
priate to the higher category. Even John, after declar
ing unequivocally the divinity of Christ, could represent
Him to have associated Himself so far with the common
human standpoint as to designate the Father "my God."
An expression of the same order with Paul is no more
than with John an index of a simple humanitarian theory.
It is to be granted, nevertheless, that in the total repre
sentation of Paul a certain primacy of rank, a certain
1 Col. iii. 1 1. 2 Col. iii. 4 ; Phil. iii. 8, 9.

224 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
headship over the Son, is ascribed to the Father. Just
how this was conceived is not to be determined from the
data which the apostle has given. We are confident,
however, that it was not conceived in the sense of the
more extreme interpretation of i Cor. xv. 24, 28. This
passage is an emphatic description of the recession of
the Son from the theatre of His mediatorial work, and
of the all-comprehending unity which at that point is to
be revealed. To suppose that the apostle thought of the
recession of the Son in all respects from an exalted plane
of lordship is to suppose an incredible disjunction in
teaching. He represents this same Son as subsisting
in the form of God before entering upon His office of
mediation, as the being through whom and unto whom
all things were created, as the goal of his own highest
hopes and deepest aspirations. How then could he think
of Him as being really displaced from lordship ? A soul
so worshipful in its attitude toward Christ as that of
Paul, so enkindled with love to Him, so pervaded with a
sense of spiritual dependence upon Him, could not picture
for Him a place in the heavenly and eternal kingdom
inferior to that which is assigned in the lofty imagery of
the Johannine Apocalypse.
In two instances Paul describes in emphatic terms the
transition of Christ from His antecedent state of riches
and glory into the state of humiliation.1 In recent times
speculative christology has built upon these representa
tions a radical doctrine of kenosis or self-depotentiation,
to the effect that the Son of God, stripping Himself of
the divine mode of being, came, in respect of conscious
l2 Cor. viii. 9; Phil. ii. 6, 7.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 225
life and activity, wholly into the measure and mode of a
human soul at the beginning of its career. The incarna
tion, it is claimed, meant the immeasurable transformation
from a divine to a purely human mode of subsistence, out
of which by a process of development the divine mode
was at length regained. Some names of considerable
theological eminence have been subscribed to the doc
trine. But it has little chance of coming into the
ascendant. Not only is it rationally indefensible ; it is
exegetically gratuitous. So far as we are able to judge,
the weight of New Testament scholarship is decidedly
on the side of the conclusion that Paul did not design to
describe a metaphysical kenosis, a real self-depotentiation,
but only a change as to form of manifestation. His
thought was, that the pree'xistent Son, instead of being
disclosed in His native divine form, resplendent with a
glory correspondent with His rank, presented Himself
to the human race in the form of a servant. The sup
position that in the incarnation He was lost to Himself,
temporarily self -eliminated, is not required by the apostle's
language. It is not certain that Paul was ready to answer all
sorts of questions about the nature and divine relation of
Christ. While he has made statements which serve as
a ground of metaphysical inference, he dwelt preemi
nently in the sphere of practical contemplation. In
emphasis on the actual value of Christ to the individual
and the race he reached a mark which no later writer,
whether an Augustine, a Bernard of Clairvaux, a Luther,
or a Wesley, has transcended. The most fervid hymns
which the Christian centuries have produced evince no

226 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
warmer devotion than that which informs his words. It
is worth while to read his epistles a score of times, just
to get the measure of his love for Christ, and to see into
what glorious captivity that love could transport a stal
wart man. VI. — The Holy Spirit.
It was noticed in the preceding section that Paul
in some instances ascribes to the pneumatic nature of
Christ such offices as in other connections he associates
with the Holy Spirit. This may indicate that in respect
of spiritual agency he did not set off the province of the
one from that of the other by any distinct line of demar
cation. It by no means proves that he identified the
Itwo. His total representation offers us reasons for
"thinking that he did not. If he speaks in some in
stances of the Spirit of Christ as operative in men,1 he
speaks in more numerous instances of the Spirit of God
/as thus operative.2 The apostle accordingly gives no
| ground for merging the Holy Spirit into the person of
the Son rather than into the person of the Father. If
it should be concluded that he meant to give no distinct
standing to the Holy Spirit, the necessary inference
would be, that he felt at liberty to apply the name now
to the Father and now to the Son, according as he might
wish to represent the one or the other as operative in
the spiritual domain. As regards the question of his
intent to postulate a distinct standing for the Spirit, the
data are not very abundant, since he treats the subject
1 Rom. viii. io ; Gal. iv. 6.
2 Rom. viii. 9 ; 1 Cor. iii. 16, vi. 11, xii. 3 ; 2 Cor. iii. 3 ; Eph. iv. 30.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY

227

from the economic or practical point of view. The facts
to be noticed are that in various connections he mentions
the Spirit alongside of the Father, or alongside of the
Son, or together with both.1 Thus his language is as
suggestive of the trinitarian conception as any discourse
could be expected to be which was not governed by a
distinct effort at metaphysical construction.
The distinctive feature in Paul's doctrine of the Holy
Spirit is its stress upon His agency in the production
and sustentation of Christain character as such, His im
manence to the believer as a source of sanctification. It
is not to be supposed that this point of view was ignored,
much less consciously discarded, by any group of Chris
tian teachers. Yet it must be confessed that there are
tokens in the first part of Acts of a disposition to empha
size in particular the charismatic working of the Spirit.
According to the tenor of the Samaritan incident, re
counted in the eighth chapter, the presence of the Spirit
seems to have been identified with a special afflatus
manifesting itself in such sensible tokens that any by
stander, though of the stamp of Simon Magus, could
recognize them in their peculiarity. Paul on his part
also gives a place to this charismatic working, but he
unequivocally assigns to it a subordinate rank. The
great office of the Spirit, as he represents it, is to pro
duce in men the ethical and religious values which fill
out character to its proper ideal. The fruits of His
presence are love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness,
goodness, faithfulness, meekness, temperance.2 With
1 Rom. viii. 16, 26, 27 j I Cor. vi. 11 ; 2 Cor. vi. 6, 7, xiii. 14; Eph. ii
18, iv. 4-6.
2 Gal. v. 22.

228 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
these fruits no equipment of mere power can compete.
The ability to speak with tongues or to remove moun
tains is a poor accomplishment, in comparison with the
love which enkindles to all well-doing and consumes all
inclination to ill-doing.1 Here the teaching of the apostle
comes grandly into line with that of the Synoptical
Gospels, with its profound emphasis upon the worthless-
ness of any and every performance in the name of religion
when divorced from an ethical basis.

VII. — The Reconciling Work of Christ.
Eminent exponents of the liberal school of criticism
in recent times have concluded that in Paul's exposition
of the redemptive work of Christ the " objective-
juridical " and the " subjective-ethical " representation
run side by side, and that neither is sacrificed or subor
dinated to the other.2 Exponents of a more conserva
tive scholarship also quite generally acknowledge that
the two forms of representation are closely associated in
the Pauline writings. In our opinion this is the view
which has the best exegetical right. It is to be con
fessed, both that Paul gave a place to an objective
aspect, and that he joined with this a very decided stress
upon a subjective aspect. In other words, it is necessary
to credit him with the conviction that Christ's work,
especially as consummated in His death, met at once a
1 1 Cor. xiii. See also Rom. v. 5, viii. 14-16, xiv. 17; 1 Cor. vi. 19;
2 Cor. xiii. 14; I Thess. i. 6; Eph. i. 13, 14, iv. 30.
2 Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutest. Theol. II. 117 ; Pfleiderer, Ur-
christenthum, 223-236.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 229
demand of the divine character and administration, and
a need on man's part for a most potent incentive to faith
and obedience.
A preliminary ground for the conclusion that Paul's
thinking included the objective aspect is found in the
fact that it was not foreign to the religious mind in his
day. As has been noticed, the Pharisaic school in which
he was trained, while not on the whole well affected
toward the specific notion of a suffering Messiah, was
committed to the idea that, in virtue of the solidarity of
Israel, the suffering of one member might have atoning
worth in behalf of another. Then too the Hebrew
Scriptures were easily suggestive of the possibility of an
efficacious offering for sin. The picture in the fifty-
third chapter of Isaiah could not well be excluded from
the mind of a disciple who was inquiring after the mean
ing of the crucifixion of his Lord. It was not necessary,
therefore, for the apostle to travel afar in order to reach
the notion of an atoning or reconciling work that was
inclusive of an objective aspect.
A more positive ground for imputing this notion to
the apostle is found in his recognition of a wrath
element in God.1 The recoil of the divine nature from
sin, though not viewed as excluding compassion toward
the sinner, was regarded as most genuine. It is quite
conceivable therefore that it should have been accounted
a thing to be reckoned with in a general plan for dealing
with sinners. The fact that man, rather than God, is
represented to be reconciled does not prove that it was
considered a matter of indifference to God how He
1 Rom. i. 18, iii. 5, v. 9 ; Eph. v. 6.

230 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
should set to work to bridge over the chasm between
Himself and the offending race. This representation
naturally followed from the emphasis which, in the mind
of the apostle, was placed upon the truth that it is God
who takes the initiative in the scheme of reconciliation.
There is no denial here of the divine recoil against sin.
God is the reconciler as instituting the whole scheme of
reconciliation ; it may be also that He is viewed as rec
onciled in the sense that the scheme of reconciliation
is so constituted as to express His judgment against sin,
and thus to take away the barrier to the fullest expres
sion of His grace toward sinners. In briefer terms, He
may be viewed as satisfying the demands of His right
eousness through the special method of His grace.
Proceeding a step further, we note that Paul indicates
quite clearly his conviction that the work of Christ was
actually a tribute to the wrath or righteousness side of
the divine nature, and that there was real occasion for
such a tribute in connection with a dispensation of meas
ureless grace. In Rom. iii. 25 he speaks of Christ as
being in His death a propitiation or means of propitia
tion ; and the context indicates that the motive for the
propitiation was the practical necessity of showing forth
the righteousness of God, as against an appearance of
laxity or indulgence toward sin.1 Faith is associated
1 This much of meaning inheres in the passage even though the
term tAao-nypiov be rendered " mercy-seat " rather than " propitiation."
In the given context a blood-stained mercy-seat must be regarded as
symbolically declarative of the idea of atonement or propitiation. As
respects choice between the two renderings, reference to the terminology
of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament and to patristic inter
pretation would dictate a preference for the expression "mercy-seat."

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 231
with the propitiation as the indispensable instrument for
personal realization of the benefit for which it provides.
The propitiation itself is contemplated as essentially
consummated once for all by the death of the sinless
Redeemer. In virtue of it God appears as just, or
supremely regardful of the claims of righteousness, while
yet He graciously pardons him that hath faith in Jesus.
In various connections the apostle uses language which
is substantially equivalent, in its suggestion of an objec
tive aspect of atonement, to the description of Christ's
work as a means of propitiation. He gives to Christ's
death the value of an offset to the condemnatory sen
tence of the law, declaring that Christ redeemed us from
the curse of the law, having become a curse for us.1 He
says similarly that God made Him who knew no sin to
be sin on our behalf.2 He speaks of reconciliation in
the past tense, or as something accomplished by the
death of Christ while we were yet enemies of God — a
form of expression which suggests that he considered
the death of Christ as the basis of reconciliation, the
On the other hand, the sudden intrusion of an image which affords no
real explanation of the foregoing statement, and which involves the
awkward indentification of Christ with the lid of an ark on which sacri
ficial blood was sprinkled rather than with the sacrifice itself, is some
thing which one may justly hesitate to attribute to the apostle. It is
not a matter for surprise, therefore, to find a considerable tendency in
recent exegesis to accept " propitiation " or " propitiatory "as the proper
translation of iXtwrrfptov. While Olshausen, Philippi, Tholuck, Lange,
Cremer, Ritschl, Gifford and Terry have advocated the superior claim
of the term " mercy-seat," Meyer, Lipsius, Godet, Sanday, Denney,
Stevens, Garvie, Cone and others have justified the rendering which
appears in our standard English versions.
1 Gal. iii. 13. 2 2 Cor. v. 21.

232 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
ground of the gracious economy in which forgiveness of
sins is assured.1 A like implication is contained in the
statement that through one act of righteousness the free
gift came upon all men to justification of life.2 This
act of righteousness, if not to be identified with Christ's
obedience unto death must still be regarded, according
to the analogy of Paul's teaching in Rom. iii. 24-26, as
based upon the same, and is accordingly indicative of the
idea that the general dispensation of grace is founded in
Christ's death. A hint in the same order is contained
in this collocation of question and answer, " Who is he
that condemneth ? It is Christ that died." 3 The words
perhaps do not necessarily point to the death of Christ
as an objective basis of acquittal, but in the light of
preceding statements in the same epistle they are very
naturally taken in that sense. It is likewise permissible
to put in evidence expressions to the effect that Christ
died for our sins,4 or that we are justified by His blood.5
In the dialect of the age . such expressions were asso
ciated with sacrificial offerings for the removing of sins.6
Finally the death of Christ seems to be set forth as the
basis of the universal offer and dispensation of pardon
in the strong words, " In whom we have our redemption
through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses." 7
The marked antithesis which the apostle asserts be
tween Christ, as the sinless Redeemer, and all men as
sinners, and the vital sense which he manifests of un-
1 Rom. v. 10. 2 Rom. v. 18. 8 Rom. viii. 34.
4 I Cor. xv. 3. 6 Rom. v. 9.
8 See 1 Cor. v. 7 ; Eph. v. 2; Heb. v. 1, vii. 27, ix. 7, 12.
1 Eph. i. 7.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 233
qualified obligation to His saving office, are a sufficient
guaranty that he did not think of himself, or of any
other, as a real partner in Christ's work of atonement.
When, therefore, he speaks of filling up that which is
lacking of the afflictions of Christ1, it cannot be his design
to intimate that he expects to supplement the propitia
tory or atoning work of the Saviour — a work which in
fact is not described elsewhere in the New Testament by
the term employed here (0\tyis). Two interpretations
may claim consideration. It is possible that the apostle
in this connection spoke in a general way of the afflictions
of Christ as endured for the kingdom, without reference
to their atoning virtue, and from this point of view con
sidered them as properly followed up in the suffering of
Christians for the kingdom. As Lightfoot notes, suf
ferings may be either satisfactorial or aedificatorial, hav
ing an efficacy to found a gracious economy, or serving
to build up the Church, and in sufferings of the latter
kind any faithful Christian may share. Again it is pos
sible that Paul spoke from the standpoint of a very vivid
conception of mystical union with the Redeemer, and
deemed it admissible to designate as Christ's afflictions
those which His members are called upon to endure in His
name arid for His sake. This interpretation has the ad
vantage of superior simplicity, and is withal quite congenial
to the Pauline way of thinking. 2
As was stated, the objective point of view by no means
absorbed the whole attention of the apostle. If he re
garded Christ, on the one hand, as the atoning Redeemer
1 Col. i. 24.
2 Compare Peake, Expositor's Greek Testament, III. 514, 515.

234 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
upon whose work of holy obedience and self-sacrifice
the universal economy of grace rests, he regarded Him
on the other hand as an actual power of life in the midst
of humanity. By His great deed of love He draws men
into a faith and a fellowship which are profoundly effica
cious to renovate character. He that truly believes upon
Him can be said to be crucified with Him, and with Him
to be risen from the dead. 1 The law of the Spirit of
Life in Him makes free from the law of sin and death.2
His cross is the symbol of a virtue which extirpates the
old selfish and worldly inclination, and transports a man
into a new world of love and service.3 The believer is in
Christ. There is, so to speak, an effective contact, a
mystical union, between him and the life-giving person
ality of his Lord.4
It is congruous with this point of view that Paul gives
to the resurrection of Christ a close association with His
saving office.5 His resurrection serves to make practi
cally effective the divine lesson contained in His death.
It shows that His death was not the death of a sinner
but of a Saviour. It presents Him also as victorious
over the last enemy. Accordingly it stimulates to faith
in Him as an adequate source of life for the present and
the future. Only the risen Christ, victorious over death,
Himself an heir of incorruption, can invite to faith in His
vocation to be a creative and quickening power in men
and a bearer to them of eternal life.
1 Rom. vi.5-9. 2Rom. viii. 2.
8Gal. ii. 20, vi. 14; 2 Cor. v. 15, 17.
4Rom. viii. 1; I Cor.i.30; 2 Cor. xiii. 5; Eph. ii. 7, iii. 17.iv.15, 16;
Col. iii. 3, 4.
6 Rom. iv. 25; 1 Cor. xv. 14; Phil. iii. 10.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY

235

Very different degrees of appreciation have been
awarded, and are likely still to be awarded, to these two
sides of Christ's work. The fact which biblical theology
has to recognize is that the two aspects are closely asso
ciated together in the Pauline exposition of the office of
the Redeemer.
The apostle, it may be noticed, while evidently pene
trated most deeply with the sense of the importance of
Christ's death in the economy of grace, has not occupied
much space in explaining the inestimable value which he
attached thereto. He has made it clear, however, that
he considered Christ's delivery of Himself to the ordeal
of the cross, to have been a great ethical deed, and has
given reason for believing that he esteemed the ethical
quality of the deed indispensable to its value. This ap
pears in the antithesis which he draws between the dis
obedient Adam and the obedient Christ. x In more
succinct terms the same conviction is intimated in the
words which picture the humbled Son of God as " becom
ing obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the
cross. " 2 Herein a basis is afforded for a close association
between the death and the life, since the obedience
which came to a culminating expression in the cross ran
through the whole career of the incarnated Redeemer.
VIII. — Justification and Regeneration.
The juxtaposition of these two terms is not inappropri
ate. As justice cannot be done to Paul's theory of the
reconciling work of Christ without taking account of two
!Rom. v. 12-21. 2Phil. ii. 8.

236 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
different but closely associated aspects, so is it with re
spect to his theory of the appropriation of salvation by
the individual. It has an objective aspect, and in that
view is justification. It has also, distinguishable in
thought, but not separable in fact, a subjective aspect,
and from that standpoint may be styled regeneration.
The weight of Protestant scholarship is very distinctly
on the side of the conclusion that Paul used the term
justification in the objective, judicial sense, making it to
denote the pardon of its subject, or his induction into an
approved standing before God, rather than the fact of
his being made just or righteous by an inner transforma
tion.1 In favor of this consensus of interpretation may
be cited in the first place the meaning which antecedent
and contemporary Jewish usage assigned to the Greek
word (Bitccuovv) which is rendered to "justify." The
word occurs about forty-five times in the Septuagint, and
almost invariably, if not quite so, in the objective or judi
cial sense. It is used in the like sense in the Pseudepi-
graphic writings, such as the Psalms of Solomon, Fourth
Ezra, and the Apocalypse of Baruch.2 In the second
place reference may be made to the statement of Paul
respecting the impossibility of justification by the works
of the law. This impossibility was evidently affirmed by
him on the ground that the law will inevitably condemn
a man because of his imperfect fulfillment of its precepts.
The failure of the legal method to bring justification is
1 Weiss, Holtzmann, Beyschlag, Pfleiderer, Lipsius, F. Nitzsch, Kaf
tan, Meyer, Godet, Sanday, Bruce, Stevens, and Cone are a few of the
many who so interpret.
2 Sanday, Comm. on Romans, p. 31.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 237
thus identified with its inability to remove the condemna
tion or curse of the law.1 But if lack of justification is
made synonymous with condemnation, it is quite obvious
that justification is designed to express an approving
sentence. A third evidence in favor of the objective
signification is found in sentences which place justifica
tion in direct contrast with condemnation. The follow
ing will serve as examples : " Not as through one that
sinned, so also is the free gift; for the judgment came
of one unto condemnation, but the free gift came of
many trespasses unto justification."2 "Who shall lay
anything to the charge of God's elect ? It is God that
justifieth; who is he that shall condemn?"3 Still an
other very clear indication that Paul attached the objec
tive meaning to justification is contained in his use of the
term "reckon" or "impute" (\oy%ofiai) in connections
where justification was the subject under discussion.
Here belongs a large part of the fourth chapter of
Romans. The case of Abraham is treated by the
apostle as a typical case. He sees in it a foreshadowing
of the gospel plan of justification. He thus plainly
evinces that in his thought the justification to which he
is pointing out the way is identified with the approving
sentence of God.
The connection suggests a reference to Paul's pecul
iar use of the phrase "the righteousness of God"
(Sueatocrvvr) Oeov). When he speaks of this righteous
ness as something given to man in response to his faith
he seems to treat it as the equivalent of justification.4
1 Compare Rom. iii. 20 and Gal. ii. 16 with Gal. iii. 10, 11.
2 Rom. v. 16. 8 Rom. viii. 33, 34.
4 See Rom. i. 17, iii. 21, 22, x. 3 ; 2 Cor. v. 21.

238 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
In other words, it denotes that approved standing with
God which cannot be gained in the way of legal perform
ance. It is God's righteousness in the sense that He is
its gracious author, the source whence comes the sentence
which takes a man out from a state of condemnation and
consequent spiritual deprivation. It is made man's right
eousness in the sense that by his faith he is set in the
relation of an approved child of God, and given a title to
all the benefits which belong with that relation.
Adoption is a term which is also closely associated
with justification in its objective significance. It denotes
induction into the relation of sonship.1 A subjective
counterpart belongs undoubtedly with the relation. But
the instituting of the relation is as distinctly an objective
transaction as is justification. In fact the one transac
tion differs in conception but slightly from the other.
For God to grant an approving sentence to one whose
normal and designed place is that of a son in His house
hold, is practically equivalent to a distinct instatement
in the relation of sonship. According to the report of
Paul's speech at Athens, he acknowledged that in a cer
tain sense men are by nature children of God.2 But in
his epistles he regards the filial relation as practically
denied by the alienation of men from God, and treating
of them as candidates for a spiritual order of life he
naturally contemplates them as subjects for induction
into sonship.
While Paul gave to the salvation of the individual this
objective aspect, there is not the slightest indication that
he thought of it as separable in fact from that inner ex-
1 Gal. iv. 5 ; Eph. i. 5. 2 Acts xvii. 28, 29.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY

239

perience of grace which initiates and sustains the regen
erate character. The antinomian suggestion that divine
grace may redound to the justification of a man apart
from personal reformation of life he repudiates with the
utmost vigor. To believe upon Christ unto justification
is equivalent in his view to a decisive renunciation of sin.
"We who died to sin," he exclaims, "how shall we any
longer live therein? Our old man was crucified with
Christ that the body of sin might be done away, that so
we should be no longer in bondage to sin." 1 He repre
sents release from condemnation and inward renewal to
be synchronous events. The one who attains unto the
former is made free from the law of sin and death by the
law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, and if any man
hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.2
The condition of justification, and, by reason of intrin
sic connection, of regeneration also, is commonly repre
sented by Paul to be simply faith. The combination of
repentance with faith, which appears in the Synoptical
Gospels, and also the explicit emphasis of those Gospels
upon confession of Christ, are not characteristic of the
recorded teachings of the apostle. There is indeed a
passing reference both to the one and the other.3 But
in Paul's exposition of the conditions of attaining to sal
vation a well-nigh exclusive stress is placed upon faith.
He declares it distinctive of the gospel that therein is
revealed a righteousness of God by faith unto faith.4
He represents faith to be the means of giving practical
effect to the propitiation in the blood of Christ.5 He
1 Rom. vi. 2, 6. 2 Rom. viii. 1, 2 ; Col. iii. 3, 9, 10.
• 2 Cor. vii. 10; Rom. x. 10. 4 Rom. i. 17. 8Rom. iii. 25.

24O NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
makes faith the immediate condition of spiritual sonship.
" Ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Jesus Christ."1
In repeated instances he bases justification upon the sole
condition of faith.2 Moreover, he views faith as being
continuously a principle of the religious life.3
The apostle who conditioned so much upon faith could
not, in all likelihood, have given it a superficial meaning.
The term signified to him much more than mere intel
lectual assent. He has indicated that he thought of
faith as issuing from the centre of man's personality and
expressing his volitional and affectional nature, in that
he says with the heart man believeth unto righteousness.4
A like implication belongs with the description of the
specifically Christian principle as a faith that works by
love.5 To the same effect also is the representation that
faith is a means of vital union with Christ, so uniting its
subject to Him that it becomes appropriate to speak of
a mutual indwelling.6 In short, it is manifest that the
faith which Paul exalts as the condition of salvation
signifies nothing less than a thorough self-committal to
God in Christ. It stands for this great ethical deed,
and so contains implicitly not a little that might be
designated by other names. By virtue of necessary
connections thorough self-committal to God in Christ
involves a penitent forsaking of sin, a loyal confession of
Christ, and a sincere espousal of the path of obedience
to the known will of God.
1 Gal. iii. 26.
2 Rom. iii. 22, 26, 28, iv. 22-25, v. 1, 2 ; Gal. ii. 16, iii. 11, 12. See
also Eph. ii. 8 ; Phil. iii. 9.
8 Gal. ii. 20 ; 2 Cor. v. 7. 4 Rom. x. 10.
6 Gal. v. 6. 6Eph. iii. 17; Gal. ii. 20, iii. 26-28.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 241
Paul did not suppose that faith saves in its own virtue
as a work or personal performance. The antithesis which
he makes between salvation by works and salvation by
the free gift of God in Christ emphatically negatives a
supposition of that sort. The method of faith, he dis
tinctly affirms, is the method according to grace.1 He
conceives, therefore, of faith as the graciously appointed
condition of salvation rather than its meritorious ground.
It is not necessary, however, to imagine that he rated it
as a mere indifferent instrument, serving by appointment
a useful purpose, but having no ethical worth in itself.
Without doubt he considered it to be intrinsically a noble
and ennobling activity of the human spirit, and he has
indicated as much by placing it alongside of hope and
love among the things that have abiding worth.2
In express emphasis upon the office of faith Paul went
beyond all other New Testament writers. He was not,
however, in this matter a fabricator of strange doctrine.
In more poetic and popular form Christ taught the great
lesson that faith, in the sense of trustful self-committal,
is the channel of the divine mercy and of all spiritual
bounty. Nor is it evident that true religion can ration
ally assign any lesser office to faith. Religion in its
highest and purest form is a religion of sonship. As
such it must put faith, or filial self-committal to God, in
the front rank of requirement and privilege.
This remark naturally directs attention to the fact that
in Paul's view the faith which justifies normally issues
into a filial consciousness. To be a living Christian and
to have a filial consciousness were evidently closely re-
1 Rom. iv. 16. 2 I Cor. xiii. 13.

242 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
lated, if not identical, ideas in his mind. To the brethren
at Rome he writes, " Ye received not the spirit of bond
age again unto fear ; but ye received the spirit of adop
tion, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit Him
self beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the
children of God." x The witness with, as specified here,
must evidently be at the same time a witness to the
human spirit, since no third party is contemplated. The
meaning is that the activity of the Divine Spirit and the
accordant or responsive movement of the Christian's own
spirit result in a lively sense of a filial standing. As to
the mode of the former there is no definite specification.
The theory of immediate communication has its advo
cates, but the apostle's language does not exclude the
supposition that the Holy Spirit works dynamically and
effects assurance mediately, that is, by enkindling and
sustaining the filial temper which cannot well refrain
from calling unto God as Father.
In a preceding paragraph reasons were stated for the
conclusion that certain sentences of Paul, which give
emphatic expression to the idea of divine sovereignty,
were not designed to teach that men are arbitrarily in
ducted into the kingdom or excluded therefrom. It is
proper to notice here that there are representations in
the Pauline epistles which bear strongly against a partic
ularistic theory, and invite to the belief that the high
privilege of sonship is truly set before every man. Such
is the antithesis which is drawn between Adam and
Christ in the fifth chapter of Romans. Who can read
this chapter without discovering that the apostle meant
1 Rom. viii. 15, 16. Compare Gal. iv. 6.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 243
to describe the grace of God in Christ as matching, or
overmatching, the evil consequences of Adam's fault ?
In fact the free gift is described as being for as many
as are touched by the blight and condemnation. Again,
in the tenth and eleventh chapters of the same epistle,
as has been noticed already, God is represented to so
manipulate the course of history as shall conduce to the
ingathering of the greatest possible number of both Jews
and Gentiles. Furthermore, it is to be observed that
Paul does not hesitate to speak of Christ as having died
for all, or to name the world as the object of the scheme
of reconciliation.1 It is not a little significant, too, that
in spite of his luminous confidence as to his standing
before God he speaks of the necessity of practising self-
discipline, lest he himself should be rejected after having
preached to others.2 That does not look as if he con
ceived of personal destiny as fixed by an unconditional
decree.
IX. — The Unfoldment and Manifestation of the
New Life.
In setting forth the ideal of the Christian life Paul
was far from contenting himself with drawing a general
outline. He speaks indeed of sanctification, but he
speaks far more frequently of the several elements of a
rounded character. It is quite plain that he never
imagined that any one could properly be labelled as
entirely sanctified, or perfected religiously, who might
still be lacking in love, meekness, patience, gentleness
1 2 Cor. v. 14, 19. 2 1 Cor. ix. 27.

244 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
or any other Christian virtue. His ideal was inclusive
of positive spiritual health and fullness, as well as exclu
sive of perversities and impotences. To reach it was
not by any means, in his view, a mere matter of washing
away blots and stains. Judging from references to his
own struggle and endeavor,1 we may conclude that he
had very slight confidence in the ability of any one to
reach the goal by a sudden spring.
A large place in Paul's ideal of Christian character is
given to love. He regards it as the flower of faith, the
consummation of the spiritual excellence to which faith
opens up the way. Faith is its antecedent, inasmuch
as faith initiates the fellowship in which love grows.
But here the child may be regarded as surpassing the
parent. Not only does the apostle distinctly award to
love the primacy in the immortal epitome of ethical
religion contained in the thirteenth chapter of First
Corinthians ; he often commends it as the chief spiritual
value. He teaches the Romans that love, as incapable
of working ill, is the fulfillment of the law.2 He enforces
the obligation of love in his address to the Ephesians by
appealing to the divine illustration of its beauty and
efficacy given in Christ, and prays that they may be
rooted and grounded in love.3 He exhorts the Colos
sians to put on, above all things, love which is the bond
of perfectness.4 He asks for the Thessalonians that the
Lord would make them to increase and abound in love
one toward another, and toward all men ; and while he
acknowledges their praiseworthy exhibition of brotherly
1 i Cor. ix. 27; Phil. iii. 12, 14. 8 Eph. v. 1, 2, iii. 17.
2 Rom. xiii. 9, 10. 4 Col. iii. 14.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 245
affection, he urges them to abound in love more and
more.1 In the apostle's eulogy of love he contrasts it not only
with all gifts of power, but also with knowledge, quite to
the disparagement of the relative worth of the latter.
Our present knowledge, he conceives, is so partial and
fragmentary, that it will pass away before the higher
disclosures of the future, much as the child's stock of
ideas gives place to the maturer thoughts of manhood.2
Also in relation to the conditions of present enlighten
ment he emphasizes the incompetency of worldly wisdom
to take the place of a truly religious disposition.3 Never
theless, the apostle has no thought of rating knowledge
at a low figure. His strictures are aimed against the
assignment to it of inappropriate offices. He includes
growth in knowledge in the Christian ideal. Thus he
prays for the Philippians that their love may abound in
knowledge and all discernment.4 In like manner he
prays for the Colossians that they may be filled with the
knowledge of God's will in all spiritual wisdom and
understanding, and reminds them that they have put on
the new man, which is being renewed unto knowledge
after the image of Him that created him.5 For the
Ephesians also he makes request of God that He would
give unto them the spirit of wisdom and revelation in
the knowledge of Him.6 He invites them, moreover,
to a high estimate of the worth of knowledge when he
describes the aim of all church instrumentalities to be
" the building up of the body of Christ, till we all attain
1 1 Thess. iii. 12, iv. 9, 10. 2 1 Cor. xiii. 8-12. 8i Cor. i. 17-25,11.
* Phil. i. 9. 6 Col. i. 9, 10, iii. 9, 10. 6 Eph. i. 17.

246 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the
Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto the measure of
the stature of the fulness of Christ : that we may be no
longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with
every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in crafti
ness, after the wiles of error ; but speaking the truth in
love, may grow up in all things into Him, which is the
head even Christ." 1 Doubtless the apostle might have
awarded a larger consideration to earthly science as
likely in the long run to favor the maintenance of sound
religious conceptions. But that is a point of view with
which he does not deal. He conteniplates knowledge
only in its more immediate and evident connection with
religious interests. He manifestly rates it highly where
it stands in congenial relations with faith and love.
A noticeable feature in Paul's Christian ideal is the
combination which it exhibits of the gentler virtues with
the more heroic. The commendation of patience, forbear
ance, sympathy, long-suffering, gentleness, and the spirit
of forgiveness occupies no inconsiderable portion of his
epistles.2 Less space is given to the inculcation of manful energy,
courage, and devotion ; but enough is said in their behalf
to show that the apostle regarded tender considerateness
and militant force to be perfectly compatible attributes
of the Christian disciple. The same epistle which re
cords the exhortation to be tender-hearted and forgiving,
records also the exhortation to be strong in the Lord, and
1 Eph. iv. 12-15.
2 Rom. xii. 10-21, xiv. 13-20, xv. 1-3; 2 Cor. vi. 6; Ga>. v. 22, 23;
Eph. iv. 1-3,31, 32; Phil. iv. 5; Col. i. 11, iii. 12, 13; 1 Thess. v. 14.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 247
to stand against principalities and powers clad in the
whole armor of God.1 Within the limits of a couple of
sentences are given these injunctions : " Let all that ye
do be done in love " ; " stand fast in the faith, quit you
like men, be strong."2 The apostle, in short, repro
duces in the form of precepts the ideal which Christ ex
hibited in the form of a real life among men. Beyond
question the image of the historical Christ was often in
his mind as he wrote to his converts such instructions as
might assist them to attain unto " a full grown man."
The judgment has been expressed in a few instances
that the Pauline theology makes no provision for progres
sive sanctification, inasmuch as it rates the experience in
justification and regeneration as all-transforming, a trans
ference into a state of essential perfection. One can
only wonder where this eccentric criticism obtained its
petty inch rule for measuring the teaching of Paul.
Doubtless the apostle, in the transition epoch in which he
wrought, had an urgent call to clarify the conditions of
entering the Christian life, and devoted a very consider
able part of his discourse to this topic. Doubtless also
he profoundly accentuated the transformation which re
sults to the believing soul from earnest trustful self com
mittal to God as revealed in Christ, and vigorously set
forth the conclusion that such a soul should reckon itself
entirely dead unto sin. But what less could he do in
justice to the theme ? That he painted in glowing terms
the ideal is no sort of token that he ignored the discrep
ancy between the actual and the ideal. Who can read
his epistles, and not perceive that he saw with open
1Eph. iv, 32, vi. 10-17. 2 J Cor. xvi. 13, 14.

248 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
eyes the shortcomings of contemporary Christians ? Who
can take even a casual glance at his messages to his
disciples, and not discover that his heart was filled with
a great and ceaseless anxiety that all who had received
the saving word from him might be so transformed by
the renewing of their mind as to prove the perfect will
of God, might follow after love until they should be
rooted and grounded therein, might walk in the Spirit
until they should exemplify all His fruits, might attain
unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,
might be sanctified wholly ? Indeed, one who runs may
read the conviction of the apostle that a goal of spiritual
attainment lies distinctly ahead of the converted man, so
that he has abundant need to press forward. But, it is
alleged, Paul lays down no plan for progressively achiev
ing the needed sanctification. Perhaps he does not in an
explicit and formal manner. He does not take pains to
distinguish between the demands of the first stage of
Christian life and those of subsequent stages. But why
should he ? Vital union with the Father, through the
Son, by the bond of faith, is as much the fundamental
demand of all later stages as it is of the primary. And
closely linked with this demand is the requirement that
conduct in all varied spheres should be actively directed
toward conformity to the practical dictates of this union.
This latter requirement Paul has not failed to urge with
great vigor. While he emphasizes the futility of depend
ence for salvation upon a scheme of works, he never in
the least disparages good works as a matter of obligation,
congruity, and logical necessity on the part of the reborn
man. It appears, therefore, that his disciples were not

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 249
left without very positive suggestions and directions as to
the means of perfecting themselves in Christian character.
The conditions of the apostolic era naturally dictated
that only a subordinate consideration should be given to
the subject of civic virtue and responsibility. The fact
that the management of the State was in the hands of the
unbelieving wrought with the expectation that the age
would be short to incline Christian teachers to treat but
briefly of political duties. Paul takes up the theme only
to enforce the obligation of Christians to submit con
scientiously to the authority of the State. His vision of
the kingdom of Christ as overpassing all bounds of par
ticular nations and countries does not seem to have bred
in his mind any disposition to ignore the claims of regular
governments. At any rate he strongly accentuates the
duty of subjection to those in power as being ordained of
God for the public weal.1 The qualifications upon civil
allegiance which conscience and the commands of God
may logically involve, he leaves his disciples to discover
and apply for themselves. His judgment that it is un^
seemly for Christians to carry their disputes before the
secular tribunals may be expressed in terms disparaging
to the notion of believers being judged by the unbeliev
ing.2 But the stress here is not so much upon the fact
of the judgment being rendered by the outside tribunal,
as upon its being voluntarily sought by quarrelsome Chris
tians, in place of their trying for a settlement at home.
Doubtless the apostle did not intend to hint that slight
consideration is in general due to the jurisdiction of the
1 Rom. xiii. 1-7. 2 1 Cor. vi. 1-8.

250 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
secular power. It is one thing to respect and obey the
guardian of civil order ; it is quite another thing volun
tarily to seek his decision in a case of variance between
brethren. As Paul was conservative in his teaching on the alle
giance due to the State, so also he was far from the de
sign to precipitate social revolution. In relation to slav
ery he contented himself with urging humane treatment
from the side of the master and willing service from the
side of the bondman. His contribution to the cause of
emancipation lay in his distinct proclamation of the es
sential equality of men in Christ. In no other form
probably could he have made so effective a contribution.
In Paul's conception of Christian life in relation to the
domestic sphere some contrasted points of view may be
noticed. On the one hand, though disclaiming all
thought of abridging personal liberty, he expresses a
certain preference for the unmarried life.1 On the other
hand, he dignifies marriage as a holy union in the bonds
of love fit to be compared to the union of Christ with
His Church.2 On the one hand, he teaches the subordi
nation of woman to man.3 On the other hand, he affirms
that in Christ distinctions of male and female have no
place any more than distinctions of Jew and Greek.4 To
bring complete unity of view out of these contrasts is
not altogether easy. But the outcome seems to be
about this : (i) Entrance into the marriage relation is
contemplated by Paul as the general rule for Christians.
He considers, however, that in individual instances the
1 I Cor. vii. 8 i Cor. xi. 3-10.
2 Eph. v. 22-23. * Gal- m- 28.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 25 I
ends of personal piety and religious service may be best
attained by abstinence from marriage. In commending
this abstinence he appears to have been influenced, to a
considerable extent, by the troublous conditions of the
time and the expected approach of the day of Christ's
coming. (2) Spiritually man and woman, in Paul's view,
stand upon the same plane ; but to subserve the ends of
household and social order the husband has been vested
with a certain headship over the wife. This headship,
however, is properly fulfilled only as it is patterned after
the self-sacrificing and loving headship of Christ. " Hus
bands ought so to love their own wives as their own
bodies. He that loveth his own wife loveth himself : for
no man ever hated his own flesh ; but nourisheth it, even
as Christ also the Church." (3) Possibly, as has been
alleged by some critics, Paul did not fully transcend the
antique view of the relative position of the two sexes.
But if any of his statements need to be modified, he has
himself afforded a basis for the necessary modification in
his strong declarations respecting the elimination of all
artificial distinctions in and through Christ.
The emphatic view which Paul held of the marriage
union naturally inclined him to accord a very scanty
place to divorce. He mentions, however, one ground as
justifiying the nullification of the marriage bond. If the
unbelieving partner will not abide with the believing or
Christian partner, let the former depart. "A brother
or a sister is not under bondage in such cases." a Exe
getes differ on the question whether in this statement
the apostle licenses the remarriage of the deserted part-
1 1 Cor. vii. 12-15.

252 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
ner. In our view, the words "not under bondage" favor
an affirmative answer. The apostle could hardly have
thought it necessary to make a formal declaration that
the husband or wife was not bound to maintain cohabi
tation with the deserting party — a thing most obviously
impossible. This interpretation, it is true, exhibits Paul
as at variance with the letter of Christ's teaching, which
at most admits divorce only for the cause of adultery.1
But Paul may have taken that teaching, as he appears to
have taken the instruction relative to oaths, as rather
setting up a standard for an ideal society than giving an
inflexible rule to be rigorously followed under all kinds
of conditions. Not a few writers on ethics have been
inclined to take Christ's teaching in this sense.

X. — The Church and the Sacraments.
In the earlier Pauline epistles a local association is for
the most part given to the word "Church." It is used
to designate a particular Christian society ; and where a
number of such societies are contemplated the plural form
of the word is employed.2 Only in exceptional instances
is the term used in these epistles to designate the whole
body of Christians in the world.3 On the other hand, in
the later epistles, notably in Ephesians, references to
the Church in the collective sense predominate. This
naturally resulted from the more theoretic standpoint
1 Matt. v. 32, xix. 9; Mark x. 5-12 ; Luke xvi. 18.
2 Rom. xvi. 4, 5 ; I Cor. i. 2, iv. 17, vii. 17, xi. 16, xiv. 33, 34, xvi. 1,
19; 2 Cor. viii. 1, 19, 23, xi. 8, 28, xii. 13; 1 Thess. ii. 14; 2 Thess. i. 4.
8 1 Cor. xii. 28 ; Gal. i. 13.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 253
from which the subject was approached in the later writ
ings. The change of usage is not, therefore, any very
decisive evidence either of change in conviction or of
advance in ecclesiastical organization.
The number of references to the Church is greatly in
excess of that to the kingdom of God. The latter ex
pression is used, on the one hand, to designate the sum
of spiritual treasure which belongs to the Christian in
the present, the rule of the divine in him with all that it
brings for the replenishment of the interior life,1 and, on
the other, in an eschatological sense, to designate the
perfected community which lies beyond the era of the
resurrection. The latter meaning is especially unmis
takable in the declaration that flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God.2 As related to the Church
the kingdom has the more ideal and transcendental sig
nificance. The two are not formally identified by the
apostle. Yet it is quite evident that when he comes to
picture the Church according to its divine purpose, as he
does in Ephesians and Colossians, he puts into it nearly
everything that is denoted by the kingdom of God in
scriptural usage. It stands forth as the body of Christ,
the fullness of Him who filleth all in all, the instrument
for making known the manifold wisdom of God, in design
a perfect society, holy and without blemish, its members
bearing the name and the character of saints, being
bound together by the bond of love, and fulfilling har
moniously their several functions, like the parts of a
well-framed building or of a living organism.
1 Rom. xiv. 17; 1 Cor. iv. 20; Col. i. 12-14.
2 I Cor. xv. 50. Compare 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10; Gal. v. 21.

254 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Aside from the Pastoral Epistles, the writings of Paul
contain little mention of church officials. In Galatians
there is no reference to any class of administrators. The
only official rank of which indication is given is that of
teachers ; J and it would seem probable from the descrip
tion given in i Cor. xiv that these had no exclusive pre
rogative in the public service. In First Thessalonians
and in Romans there is a general reference to those in
trusted with a function of supervision.2 The Epistle to
the Philippians opens with a reference to bishops and
deacons, and in Ephesians the work of ministering is
represented as portioned out to apostles, prophets, evan
gelists, pastors and teachers.3 In this latter enumera
tion the intent of the apostle was evidently to give rather
a full list of ministerial functions than to specify distinct
and well-defined grades of officials. Between prophets,
evangelists, and teachers the lines of division were not
so wide but that one person might belong to the several
classes. Something more of an association with the local
church, however, probably went with the last term than
with the other two. The prophets as inspired preachers
and the evangelists as missionary assistants of the apos
tles exercised their gifts somewhat at large in the
Church. It is to be noticed in connection with the Ephesian
passage that the form of the Greek — the non-repetition
of toii? Be — implies that pastors and teachers were
thought of as designating one and the same class of offi
cials. The former name is naturally suggestive of a local
1 Gal. vi. 6. 2 I Thess. v. 12, Rom. xii. 8. See also 1 Cor. xii. 28.
"Eph. iv. 11.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 255
office with a function of oversight. In this character it
seems to be identical with the office of bishops mentioned
in Philippians. Putting together the Philippian and the
Ephesian passage, we are brought to the conclusion that
within the sphere of Paul's supervision it came to be
counted expedient for the local church to have a group
of administrators called bishops or pastors, who might
also very appropriately exercise a teaching function, and
a second group, called deacons (indicated perhaps by the
word "helps" in 1 Cor. xii. 28), whose distinctive ser
vice consisted in ministry to the poor and the sick. As
for elders, they are not mentioned in the epistles under
consideration. The question of their identity with bish
ops is, therefore, properly postponed till the teaching of
the Pastoral Epistles comes to be considered.
On the whole, under the Pauline regime officialism seems
not to have been prominent. The apostles, as missionary
founders of churches, are represented doubtless as having
actually a commanding influence. But they are repre
sented also as minded to direct those under their charge
rather by the method of instruction and persuasion than
by that of law and decree. Of a monarchical constitution
of the Church no hint is given. The declarations of
Paul in Galatians rebel utterly against the notion of a
Petrine headship or primacy of governing authority.
In the line of solemn rites, or sacraments, the Pauline
writings recognize baptism and the eucharist. The for
mer is regarded as typical of union with Christ, as well
as instrumental to union with the visible society. In this
view it is styled baptism into Christ.1 To be in union
1 Gal. iii. 27.

256 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
with Christ involves, according to the apostle, a dying of
the old man and a rising into newness of life. Baptism
figures this moral renewal, and thus in picturesque lan
guage may be described as a burial and a resurrection.1
How far the apostle accounted baptism instrumental of
the great change which it symbolizes is not definitely
stated. But surely it may be argued from the tenor of
his thinking that he had no notion of placing it on any
thing like a parity with such a spiritual condition of the
new life as is faith. Repeatedly and energetically he
proclaimed faith as the condition of justification, and jus
tification and regeneration were not regarded by him as
separated in fact. It puts him in incredible contradiction
with himself to suppose that, while lauding the saving
office of faith and casting Judaic ceremonialism overboard,
he proceeded to condition birth into the new life upon an
external rite. "Think of the man, " says Bruce, "who
so peremptorily said circumcision is of no avail, assigning
to baptism not merely symbolical, but essential signifi
cance in reference to regeneration. Then how weak his
position controversially, if this was his view ! How easy
for Judaistic opponents to retort, what better are you
than we ? You set aside circumcision, and you put in its
place baptism. We fail to see the great advantage of the
change. You insist grandly on the antithesis between
letter and spirit, or between flesh and spirit. But here
is no antithesis. Baptism, not less than circumcision, is
simply a rite affecting the body. You charge us with
beginning in the spirit and with faith, and ending in the
flesh. How do you defend yourself against the same
1 Rom. vi. 4.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 257
charge ? " 1 It is indeed possible, since in the first age of
the Church the administration of baptism was often near
ly synchronous with the exercise and confession of faith
in Christ, and moreover was very likely attended in many
instances with tokens of the presence of the Holy Spirit,
that the apostle gave it a certain association with the ex
perience of regeneration. But it sadly violates perspec
tive in exegesis to make him the advocate of a theory
of baptism which exalts its function to the level of the
great spiritual and interior conditions of salvation.
The Pauline interpretation of the Lord's supper sets
it forth as a symbol of the unity of Christian believers,
a memorial of the self-sacrificing death of Christ, and
a means of communion with Him.2 The communion,
Koivcovia, is to be understood in a spiritual sense, as
opposed to any conjunction with the real body of Christ.
The apostle indicates as much in his statement, that
they which eat the sacrifices are communicants (koivcovoI)
of the altar,3 that is, come into a special relation with
the altar, or with the divinity represented thereby. As
in the latter instance there is no notion of an appropria
tion of bodily substance from the object of the com
munion, so it may be inferred that the former instance
implies no such notion. What is said of making one's
self guilty of the body and blood of Christ by eating and
drinking unworthily, or of earning judgment by not dis
cerning the Lord's body, in no wise contradicts this
view. As the context shows there was occasion to
rebuke an irreverent dealing with the sacred emblems of
1 St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, pp 237, 238.
2 1 Cor. x. 16, 17, xi. 23-29. s 1 Cor. x. 18.

258 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Christ's passion. This profanation of divinely ordained
symbols and careless lack of discernment for what they
stand the apostle condemns as in effect a trespass against
the holy things symbolized.1 His entire exposition gives
no real foothold for a materialistic interpretation of the
communion to which the rite is instrumental.

XI. — The Second Advent and the Related
Events.
The certain elements in the eschatology of Paul are
the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the
righteous in the sense of their investment with incor
ruptible bodies, and a final judgment before the tribunal
of Christ. To each of these items the apostle has wit
nessed his belief in sufficiently unequivocal terms.
In his earlier epistles Paul evinces a conviction of the
possibility, if not indeed of the probability, that the
advent of Christ would occur before he himself should
be overtaken by death.2 Further on, this conviction
seems to have been relinquished, and in its place we
find a presentiment of exit from the earth by the ordin
ary pathway.3 Respecting the nature of the second
1 " If it is regarded as a deadly insult to a country when its flag is
torn down and trampled in the dust, surely it is an insult to Jesus Christ
Himself, and to the great sacrifice of His body and blood, if the symbols
of that sacrifice are treated as profane or common things, even though
it is not imagined that these symbols, somehow or other, have been
transformed into that which they symbolize." (Lambert, The Sacra
ments in the New Testament, p. 377.)
2 1 Thess. iv. 17 ; 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52.
8 2 Cor. v. 1, 8 ; Phil. i. 20-24.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 259
advent, the Pauline exposition is not necessarily regarded
as presuming upon anything more than a glorious and
unmistakable manifestation of the ascended Christ to
men generally. In his most detailed description the
apostle represents, not that Christ is to install Himself
upon the earth, but that the saints are to be caught up
in the clouds to meet Him in the air, and so to be for
ever with the Lord.1 No recorded sentence gives a
hint that he thought of a visible reign of Christ upon
earth. On the contrary, the spiritual character which
he ascribes to the bodies of the risen saints and the
transformation of living saints, which he makes coinci
dent with the revelation of Christ from heaven, fairly
shut out the idea of an earthly millennial kingdom.
It appears from the Thessalonian epistles that Paul
wished Christians to cultivate an inspiring expectancy
relative to the advent, but at the same time to avoid dis
quietude and feverish anxiety. To check an overwrought
anticipation he mentions an event which must go before
the day of the Lord, namely the disclosure of the man
of sin, who is held back by one that restraineth, but in
time will gain liberty to run his course of lawlessness.2
The precise meaning of the representation remains in
question. Some exegetes think that no theory better
meets the case than the one which assumes that the
restraining power designates the Roman government,
and that the man of sin stands for a culminating expres
sion of Jewish apostasy and false messiahship.3 The
1 1 Thess. iv. 13-17. 2 2 Thess. ii. 1-12.
8 So Weiss, Bousset, Moffatt, Stevens, Bacon, Adeney, Kennedy, and
others.

260 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
main difficulty with this theory is the assumption of
divine honors by the lawless one. For a Jew to push
on to that height of blasphemous pretence would indeed
be madness. It is not entirely certain, however, that
Paul did not think it possible for a Jewish pretender,
spurred on by the excited feeling and desperation of the
nation, to fall into the madness of practically usurping
the honor and authority of God. The description in
i Thess. ii. 14-16 indicates how intense at this period
was the apostle's impression of Jewish rebellion against
God and the truth. If the man of sin was not conceived
to belong to an anti-Christian Judaism, it is difficult to
interpret the reference to the restraining power in any
satisfactory manner. It is an unlikely supposition that
the Roman government should be thought of as playing
both the r61e of restraint and that of a godless usurpa
tion and lawlessness, that is, through different represen
tatives of the imperial sovereignty. No probable ground
can be imagined for the association of self-deification
with one of the Caesars to the exclusion of others.
Already before Paul wrote, divine honors had been paid
to several emperors and had been ostentatiously claimed
by Caligula. For another to proceed in the same fashion
would not give him a title to be regarded as a highly
exceptional impersonation of ungodliness, the veritable
man of sin. This difficulty of finding a suitable meaning
for the restraining power, if the man of sin is identified
with a representative of imperial rule, tends to turn the
scale in favor of the conclusion that the apostle thought
of Judaism as the source of this portentous figure. The
same conclusion is also favored by the reference to the

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 261
" apostasy," or " falling away " (ii. 3), since an event of
this order is naturally connected rather with an elect
people than with one which had not been given a special
divine association But while claiming a superior prob
ability for this interpretation, we admit the possibility
that the form which loomed up before the apostle's mind
may not have been so definite as to be positively identi
fied either with a counterfeit Messiah or with a self-
deified Caesar. He may have thought somewhat vaguely
of a culminating expression of revolution, lawlessness,
and God-defying presumption.
The resurrection which Paul associated, immediately
with the second advent, evidently was not understood by
him to be a literal resurrection of the body as known to
us. The account in 1 Cor. xv emphasizes the radical
unlikeness of the body that is to be with that of the
present, and the mention of it in 2 Cor. v. 1, 2 as a
house or habitation from heaven heightens the impres
sion of unlikeness. But, on the other hand, the apostle
uses language suggestive of some sort of historical con
nection and basis of identity as pertaining to the bodies
of the two states He speaks of the body as being sown
in one condition and raised in another — sown in cor
ruption and raised in incorruption, sown a natural body
and raised a spiritual body.1 He says that the reappear
ing Saviour shall fashion anew the body of our humilia
tion, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory.2
1 1 Cor. xv. 42-44. That the " spiritual " body was not conceived to
be made of spirit (web/m) may be judged from the fact that the
" natural " or psychical body was manifestly not conceived to be made
of soul (t/>vxv) but °* flesh.
2 Phil. iii. 20, 21.

262 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
He represents the high destination toward which the
sons of God look with desire to be the redemption of
their bodies.1 Thus with all the intimation of newness
and unlikeness there is an implicit assumption of a cer
tain sameness. In what the apostle located this element
of sameness, or whether he took pains to define it to his
own thought, we have no means of ascertaining. It is
a little venturesome to suppose that he anticipated modern
theorizing and predicated identity in respect of organizing
principle. There is no doubt that the general teaching of Paul
implies a special era of resurrection. It has been sus
pected by some, however, on the basis of the opening
verses of the fifth chapter of Second Corinthians, that
Paul changed his view, and in his later days believed
that each follower of Christ is invested at death with the
resurrection body. But this seems to us an unwarranted
conclusion. The second epistle to the Corinthians was
written only a few months after the first, in which the
contrary view is set forth with sufficient definiteness.
Paul naturally would not be ambitious to confuse the
minds of the Corinthians by placing before them within
so short an interval two ways of thinking that he knew
to be contradictory. The tone of the later Corinthian
passage is largely explained by the fact that Paul had
no such measure of the intermediate state as belongs to
us. In the expectation that it would be confined to a
brief season, he could practically ignore it, and in the
vision of faith paint the being clothed upon with the
house from heaven as following close upon the dissolu-
1 Rom. viii. 23.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 263
tion of the earthly tabernacle. Moreover, it is to be
noticed that he does not express a certitude that there
would be no interval of nakedness, but only an earnest
longing to be clothed upon, " that what is mortal may
be swallowed up of life." It may be observed that Paul
in the preceding chapter uses the ordinary resurrection
phraseology, representing himself as expecting to be
raised up even as was Christ (iv. 14). This as much as
hints that the poetic reference to a house or habitation
from heaven is not to be construed too definitely, or to
be taken as implying a distinct and conscious departure
from his former teaching. Not less significant are the
words of Phil. iii. 19-21. Here it is represented that
the resurrection power of Christ is to be exercised at
His second coming. A plain indication is thus given
that Paul had not surrendered his earlier thought of a
special era for the resurrection.
The resurrection which Paul discusses in his epistles
contemplates an assimilation to the glorious form of the
risen Christ. In this character it is a resurrection of
those only who belong to Christ. The question of the
resurrection of the wicked is entirely ignored. Not a
single sentence of a single epistle touches upon it, at
least in any direct or unmistakable manner. The state
ment in 1 Cor. xv. 22, "as in Adam all die, so also in
Christ shall all be made alive," is no exception. For,
to say nothing about an implicit limitation in the phrase
" in Christ," the next verse confines the application to
those that are Christ's. It is true that some commen
tators understand by the succeeding declaration, " then
cometh the end," the completing stage of the resurrec-

264 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
tion, wherein the wicked are to be included. But it is
immensly improbable that the apostle would have re
ferred in so vague a manner to the resurrection of a
division of mankind. Moreover, the words, " then cometh
the end," are most naturally understood of the close of
the dispensation. Silence on the score of the resurrec
tion of the wicked is not, indeed, necessarily equivalent
to a denial of the event. The fact that the apostle was
addressing believers, and dealt with the subject from the
point of view of their interest, may go far toward ex
plaining his silence. But, on the other hand, it is to be
observed that the quickening of the mortal body is given
in one connection a certain association with the indwell
ing of the Spirit,1 and that in another connection the
resurrection from the dead is represented as a prize to
be won by strenuous endeavor,2 and still further that
eternal destruction is said to await the wicked at Christ's
coming.3 On the whole, the teaching of Paul's epistles
taken by itself is scarcely favorable to the supposition of
the resurrection of the wicked. It contains nothing which
suggests the conviction recorded in Acts xxiv. 15, unless
it be the representation that all men are candidates for
the judgment ; and before this could be given any deci
sive weight it would be necessary to prove that Paul
thought of the investment of a given subject with a
1 Rom. viii. 10, 11. It is not necessary to suppose here a reference
to an actual initiation of the bodily resurrection by the indwelling Spirit.
The probable thought is that the working of the life-giving Spirit in
man's spirit is a pledge that even the body of the believer shall ulti
mately be redeemed from corruption and death. (Compare Godet,
Comm. on Romans.)
2 Phil. iii. 11. "2 Thess. i. 5-10.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 265
resurrection body as a necessary antecedent of his being
judged. Considerable stress has been laid by some critics on
the contrast between Paul's doctrine of salvation through
grace and his picture of judgment on the basis of conduct,
as though he had inadvertently mingled a Christian and
a Judaic point of view. But it is the reverse of a mag
nanimous exegesis which so interprets. It is quite gratu
itous to conclude that into the Judaic form of words
Paul put a crass Judaic sense. He never forgot, doubt
less, his own central teaching, or conceived that any work
apart from the genuine faith which brings the soul into
fruit-bearing union with Christ could serve a man before
the divine tribunal. The total doing of a man is what
Paul may reasonably be thought to have regarded as
determining future destiny, and the total doing of a man
includes his response to the unmerited grace of God in
Christ. Only those who suppose the apostle to make
absolutely nothing of man's free agency have any serious
occasion to criticise his picture of the judgment.
What lies beyond the judgment is considered by Paul
only in a very general way. He contents himself with
picturing a scene of unity, a kingdom before which
all opposition has given way.1 The wicked are not as
signed any place in that ultimate scene. Did Paul regard
them as the subjects of an all-embracing restoration ?
This view is contradicted by the representation that they
are appointed to eternal destruction from the face of the
Lord.2 They pass out of the field of vision either as
1 1 Cor. xv. 24-27.
2 2 Thess. i. 9. The term " destruction " (5\t6pos) employed here
cannot fairly be regarded as a token that Paul was formally committed to

266 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
being reduced to practical impotence or as consigned to
non-existence. Our reticence on Paul's position may well
match in some degree his reticence on the subject.

XII. — The Teaching of the Pastoral Epistles.
The Pastoral Epistles add so little of theological sub
ject-matter to the content of the other epistles bearing
the name of Paul that it will not be necessary to devote
to them more than a few sentences. A tribute is paid
in them to the transcendence of God, in that He is de
scribed as dwelling in light unapproachable.1 At the same
time His fatherly and compassionate character is not
overlooked. Christ is styled the one mediator who gave
Himself a ransom for all, the saviour who has abolished
death, and the judge of the quick and the dead.2 In
one instance the form of statement in the original seems
to imply the application of the divine name to Him.3
The salvation provided in Him is designed for all men.4
It is not earned by works ; its bestowment is a matter of
grace.5 Christian living is to be characterized by so
briety and self-discipline, though ascetic prescriptions
against marriage and the use of meats are to be repro-
the doctrine of the annihilation of the wicked. From his point of view
it was not worth while to distinguish between an impoverished, wretched
existence and non-existence. (Compare Kennedy, St. Paul's Concep
tions of the Last Things, pp 120-125.)
1 1 Tim. vi. 16. * 1 Tim. ii. 4, iv. 10.
2 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6; 2 Tim. i. 10, iv. 1. 62 Tim. i.9 ; Tit. iii. 4-7.
8 Tit. ii. 13.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 267
bated.1 Among Christian interests to which great heed
needs to be given is the preservation of sound doctrine.
In general, it is easy to observe in these epistles a
strain of the characteristic Pauline teaching. Still the
standpoint of the foregoing epistles is not fully repro
duced in them. The representation of a mystical union
with Christ is wanting. In place of the life insphered in
Christ we have well-ordered conduct, or godliness, set
forth and commended. The voice of Paul as the ardent
mystic we do not hear.
As compared with the preceding epistles the Pastoral
give an impression of a more settled and developed form
1 I Tim. iv. 3, 4. On the other hand, a token of ascetic tendency may
be found in these epistles, if the conclusion is to be accepted that the
requisition for the bishop, and for the deacon as well, to be the husband
of one wife, was meant to discountenance second marriages for the
clergy (1 Tim. iii. 2, 12). In favor of taking the requisition in this
sense it is urged : (1) There is little reason tosuppose a formal injunction
here against polygamy, since at that time polygamous practice was too
rare both among Jews and Gentiles to give occasion to a prohibition ;
and least of all could such a practice be expected to have any place
among Christians who were honored with official responsibilities. (2)
That the reference is not to polygamy is indicated by the fact, that the
standing of the enrolled widow is made dependent on her having been
the wife of one man ; and surely the writer could never have dreamed
that it was necessary to mention polygamy as a disqualification for
special ecclesiastical recognition. (3) It is improbable that the direction
relative to bishops and deacons was aimed against marital infidelity,
whether in the form of divorce, of concubinage, or of casual fornication,
since the obligation to avoid these practices plainly pertained to all ranks
of Christians.
In reply it is contended : (1) In that age laxity in the domestic sphere
was a crying abuse. There was very little conscience in heathen society
either as respects divorce or concubinage. Consequently in relation to
Christians who had recently come out of heathenism there was need to

268 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
of ecclesiastical organization. It seems to be taken for
granted that the churches severally will have bishops and
deacons.1 Mention is also made of a class of enrolled
widows in a way which indicates that they were employed
in the service of the Church.2 Elders who were such
in an official sense are mentioned both in First Timothy
and in Titus. In the former they are mentioned as rul
ing ; teaching is also specified as an appropriate function
for them, and it is declared the duty of the congregation
to provide for their support.3 In the latter the apostolic
legate is directed to ordain elders in every city ; but when
it comes to a mention of their necessary qualifications
the name of bishop is substituted. From the standpoint
of these epistles it appears, therefore, that a plurality of
official elders belonged to each church or Christian com
munity, that no local ecclesiastical authority was superior
lay down very elementary rules for the safeguarding of domestic virtue.
(2) The rule in question is recorded among points that may well be re
garded as included in the code of common decency. If there was occa
sion to direct that the bishop should not be a " brawler " or a " striker "
it may reasonably be supposed that there was occasion to direct that he
should avoid a laxity in domestic relations which would involve a virtual
polygamy. (3) In the same epistle which is alleged to interpose a bar
against second marriages it is advised that the younger widows should
marry ( 1 Tim. v, 14 ). On the theory that a second marriage was
viewed as a disqualification for enrollment in the class of church widows,
this would be advice to the younger widows to make themselves ineligible
to enrollment should they be again widowed. But why should they pay
a forfeit for doing the very thing incumbent upon them? The writer
may be supposed to have had a better regard for consistency than ap
pears on the theory that he wished to describe second marriages as a bar
to honor and consideration in the church.
1 1 Tim. iii. 1-13 ; Tit. i 5-9. 8 I Tim. v. 17-19.
2 I Tim. v. 3-16.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY 269
to them, and that they stand for the same class otherwise
mentioned as bishops. As Zahn remarks, " It is the same
kind of church constitution to which the Book of Acts
witnesses for the churches of Asia Minor in the lifetime
of Paul, and which had place, according to the Epistle of
Clement, in Rome and Corinth at the end of the first
century, and still at the beginning of the second century
in Philippi, according to the Epistle of Polycarp." 1
1 Einleitung in das Neue Testament, I. 461, 462.

CHAPTER V

MODIFIED PAULINISM — HEBREWS AND FIRST
PETER
I. — Introductory Considerations.
The assignment of the Epistle to the Hebrews and
the First Epistle of Peter to a place under the above
heading is not meant by any means to indicate that these
writings can be described as echoes or copies of the
Pauline theology. Due stress must be placed upon the
first member of the heading. Both epistles exhibit a
good measure of independence in construing the Chris
tian teaching. It is true, nevertheless, that the Pauline
theology is to be rated logically and historically as their
antecedent. The Epistle to the Hebrews makes the Christian uni
versalism, for which Paul had contended, an underlying
assumption. It asserts also as great a preeminence as
did the apostle to the Gentiles for the gospel economy
over that of the Old Testament, though it presents that
preeminence under a quite different aspect. Moreover
its christology, while developed on one side more fully
270

MODIFIED PAULINISM 271
than the Pauline, takes up most of the content of the
latter.1 In First Peter there is a less distinct approach to the
Pauline antithesis between the two dispensations and
also a less complete reproduction of the Pauline Chris
tology, as might perhaps be expected in a brief com
munication, dominated by a practical purpose. But, on
the other hand, there are special turns of thought and
expression in the epistle which seem to give it a more
direct association with the Pauline writings than can be
asserted for the Epistle to the Hebrews. A list of these
has been selected as follows : " Having been begotten
again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible."
" He that suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin."
" As free and not using your freedom for a cloak of
wickedness, but as bondservants of God." " Because
Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the
unrighteous, that He might bring us to God ; being put
to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit.'' " For
unto this end was the gospel preached even to the dead,
that they might be judged according to men in the flesh,
but live according to God in the spirit." "Who His
own self bore our sins in His body upon the tree, that
1 " In spite of its divergences from the standard of Pauline author
ship, the book has manifest Pauline affinities, and can hardly have orig
inated beyond the Pauline circle, to which it is referred, not only by
the author's friendship with Timothy (xiii. 23), but also by many un
questionable echoes of the Pauline theology, and even by distinct allu
sions to passages in Paul's epistles" (W. Robertson Smith and H.
von Soden, art. Hebrews in Encyc. Biblica). The points of affinity
with Ephesians are specially numerous. (For the list see Von Soden,
Hand-Kommentar.) A very distinct reminder of Paul appears in
Heb. v. 12-14 M compared with I Cor. iii. 2.

272 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
we having died unto sins might live unto righteous
ness." 1 The points of correspondence with the Pauline
type are regarded by many as decisive for the conclusion
that First Peter shows acquaintance with Romans,2 and
as establishing a probability that its composition was
also influenced by Ephesians.3
The authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews remains
a matter of simple conjecture. No happier guess is likely
to be made than that which Luther expressed when he
referred it to Apollos. The traditional view that Paul
was the author has no satisfactory basis in history, and
is unmistakably excluded by the tone and content of the
writing. As was noticed in another connection, the
epistle shows the hand of a man who was well versed
in the Jewish Alexandrian theology.4 To call him a
disciple of Philo might imply too much, since he stood
in important respects upon a different platform of relig
ious conceptions. Still he shows the effect of his
acquaintance with the teaching of the famous Alexan
drian idealist.
Almost as far from definite solution as the problem
of authorship is that of the destination of the Epistle
to the Hebrews. A considerable proportion of recent
1 McGiffert, History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, pp. 485,
486. 2 Compare ii. 10 in 1 Pet. with ix. 25 in Romans ; ii. 5 with xii. 1 ;
i. 14 with xii. 2 ; iv. 7-1 1 with xii. 3, 6; i. 22 with xii. 9, 10 ; iii. 8, 9 with
xiii. 16-18; ii. 13-17 with xiii. 1, 3, 4, 7.
3 Compare i. 3-5 in 1 Pet. with i. 3-14 in Eph. ; i. 12 with iii. 5, 10 ;
ii. 4-6 with ii. 18-22 ; ii. 18 with vi. 5 ; iii. 1-7 with v. 22-33 • "*¦ 22
with i. 20-22.
4 See chap. I, sect. 3.

MODIFIED PAULINISM 273
critics incline to the judgment that it was addressed to
a limited circle of readers, to a single community of
believers, or to a single congregation in a community.
Several favor Rome as the locality of the congregation
addressed. To this judgment there is little reason to
take exception. The epistle gives less distinct data for
locating its readers than for pronouncing on their char
acter. Quite evidently they were largely of Jewish line
age, or at least strongly exposed to Jewish influence.
Whatever special items may be cited in favor of their
Gentile character and relation are much more than coun
terbalanced by the general tone and content of the epistle,
with its elaborate comparison of Christianity with Juda
ism and earnest contention for the lofty superiority of
the former.1 —«--"'
On the side of external evidence there is no special
occasion to challenge the Petrine authorship of First
Peter. In respect of internal evidence two things in
particular have been alleged against its composition by
the apostle. In the first place, it is said that the picture
that is given of the persecution to which those addressed
were exposed, and especially the representation of their
liability to suffer as Christians, is indicative of a scheme
of judicial procedure against the confessed followers of
Christ, and so points to a later date than the lifetime of
the apostle. In the second place, it is claimed that it
is contrary to the probabilities of the case that a leader
among the original apostles should give such clear evi
dence as this epistle contains of being influenced by
Paul, and so little token of a vital reminiscence of the
1 Compare M^negoz, Westcott, Brace, and Peake.

274 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
words and deeds of Christ. In response to the former
objection it is maintained that the language of the epistle
does not necessarily imply a regular scheme of judicial
procedure against the Christians as such. The terms
of the description are sufficiently met if we suppose that
the Christians addressed were subject because of their
faith to ill-will and slander, and consequently were ex
posed in many instances to a wrongful infliction of pains
and penalties. Suspicion, ill-will, and slanderous accu
sation were quite competent to make them suffer " as
Christians," apart from a regular scheme of judicial
procedure against them on the score of their religion.
Harnack admits that the references to persecution, while
they make it probable that the epistle was not composed
before the years 83-93, d° not exclude the possibility of
its having been written one or two decades earlier.1 In
reply to the other objection it is claimed that there is no
antecedent assurance that an apostle, addressing a brief
communication to a body of disciples who had already
been instructed in the rudiments of Christianity, would
occupy himself with reproducing details of the gospel
history rather than with inductions from that history as
a whole. It is claimed also that the epistle which bears
the name of Peter is not destitute of tokens of a remi
niscence of Christ's words.2 Furthermore, it is con
tended that there is nothing incredible in the supposition
that Peter may have recognized the eminence of Paul in
1 Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur, I. 454.
2 Compare i. 4 with Matt. xxv. 34; i. 10 ff. with Luke a. 24; i. 13
with Luke xii. 35 ; ii. 7 with Matt. xxi. 42 ; iii. 9 with Luke vi. 28 ; iii.
14 with Matt. v. 10 ; v. 3 with Matt. xx. 25, 26; v. 6 with Matt, xxiii. 12.

MODIFIED PAULINISM 275
theological construction, and may have so far familiarized
himself with some of his epistles as to have carried over
into his own composition somewhat of a Pauline coloring.
It is noticeable that as far back as the first stages of the
controversy over the relation of Christianity to Judaism
Peter held a mediating position between the school of
Paul and that of James. The advance of Christianity
in the Gentile world and the broadening of his own ex
perience would tend naturally to narrow rather than to
widen the interval between him and the Pauline platform.
It is to be observed, too, that the epistle in question is
no specimen of out and out Paulinism. As opposed to
the speculative boldness of Paul it is nearer to the dog
matic reserve of the first part of the Book of Acts,
though doubtless making a considerable advance upon
the teaching of that portion of the New Testament.
A subordinate objection has been based on the lin
guistic characteristics of the epistle, the allegation being
that it is improbable that a man of Peter's antecedents
should have been able to handle the Greek language with
the measure of skill exhibited in this writing. This con
sideration, however, is not very formidable. If it be
supposed that the apostle in the course of a long ministry
failed to reach any considerable proficiency in the use of
the Greek language, there is nothing in the way of the
conclusion that he was well served in this matter by his
secretary Silvanus.
The assumption of a relation of literary dependence
between First Peter and the Epistle of James cannot
properly be regarded as prejudicing the claim of the
former to a Petrine origin. This is true even if the

276 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Epistle of James be accounted a post-apostolic writing,
since critical authority cannot be said to be committed
to the conclusion that the literary dependence was on
the side of First Peter.1
Whether written by an apostle or not, First Peter
must be regarded as in content worthy of apostolic
authorship. A judgment to this effect is given by Har
nack. Though interpreting the internal evidence against
the supposition of Petrine authorship, he pronounces the
hypothesis of falsification by the writer incongruous with
the character of the epistle as a whole. The attachment
of Peter's name to it must be imputed to a different
hand from that of its author. Should the contrary con
clusion be adopted, it would be best, in spite of the diffi
culties which stand in the way of assigning it to the
apostle, to confess him as the author.2
A motive for not coupling the second epistle bearing
the name of Peter with the first, as a subject for special
examination, is found in its diverse content and also in
the serious grounds which exist for doubting its right to
be reckoned in any proper sense as an apostolic writing.
A large proportion of New Testament critics unhesitat
ingly pronounce it a pseudonymous, post-apostolic com
position. It is true that a scholar of the eminence of
Zahn considers it possible to defend its Petrine author
ship. But he helps himself out with so many hypotheses
1 Points of resemblance between the two epistles may be seen by
comparing in particular 1 Pet. i. 1 with James i. 1 ; i. 6, 7 with i. 2-4,
12; i. 23 with i. 18; ii. 1 with i. 21 ; ii. II with iv. I ; v. 6 with iv. 7, 10;
v. 9 with iv. 7.
2 Chronologie, I. 464.

MODIFIED PAULINISM 277
that his argument affords but a paltry ground of confi
dence. To explain the wide difference between the
style and tone of the two epistles ascribed to Peter he
supposes that, in the composition of First Peter, Silvanus
did much more than serve as a mere scribe, that in fact
his aid was so far utilized as to give the writing which
he penned a special coloring, whereas in writing Second
Peter the apostle may have depended upon his own re
sources. He supposes further, since Second Peter refers
to a former epistle, and this on the basis of the descrip
tion given cannot be identified with First Peter, that
the apostle wrote to the particular circle of readers ad
dressed in Second Peter an epistle which has not been
transmitted. Once more he supposes, inasmuch as
Second Peter refers to a communication from Paul, that
this apostle wrote to the same circle of readers an epistle
of which nothing is known aside from this incidental
mention.1 Now, a conclusion that calls for so many
hypotheses that swing in the air is evidently not very
well secured, especially as it has to face the fact that
Second Peter is essentially unsupported by external evi
dence and contains marks of a relatively late origin.
One of these marks is the manner in which the writer
responds to an occasion for explaining the delay of
Christ's coming. What we know of the attitude of
vivid expectancy in the apostolic age would not lead us
to presume that a representative of that era would re
mind his readers that a thousand years with the Lord
are as one day. Another mark of the same order is the
classification which is made of Paul's writings with " the
other Scriptures." Even if the term "> Scriptures " in
1 Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Vol. II.

278 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
this connection is made exclusive of the canonical books
of the Old Testament and regarded as signifying a col
lection of apostolic writings, the statement is a token of
a relatively late date, since it indicates a consciousness
that a considerable body of apostolic literature was open
to the perusal of Christians. Still another mark of a
comparatively late date will need to be admitted if it be
concluded that Second Peter shows dependence upon the
Epistle of Jude. The latter quite distinctly adopts a
post-apostolic standpoint in the exhortation : " Remem
ber ye the words which have been spoken before by the
apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ ; how they said to you,
In the last times there shall be mockers, walking after
their own ungodly lusts." Scholars are not indeed
unanimous in holding that the priority belongs to Jude ;
but not a few are very decidedly committed to that alter
native.1 Adding a word in respect of contents, we note that
the doctrine of the fall and punishment of a portion of
the angelic host is characteristic of both Jude and
Second Peter ; that the leading motive of the former is
to excoriate a species of Gnostic libertinism ; that the
latter devotes one of its chapters to the accomplishment
of the same purpose; that peculiar to Second Peter is
the doctrine of the destruction of the world bv fire.
II. — The Conception of God in Hebrews and
First Peter.
The description of God in Hebrews is very much after
1 So Harnack, Jiilicher, Von Soden, Holtzmann, Beyschlag, Weiss,
Moffatt, Bacon, Chase, and Plumptre. Zahn and Spitta assume the
priority of Second Peter.

MODIFIED PAULINISM 279
the Old Testament order as placing great stress upon
His transcendence and intensity. He is represented as
the Majesty enthroned on high.1 The High Priest who
comes before Him to serve as the advocate of men must
pass through the heavens and be made higher than the
heavens.2 While thus immeasurably uplifted, God has
no touch of indifference in His disposition. He is thor
oughly the living God. There is no creature that is not
manifest in His sight. All things are naked and open
before His eyes. His word is living and active and
sharper than a two-edged sword.3 There is no escape
for the one that treats lightly the salvation which He
proffers.4 His vengeance shadows him who profanes
holy things, and it is a fearful thing to fall into His
hands.5 He is a consuming fire.6 Without sanctifica
tion no man shall see Him.7 Judgment is wholly with
Him.8 At least, the epistle names Him the judge of all,
and gives no hint that the Son, in addition to the office
of mediation, fulfills also that of judging men.
On the other hand, the gracious and amiable side of
God's character is brought into view. It is by the grace
of God that the Mediator tastes death for every man,
and the design of His sacrifice is the bringing of many
sons unto glory. In virtue of the. great redemptive
transaction the throne of majesty becomes a throne of
grace to which men are invited to draw near even with
boldness.9 The one who accepts the new covenant
comes not to the mount that burned with fire, and was

1 Heb. i. 3, viii. 1.

4 iii. 2-3.

7 xii. 14.

2 iv. 14, vii. 26.

6 x. 30, 31.

8 xii. 23.

8 iv. 12, 13.

8 xii. 29.

9 iv. 16.

280 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
compassed about with blackness and darkness and tem
pest, but to mount Zion, and unto the city of the living
God, the heavenly Jerusalem.1 God is to him a Father,
who it may be chastens, but in love and for the purpose
of amendment and profit.2 Tribute is thus rendered in
strong terms to the divine fatherhood. Yet it must be
confessed that the balance of emphasis is on the side of
majesty and ethical intensity. It is with the great High
Priest that the qualities of gentleness and compassion
are more directly and fully associated.
The epistle of Peter recurs less distinctly than Hebrews
to the Old Testament conceptions of God's loftiness and
energy of righteous will. It intimates indeed that the
holiness of God makes very high demands, insomuch
that the righteous is scarcely saved.3 But in general it
presents the friendly and compassionate side of divine f
character and relationship. God is represented as the
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His
great mercy inspires to a living hope through the resur
rection of Christ; as the Father who judges without
respect of persons ; as the gracious Lord ; as the faithful
Creator ; and as the God of all grace.4
III. — Hints on the Nature and Rank of Men
and Angels.
The language of Heb. iv. 12 is somewhat favorable to
the supposition that the author entertained the trichot-
omist theory, and conceived of the soul as truly distinct
1 Heb. xii. 18-25. 3 x Pet- iv- l8-
2 xii. 7-1 1. 4 1 Pet. i. 3, 17, ii. 3, iv. 19, v. 10

MODIFIED PAULINISM 281
from the spirit. The fact also that he speaks of the <\
spirit as though he considered it to be the part of man \
relating him to a divine and eternal sphere may be cited
for the same supposition.1 But, on the other hand,
there are grounds for inferring that he did not distin
guish fundamentally between soul and spirit, and con
joined them in the instance referred to above for a
rhetorical purpose, namely, the more strikingly to en
force the truth that the searching and discriminating
function of the word of God extends to every part of
man's interior being. Several times he mentions the
soul in connections which suggest that the term was
designed to be inclusive of the highest in man.2 In
First Peter the use of "soul" in the higher and more
comprehensive sense is quite apparent. While there
is in the epistle something of the Pauline antithesis be
tween flesh and spirit, it departs from Pauline phrase
ology in speaking of fleshly lusts as antagonizing, not
the spirit, but the soul.3
There is more of an association of human sinfulness
with the flesh in First Peter4 than in Hebrews; but
neither exhibits the Pauline stress upon this point of
view. Both are without any distinct doctrine of inher
ent or inherited depravity, while both reveal a lively
sense of human weakness and temptability. Some pas
sages in Hebrews convey the impression that the author
was disposed to regard infirmities rather than downright
perversity as generally characteristic of men.5 Yet it
1 Heb. xii. 9, 23. 4 1 Pet. iv. 1-6.
* Heb. vi. 19, x. 39, xiii. 17. 6 Heb. iv. 15, xii. 1.
8 1 Pet. ii. 11. See also i. 9, 22, ii. 25, iv. 19.

282 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
would be hasty to draw a positive conclusion from this
line of representation, since the writer makes no attempt
to paint the state of the world beyond the circle of the
Jewish and Christian revelations.
A double measuring scale of man's worth and rank
is supplied by the Epistle to the Hebrews. On the one
hand we have such a means of estimate as is contained
in the picture of the divine relationship of men — their
sonship toward God, their oneness with Christ and ac
knowledgment by Him as brethren, their inclusion under
the terms of a covenant instituted through the self-obla
tion of the Son of God and made effectual through His
perpetual priesthood. On the other hand, we have the
comparison of man's position with that of angels. In one
aspect he is a little lower than the angels.1 Whether this
is because of his subjection to vanity in a state of mor
tality, or because of a more substantial difference, is not
stated. In another aspect he seems to be awarded the
superior consideration. Angels are all ministering spirits
sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall
inherit salvation.2 Ministering is not indeed from the
New Testament point of view a sure token of subordinate
rank, since Christ Himself is said to have come to min
ister, and in our epistle the entertainment of a minister
of the angelic order is depicted as a special honor and
piece of good fortune.3 But if we unite with the minis
terial position of angels the two other considerations, that
man was constituted only a little lower than the angelic
rank, and is destined after the pattern of Christ, far tran
scending his earthly condition, to be exalted to glory and
1 Heb. ii. 7, 2 i. 14. 8 xiii. 2.

MODIFIED PAULINISM 283
honor, the conclusion lies very near at hand that he has
no reason to envy angels, even if he has no calling to
boast of superiority over them. In the Petrine epistle
an identical means of measuring man's rank is given on
the side of his divine association ; and, while the relation
of angels to men is not directly commented upon, they
are described as interested students of the gospel dispen
sation.1 It cannot properly be doubted that the writer of He
brews regarded angels as personal beings. The words,
" Who maketh His angels winds and His ministers a
flame of fire,"2 cannot be put in evidence for a contrary
conclusion. The author could not have thought it worth
while to compare Christ to mere natural forces and to
emphasize His superiority to them. The words in ques
tion picture the changeful forms of manifestation which
were represented in Jewish thought to be characteristic
of angels. In all further reference to them there is a
sufficiently clear assumption of their personality. They
are described as agents of the old covenant as well as
ministers under the new,3 and are said to constitute in
numerable hosts alongside the general assembly and
church of the firstborn.4 Of evil angels there is no men
tion either in Hebrews or First Peter, except that in a
single instance each epistle makes reference to the devil.6
The designation of the devil as the one having the power
of death was probably dictated by the thought that sin at
once stands in causative relation to death and gives to it
1 1 Pet. i. 12. 4 Heb. xii. 22, 23.
2 Heb. i. 7. 6 Heb. ii. 14 ; 1 Pet. v. 8.
8 Heb. ii. 2.

284 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
its aspect of terror. The evil personality is credited with
the office of the sin which he fosters.

IV. — The Person of Christ.
In describing the transcendence and glory of the pre-
incarnate Son the Epistle to the Hebrews vies with the
later Epistles of Paul and reaches essentially to the level
of the prologue to John's Gospel. Its characterization
fOf Him as the effulgence of the Father's glory and the
express image of His substance constitutes as distinct an
affirmation of metaphysical sonship as can be found in
the New Testament. In harmony with this conception
of substantial likeness the epistle does not hesitate to
apply to the Son the divine name — not only that of
Lord, but that of God as well.1 It also assigns to Him
cosmic relations that are thoroughly of a divine order.
In the beginning He laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the works of His hands. He up
holds all things by the word of His power. He is an
object of worship to the highest ranks of created intelli
gences. As He is before all things, so He is above the
plane of the mutation and transitoriness to which they
are exposed. They shall wax old as doth a garment, but
His years change not. " Jesus Christ is the same yes
terday, and to-day, yea, and for ever."2
With the divine transcendence of Christ the epistle
conjoins a thoroughly human character. Indeed the dis
tinctive feature of its christology is the unstinted recog-
i Heb. i. 8. 2 Heb. xiii. 8.

MODIFIED PAULINISM 285
nition which it accords to the complete humanity of
Christ, in spite of the lofty predicates with which it
clothes Him. It goes here quite beyond all parallel in
the New Testament. The Gospels indeed afford in su
perior measure the materials for a picture of the human
Christ, but it is the Epistle to the Hebrews which di
rectly discourses upon and emphasizes His community in
nature and experience with men. According to its rep
resentation in one respect only does He stand apart from x
men. While they are sinners, He is holy, guileless, un
defiled, perfectly without sin.1 Like the rest of the
children He partakes of flesh and blood, and so comes
under the power of death. In all things He is made like
unto His brethren. He is tempted in all points like as
we are, and suffers in being tempted. He feels buffeted
and pierced by the gainsaying of sinners. In the days
of His flesh He offers up prayers and supplications with
strong crying and tears. To Him, as to others, His
trials and burdens are a means of development and of
equipment for His vocation. He learns obedience —
brings to an ideal stage the spirit of obedience — by the
things which He suffers. He is perfected also by His
sufferings in respect of sympathy, and becomes thus a
high priest that can be touched with the feeling of our
infirmities. And all this treasure of human sympathy
and brotherly feeling He carries into the perpetual office
of intercession which He fulfills for men in the heavenly
sanctuary.2 How did the author of Hebrews reconcile the tran-
1 Heb. iv. 15, vii. 26.
2 See Heb. ii. 10, 14-18, iv. 15, v. 7, 8, vii. 25, xii. 2-4.

286 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
scendence of Christ with this complete implication in
human experience ? He does not attempt to reconcile
the two, any more than the evangelists attempt to con
strue the unity of Christ's consciousness with its human
and its superhuman content. The religious mind as
such does not regard a reconciliation as of the first con
sequence. It finds its needs gloriously met in one
whom it can contemplate as both brother and Lord,
near by kinship of nature and yet mighty to save. It
rests in the assurance that such a Saviour has been made
known, and treats as a quite secondary matter the theo
retic exposition of His personality.
The christological data furnished by First Peter are
much less ample than those contained in Hebrews.
There is, however, a probable reference to the preexist
ence of Christ in the statement that His spirit was
operative in the prophets, and also in the reference to
His being manifested at the end of the times.1 A hint
of the transcendent rank of the ascended Christ is given
in the declaration that angels, authorities, and powers
are made subject to Him.2 Furthermore, the title
" Lord " is ascribed to Him.3 According to the text
approved by the revisers, Christians are exhorted to
sanctify Him in their hearts as Lord.4
V. — The High-Priestly Work of Christ.
Quite beyond the example of any other New Testa
ment writing, the Epistle to the Hebrews illustrates the
work of Christ by reference to the Old Testament ritual.
1 i Pet. i. n. 20. 2 iii. 22. s ii. 3. 4 iv. 15.

MODIFIED PAULINISM 287
After the manner of the Alexandrian typology it con
templates the ancient tabernacle and its ministry and
rites as copies of things in the heavens. They are
shadows belonging to a preliminary dispensation. The
realities for which they stand are disclosed through the
new dispensation. Here faith is directed to the holy
place made without hands, to the enduring High Priest,
to the sacrifice which is truly effective to put away sin.
The author's consciousness of the superiority of the
Christian over the Judaic system was evidently as pro
nounced as was that of Paul. But his way of illustrating
the superiority is quite different. The two writers view
Old Testament law from a different angle. Paul con
siders it as a body of commandments which collide with
the natural impulses of men, bring their inherent sinful
ness to manifestation, work in them a sense of their
bondage and incapacity to accomplish self-salvation, and
thus prepare them in the exercise of self-surrendering
faith to avail themselves of the grace and power of a
Divine Deliverer. As the apostle puts it, the law is a
schoolmaster to bring men to Christ. To the writer of
Hebrews, on the other hand, the law is preeminently a
code of ritual, a scheme of provisions for expiating or
covering sins and for opening up an approach for sin-
stained men to the holy God. Its aim is the same as
that which belongs to the agencies of the gospel dispen
sation. The ground for disparaging it is its comparative
inefficacy. As having but the shadow of good things to
come it can never make perfect them that draw nigh.
Along with this contrast there is a somewhat remark
able item of parallelism between Paul and the author of

288 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
our epistle in dealing with Old Testament precedent.
As the former, going back of the Mosaic legislation,
finds in Abraham an example of the gospel method, in
asmuch as the faith of the patriarch was reckoned unto
him for righteousness, so the latter, going back of the
Levitical system, finds in Melchizedek a type of the ex
traordinary priesthood exemplified in Christ. Either
representation was evidently fitted to do good service in
an ad hominem argument with those disposed to contend
for the perpetuity and exclusive right of the Mosaic
institutions. In construing the work of Christ the writer of
Hebrews does not overlook or lightly value His sacri
ficial death. It is very noticeable, however, that he
regards the priestly office of Christ as rather being ini
tiated by His death than finding therein its conclusion.
As in the old economy the slaying of the victim did not
so much complete the rite of atonement as provide its
necessary basis, so is it in the great transaction which
I the ancient rite foreshadowed. By His death, wherein
| He is at once offerer and victim, Christ makes the neces
sary preparation for fulfilling in the heavenly sanctuary
His high-priestly vocation. According to a figurative de
scription which greatly taxes interpretation, He cleanses
the belongings of that sanctuary by His blood.1 A more
1 Heb. ix. 22, 23. Perhaps the best justice is done to this statement
if it be understood to denote that, inasmuch as the heavenly sanctuary
through the presence of Christ exhibits the tokens of an accomplished
propitiation, it is made fitting on God's part to tolerate the approach
thereto of the sin-stained, as well as appropriate on their part to assume
to draw near. The guilt of the sinner, it may be said, does not proclaim
exclusion from heaven, since here the memorials of a propitiatory offer-

MODIFIED PAULINISM 289
intelligible description of His priestly office in the
heavenly sphere is contained in the declaration, He is
able to save unto the utterrnost them that draw near
unto God through Him, seeing He ever liveth to make
intercession for them.1 It is not necessary, doubtless,
to understand this intercession in the most literal way.
The presence of Christ at the throne of God in the
nature in which He suffered is a perpetual memorial of
His sacrifice, and has thus the virtue of a perpetual
request for grace toward those for whom the sacrifice
was made.
The imaginative and figurative style of the epistle
renders it somewhat difficult to determine just how the1
author conceived of the relation of Christ's work to
human salvation. But the evidence is, in our view, suf
ficient to warrant the conclusion that, like Paul, he joined
ing testify that his guilt is covered. It is made thus a place cleansed
from obstacles to cordial communion between God and any believing
soul that has a will to seek the divine presence. An interpretation very
nearly identical with this is contained in the following comment of
Peake : " What is meant by the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary
must be determined by its meaning as applied to the earthly. The
ritual of the Day of Atonement was designed not merely to atone for
the sins of the people, but to make atonement for the sanctuary itself.
The sense of this would seem to be that the constant sin of Israel had
communicated a certain uncleanness to the sanctuary. Similarly the
sin of mankind might be supposed to have cast its shadow even into
heaven. It hung like a thick curtain between God and man, preventing
free fellowship, and that not only because it defiled the conscience, so
that man was ill at ease with God, but because it intruded a disturbing
element into the life of God Himself. Looking at it from a somewhat
different point of view, we might take the cleansing to be identical with
the removal of the veil in the heavenly sanctuary, since cleansing is for
the sake of access." (New Century Bible, Hebrews, p. 191.)
1 Heb. vii. 25.

290 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
j an objective with a subjective aspect, making the sacrifice
of the great High Priest in some sense a condition of the
\ remission of sins as well as a practical expedient for im-
\ parting moral and religious incentive. This conclusion
is favored by the general office which he attaches to
(sacrifice. Possibly, as Meri6goz contends, his thought
on this theme approached less closely than that of Paul
Ito the idea of substitutionary suffering.1 Still he evi
dently conceived of sacrifice as having distinct connection
with the remission of sins, so that when it has laid a
basis for remission it is no longer needed, and where
remission is excluded because of the wilfulness and
enormity of the sin it has no place.2 The same conclu
sion is approved by the direct association which is made
between the sacrifice of Christ and the remission or
putting away of sins. It is mentioned in several in-
l stances as though in a summary way and once for all it
/had taken the ban off from sinners and provided for
I their access to God. Christ, it is said, sat down at the
right hand of the Majesty on high when He had made
purification of sins.3 Through His own blood He
entered once for all into the holy place, having obtained
eternal redemption.4 Once at the end of the ages He
was manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of
Himself.5 He was once offered to bear the sins of
many.6 When He had offered one sacrifice for sins for
ever He sat down on the right hand of God.7 What/'
1 La TMologie de l'Epitre aux H^breux, pp. 183, 184.
2 Heb. v. 1, 3, ix. 22, x. 17, 18, 26. 6 ix. 26.
8 Heb. i. 3. 8 ix. 28.
* ix. 12. 7 x. 12

MODIFIED PAULINISM 291
less could the author have meant by statements like
these than that the gracious economy in which sins are
remitted and access to God enjoyed is founded upon the\
sacrifice of ChristTTTurthermore, he seems to attach
an objective value of this kind to Christ's work when he
includes in His high-priestly vocation the making of a
propitiation for the sins of the people.1
In its portrayal of the subjective bearing of Christ's
work the Epistle to the Hebrews falls in some respects
below the Pauline representation. It does not bring out
the notion of mystical union with the crucified One and
of spiritual transformation through His indwelling as it
was brought out by the apostle. The nearest approach
that the epistle reveals to this order of Pauline thinking
is contained in the description of Christians as "par-l
takers of Christ.2 In its own way, however, it empha-'
sizes the saving influence which emanates from the
manifested Son of God. The sacrifice of Christ, accord-'
ing to its conception, seals the new covenant,3 and thus
is calculated to inspire to a quickening confidence in the
great promises connected with that covenant. As a
spiritual sacrifice, armed with a spiritual motive-power,
it is adapted to free the conscience from the burden of
mere legal works, and to lead into a true service of God.4
Furthermore God is made to appear specially approach
able in the thought that at His right hand is the Media
tor who came through temptation and suffering to a full
measure of sympathy. The disclosure of such a Highj
Priest demonstrates that there is a throne of grace, and '
1 Heb. ii. 17. 8 ix. 15.
2 iii. 14. 4 ix. 14.

292 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
invites men in spite of their consciousness of unworthi-
ness to draw near with confidence.1 Indeed contempla
tion of His person and work is in such a sense faith-
inspiring, that He may fitly be named the author and
the perfecter of our faith.2
In First Peter there is also a coupling together of the
objective and subjective aspects of Christ's work. In
accordance with the practical character of the epistle the
superior stress falls upon the latter. The sacrifice of
Christ is, in fact, in every mention of the same, brought
into association with some spiritual effect that ought to
follow from its contemplation.3 But while the writer, in
his homiletical use of truth, places the chief stress upon
the holy persuasion emanating from the death of Christ,
there is no good reason to suppose that he ignored the
objective aspect. In his choice of words he pays a
probable tribute to it when he speaks of Christ as bear
ing our sins in His body upon the tree, or when he
refers to Him as having suffered for sins once, the
righteous for the unrighteous.
An essentially Pauline view of the resurrection of
Christ, as an important factor in the total scheme for
rescuing and renewing men, appears in First Peter.4
The Epistle to the Hebrews, on the other hand, takes
no pains to specify the value of Christ's resurrection for
Christian faith, and contains only a bare reference to
the fact.5 With the death of Christ it conjoins immedi
ately His ascension or entrance into the heavenly sanctu-
1 Heb. iv. 14-16, x. 19, 22. 4 1 Pet. i. 3.
2 xii. 2. 6 Heb. xiii. 20.
8 I Pet. i. 18-21, ii. 24, iii. 18, iv. 1.

MODIFIED PAULINISM 293
ary. The slight attention paid to the great intervening
event may be explained very largely by the writer's en
grossment in the description. of the high-priestly doing
of Christ.

VI. — Christian Life, Individual and Collective.
The connection which is made in the' Epistle to the
Hebrews between the remission of sins and the work of
Christ suggests that its point of view is not remote from
the Pauline doctrine of justification. This term, how
ever, is wanting to its vocabulary, and in its place there
is a recurring reference to a work of sanctification or
cleansing (ayid^eiv, KaOapi&iv).1 A formal mention of
justification is also wanting in First Peter. Both epistles
direct attention more largely to the progress and perfect
ing of Christian life than to its initial stage. A special
feature of First Peter is its stress upon divine truth as
an agent of renewal.2 A distinguishing characteristic of
Hebrews is the prominence which it gives to the view
that Christian life is a practical realization of a covenant.
1 Heb. i. 3, ii, 11, ix. 13, 14, x. 10, 14, 29, xiii. 12. Denney contends
that under his contrasted terminology the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews makes a very close approach to a Pauline meaning. " The
people," he says, " were sanctified, not when they were raised to moral
perfection, but when, through the annuling of their sin by sacrifice, they
had been constituted into a people of God, and in the person of their
representative had access to His presence. The word ayidfcav, in short,
in the Epistle to the Hebrews corresponds as nearly as possible to the
Pauline Sikcuovv ; the sanctification of the one writer is the justifica
tion of the other." (The Death of Christ, its Place and Interpretation
in the New Testament, p. 221.)
2 1 Pet. i. 23-25.

294 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
It is the counterpart of the better covenant inaugurated
through Christ, the fulfillment of the ideal which the
ancient prophet sketched when he wrote : " This is the
covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after
those days, saith the Lord ; I will put my laws into their
mind, and on their heart also will I write them." 1 In
accordance with the perfection of the new covenant its
subjects stand in the light of great promises, but are also
placed under very grave responsibilities. Infidelity to a
covenant sealed with the blood of Christ is a sin for which
pardon can hardly be anticipated. Were we to make no
allowance for the rhetorical fervor of the writer's dis
course, we should say that he counted such a sin to
be wholly unpardonable.2 What he probably meant to
assert, however, was the truth that the apostasy in
question was so grievous as scarcely to admit of remedy.
A magnifying of the office of hope is characteristic of
both Hebrews and First Peter.3 Both epistles make
use of the term in connections where Paul would have
been disposed to speak of faith. This is very noticeable
in the designation of hope as an anchor of the soul, in
the characterization of it as the medium through which
we draw nigh to God, and in the description of piety as a
hoping in God. In the one formal definition of faith, as
contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is given a
sense closely allied to hope, being identified with the
grasp of the soul on a future and promised good.4 The
ethical potency of faith, however, as a source of present
1 Heb. viii. 6-13, x. 16. 2 Heb. vi. 4-8, a. 26-31.
8 Heb. iii. 6, vi. 11, 18, 19, vii. 19, x. 23 ; 1 Pet. i. 3, 13, 21, iii. 5, 15.
4 Heb. xi. 1.

MODIFIED PAULINISM 295
obedience and righteous achievement is not overlooked.
Naturally the relative lack of emphasis on the Pauline
notion of mystical union with Christ has an effect on the
representation of faith. It is set forth in the epistle
rather as a principle of fidelity, steadfastness, and coura
geous activity than as a means of inner affiance with the
Redeemer.1 The virtue which is most commended in Hebrews
might be defined as Christian hardihood. The exhorta
tions of this eloquent writing breathe a martial spirit,
and summon like the notes of a trumpet to a resolute
conflict against all the opposing forces which rise up
between one and the great recompense of reward. In
First Peter along with manful endurance the gentler
virtues are emphasized — tenderness of heart, humble
ness of mind, and the love that covers a multitude of
sins. In the standard of civic and domestic virtue which
it sets forth this epistle bears a close resemblance to the
writings of Paul.2
On the subject of church constitution the two epistles
do not afford precise data. Hebrews contains no more
explicit reference to ecclesiastical officials than is found
in an exhortation to those addressed to remember and
to obey those having the rule over them.3 First Peter
refers to elders as being charged with oversight of the
flock, and as under obligation to fulfill the charge rather
through the persuasion of a good example than through
assumption of lordship.4 In neither epistle is there any
1 Heb. iii. 12-19, 'v- I-3> x- 39> x'" 8 Heb. xiii. 7, 17, 24.
2 1 Pet. ii. 13-18, iii. 1-7. * 1 Pet. v. 1-3.

296 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
indication of the sacerdotal theory which makes the
Christian body at large dependent on the mediation of a
priestly rank. Hebrews contemplates no possessor of
priestly functions under the new covenant apart from
Christ. It also emphasizes the privilege of believers
generally to enter into the holy place, a form of expres
sion which denotes that one man, in the exercise of faith
and submission, has as good a right of direct approach
unto God as any other.1 The same thought appears in
the Petrine epistle in the designation of Christians
generally as a holy priesthood.2
Neither epistle contains any reference to the eucharist.
Neither countenances the notion that Christianity pro
vides for any proper sacrificial rite. The sacrifice of
Christ is the one offering acknowledged by Hebrews,3
and First Peter mentions besides only those spiritual
sacrifices which all Christians offer when they lift up
their hearts in faith and devotion.4 The former epistle
has no explicit teaching on the efficacy of baptism. It
mentions the term only in a single instance, and then in
a way which admits of including under it more than the
Christian rite proper, since the plural form is used.5
The words relative to bodily washing in x. 22 may in
close a second reference. If that be their import, they
serve as a token that the writer regarded baptism, after
the pattern of the Levitical rites, as a means of cere
monial cleansing. In First Peter an association is made
between baptism and being saved, but the context takes
1 Heb. x. 19-22. 4 1 Pet. ii. 5.
2 1 Pet. ii. 5. 6 Heb. vi. 2.
8 Heb. ix. 27, 28, x. 10, 12.

MODIFIED PAULINISM

297

pains to indicate that it is not the mere rite that is thus
efficacious, but the rite in connection with a religious
attitude. This is described somewhat enigmatically as
" the interrogation of a good conscience toward God." 1
Probably the word conscience (aweihrjaean) is here to
be construed as an objective genitive, and the phrase is
to be regarded as indicative of an attitude of request for
a conscience cleansed from guilt and sin.

VII. — Eschatology.
The trend of the epistle to the Hebrews is emphati- 1
cally eschatological. The better and the abiding posses
sion, the city which hath foundations, and the kingdom
which cannot be shaken are represented to be above and
beyond the present life, and are pictured as the proper
objects of hope and aspiration.2 In this sense an escha
tological tone dominates the epistle. At the same time
it gives very few details of eschatology. There is in it /
an intimation in line with the early apostolic expectation /
of the speedy close of the dispensation.3 The doctrine
of an eternal judgment, or one perpetually fixing destiny, /
is reckoned among elementary teachings.4 So also is I
the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. From the '
reference to the worthies, who did not accept deliver
ance that "they might obtain a better resurrection,"5
some have argued that the author thought of participa
tion in the resurrection as something to be won, and
1 1 Pet. iii. 21. 4 Heb. vi. 2.
2 Heb. x. 34, xi. 10, xii. 28. 6 Heb. xi. 35.
8 Heb. x. 25.

298 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
consequently did not impute it to the wicked.1 The
ground for the conclusion, however, is not very decisive.
A resurrection to honor and blessedness might be
counted a prize to be won, as opposed to a resurrection
simply to judgment.
The First Epistle of Peter agrees with Hebrews in
its stress upon the incorruptible inheritance held in
reserve.2 It also intimates the nearness of the end of
the dispensation.3 Peculiar to the epistle is the state
ment which it makes respecting the proclamation of the
gospel message in the region of the dead.4 A proper
parallel is not to be found in any other New Testament
writing. A reference to the descent of Christ into Hades
may perhaps, as Meyer contends, be contained in Eph.
iv. 9. But it is only in First Peter that there is any
reference to the preaching of Christ to the dead. - Not
all interpreters, it is true, discover that much here.
The natural sense, however, of the singular Petrine sen
tences is that which the early Church imputed to them.
The collocation of the clauses in chapter iii points dis
tinctly to the preaching of the crucified Christ and to
His preaching among the dead. He was put to death
in the flesh. He was quickened in the spirit. In the
spirit, that is, His pneumatic nature, still living and
active, He went and preached. He preached not to
men in the flesh but to spirits, disembodied souls in
Hades. He preached, not to those still in the course
of their sins upon earth, but to those who had trans
gressed aforetime. Moreover, according to the intima-
1 So Weiss and Beyschlag. 8 1 Pet. iv. 7.
a 1 Pet. i. 4. 4 1 Pet. iii. 18-20.

MODIFIED PAULINISM 299
tion of iv. 6, He preached to them not an Old Testament
message, but the message introduced by His own minis
try upon earth, the gospel message. Thus, there are
too many items, coherent and pointing in one direction,
to admit of any other conclusion than that the writer
meant to teach that Christ preached to men in the
region of the dead. As the description of this trans
action falls between a reference to the death of Christ
and the mention of His resurrection, it seems probable
that the mission to the dead was located by the writer
between the crucifixion and the resurrection.

CHAPTER VI

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
I. — The Question of Authorship.
The fourth Gospel and the first of the Epistles bear
ing the name of John are so largely akin in style and
contents that the reasonable and commonly admitted
conclusion is that they must have had the same author.
Some points of contrast between them may doubtless be
specified. The Epistle is without reference to Old
Testament types and precedents, and inculcates more
distinctly than the Gospel the idea of propitiation. It
contains also some peculiarities in the choice of words
and phrases.1 But these points of difference are much
more than counterbalanced by the full list of resem
blances. In both the Gospel and the Episde the same
habit of developing a proposition by repeating it in
slightly varied form is observable. In both there are the
same fundamental representations on the coming of the
Son of God in the flesh, on the exhibition of the love of
God in the sending of the Son, on the Son being the
source of life, on the obligation of brotherly love, on
1 For instance we have in the Epistle irapovo-la, avofu'a, e\av tov
iraripa, ?xnv rov v'<-°v> woteti/ rrjv 8uauoo-wr)v, apvaxrOai rbv viov.
300

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 301
walking in the light, and on being born of God. In both
also there is manifested the same predilection for sharp
antitheses, for the coupling together of such opposites
as life and death, light and darkness, love and hatred,
truth and falsehood, the Father and the world, God and
the devil, sonship toward God and sonship toward the
devil. In short the reasons are compelling for a close
association of the first Epistle with the fourth Gospel.
Early Christian thought, if not with entire unanimity,
yet with moderate exception before the last half of the
third century, assigned the Apocalypse to the same
author who wrote the fourth Gospel and the Epistle.
The modern judgment, too, has not gone entirely coun
ter to this assignment. The Apocalypse, however, as
has been noticed, differs so far from the other two writ
ings, that it is appropriate to treat of it in connection
with a different theological type. The writings accord
ingly which represent the specific theological type de
nominated the Johannine are the fourth Gospel and the
first Epistle. The style and contents of the second and
third Epistles afford indeed no real motive to separate
them from the proper Johannine group ; but they con
tain so little theological matter that there is very slight
occasion to bring them into consideration.
The author of the Gospel and the Epistle withholds
his name. He furnishes nevertheless quite distinct inti
mations of his identity, or at least of the judgment which
he would have his readers form respecting his identity.
In the first place, he gives himself out as an eyewitness
of the events narrated. Leaving aside the question
whether xxi. 24 is to be reckoned as belonging to an ap-

302 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
pendix from a later hand, we have in xix. 35 this une
quivocal testimony : " He that hath seen hath borne
witness, and his witness is true : and he knoweth that
he saith true that ye also may believe." The use here
by the writer of the third person is most naturally con
strued, not as a reference to an outside party, but as a
literary device for naming himself.1 The declaration,
"He knoweth that he saith true," presents the witness
as still present over against the recorded testimony on
the one hand and the contemplated readers on the other.
In line with this interpretation stands i. 14 in the Gospel
and i. 1-4 in the Epistle. Only one who had been an
eyewitness, or meant to figure as such, would naturally
have used the language of either passage. In the sec
ond place, while the author goes beyond the example of
any other evangelist in the number of instances in which
he mentions the names of individual disciples, he prac
tices a continuous reserve respecting the name of a dis
ciple who evidently must have held a conspicuous place
in the apostolic group. Jesus upon the cross commends
His mother to this disciple. The same disciple leaned
upon the breast of Jesus at the last supper and asked of
Him a question in response to Peter's beckoning. The
same in all probability was one of the two unnamed dis
ciples of the Baptist who were among the first to follow
Jesus. Why this withholding of the name of one disci
ple in the Gospel which shows most freedom in the
mention of names? The only plausible answer is that
1 In ix. 37 Christ is represented as referring to Himself by the same
third personal pronoun (cxeivos), and Paul in 2 Cor. xii. 3-5 uses
6 toioBtos in an analogous manner. It is perfectly credible, therefore,
that the writer should have used ekcivos in referring to himself.

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 303
the writer identified himself, or wished his readers to
identify him, with the unnamed disciple — a disciple be
longing apparently to the inner circle of the twelve, and
therefore presumably John, since he is discriminated
from Peter, and no one in face of the early martyrdom
of James would think of him as the writer. That the
narrator should prefer to indicate himself in an indirect
way is intelligible; that he should have any motive to
designate another continuously in that fashion is not in
telligible. We are thus held by distinct peculiarities of
the writings to the conclusion that the author certainly
meant his readers to understand that he was an eyewit
ness, and have besides a probable indication that this
eyewitness was meant to be identified with the Apostle
John, the son of Zebedee.
It may properly count somewhat in favor of con
formity between the fact of authorship and the clue con
tained in the writings that early tradition assigned them
to the Apostle John, and that history knows of no rival
candidate to put in his place. The tradition is as clear
and controlling as the analogy of other apostolic writings
would lead us to expect. As Meyer says of the fourth
Gospel, " The continuity of the attestations to it, and
their growing extent in connection with the literature of
the Church, are as evident as we ever can and do require
for the external confirmation of any New Testament
writing." J It is true that a party of the second century,
the so-called Alogi, challenged the fact of Johannine
authorship. But they were an obscure party, had a
motive for their challenge in their antipathy to the
1 Coram, on John, p. 14.

304 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Johannine doctrine of the Logos, and were to that
degree lacking in critical competency, that they ascribed
the fourth Gospel as well as the Apocalypse to Cerin-
thus. It is hardly worth while, therefore, to bring them
onto the witness stand. Their testimony is in truth a
little equivocal for the negative side. As Ezra Abbot
remarks, " The fact that they ascribed the fourth Gospel
to Cerinthus, a heretic of the first century, contemporary
with the Apostle John, shows that they could not pre
tend that this Gospel was a recent work." 1 No respect
able critic of the present day would follow the Alogi in
putting the Judaizing Gnostic Cerinthus in place of the
apostle. Aside from the weak and self-refuted challenge by
the Alogi, there is no positive item in the line of exter
nal evidences which can be cited against the traditional
theory of Johannine authorship. It has been supposed,
it is true, that the position assumed by the Quartodeci-
mans of the Asiatic churches in the Easter controversy,
near the end of the second century, involves an adverse
comment on that theory. But the supposition is not
well taken. If a proper distinction is made between
the motive which originally determined the celebration
of Easter on the fourteenth of Nisan and the arguments
which were employed by individuals two or three genera
tions later under stress of controversy, no real occasion
will be found in this whole matter for denying the author
ship of the fourth Gospel to the Apostle John. Primarily,
it may be presumed, the general thought that Jesus was
the true Paschal Lamb, by whose shed blood came
JThe Authorship of the Fourth Gospel: External Evidences, p. 18.

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 305
deliverance to mankind, was regarded as a sufficient
ground for memorializing the day on which the Passover
feast was celebrated. John and his more immediate
followers in the Asiatic churches, apart from all question
as to the precise day on which the last supper, or the
crucifixion, had place, could have assented, on the speci
fied ground alone, to the custom of celebrating the
proper Passover day, the fourteenth of Nisan. Accord
ingly the fact that some of the Quartodecimans, at a
later date, may have given a more specific ground for
electing the fourteenth of Nisan — namely, the occur
rence of the last supper on that day — a ground not in
full harmony with the Johannine chronology of the pas
sion, is of very little consequence. By no means does
it import that John could not have lived and labored and
written within the domain of the Asiatic churches. He .
could have done all that, and yet not have been consist
ently followed by every controversialist as respects
chronological data which he had never attempted to
turn into a prominent issue. At the time that John's
Gospel came into circulation the Synoptical Gospels
were an acknowledged authority, and Christians in the
Asiatic churches, however little they were inclined to
challenge the former, very naturally in one connection
or another took account of the chronological data of the
latter.1 Again, it has been supposed that evidence destructive
of the theory of Johannine authorship is discoverable in
1 Compare Drummond, An Inquiry into the Character and Author
ship of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 441 513 ; Stanton, The Gospels as His
torical Documents, I. 173-197.

306 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
ancient testimony to the martyrdom of the apostle John.
The testimony is found in a reputed saying of Papias
and in certain forms of statement in the church calendar.
Now, for the former no sort of a voucher can be found
within at least three centuries from the close of the
apostolic age, and besides it is given in too confused and
bungling a fashion to command any confidence as against
the line of opposing witnesses. As respects the church
calendar, it is very questionable whether its forms of
statement primarily had any reference to the celebration
of the martyrdom of John or any design of specifying
the date of his death. So J. H. Bernard argues, and
Harnack approves his contention.1
A principal negative item urged against the Johannine
authorship is the silence of Polycarp in his epistle to the
Philippians and of Ignatius in his epistle to the Ephe
sians. This silence is taken as evidence that John could
not have presided over the Asiatic churches and published
a Gospel in their territory. But the evidence is far from
decisive. Polycarp, in addressing a society with which
John is not known to have had any personal relations,
had small occasion to refer to the apostle. Ignatius,
might appropriately have made some allusion to him in
writing to the Ephesians. It is to be noticed, however,
that he was very sparing of references to the apostles.
In five out of seven of his epistles he gives them no
specific mention. Even in writing to the Romans he
introduces not a single counsel on the authority of
Peter and Paul, and only incidentally mentions their
xThe Irish Quarterly, Jan., 1908; Theologische Literaturzeitung,
Jan. 2, 1909.

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 307
names. Manifestly the silence of either of these writers
affords no weighty ground of objection for one who does
not assert, as a canon of criticism, that an epistle must
necessarily contain every item that is pertinent to the his
torical situation existing at the time of its composition.
Over against these meagre grounds of challenge, on
the score of external evidences, we may cite the testi
mony of men able to claim acquaintance with those who
could scarcely have been ignorant of the real facts as to
the Ephesian residence of John and the original associa
tion of his name with the fourth Gospel. Here belong
in particular Irenaeus and Polycrates. Both were na
tives of Asia Minor, and the latter was a lifelong resi
dent. Both enjoyed fellowship with distinguished men
of an earlier generation. Irenaeus in his youth had
listened to Polycarp, and Polycrates belonged to a family
which had furnished many bishops. Both indicate their
undoubting conviction that the Apostle John had labored,
as the tradition reports him to have done, in the western
section of Asia Minor ; and Irenaeus besides states expli
citly that John wrote the fourth Gospel.1 It has been
alleged indeed that Irenaeus very likely misinterpreted
the words of Polycarp which he heard in his early years,
understanding him to speak of the Apostle John when
perchance he spoke of some other John. But it is not
at all probable that Irenaeus depended in his judgment
of John's career simply upon a youthful reminiscence.
He was no recluse shut out from the world of his time.
He was, on the contrary, a man of affairs, and may be
1 Cont. Haer., iii. 1. 1. See also iii. 3. 4 and the epistles to Florinus
and Victor as cited by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., v. 20, 24.

308 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
presumed, in his communication with his elders, such as
the venerable Pothinus, to have found means of confirm
ing or correcting the impressions derived from the ex
periences of his youth. As for Polycrates, a man who
spent his life on the site of the reputed activity of the
Apostle John, it is quite incredible that he should not
have represented a long-standing and thoroughly domi
nant tradition. Polycrates, it is true, in the scanty ex
tracts from his writings which are extant, does not
directly pronounce on the authorship of the fourth Gos
pel ; but indirectly he does refer that Gospel to the
Apostle John, inasmuch as he identifies the John whom
he mentions with the beloved disciple who is set forth
in the Gospel itself as the responsible witness for the
facts recorded.1
Supplementing the testimony of these eminent wit
nesses we have traces of the influence of the fourth Gos
pel upon Christian literature from an early point in the
second century. While these traces are not a complete
proof of Johannine authorship, they are favorable to the
theory of such authorship as making credible the exist
ence of the Gospel at the date to which tradition assigns
John's death. In the epistles of Ignatius there are very
distinct reminders of Johannine thought and phraseology,2
and the epistle of Polycarp is not wholly destitute of such
reminders. There is fair ground for concluding that the
Gnostic Basilides, who was conspicuous in the reign of
Hadrian (a. d. i 17-138), used the fourth Gospel as one
of a collection of Gospels. A growing tendency has
1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., v. 24.
2 Philadelphians, vii, ix ; Magnesians, vii, x ; Romans, vii.

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 309
been manifested by recent criticism to admit the cer
tainty that Justin Martyr made use of the fourth Gospel
and it is perfectly clear from Tatian's employment of it
in his Diatessaron, that it had in his day a recognized
standing among the biographies of Jesus.1
It was stated above that history knows of no rival
candidate, in relation to the composition of the fourth
Gospel, who can legitimately be put in the place of the
Apostle John. A rival has indeed been brought forward
in the person of a certain Presbyter John ; but the cre
dentials which are presented in his behalf are of the
most ghostly description. Early tradition offers no plea
for the presbyter. When Caius, at the end of the second
century, wanted to strip the Apocalypse of apostolic
sanction, he shelved off the production onto Cerinthus.
There was apparently no Presbyter John in sight at that
time to whom responsibility might plausibly be charged.2
No real authority vouches for the fact that this presbyter
ever wrote a line. No trustworthy testimony assures us
that he was seen in Ephesus or its neighborhood. The
conjecture of Dionysius of Alexandria, more than a cen
tury and a half after the Johannine era, that the presby
ter may have been commemorated by one of two monu
ments in Ephesus, is a long way off from the domain of
history. The whole sum of evidence which we possess
for the bare existence of the John in question is a single
line from Papias as cited by Eusebius.3 The passage in
which the line is found runs as follows : " I will not
1 See, on the evidence contained in the writings of this entire list of
authors, Drummond, Fourth Gospel ; Stanton, The Gospels.
2 Compare Zahn, Einleitung, II. 449. 8 Hist. Eccl., iii. 39.

3IO NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
hesitate to put down for thee along with the interpreta
tions as many things also as I once learned well from
the elders, and remembered well, strongly confirming the
truth about them. For I used not to take pleasure in
those who say a great deal, as most men do, but in those
who teach the truth ; and not in those who mention for
eign commandments, but in those [who mention] the
[commandments] given from the Lord to the faith, and
coming from the truth itself. And also if anyone came
on any occasion who had been a follower of the elders,
I used to inquire into the discourses of the elders, what
Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip, or what
Thomas, or what John or Matthew, or any other of the
disciples of the Lord [said], and what Aristion and the
Presbyter [or Elder] John, disciples of the Lord, say."
Now, it has not always been judged that the John who is
numbered among elders and disciples in the second in
stance is different from the John who is numbered
among elders and disciples in the former instance. But
suppose we grant, with the majority of recent critics,
that it was the intention of Papias to distinguish between
the two, what historical conclusion have we established?
Simply this, that there was among the early Christians
a man by the name of John, who in the thought of
Papias was associated with Aristion. The warrant for
connecting this John with any extant writing is totally
wanting. To put him in the place which the tradition
assigns to the son of Zebedee is anything but a historical
procedure. But could the Apostle John have written a book of
such extraordinary character as the fourth Gospel or the

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 311
related Epistle ? To this question it may be replied that
we have no such precise measure of the mental abilities
and peculiarities of the apostle as to be qualified to
assert a negative. It is alleged, indeed, that it is incon
ceivable that a Galilean fisherman should have been
competent to write treatises so tinged with mystic ideal
ism. But we have nothing to do here with what a Gali
lean fisherman could or could not accomplish. John has
left no daily report of his intellectual life which assures
us that he remained in a perfectly static condition from
the year 30 to the year 90. More than one person has
taken rank among scholars who had scarcely reached
the alphabet at the stage of early manhood. Endowed
with a good original soil John's soul might, for aught we
know, being enriched during a period of fifty or sixty
years by reflection, reading, and experience, have pro
duced writings of the type of the Gospel and Epistle
associated with his name.
A grain more of consideration may be awarded to a
second allegation, namely, that it is next to inconceivable
that a man who lived familiarly with one bearing like
Christ the common human form should have entertained
and expressed such a transcendent view of His personal
ity. The worshipful attitude toward the Master who
had also been the earthly companion is indeed remark
able. But who shall say that it was impossible for a
disciple whose deeply enthusiastic soul had been taken
captive ? The example of Paul refutes the alleged im
possibility. It may be said, indeed, that Paul did not
company with Christ, and besides got His impression of
Him through the medium of a heavenly vision. But

312 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Paul in fact was not remote from realistic ground. He
trod the site of Christ's ministry while yet the recollec
tion of it was fresh in the minds of multitudes. He
was in close contact with those who criticised and con
demned His Lord as well as with those who loved and
honored Him. While his thought of the essential glory
of Christ may have been helped by the disclosure before
the gates of Damascus, it is not certain that the vision
made known a brighter form than that which was appre
hended by the ardent faith and imagination of the dis
ciple who had been present at the transfiguration scene,
and who confidently expected that Christ would be re
vealed at no distant day in exceeding glory. Further
more, there is a shade of presumption in assuming that
the actual personality of Christ was not such that an
appreciative companion might derive from close com
munion with Him a basis for a most exalted view of His
moral beauty and unique connection with the divine.
On the whole, there is no more warrant for concluding
that the transcendent view in the fourth Gospel was im
possible for John than there is for affirming that a con
verted Pharisee could never have come within a few
years of Christ's death to entertain and promulgate the
transcendent view contained in the Pauline epistles.
The principal difficulty in the way of assuming the
Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel is the broad
contrast between it and the Synoptical Gospels. This
contrast is not indeed in its whole extent a ground for
rational doubt. On the contrary, some points of devia
tion are much better explained on the supposition of
Johannine authorship than on the opposite supposition.

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 313
Why should a writer who was conscious of reporting at
second hand depart from the lines of a history already
put in circulation ? Would he not have reason to appre
hend that his departures from the earlier record would
discredit his own composition ? On the other hand, one
who was conscious that in his possession of facts he was
the peer of any possible narrator might, out of the ful
ness of his confidence, be somewhat indifferent to the
exact correspondence of his narrative to the reports of
certain other writers. This point of view may be applied
to various portions of the subject-matter of the fourth
Gospel, such as its account of a plurality of visits on the
part of Christ to Judaea, and its apparent location of the
last supper on the evening preceding the proper com
mencement of the passover feast. For aught that any
body knows there was a fair occasion to supplement the
Galilean document, on which the Synoptical Gospels
may be supposed to have been based, and to revise one
or another of their statements. Indeed it is the opinion
of eminent exegetes that the Synoptical Gospels them
selves point to the fact of an early Judaean ministry of
which they give no description.1 In any case deviations
of this kind from the earlier sketches of Christ's life
would make quite as much of an enigma on the supposi
tion that the author needed to borrow his facts, as they
do on the supposition that he wrote with the assurance
of one who felt that he himself had all the requisites of
a competent witness.
1 See Matt. iv. 12; Mark, i. 14. Tokens of visits to Judaea not
described in the Synoptical Gospels have also been recognized by some
in the following texts : Matt. xvi. 1, xxiii. 37-39, xxvii. 57 ; Mark iii. 22,
vii. I, xi. 2, 3, xiv. 14, xv. 43; Luke x. 25-37, 38-42, xiii. 34, 35.

3 14 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
But though some of the contrasts with the Synoptical
narratives constitute no real ground of objection, it must
be conceded that the peculiar tone of Christ's discourses
in the fourth Gospel and the freedom with which He is
represented to have put forth His high claims even at
the opening of His ministry constitute a real difficulty.
From the other evangelists we should gather that Christ's
speech was more terse and aphoristic, and less subtle
and mystical, than it appears in the report of the fourth
evangelist. We should also conclude that in the earlier
stages of His ministry He practised more reserve on the
subject of His personal and official rank than appears in
the latest biography.
In response to these sources of objection it may be
said, that the strong individuality of John naturally made
its impression upon his sketch of the life of Christ ; that
the distance of the time of writing from the events
narrated dulled the edge of verbal recollection and facil
itated the reproduction of Christ's discourses in a Johan
nine dialect ; that it was appropriate in the concluding
biography of Christ to give relatively a large amount of
attention to matters supplementary to those reported in
the biographies already current, among which matters
were included some of the more private and confidential
addresses of the Master to His special disciples ; and
that the appearance of certain aberrant tendencies in
christological thinking dictated that an earnest effort
should be made to set forth what was deemed the true
exposition of Christ's person. These considerations may
not fully overcome the difficulties in question. In fact
it must be granted that an enigmatic element remains at

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 315
the end of all attempts to explain this Gospel. The
best that can be done is to reduce this element by mak
ing large account of the idiosyncracies of the author.
He must be rated as an idealist, a mystic, so given to
viewing things according to their absolute type as to be
habitually occupied with that type, to a relative neglect
of primary and intermediate forms and stages. There
may be some difficulty in ascribing this peculiar bent to
the Apostle John. Still, as has been suggested, our
knowledge of the apostle affords no compelling ground
for assuming that the marked peculiarity could not have
been characteristic of him. It is to be remembered,
furthermore, that difficulty is not escaped by placing a
negative on the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gos
pel. If this writing is to be referred to any eyewitness,
it might as well be assigned to the Apostle John as to
any other. The writing, as has been shown, does make
claim to have issued from an eyewitness. Now a denial
of the legitimacy of this claim cannot be entered with
out bringing in very considerable enigmas. In the first
place it will need to be asked in the face of such denial,
How is the lofty spiritual level of this Gospel consonant
with the supposition that it issued from the mind of a
counterfeiter ? There are manifold sentences in it which
age after age speak like a divine music to the hearts of
men. How came it about that an insincere mind should
have been the fount whence issued these heavenly say
ings ? Again, it will need to be asked, How explain
the measure of circumstantial details which distinguishes
this Gospel ? Minute specifications on persons, times,
and places were not necessary to one who had no other

316 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
reason for appealing to history than his desire to get
a framework upon which he might hang his theological
ideas. Neither could he indulge in them, unless person
ally conversant with the subjects touched upon, without
naturally incurring more occasion for correction than has
been proved against the author of the fourth Gospel.
"Whether we turn," says Lightfoot, "to the Messianic
hopes of the chosen people, with all the attendant cir
cumstances with which imagination had invested this
expected event, or to the mutual relations of Samaritans,
Jews, Galilaeans, Romans, and the respective feelings,
prejudices, beliefs, customs of each, or to the topography
as well of the city and the temple as of the rural dis
tricts — the Lake of Gennesaret, and the cornfields and
mountain ridges of Shechem — or to the contemporary
history of the Jewish hierarchy and the Herodian
sovereignty, we are alike struck at every turn with
subtle and unsuspicious traces, betokening the familiarity
with which the writer moves amidst the ever-shifting
scenes of this wonderful narrative." 1 Make this record
of circumstantial items the offspring of the well-stored
memory of an eyewitness, and we have an explanation
both of their multiplicity and of their ability in general
to endure such tests of accuracy as are available. Refer
them to the invention of one who neither knew nor
cared for the facts of real history and they are placed
beyond the range of probable explanation both as to
quantity and quality. 2 We conclude then, notwithstand-
1 Essays on the Johannine Authorship of the fourth Gospel, by
Abbot, Peabody, and Lightfoot, p. 150.
2 For specifications on persons see i. 35-51, ii. 13-20, iii. 1, vi. 5, 8,
68, vii. 3, 5, xi. 1, 16, 49, xii. 2-4, xiii. 6, 23, 26, 36, xiv. 5. 8, 22, xviii. 10-

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 317
ing the extraordinary character of the fourth Gospel,
that we choose the path of least difficulty when we
attribute it, as well as the closely related epistle, to
the Apostle John.
The above discussion proceeds on the assumption that
the choice lies between assigning the fourth Gospel as a
whole to the Apostle John and excluding him from all
direct participation in its composition. Theoretically a
third alternative is admissible. As the Apostle Matthew
is supposed to have written out discourses of Jesus which
were incorporated with the first Gospel, so John may be
regarded as having contributed a collection of discourses
which by a later hand was combined with narratives of
the life of Jesus. A theory of this kind is not unknown
to New Testament criticism.1 Evidently it is fitted to
15, 18, xix. 25, 38, 39, xx. 24, xxi ; on places, i. 28, 44, 46, ii. 1, iii. 23, iv.
5, v. 2, vi. 19, viii. 20, ix, 7, x. 23, 40, xi. 18, 54, xviii. I, xix. 13, 17, xx.
18, xxi. 2 ; on times, i. 29, 35, 39, 43, ii. 1, 13, 20, 23, iv. 6, 40, 52, v. 35,
vi. 4, vii. 2, x. 22, xi. 6, 39, xii. 1, xix. 14. Over against so much evi
dence of acquaintanceship with Judaea there is no sort of probability
that the writer, in saying that Caiaphas was high priest that year, meant
to intimate that the office of high priest was a yearly one. The ex
pression does not necessarily have such an import. To one who esteemed
the year of Christ's death the year of all years it was not unnatural to
term it that year in writing to those distant in time and place from the
scene of the crucifixion. Doubtless some indications of a relative lack
of discrimination may be pointed out in the fourth Gospel. As will be
noticed presently, there is apparent somewhat less of care than is ob
servable in the Synoptical Gospels to indicate definitely the components
of the Jewish community. Specific references to the scribes or lawyers
are wanting, and the broad national term, the Jews, is used where some
portion of the people might have been named. This characteristic,
however, is measurably explained by the relatively remote standpoint
occupied in common by the writer and those addressed.
1 See H. H. Wendt, Das Johannesevangelium, 1900.

318 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
render a certain service in explaining peculiarities of the
fourth Gospel. But we find no sufficient motive to make
use of it either in the evidence that is cited in its behalf
or in the extent to which it has commanded scholarly
conviction. II. — -Sources and Peculiarities.
Various statements in the Johannine writings convey
an impression of aloofness from Judaism. It seems to
be contemplated not infrequently as a thing external
and remote. Were we to take two or three sentences
attributed to Christ according to their sound, we might
conclude that even He is represented as quite willing to
disclaim association with Judaism. He is reported as
saying: "All that came before me are thieves and
robbers." 1 Again He is said, in addressing the Jews, to
have mentioned the ancestral code as "your" law,2 and
to have referred to it in conversation with His disciples
about the hatred of the Jews, as "their" law.3 The
meaning of these expressions is not, however, to be over-
pressed. The first does not denote an intention on the
part of Christ to disclaim Jewish antecedents in general,
but rather a wish to put Himself in contrast with such
misleading guides as false Messiahs and the unspiritual
representatives of the hierarchy. As for the other ex
pressions, too large a meaning is put into them when
they are made to imply that the speaker acknowledged
no part in the law. It may be supposed either that
Christ used them to emphasize the truth that the atti-
1 John x. 8. * John x. 34. 8 John xv. 25.

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 319
tude of the Jews was reproved by the very authority
which they themselves specially exalted, or that the
evangelist, in accommodation to the Gentile surround
ings in the midst of which he was placed, substituted
"your" and "their" for "the" in citing Christ's refer
ences to the law. The latter interpretation may be re
garded as commended by virtual parallels in the writer's
usage. Repeatedly he refers to the Jews as an entirely
outside party, and sets them over against Christ as
opponents, using a national term in such connections
as the Synoptists apply the party name of Pharisees.1
By this peculiarity of his vocabulary, standing as it does
unrelieved by any expression of hope for the refractory
people, he gives a token of separation from Judaism
scarcely equalled by any other New Testament writer.
Paul indeed uttered grave censures against the Jews ;
but he also gave evidence of an affectionate clinging to
his nation, and was not ready to count its mission in the
world as wholly a thing of the past. The author of the
Johannine Gospel and Epistles, on the other hand, shows
no interest in forecasting a future for the Jewish people.
In all likelihood this unique transcendence of the old
national horizon was effectively promoted in John by his
contemplation of the downfall of Jerusalem, as also by a
consideration of the stubborn persistence of the Jews in
their rejection of Christ, at the same time that the Ge'n-
tile world was giving a broad welcome to His message.
While the evangelist assumes this distant attitude to
ward contemporary Judaism, he does not question the
fulfillment of a divine vocation by the Judaism of a past
1 John v. 1, 10, 16, 18, vi. 52, vii. 1, 13, a. 31, xi. 8, xviii. 20.

320 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
age. He evinces very clearly his conviction that the
Old Testament provided foundations for the gospel dis
pensation. Christ is represented as claiming before the
Samaritan woman that salvation is from the Jews,1 as
coming to His own proper possession in His advent to
the Jews,2 as calling the temple His Father's house,3'
and as referring to the witness of the ancient Scriptures
respecting Himself.4 Events in the life of Christ are
exhibited, with much the same freedom that character
izes Matthew's Gospel, as fulfilling Old Testament texts.5
But while thus the authority and divine function of the
Old Testament are unequivocally recognized, it cannot
be said that the evangelist shows very much of an inde
pendent interest in its contents. He scarcely reverts to
it for any other purpose than to elicit types and prophe
cies of Christ's work and experience. In his epistles
there is not so much as one citation from the Hebrew
Scriptures and only one reference to facts recorded
therein. He appears, in conformity with his view of
the cosmic relation of Christ, to have been interested
chiefly in what might be called ecumenical truths.
Though in the narrative portion of his writings he
shows plentifully the results of his recollection of a Jew
ish environment, it is yet plain that his horizon has be
come world-wide and that his heart is upon the truths
which concern men, not as members of a particular na
tion, but of the race.
Reference was made in another connection to the
1 John iv. 22. * John ii. 16.
2 John i. ii. 4 John v. 39, 46.
e John xii. 14, 15, xvii. 12, xix. 24, 28, 36, 37, xx. 9.

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 32 1
possible indebtedness of the Johannine theology to the
speculative teaching of Alexandria. We may repeat
here the conclusion that, while it would be going beyond
warrant to affirm categorically that John was directly
conversant with the writings of Philo, it seems on the
whole probable that he came by some means into con
tact with his way of thinking. It must be maintained,
however, that the evangelist used the Philonic teaching
not as a copyist, but as a man of strong original bent
uses material from any source. He received from it
only what was congenial to his point of view, what, so to
speak, he could take into his own blood.
This last remark may be extended to the relation of
John's teaching to that of Paul. Doubtless in a gen
eral way the Pauline theology was an antecedent to the
Johannine. The latter takes up several of the char
acteristic points of the former. It contains a contrast
between the law system of Moses and the grace of
Christ. It brings out also the supereminence of faith as
a condition of salvation. It has likewise its counterpart
to the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians in the
extraordinary emphasis which it places upon love as the
test and glory of religious character. It contains
furthermore a doctrine of election sufficiently pro
nounced to remind of Pauline sentences on this subject,
and shows in the mysticism with which it is informed a
distinct kinship with the Pauline conception of a mutual
indwelling on the part of Christ and believers. But yet
in reading the Johannine writings we scarcely ever meet
a phrase which seems to us at first glance to bear marks
of borrowing from Paul. Whatever of Pauline presup-

322 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
positions are incorporated in them appear to have taken
on new form and color by being passed through a mind
as strong and confident in its way as was that of the
great apostle to the Gentiles. For example, in the
reference of the Johannine writer to the Mosaic law
there is no trace of Paul's polemical vehemence. He
views it calmly, not as a threatened yoke, but simply as
a conspicuous factor in a bygone and preliminary dis
pensation. So too in regard to faith : however highly
he may exalt its function, he does not set it forth, after
the Pauline fashion, in sharp antithesis to works; he
even characterizes it as a foremost work required of
those who would aspire to God's favor. Distinctive
features also belong to his way of broaching the subject
of election and to his mysticism. While then we may
affirm a certain obligation of John to Paul, and may
question whether he could have written just as he has
but for his powerful predecessor, we are still obliged to
conclude that he gave forth his own and not another
man's treasure. Whatever he appropriated was com
pelled to receive a Johannine stamp before it was sent
forth into the world. Aside from contact with the per
son and teaching of Christ the Johannine theology had
no more influential source than the marked individuality
of its author. He wrote as he did because it was in
him thus to write. In essential character he was the
mystic, the man of contemplation, distinguished more by
intensity and depth of feeling than by breadth and
versatility of intellect. Getting at truth by intuition, or
through the movement and satisfaction of his emotional
life, he imparts it by a corresponding method. Of dis-

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 323
cursive reasoning he makes little or no use ; he contents
himself with simply presenting to the contemplation of
others what had so deep a hold upon his own conscious
ness. Here he belongs to a different province from that
which was often represented by Paul with his argumen
tative struggle and tension.
It accords with the interior and contemplative char
acter of the Johannine theology that it is centred upon
a few supreme truths, and the more immediate deduc
tions from these. The starting point is the highest
object of contemplation, the divine nature. This is
described under a few comprehensive categories. The
same categories for the most part enter into the descrip
tion of the Son of God as belonging to the divine sphere.
Revelation takes its cast from the nature in the Father
and the Son. The true recipients of the revelation
which is made in and through the Son, are so conformed
to the divine nature, that the terms by which it is
described belong also to them in a finite sense, and their
conduct is in line with the significance of these terms.
As for those who are unresponsive to the revelation,
their character and deeds are described by an opposite
set of terms. Thus the divine nature, viewed with
respect to a few distinctive aspects, is made the norm or
pattern which governs the whole outlook upon the
sphere of moral and spiritual reality. A relatively limited
number of phrases suffices for the presentation of the
whole subject-matter. So largely does the stress gravi
tate toward certain central truths that the repetition of
propositions in slightly varied form may be said to be more
characteristic of the Johannine writings than of any other
New Testament books.

324 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Another way of describing the peculiarity of the
Johannine theology would be to compare its point of
view with that of Scholastic realism. In this assumption
of a ground of comparison it is not implied that John
was conscious of subscribing to the technical theory of
the mediaeval realists on the nature of universals.
What is meant is, that in his habit of mind the stress
fell upon the universal, the comprehensive type, and that
the individual was rated as a manifestation of the type.
He regarded the concrete visible reality on the field of
history as expressive of a more general invisible reality.
In pursuance of this way of thinking he took no pains
to discriminate intermediate grades of character. In his
portrayal of men they fall into broadly contrasted classes.
Either they conform to the type which is given in the
divine nature, and being begotten of God do not sin, or
else they have their prototype in the devil and are given
over to transgression. Some mitigation of the sharp
antithesis may be provided for ; but it is plainly charac
teristic of the Johannine writings to describe individuals
under general terms and to ignore the manifold grada
tions which fall between extremes.
The limitation of province which results from the con
centration of the Johannine teaching upon central truths
will readily appear to any one who asks for its conclusion
upon various lines of Christian thought. That teaching
contains next to nothing respecting the sacraments, and
next to nothing respecting the government of the Church.
It has no compendium of civil or domestic duty. Of
ethical detail in any direction it incorporates but little.
The emphasis in it goes to principles or cardinal phases

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 325
of religious disposition, rather than to items of conduct.
Its theme is not so much the law of righteousness in its
manifold demands as the inner life in its relation to a
divine source. As respects the outward demonstration
of the life in the Christian, it enforces only the general
attitude toward the brotherhood which is dictated by the
nature and conditions of that life.
In respect of linguistic peculiarities the Johannine
writings are distinguished by a remarkable simplicity.
The vocabulary is limited. Period-making is avoided.
The subject-matter of a theme is developed by a series
of short declarations which are connected by a certain
kinship of meaning, but are not structurally articulated.
" The constructions," says Westcott, " are habitually re
duced to the simplest elements. To speak of St. John's
Gospel as written in very pure Greek is altogether mis
leading. It is free from solecisms because it avoids all
idiomatic expressions. The grammar is that which is
common to almost all language."1 The writer's style
may be regarded as one among the evidences of his
antecedents. Though he wears his Greek dress with a
fair degree of ease, he does not conceal his Hebrew train
ing. In the parallelism and symmetry of his clauses it
comes quite distinctly into evidence.
III. — Johannine Antitheses.
One of the most frequently recurring of these is that
between Christ and Christians on the one hand and the
world on the other. In this antithesis "the world " de-
JThe Gospel according to St. John, introduction, p. 50.

326 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
notes the human race viewed as estranged from the di
vine life and made incapable of appreciating the divine
point of view through the dominance of sensuous and
unspiritual impulses and desires. Instances are not in
deed lacking in the Johannine writings in which the term
is employed in the ordinary sense to denote the sum of
created beings.1 There are also instances in which it
refers to the human race without distinctly accentuating
its sinful estate.2 But in a majority of cases the term
has an ethical reference, and names a humanity which
in its controlling temper is averted from God and His
kingdom. The world is described as hating the Christ
because He testifies that its works are evil; as ignorant
of the Holy Spirit and incapable of receiving Him ; as
lying in its entirety in the evil one ; as being under dia
bolical headship; as hating the disciples of Christ be
cause they do not belong to itself ; as a transient scene
of empty display and fleshly lust, to which those who
are born of God cannot be supposed to give their love.3
The picture which is given of the world seems to
promise to the followers of Christ upon earth a continu
ous encounter with hatred and opposition. The stern
prospect, however, is not left without a great mitigation.
The disciples of Christ have a pledge of successful re
sistance to the assaults of the unfriendly power in the
fact that He has demonstrated His mastery over the
world.4 It found nothing in Him on which to build its
1 John xvii. 5, 24. 2 John i. 10, xvi. 28.
8 John vii. 7, viii. 23, xii. 31, xiv. 17, 30, xv. 19, xvii. 14 ; 1 John ii.
15-17, iii. 13, v. 19.
4 John xvi. 33.

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 327
dominion.1 In putting Him to death it does not so
much judge Him as have judgment visited upon itself.2
Thereby is made manifest not only its enmity but its
impotence as well. For, the death of the Son of God
proves to be the most potent means to draw men out of
the bonds of the world, and likewise the direct antece
dent of His demonstrated superiority to any death-work
ing power which the world can use against Him.3 More
over, Christians may take courage in view of their inward
furnishing. Greater is He that is in them than he that
is in the world.4 In the simple fact of their spiritual
birth they have a pledge of victory. " For whatsoever
is begotten of God overcometh the world."5 1
It is hardly necessary to add that the antithesis under
consideration is not to be taken in the sense of a meta
physical dualism. The world does not stand for an
intrinsically evil entity, an irreformable, refractory sub
stance. It stands for men who are actually under the
dominion of evil, but to whom nevertheless the love of
God went out in the sending of His Son. A world that
is viewed as being in any sense the object of God's love
is evidently not meant to be regarded as intrinsically and
hopelessly evil. It may be in one point of view the
devil's domain, but it is still a proper subject for a divine
message and an attempted rescue.
A second favorite antithesis with John is that between
light and darkness. The two terms may be regarded as
having an implicit reference to truth. Light is a symbol
1 John xiv. 30. 4 1 John iv. 4.
2 John xii. 31, 32. 6 1 John v. 4.
8 John x. 18.

328 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
for truth unmixed with error. A nature uncorrupted by
falsity in disposition is in affinity with light, capable of
receiving and appropriating truth. Darkness, on the other
hand, is a symbol of destitution of truth through falsity of
disposition. Lacking the right moral purpose and the right
moral appreciation men do not and cannot see. Thus the
fallen race is described as darkness and as failing to appre
hend the light shining into it through the agency of the
Word.1 Furthermore, men are described as being in their
alienation from the truth postively averse to the light.
The falsity of their disposition makes them practically
enemies of the truth. They dread the self -discovery and
rebuke which must come from having its light thrown
upon them.2 Here the ethical nature of the contrast
expressed by the terms light and darkness is clearly
apparent. That the contrast must be understood in this
sense is also shown by the association which is made be
tween the two terms and love and hatred respectively.
"He that loveth his brother abideth in the light and
there is none occasion of stumbling in him. But he
that hateth his brother is in the darkness and walketh
in the darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, be
cause the darkness hath blinded his eyes." 3 The true
disposition is illuminating ; the false or perverted dispo
sition tends to obscurity and confusion.
In a third Johannine antithesis the opposing terms are
life and death. Much the same contrast is expressed by
these terms as by light and darkness. Indeed we find
the former set used in the same relation in which the
latter is employed. Thus in the Epistle it is said, " We
1 John i. 5. 2 John iii. 19-21. 8 I John, ii. 10, II.

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 329
know that we have passed out of death into life, because
we love the brethren. He that loveth not abideth in
death." 1 The statement suggests that life belongs with
fullness and vitality of the right ethical disposition,
while death denotes a deficit of such a disposition. In
the Gospel also the two contrasted states are given a
close association with moral dispositions, only faith
rather than love is here made the determining principle.
He that believeth hath passed out of death into life.
He that believeth not shall not see life.2 So far does
the stress in the Johannine representation fall upon
the moral or spiritual side of the subject that the
physical is well-nigh ignored. The declaration which
is cited from the lips of Christ, "If a man keep
my word, he shall never see death,"3 is certainly fitted
to convey the impression that physical death is of no
account. In addition to these characteristic antitheses there ap
pears in the Johannine writings the contrast between
flesh and spirit. It is not made, however, nearly so
prominent as in the Pauline epistles. Moreover, it is to be
observed that John brings forward a much less vigorous
impeachment of the flesh than is rendered by Paul.
His words in one connection imply that it serves as a
seat of illicit desires. 4 It is not said, however, that it
is necessarily or by virtue of its nature given over to
this evil office, any more than this is said of the eyes
which in the same connection are described as instru
ments of worldly lusts. In the broader statement,
1 1 John, iii. 14. Compare 1 John ii. 9-1 1. 8 John viii. 51.
2 John v. 24, iii. 36. * I John ii. 16.

330 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that
which is born of the Spirit is spirit," 1 the inferior term
in the comparison may be interpreted as denoting the
natural in opposition to the distinctively spiritual, man
considered in the sense relations which are so apt to
dominate him in contrast with the same subject made
conformable to his higher relations. We should need
larger means of definition than we actually possess in
order to be certain that in this proposition it was
designed to predicate of the flesh positive hostility to
the spiritual ideal and not simply lack of appreciation or
of true affinity therefor, though the known prefer
ence of John for sharp contrasts might warrant the sus
picion that he wrote the proposition in the sense of the
former alternative. That the proper dualistic notion of
the flesh is not imbedded in the Johannine theology is
quite manifest. A writer who could emphasize so
strongly the reality of the flesh of the sinless Christ, or
speak even in figure of eating His flesh, cannot be
regarded as harboring any antipathy toward the flesh, as
though in the character of physical substance it were
evil. While it trespasses against good exegesis to interpret
the Johannine antitheses in the sense of a strict or
metaphysical dualism, it must be granted that in the
Johannine representation the dark hemisphere is made
quite decidedly dark. An extra shade of blackness is
given to it by the association of all sin with diabolism.
The devil is represented as back of the whole stream of
moral evil. He was a murderer from the beginning.
1 John iii. 6.

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 331
The first homicidal stroke, whether ministered through
the hand of Cain or through the solicitation to the
death-working trespass of Adam, was due to him. He
sinned from the beginning, from the opening act in the
tragedy of moral evil. The world, so far as it is alienated
from God, is his kingdom. He is a liar and the father of
lies, the father of all evil-doers. Every one that sinnoth
is of him.1 In all this, it is observable, nothing is said
of the origin of the devil. The assumption is simply
that he stands back of all human sinning, not as relieving
the sinner of his responsibility, but as coagent with him
and as the head with which in sinning he becomes con
federated. The emphasis falls quite as much upon the
type as upon the causal ground. The effort is to exhibit
sin and the sinner as being of the devil-type. As was
noticed above, to represent things according to an un
qualified type is characteristic of the Johannine writings.
Along with a relative fullness of reference to the
prince of the evil kingdom the Johannine teaching com
bines a relative silence on the subject of angels. It con
tains no positive statements respecting evil angels or
demons, and its references to good angels are very
scanty.2
IV. — The Doctrine of the Father and the Son.
The superior terms in most of the Johannine antitheses
enter naturally into the description of God, since He is
the absolute contrast to all that is dark, impoverished, or
1 John viii. 44, xii. 31, xiv. 30 ; 1 John iii. 8, 10, v. 19.
2 John ii. 51, xx. 12.

332 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
evil. Among the statements bearing on the divine
nature three have the form of definitions, namely:
"God is spirit," " God is light," "God is love."1 It
would not have done violence doubtless to John's way of
thinking had he added, God is life, and God is truth. He
has presented us with the meaning which belongs to
statements of this kind in speaking of the Father as
having life in Himself,2 and styling Him the true God
and ultimate source of all saving truth.3
With the definition of God as spirit is to be placed
the declaration that no man hath seen Him at any time.4
As the absolute Spirit He is beyond all cognizance by
corporeal means, as He is beyond all limitations of
place. One locality can no more possess Him than
another. The means of approach to him are and must
be spiritual. There is no nearness to Him except in
ethical likeness, and no distance except in ethical unlike
ness. " Everyone that loveth knoweth God. He
that loveth not knoweth not God."6 The invisi
bility, therefore, which is predicated of God has no
affiliation with the idea of isolation. Whatever note of
transcendence may belong to the Johannine conception
of God, it makes Him thoroughly accessible to the one
having the proper organ of association. Emphatic
recognition is given in it to the truth of the divine im
manence. Not only is there a reference to an indwelling
Christ or Holy Spirit, but it is said of the Father Him
self that He is pleased to take up His abode with the
1 John iv. 24 ; 1 John i. 5, iv. 16. 2 John v. 26.
8 John v. 19, 20, xiv. 10, xvii. 3 ; 1 John v. 20.
4 John i. 18. 6 1 John, iv. 7, 8.

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 333
obedient disciple.1 Here the Johannine mysticism ad
vances a step beyond the Pauline. No New Testament
books, in short, are more emphatic than the Johannine
on the divine indwelling.
The affirmation that God is light may be made with
the stress upon the inner nature, and thus imply that
God is self-luminous, having in the perfect harmony of
his intellectual and ethical being no ground of confusion
or darkness in Himself. It may be made also with the
stress upon causal efficiency, and hence convey the
meaning that the universe has in God an unfailing
source of illumination. We may suppose the two
points of view, as they are perfectly concordant, to have
been united in John's thought, and that he meant to
describe God as being at once perfectly unshadowed in
the sphere of His own consciousness and as infinitely
light-giving. There may also be contained in the figure
a reference to the nature of benevolence as universally
diffusive of benefits.
In the declaration that God is love John brings to a
climax the theological statement of the import of the
New Testament revelation. The declaration means two
things. It means in the first place that God is in fact
infinitely benevolent, having the good-will to bring bless
ing to every creature that in the fitness of things can be
blessed. In the second place it means that this un
stinted benevolence or good-will is not the result of., an
arbitrary election, but deeply based in the ethical nature
of God. Theologians have sometimes argued that God
must be just, but in respect of loving anything within
1 John xiv. 23.

334 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
the province of creation His will can give the decision,
and is just as free to decide one way as another. Such
argumentation collides with the Johannine declaration.
If love is not as deep, as intrinsic, as essential, as any
thing in the ethical nature of God, then John made a
mistake. For if language has any clear sense, the
affirmation that " God is love " must signify that love is
fundamental to His ethical nature, and that no attribute
or activity is more essential. Indeed, taken by itself
the Johannine sentence might be construed as subordi
nating all other divine attributes to love. But probably
there was no distinct intent to weigh God's love against
His righteousness or holiness. If less emphasized than
the former, the latter receives still a distinct tribute.1
The thought to which we are pointed is that in the
deepest depth and highest height of the Godhead love is
present. The term Father is applied to God in a multitude of
instances in the Johannine writings. In the majority of
these it designates the relation between God and the
Son of God. In some instances the term is given a
broader application. Thus in the address to the Samari
tan woman God is referred to as the Father, to whom
all true worshippers will pay their ascriptions.2 That
God holds a fatherly relation to men generally is not
formally stated anywhere in the Johannine writings. It
may be said also that the stress which they place upon
spiritual rebirth as a condition of a filial standing and
their blunt designation of sinners as children of the
1 1 John ii, 29, iii. 7.
2 John iv. 23. See xv. 16, xvi. 23 ; 1 John ii. 1, iii. 1 ; 2 John, 3, 4,

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 335
devil look like a negation of the conception of universal
fatherhood. But, on the other hand, God's love for the
world and costly provision for the salvation of every one
that can be persuaded to accept His gracious offers
argue for such a disposition as may well be associated
with divine paternity. The truth seems to lie in a
qualified affirmation of universal fatherhood. According
to the illustration used in another connection, God over
looks neither the man in the sinner nor the sinner in the
man. The one is a subject for His fatherly compassion;
the other, for His displeasure and rebuke. Only with
the extirpation of his better capacities does a man de
scend wholly to the plane of wrath. John has not
indeed said just this; but if we put together what he
says on the love and on the wrath of God respectively
the result seems to be essentially as stated.
In dealing with the person of Christ John does not
attempt, any more than did the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, to construe in Him the relation between
the human and the divine. He contents himself with
recognizing both the one and the other. His conscious
ness of the former is indicated in the first place by his
representation that the Son of God came in the flesh.1
In his terminology, as well as in that of other New
Testament writers, the flesh denotes more than mere
bodily substance.2 By itself, however, it does not in
clude an indubitable reference to every constituent of
manhood, to the irvevfia, as well as to the yjrvxv- Ac
cordingly a completer sign of conviction of Christ's
1 John i. 14 ; 1 John iv. 2. 2 John iii. 6.

336 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
humanity is furnished by the picture which the evangelist
gives of human experiences, emotions, and elements of
consciousness in his Master.1 This order of statements
has been taken advantage of by a few recent writers on
biblical theology for exhibiting the Johannine teaching
as being agreeable to their humanitarian predilections.
But their construction stands as little chance of winning
the general assent of scholars as did the Socinian of an
earlier day. Critics as little constrained by the bonds of
orthodoxy as Pfleiderer and Holtzmann make no question
but that a transcendent or essentially divine rank and
character are assigned to the Johannine Christ.2 And
no wonder ; for, let the revelation on the human side be
what it may, it is still true that it is like asking a man to
deny the sight of his eyes to set him to discover in the
Johannine writings only a human Christ.
Among the tokens that Christ is to be thought of as
standing essentially on the plane of divinity are the
following : (i) A suggestion is given that He is above
the creaturely sphere, and ranks as a kind of alter ego
of the Father, in that the characteristic Johannine terms
which are used to define the one are used to describe
the other also. If God is defined as light, the Son also
is called the true light, the source of illumination to men
as well before as in His incarnation.3 If God is repre
sented as the absolute life, the Son is said also to have
1 John iv. 6, 34, xi. 33-38, xii. 27, xiii. 21, xix. 28-30, xx. 17.
2 Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie; Pflei
derer, Urchristenthum. Compare Grill, Untersuchungen iiber die
Entstehung des vierten Evangeliums ; Reville, Le Quatrieme Evangile,
son Origine et sa Valeur Historique ; Loisy, Le Quatrieme Evangile.
8 John i, 4, 9, viii. 12, ix. 5.

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 337
life in Himself, to be the life, and thus to be competent
to quicken as many as He may please.1 If God is de
scribed as the true, the Son is called the truth.2 The
representation runs precisely as though the latter were
regarded as the substantial image of the former, one in
whom are repeated the divine perfections. (2) Titles
are ascribed to Christ which belong to a divine range.
In the prologue to the Gospel He is declared not only to
have been with God but to have been God. In repeated
instances He is called the Son of God. This title He
shares with no other ; for it is a peculiarity of the Johan
nine writings that believers are never called sons of God.
As having experienced spiritual rebirth they are reicva deov,
but the term Son (w) is reserved to their Lord and
Master. This fact could hardly have come about by
accident, and may be regarded as testifying to John's
sense of the uniqueness of Christ's sonship. The use
of the term fiovoyevrjt witnesses still further to the ex
traordinary sonship of Christ.3 Likewise the context
which often goes with the filial title, testifying as it does
to an extraordinary consciousness of copartnership with
the Father, argues for a transcendent kind of sonship.
No ordinary filial bond gives a basis for such declara
tions as these: "The Father loveth the Son and hath
given all things into His hand. . . My Father worketh
until now, and I work. . . . The Father judgeth no man,
but He hath given all judgment unto the Son, that all
may honor the Son even as they honor the Father. . . .
He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. . . . All
1 John i. 4, v. 21, 26, xiv. 6. 2 John xiv. 6.
8 John i. 14, 18; 1 John iv. 9.

338 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
things whatsoever the Father hath are mine." 2 In this
line of statements an ethical oneness with the Father
may be contemplated; but more than that is implied.
Mere identity of a human with a divine will, so long as
a proper creaturely consciousness remains, never provides
for such an order of statements. The conclusion is en
forced that back of the ethical union of Christ with the
Father a transcendent connection in the order of being
must be predicated. (3) Functions and attributes are
ascribed to Christ which associate Him with a divine
sphere. As the Logos He wrought in creation. All
things were made by Him ; and without Him was not
anything made that hath been made.2 The prerogatives
of resurrection and judgment belong to Him.3 In His
consciousness of a transcendence of temporal limitations
He is able to speak of a glory which He had with the
Father before the world was,4 and also to declare, "Be
fore Abraham was, I am." 5 He reads the secrets of
men's hearts and forecasts the future as though the bar
riers to ordinary vision were transparent to his glance.6
He promises His disciples that He will do whatsoever
they shall ask in His name.7 Even so momentous a
thing as the mission of the Holy Spirit He conditions
upon His own agency, promising to send this other
Advocate to further by His witness the work which He
Himself had founded.8 (4) The practical worth of
divinity is ascribed to Christ in the measure of spiritual
1 John v. 17, 21-23, xrv- 9> xv"- IS- 5 John viii. 58.
2 John i. 3. • John ii. 24, 25, vi. 64.
8 John v. 21-29, xi. 25. 7 John xiv. 13, 14.
* John xvii. 5. • John xv. 26.

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 339
dependence upon Him which is affirmed of men. He is
the bearer of eternal life, the source of true freedom,
the sole way of access to the Father. The disciple can
do nothing apart from Him. If a man abide not in Him
he is cast forth as a branch and is withered.1
As may be gathered from the foregoing, the Johannine
christology is on essentially the same plane as that of
the later Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews.
A few statements pertaining to the first may seem, it is
true, to come nearer to an affirmation of the equality of
the Son with the Father than do any propositions in the
other writings. Here will be recalled in particular the
declaration, " I and my Father are one " ; 2 also the ex
pression, " that men may honor the Son even as they
honor the Father." 3 But the former sentence, though
indirectly pointing to a transcendent nature as testifying,
along with kindred utterances, to an order of conscious
ness which belongs alone with such a nature, has probably
a direct reference rather to ethical than to metaphysical
oneness. It is not therefore an unequivocal expression
of equality. The second expression taken by itself be
speaks equality; but it is to be noticed that the equal
honor is to be rendered to the Son on the score of an
office which He receives from the Father. Thus the
connection assigns a certain preeminence to the Father.
The like is true of other passages which give an exalted
view of the Son's prerogatives. In the midst of the
highest expressions of His self-consciousness the Son
acknowledges a certain dependence upon the Father.
1 John iii. 36, viii. 36, xiv. 6, xv. 5, 6; 1 John v. 11, 12.
2 John x. 30. 8 John v. 23.

340 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
This in no wise militates against the fact of His being
the eternal Son. Why should not He who was in the
bosom of the Father, as He trod the earth in human
form and sought to win men to the Father, give an ideal
expression of the spirit of sonship, exhibiting Himself in
no sort of isolation from His source, but as ever and
perfectly devoted to the paternal will? Even for one
eternally and metaphysically the Son of God divine dis
cretion would, as it seems to us, dictate just this bearing.
It is not to be denied nevertheless that the total repre
sentation of John involves a certain aspect of subordina
tion in the position of the Son. In some sense the
Father is made the deeper and more ultimate spring in
the Godhead, while the Son is the organ of universal
manifestation.
V. — The Holy Spirit.
As in the Pauline Epistles, so also in the writings of
John, the province of Christ's pneumatic nature and that
of the Holy Spirit are not closely discriminated. The
universal function of the Logos in the rational creation,
as the bearer of light and life, is such as might very
naturally be associated with the Holy Spirit.1 On the
other hand, gifts and powers which might be regarded
as involved in the pneumatic nature pertaining to Christ's
personality are apparently referred to the Holy Spirit ;
for it is said that to the Son God " giveth not the Spirit
by measure." 2 Once more, in immediate connection
with the promise to send the Spirit Christ adds, " I will
1 John i. 4. a John iii. 34.

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 341
not leave you desolate, I come unto you," 1 as though
the coming of the former might be identified with His
own coming.
Still doubt is not to be entertained as to the intent of
John to assign a distinct standing to the Holy Spirit.
No more is it to be doubted that in his references the
Spirit is contemplated as a personal agent. He is placed
over against Christ as another Comforter (irapaKkrjro';),
another Advocate or Helper, as the name might also be
rendered.2 Furthermore the Spirit is represented as
witnessing to Christ, and as glorifying Him by declaring
the message relating to His person and work.3 The
Spirit is thus in the office of representing the Son dis
tinguished from Him much as the Son is distinguished
from the Father whom He represents without excluding
His presence from the sphere in which the representa
tion occurs. That in one or another connection the Son
seems to accomplish what is otherwise made a function
of the Holy Spirit may be explained in part by the in
strumental position of the latter. As sending the Spirit
to continue the work visibly inaugurated by Himself,
the Son may be said to do what is done through the
Spirit. In performing such functions as witnessing,
teaching, and convicting of sin, righteousness, and judg
ment, the Spirit appears in a personal character. The
application of neuter pronouns to Him involves no denial
of this character. When closely associated with the
neuter substantive vrvevfia the pronouns naturally follow
its gender. They are not, however, made conformable
in every instance. The original text shows clearly
1 John xiv. 18. *xiv. 16. 8xv. 26, xvi. 13, 14.

342 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
enough that, apart from the pressure of grammatical
propriety, the preference of the speaker or narrator was
for the masculine form of the pronouns to denote the
Spirit.1 The language of the fourth Gospel implies an eco
nomic subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Father
and the Son. Respecting His metaphysical relations
within the Godhead it offers no direct statement. The
metaphysical sense that has been put into the clause,
"which proceedeth from the Father,"2 is based on a
dogmatic predilection. The words are more naturally
understood of a procession, or sending forth, into the
sphere of action, than of an eternal mode of subsistence.
The fact that irapd is employed here, the same preposi
tion which is used in stating the going forth of the Son
to fulfill His mission, supports the economic sense. As
the uniform language of the ancient creeds illustrates,
the technical doctrine of procession requires for its suit
able expression the use of the preposition e«. It is notice
able also that the Greek fathers in citing the Johannine
sentence evince a disposition to substitute e/e for irapd?
A peculiarity in the Johannine exposition of the work
of the Holy Spirit is the stress which is placed upon the
production in men of a Christ consciousness. In the
conversation with Nicodemus the Spirit is indeed men
tioned as the agent in regeneration,4 and in the interview
of the risen Christ with His disciples promise is given
1 John xiv. 26, xv. 26, xvi. 13, 14. 2 xv. 26.
8 Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 225. Compare
Dods, Expositor's Greek Testament, I. 833.
4 John iii. 3-8.

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 343
that they shall be assisted by the Holy Spirit in the
guidance and discipline of the Christian brotherhood.1
But the main stress falls upon the idea that it belongs
to the Spirit to induct men into evangelical truth, to
carry forward the teaching function which Christ ful
filled during His visible ministry, to glorify Christ in the
thought of men by taking of the things of Christ and
declaring them, in a word, to transfuse into the minds
and hearts of men a vital Christ consciousness, a con
soling and transforming sense of union with Him not
withstanding His recession from the sphere of the out
ward vision.2 In view of this larger and more effective
impact it was expedient for Christ to go away. By
withdrawal from the narrow sphere of sense observation
He was all the better prepared to become a universal
power in men.

VI. — The Work of Christ.
In no other New Testament writings is so much made
of the revealing office of Christ as in those of John. In
various ways the sentiment is emphatically expressed
that through Him a saving enlightenment is ministered
to men. He is compared in His office to the illuminating
agent in nature. He is the true light which lighteth
every man, the light of the world in following whom
men escape from darkness and have the light of life.3
His presence in the world serves to make visible the
glory of the only begotten of the Father.4 He is the
1 John xx. 23. 2xv. 26, xvi. 7-15 ; 1 John ii. 20, 21.
8 John i. 9, viii. 12. 4 John i. 14.

344 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
manifested truth and the manifested life.1 The true
knowledge of God is eternal life ; 2 and this knowledge
is mediated through Christ. The unseen Father is de
clared through the incarnate Son and glorified by Him.3
So perfectly are the mind, will, and purpose of God
reflected in Him that he that hath seen Him can be
said to have seen the Father.4 His economy is an
economy of truth as well as of grace.5 To this end
came He into the world, that He might bear witness to
the truth. 6 He is a bearer of life as a messenger of
truth. His words are words of eternal life.7 While
His flesh is described as the bread given for the life of
the world, the explanation is added, "It is the spirit that
quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing : the words that
I have spoken unto you they are spirit and are life." 8
The message of truth is thus identified with the meat
which the Son of man giveth and which abideth unto
eternal life.9 A like efficacy is assigned to His message
in the declaration to the disciples, "Already ye are clean
through the word which I have spoken unto you." 10
According to some commentators a kindred significance
belongs to the comprehensive statement that the blood
of Christ cleanseth from all sin,11 the reference here
being not so much to the remission of guilt, as to the
elimination of the sinful disposition, and this being
effected by the manifested love and righteousness of
God in Christ, for which the blood is the symbol. As
1 John xiv. 6; I John i. 2. s i. 17. 9 vi. 27.
* John xvii. 3. 8 xviii. 37. 10 xv. 3.
8 John i. 18, xvii. 4. ' vi. 68. u 1 John i. 7.
4 xiv. 9. 8 vi. 63.

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 345
we conceive, it is not necessary to exclude a reference
to remission, and we maintain only that it is quite conso
nant with the Johannine way of thinking to associate
cleansing with the blood of Christ on the ground that it
is a message-speaking blood, the bearer to men's hearts
of an order of truth in which purifying and renovating
virtue resides. In line with the ruling conception of
Christ as the revealer of saving truth, we have the
further representation that through the instrumentality
of the Spirit He continues in the glorified state His
enlightening office. The Spirit sent in His name, as
was noticed above, has the work of vitalizing in men's
souls the revelation given in and through Him. In
short, according to the Johannine representation Christ
came into the world as a truth-radiating personality,
and fulfilled in large part His saving office as a bearer
and impersonation of truth.
Closely related to the foregoing point of view, indeed
capable of being included under it, is the Johannine
representation of the work of Christ, and especially of
His death, as the supreme specimen of loving self-
sacrifice. The parable of the good shepherd emphasizes
the fact of this self-sacrifice. A specially significant
expression of its efficacy is contained in the words,
" Verily I say unto you except a grain of wheat fall into
the earth and die, it abideth by itself alone ; but if it die,
it beareth much fruit." 1 This sentence might be styled
a statement of the law of the reproductive power of
self-sacrifice. According to the connection it applies
both to Christ and His disciples, and sets forth the
1 John xii. 24.

346 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
great truth that all spiritual fruitage is conditioned upon
the deed of willing self-devotement. A like sentiment
may be regarded as underlying the prophetical declar
ation. "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will
draw all men unto myself." 1 It witnesses to the
practical potency of the loving self-sacrifice manifested
in the self-delivery of the Son of God to the ordeal of
the cross.
The Johannine teaching represents still further that
Christ fulfills the great end of His incarnation by bring
ing men into vital connection with Himself. Coming
with all the wealth of His personality into the human
sphere He imparts from His own higher life to those
who are drawn into fellowship with Himself. In
description of this mystical and efficacious union He is
able to say to his disciples, "I am the vine, ye are the
branches ; he that abideth in me and I in him the same
beareth much fruit." 2 A like conception is contained
in the declaration, " God gave unto us eternal life, and
this life is in His Son. He that hath the Son hath the
life ; he that hath not the Son of God hath not the
life." 3
As compared with the Pauline theology the Johannine
does not so fully centre the attention upon the death of
Christ. It is less emphatically a theology of the cross.
The idea of revelation comes to the front, and in con
formity therewith large account is made of the life of
the Redeemer. It is manifest too that John was less
inclined than Paul to dwell upon the judicial aspect of
Christ's work. Most of what the former says is in line
1 John xii. 32. a John xv. 5. 8 1 John v. 11, 12.

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 347
with the moral-influence and mystical theories of atone
ment. Still, it needs to be acknowledged that in the
background of the Johannine representation there is a
sufficiently distinct recognition of essentially the same
objective phase of atonement as appears elsewhere in
the New Testament. This is especially noticeable in
the Epistle. Nothing in the Pauline writings more
clearly implies that the universal dispensation of grace
is based upon Christ's work than does the Johannine
declaration that He is the propitiation (iXao-fick) for the
sins of the world.1 A kindred view with respect to the
saving office of the Redeemer is implied in the affirma
tion that He is with the Father as an advocate for the
one who has sinned,2 as also in the statement that for
giveness of sins takes place for His name's sake.3 In
the Gospel there is no formal assertion of such an
objective value in Christ's work as is indicated by the
term propitiation ; but the idea which belongs with that
term is implicitly recognized in the designation of Christ
as " the Lamb of God," 4 in the representation that He
was to die for the people,5 in the assertion of the
necessity of His death,6 in the description of His death
as a voluntary offering or sacrifice,7 and in the declaration
that access to the Father is solely through Him.8
VII. — The Initiation and Unfoldment of
the New Life.
By limiting the attention to a few sentences of the
Johannine writings one may get much the same im-
1 1 John ii, iv. 10. i John i. 29, 36. 7 John x. 17, 18.
2 1 John ii. I. 6 John xi. 50-52. 8 John xiv. 6.
8 1 John ii. 12. 6 John iii. 14.

348 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
pression of determinism, or divine election, as a few
sentences of the Pauline epistles are fitted to convey.
Christ is represented as conditioning the ability of men
to come to Himself and to believe His message upon the
effectual working of the Father. "All that which the
Father giveth me," He says, "shall come to me." "No
man can come to me except the Father which sent me
draw him." "Glorify thy Son, that the Son may glorify
thee : even as thou gavest Him authority over all flesh,
that whatsoever thou hast given Him, to them He should
give eternal life." " The works that I do in my Father's
name, these bear witness of me. But ye believe not,
because ye are not of my sheep."1 But, on the other
hand, there are sentences which give an emphatic im
pression of the universality of divine grace. The saving
purpose of God is represented as reaching out to the
world. The Son is sent to be the Saviour of the world.
He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.
He is lifted up in order that He might draw all men
unto Himself. The burden of His complaint against
the unbelieving is, " Ye will not come unto me that ye
may have life." 2 If then the apostle is to be reconciled
with himself, the former order of expressions must be
understood, not as implying an arbitrary division of men
into opposing classes, but simply the truth that men
reach the attitude of faith only as they are led up to it
by a special divine preparation. Combining the two
orders of expressions we obtain the conclusion that men
1 John vi. 37, 44, xvii. I, 2, x. 25, 26. See also vi. 39, 65, ix. 39, xii.
38-40 ; I John ii. 19.
2 John iii. 16, v. 40, xii. 32; 1 John ii.2, iv. 14.

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 349
are at once deeply dependent upon the divine working
and free to cooperate with or to resist it.
Salvation, or the sum of benefits brought by Christ, is
frequently described in the Johannine writings by the
phrase "eternal life."1 As the phrase is used in both
the Gospel and the Epistle, it denotes the inward enrich
ment and enduring blessedness which come from union
with the Father through the Son. Doubtless we shall
not be in error if we impute to the compendious expres
sion a meaning closely akin to that which is contained in
the Synoptical expression, "the kingdom of God," or
"the kingdom of heaven," taken in its more subjective
application. In speaking of the attainment of salvation it is char
acteristic of John to pass by the terms descriptive of
relationship, and to employ those descriptive of nature.
He stands in contrast with Paul, in that he enters into
no discourse upon justification or adoption. It is the
interior character of the child of God rather than the
filial standing or relationship that he emphasizes. His
leading thought is that of being born anew (or being
born from above, as some prefer to render ava>6ev), or be
ing begotten of God.2 The new bent, disposition, or life
potency signified by these terms, he regards as the pro
duct of the mysterious working of the Holy Spirit. Of
any sacramental agency in connection with the change
he has very little to say. A possible reference to bap
tism appears indeed in the words addressed to Nico-
1 John iii. 15, iv. 36, vi. 54, 68, x. 28, xii. 25, xyii. 2, 3 ; 1 John i. 2, ii.
25, v. 11, 13,20.
2 John i. 12, 13, iii. 3-8 ; 1 John ii. 29, iii. 1, 2, 9, iv. 7, v. 1, 4, 18.

350 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLO&Y
demus. 1 But if is to be noticed that the reference
occurs in a sentence designed to illustrate the meaning
of a misunderstood term; and hence may be regarded
not so much as emphasizing the instrumentality of water
as intimating by its means that the new birth denotes a
cleansing or purifying as well as a renewing of its sub
ject. In any event the passage as a whole makes the
instrumentality of water quite subordinate to the agency
of the Spirit. It contains no statement that the work
ing of the Spirit is tied to the rite of baptism ; on the
contrary it virtually denies this notion. The supposition
that the new birth can be attached at pleasure to an ex
ternal occasion is discountenanced by the declaration :
"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest
the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh,
and whither it goeth : so is every one that is born of the
Spirit." The first of the statements in the fourth Gospel re
specting the new birth makes it dependent upon faith.2
In this statement, too, is contained the Johannine idea
that faith has in Christ its proper object. Of course it
was not in the mind of John to dissociate the Father
from the Son as an object of believing apprehension.
But treating of the Son as the bearer of salvation he
speaks mainly of faith as directed to His person and
work.3 In a number of instances the connection sug
gests that by faith he means only a mental assent to a
given order of facts. It is evident, nevertheless, when
1 John iii. 5. 2 John i. 12, 13.
8 John iii. 15, 16, 18, 36, vi. 29, 40, vii. 38, viii. 24, xx. 29, 31 ; 1 John
iii. 23, v. 1.

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 351
we glance at his total representation, that faith stood
with him for an ethical bearing as well as for an intel
lectual conviction. In the sixth chapter of the Gospel
he makes the believing on Christ equivalent in its efficacy
to eating His flesh and drinking His blood — terms
which signify a most thorough appropriation of Christ as
a ground of religious satisfaction and a spring of spiritual
life. The criticism also which was passed upon the
Pharisees, to the effect that they were in no condition to
believe as seeking glory one of another, indicates that
faith is inclusive of a moral disposition.1 In short, it is
not to be doubted that in the Johannine conception faith
involves a self-committal which brings into intimate fel
lowship and affinity with its object.
Along with faith John magnifies knowledge, depicting
it in some instances as a source of salvation, in others as
a proof or result of a regenerated nature. 2 In his esti
mate of the true gnosis he vies with the most apprecia
tive utterances of Paulas contained in the Epistles to the
Colossians and Ephesians. It would be a mistake, how
ever, to suppose that in this he was rendering any
tribute to a speculative grasp of truth. The knowledge
that he commended is that practical knowledge which is
dependent upon the religious disposition, which comes
through inner conformity to Him who is the truth.
Doubtless he thought of it as including a vital heartfelt
assurance of divine favor and love.3
The distinctive attributes and tests of Christian char-
1 John v. 44.
2 John vii. 17, viii. 31, 32, xvii. 3, 17; 1 John ii. 3, 4, 20, 21, 27, iii. 6,
iv. 7, 8. 8 John xiv. 21, 23.

352 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
acter, as set forth by John, are righteousness and love.
He pictures the Christian as one who has totally re
nounced sin, and whose relation to Christ and to God
excludes it absolutely. "Whosoever abideth in Him
sinneth not : whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him,
neither knoweth him. . . . Whosoever is begotten of God
doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him : and he
cannot sin, because he is begotten of God."1 This is
description according to the unqualified type. It pic
tures the ideal to which the Christian in perfect fidelity
to his calling must conform. That a margin of possible
deflection from the ideal has to be recognized was not
ignored by John. He speaks accordingly of a gracious
provision for the forgiveness of sins that are not unto
death,2 and represents Christ as saying that even the
fruit-bearing branch needs pruning in order to attain
unto its best capacity of fruitfulness.3
No words could surpass in emphasis those with which
John insists upon love as essentially descriptive of the
Christian. He carries up the demonstration of its ne
cessity to the highest possible point, in defining God as
love and describing Christians as those who are begotten
of God. Being in fellowship with the infinite personal
Love and bearing His likeness they can but live the life
of love, paying a full-heart tribute both to God and to
the brother. The great historic incentive to this love
is the manifestation of the love of God in sending His
Son. Among the inward benedictions which it brings
at the stage of perfection is the expulsion of all fear.4
1 1 John iii. 6, 9. 2 1 John ii. 1, 2, v. 16, 17. 8 John xv. 2.
4 John xiii. 34, xiv. 21-24, xv. 9, 10, 12, 13, xvii. 21, 26; 1 John ii. 9-
11, iii. 10-12, 14-18, iv. 7-21, v. 1, 2.

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 353
VIII. — The Christian Brotherhood.
Church constitution receives no attention in the Johan
nine writings. The word Church is not so much^s men
tioned, except in the third Epistle. Elsewere there is
reference only to a brotherhood or flock of Christ.
Stress is placed upon the unity appropriate to this
brotherhood;1 but no official bonds of unity are speci
fied. A nearly equal silence is maintained in respect of
ordinances. Mention is indeed made of the fact that
the disciples of Jesus baptized,2 but at that stage the
ceremony could have had no distinct ecclesiastical asso
ciation such as belonged to it from the day of Pentecost.
It was a token of repentance in preparation for the king
dom.3 Of baptism as a proper church rite no word is
spoken by John. Even if the mention of water in the
discourse on the new birth is to be understood of Chris
tian baptism, it is only its import for individual experi
ence, not its ecclesiastical function, that comes into
account. The reference to water in 1 John v. 6 does
not call for consideration here, as it concerns only the
baptism' of Christ at the initiation of His ministry.
No unequivocal reference to the eucharist is found in
the Johannine writings. It may be granted that at the
time the evangelist penned the sixth chapter of the Gos
pel it was natural that some of its terms should suggest
to his mind the sacrament of Christ's body and blood.
But the discourse of this chapter has no direct bearing
1 John x. 16, xvii. 21, 22; 1 John ii. 19, iii. 14-18.
2 John iii. 22, iv. 1, 2. 8See Matt. iv. 17 ; Mark i. 14, 15.

354 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
on the subject of the eucharist. In the first part of the
discourse the same office precisely is ascribed to faith
which in the second part is ascribed to the eating of
Christ's flesh and the drinking of His blood. Moreover,
the concluding declaration (verse 63) takes the acts de
scribed as eating and drinking entirely out of the cate
gory of material transactions, and identifies them with a
spiritual function. It is necessary therefore to regard
the discourse as a figurative and graphic means of en
forcing the spiritual appropriation of the whole message
of divine truth in Christ. As Westcott remarks : " The
people had eaten of the loaves ; that which it was then-
highest blessing to do was to eat the Son of Man. This
eating is essential to all, inasmuch as without it there is
no life and no resurrection. And further, this eating
leads necessarily to life in the highest sense ; it has no
qualifications (such as eating worthily) ; it is operative
for good absolutely. It follows that the eating cannot
refer primarily to the holy communion ; nor again can
it be simply prophetic of that sacrament. The teaching
has a full and consistent meaning in connection with the
actual circumstances, and it treats essentially of spiritual
realities with which no external act, as such, can be co
extensive. The well-known words of Augustine, crede
et manducasti, " believe and thou hast eaten," give the
sum of the thoughts in a luminous and pregnant sen
tence." x
With the progress of sacerdotalism in the Church there
was a tendency to utilize the reference to remitting and
retaining sins in John xx. 23 in behalf of a priestly func-
1 The Gospel According to St. John, p. 113.

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 355
tion of absolution. But this interpretation savors of
gratuitous exaggeration. The words in question were
spoken to the company of the disciples. There is noth
ing on record which requires us to suppose that they
were addressed exclusively to the apostles or to any
circle of officials. The parallel reference in Luke xxiv.
33-36 indicates that others besides the twelve were
included in the company upon which Christ pronounced
His benediction, and to which He pledged the assistance
of the Holy Spirit. It was not then a special sacerdotal
prerogative which the words of Christ described, but a
function of the Christian body as such. Speaking ideally,
or on the supposition that the Christian body would be
fully submitted to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, He
affirmed that in establishing rules of conduct and admin
istering discipline over its members, it would but execute
the divine will. Its binding and loosing upon earth, to
use the Synoptical phrase, would correspond with that in
heaven ; in other words, the adjustment of the relations
of men to the brotherhood would reflect their real rela
tions to the kingdom of God. If in place of the brother
hood as a whole one prefers to regard the apostles as
contemplated in the promise, the meaning is still remote
from the sacerdotal theory of a judicial prerogative in
the priest over the confessing penitent. There is no
question here of remitting or retaining sins in the emi
nent sense, but only in the secondary sense of that
power of passing judgment which belongs to religious
society when fulfilling to the best its vocation. Certainly
it is the unequivocal dictate of reason that no human
society, or set of officials, can forgive sins in the eminent

356 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
sense, since the divine judgment is absolutely final in
determining the status of the individual as approved or
condemned, and it is absurd to suppose that any human
sentence can either get ahead of the divine judgment or
control the same. The best that the human sentence
can do is to follow and give effect, in the accessible rela
tions of a given subject, to the divine judgment. This
end the optimistic and idealizing words attributed to
Christ contemplated as about to be realized in the Chris
tian brotherhood. IX. — Eschatology.
Some of the Johannine representations seem well-nigh
to cancel the antithesis between the two worlds, and to
take away all occasion for contemplating a future crisis.
Thus eternal life is frequently spoken of, not as a remote
inheritance, but as a present possession. " He that
believeth on the Son hath eternal life." 1 " He that
eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life."2
" The witness is this, that God gave unto us eternal life,
and this life is in His Son." 3 Again there are references
to the coming of Christ which seem to identify it, not with
the visible inauguration of a dispensation radically diverse
from the present, but with a spiritual advent to men still
living in the common earthly relations.4 Still further,
there are sentences which picture judgment, not as the
event, of a future day, but as an ordeal that is now being
visited upon one class of men, and for another class has
been put entirely away.5 Once more, in various connec-
1 John iii. 36. 2Johnvi. 54. 8i John v. 11.
4 John xiv. 18, 23. 6 John iii. 18, 19, ix. 39, xii. 31, v. 24.

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY 357
tions the resurrection is given a present and spiritual
application, and the disciple is spoken of as if instated
here and now in an order of life which makes physical
death practically of no significance.1
Expressing the sense of the foregoing we may say
that the apocalyptic element, or the thought of the out
ward crisis, is not prominent in the Johannine teaching.
Its favorite point of view is that of the spiritualism
which makes minor account of distinctions of time and
place and centers its contemplation upon the relations of
the soul to God and upon the fruition of the life that is
lifted up into close fellowship with Him. Still the apoc
alyptic element is not wanting. The ordinary postulates
of New Testament eschatology evidently lay in the back
ground of John's mental picture of the future. In at
least one instance he makes an unequivocal reference to
the coming of Christ in the sense of a distinct manifesta
tion at a special epoch,2 and there are other probable
references to an advent of the like kind.3 He speaks
also, or represents Christ as speaking, of a last day and
of a resurrection and a judgment associated with that
day.4 On these topics there is apparently a combination
of the ideas of process and consummation. "As the
future resurrection seems to be viewed as an element,
and, in some sense, as the consummation of the Son's
bestowment of life upon mankind, so the future judg
ment appears to be regarded as the culmination of a
process of judgment which is inseparably connected with
1 John v. 24, 25, viii. 51, xi. 25, 26.
2 1 John ii. 28. 8 John xiv. 3, xxi. 22.
4 John v. 28, 29, vi. 39, 40, 44, 54, xii. 48; I John iv. 17.

360 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
transfigured life of intimate fellowship with God and of
pure love to the children of God. Herein it fulfills a
high office. But it needs certainly to be supplemented
by the Pauline teaching with its larger infusion of mis
sionary ardor or spirit of world-conquering enterprise.
The truth is, no one of the New Testament types is to
be elected as giving by itself the complete doctrinal
standard. One may excel another in important respects,
but it is by their united contributions that the full-orbed
truth of the new dispensation is made to shine upon the
minds and hearts of men.

INDEX

Briggs, C. A., 58
Bruce, A. B., 80, 236, 256, 273

Abbot, E., 304, 316
Abbott, T. K., 182
Acts, Book of, 124 f., 140 ff.
Adeney, W. F., 259 Charles, R. H, 13, 16, 100
Adoption, 238, 349 Chase, F. H., 124, 278
Advent, the second, 117 ff., 169, Church, the, 107 ff., 140 ff., 157,
258 ff., 356 f. 167 f., 252 ff., 295 f., 353
Allegorizing, the Alexandrian, 22, Christology, 18 f., 31, 56 ff., 99 ff.,
29 f.; the Pauline, 194 f. 144 ff., 162 ff., 2195., 284 ff.,
Alexandrianism, 20 ff., 272, 321 335 ff-
Alogi, the, 303 Clement of Alexandria, 54, 145
Angelology, 20, 99, 208, 282 f., 331 Clement of Rome, 145
Antitheses, Pauline, 2135.; Jo- Colossians, Epistle to the, 31, 179 ff.
hannine, 3255. Conception, the supernatural, 56B.
Apocalypse of John, 130 ff., 158 ff. Cone, O., 220, 231, 236

Apocryphal Gospels, 52 ff.
Apostles, their office, 109 ff., I42f .
Assurance, 241 f., 351
Atonement, 11, 12, 19, 105 ff., 146 f.,
165 f., 228 ff., 286 ff., 343 ff.
Augustine, 203
Bacon, B. W., 78, 181 f., 187 f.,
259, 278
Baldensperger, W., 12
Baptism, 113 ff., 148 ff., 2553., 296, Didache, 145

Corinthians, Epistles to the, 177,
179
Cremer, A. H., 231
Dalman, G., 59, 89, 100
Deacons, 143, 254 f., 268
Demonology, 20, 98 f., 209, 283,
Denney, J., 222, 231, 293
Devil, the, see Satan

35°. 3S3

Divorce, 251 f.

Baruch, Apocalypse of, 9, 14, 18, Dods, M., 342

38
Beyschlag, W., 67, 203, 236, 278,
298
Binding and loosing, no ff., 354 ff.
Bishops, 143, 167, 254!, 268
Bousset, W., 13, 18, 74, 90, 139,
259

Drummond, J., 24 ff., 35, 305, 309
Ecclesiasticus, 18, 21, 36, 89
Egyptians, the Gospel according to
the, 53
Elders, 143 f., 157, 255, 268, 295
Election, see Predestination

361

362

INDEX

Enoch, Book of, 9, 12 f., 15, 38,
100
Ephesians, Epistle to the, 31, I79ff.
Eschatology, Jewish, 14 ff., 20, 27 ;
Christian, 95, 117s., i69f., 2585.,
297ff-» 356ff-
Essenes, the, 6 ff.
Eucharist, the, 115 f., 148, 257 f.,
296, 353 f-
Eusebius, 48 ff., 54, 307!.
Evangelists, 254
Ezra, Fourth Book of, gf., 14, 18
Faith, 81 f., 155, 167, 187, 239 ff.,
294I-, 350
Family, the, 2505., 295
Fatherhood of God, 895., 153 f.,
201 f., 3341-
Findlay, G. G., 185
Flesh, as opposed to spirit, 97 f.,
213 ff., 281, 329^
Galatians, Epistle to the, 177 f.
Garvie, A. E., 205, 231
Gifford, E. H., 231
God, conceptions of, n, 23, 875.,
153. 199 ff-. 278 ff., 331 ff.
Godet, F., 222, 231, 236, 264
Gould, E. P., 77
Grace, as contrasted with law,
217!!., 265
Grill, J., 35, 336
Handmann, R., 53
Harnack, A., 506., 128, 183, 188,
274, 276, 278
Haupt, E., 120, 182
Hawkins, J. C, 50, 124
Hebrews, Epistle to the, 32^,270 ff.;
Gospel according to the, 52

Heinrici, C. F. G., 208
Hesse, F. H., 188
Hippolytus, 59
Hirscht, A., 134
Holtzmann, H. J., 7, 14, 125, 128,
203, 228, 236, 278, 336
Hort, F. J. A., 150
Ignatius of Antioch, 308
Irenaeus, 132, 307
James, epistle of, 36, 126 ft., 153 s.,
2751-
Jesus, His nativity, 56 ff.; His self-
consciousness as a subject of
development and source of teach
ing, 59 ff.; His witness respecting
His own person and office, 99 ff .
See Christology
John, question of his indebtedness
to Alexandrianism, 33 ff., 321 ;
evidences as to his authorship
of the fourth Gospel, 300 ff.;
sources, characteristics, and
teachings of this Gospel, 3i8ff.
Josephus, n, 15, 17
Jubilees, Book of, 9, 18, 38
Judgment, the, 122, 159, 170, 265,
297, 35°f.
Jude, Epistle of, 37, 278
Jiilicher, A., 49 f., 115, 178 f., 278
Justification, 156, 167, 2355., 293,
349
Justin Martyr, 14, 55, 59
Kaftan, J., 236
Kattenbusch, F., 115
Kautzsch, E., 13
Kennedy, H. A. A., 259, 266
Kenosis, Doctrine of the, 224L

INDEX

363

Kingdom of God, or of heaven,
73 ff-. z53
Klopper, A., 78
Knowling, R. J., 148
Lambert, J. C, 114L, 258
Lange, J. P., 231
Lagrange, M. J., 12
Law, the, 10, 79, 126, 127, 155,
217 ff.
Lightfoot, J. B., 49, 182, 316
Lipsius, R. A., 222, 231, 236
Lobstein, P., 58
Logia, the, 48 ff.
Loisy, A., 336
McGiffert, A. C, 188, 272
Man, his nature and condition, 18,
30, 93 ff., 154, 209 ff., 28off., 324,
329L
Marriage, 250 f., 267 f.
Mary, the Virgin, 168
Mayor, J. B., 127, 129
Menegoz, E., 33, 273, 290
Messiah, Jewish doctrine of the,
n ff., 18, 25, 229; Messiah Ben
Joseph, 12
Meyer, H. A. W., 222, 231, 236,
298, 303
Millennial reign, i69f.
Moffatt, J., 50, 51, 119, 259, 278
Morality, as related to religion, 68ff.
Moule, H. C. G., 182
Nitzsch, F., 236
Origen, 54
Olshausen, H., 231
Papias, 48, 309^

Pastoral Epistles, 186 ff., 266 ff.
Pastors, 254f.
Paul, the apostle, question of his
indebtedness to Pharisaism,
17 ff., to Alexandrianism, 28 ff.;
sources of his theology, 188 ff.;
his teachings, 199 ff.
Peabody, A. P., 316
Peake, A. S., 273, 289
Peter, the apostle, 109 ff., 143, 255;
First Epistle of, 270 ff.; Second
Epistle, 2762.; so-called Gospel
of Peter, 54
Pfleiderer, O., 19, 28 f., 177, 221,
228, 336
Pharisaism, 8ff., 18 ff., 69
Philemon, Epistle to, 179, 184
Philippi, F. A., 231
Philippians, Epistle to the, 179 f.
Philo, 21 ff.
Plumtre, E. H., 278
Poor, blessing upon the, 83 f .
Porter, F. C, 139
Prayer, 92, 168
Predestination, 17, 85 ff ., 203 ff.,
2421., 3471-.
Preexistence of souls, 25, 26
Prophets, 254
Quartodecimans, 304 f.
Ramsay, W. M., 161 f .
Rauch, C, 139
Reconciliation, see Atonement
Regeneration, 76, 156, 238f., 293,
349t-
Renan, E., 184
Repentance, 81 f., 294
Resurrection, 15, 27, 121 f., 261 ff.,
297 f., 356 f.; of Christ, 234, 292

364

INDEX

Retribution, future, 122, 265 f., 297, Stevens, G. B., 99, 118, 167, 231,
358 236, 259
Revelation, Bgok of, see Apocalypse Suetonius, 162

Reville, J., 336
Ritschl, A., 231
Robertson, A., 151
Ropes, J. A., 55
Sabatier, A., 87
Sadducees, 5, 6
Salmon, G., 183
Salmond, S. D. F., 183, 207
Sanctification, 243 ff., 293 ff., 352
Sanday, W., 115, 222, 231, 236
Satan, 98, 161, 209, 33of.
Schmidt, N., 101
Schmiedel, P. W., 125
Schultz, H, 7
Sharman, H. B., 78
Siegfried, C, 28, 33, 35
Smith, W. R., 271
Sin, 96, 154, 211, 281, 326ff.
Somerville, D., 41
Son of God, 102, 221, 284, 336f.
Son of Man, 99 s.
Spirit, the Holy, 105, 147 f., i64f .
221 f., 226 ff., 340 ff.
Spitta, F., 130, 278
Stanton, V. H., 53, 54, 305, 309
State, obligations to the, 249, 295

Swete, H. B., 55 .
Synoptical Gospels, 39 ff.
Tacitus, 137
Teachers, 254
Tennant, F. R., 212
Terry, M., 134, 231
Thessalonians, Epistles to the,
172s.
Tholuck, F. A. G., 231
Tongues, speaking with, 151 f.
Toy, C. H, 208
Von Soden, H., 182, 271, 278
Weber, F., 9, 12, 26
Weiss, B., 220, 236, 259, 278, 298
Weizsacker, C, 125, 139
Wellhausen, J., 7
Wendt, H. H., 317
Wernle, P., 50
Westcott, B. F., 273, 325, 342
Wisdom of Solomon, 21, 24!, 28!,
89, H5
Wrede, D. W., 176
Zahn, T., 127, 186, 269, 278, 309

npHE

following

pages

contain advertisements

of a few of the Macmillan

books on

kindred subjects

J*

By HENRY C. KING

Reconstruction in Theology

" Its pages represent what is nearly, if not actually, the high-
water mark of skill and success in blending a fearless yet
discriminating progressiveness with a loyal conservatism in
theology." — The Congregationalist. Cloth, I2m0j. $1.50 net; by mail, $1.62
Theology and the Social Consciousness
"A valuable contribution to current discussion. ... It is
not scholastic ; it is not phrased in the technical language of
the schools ; the thoughtful layman will readily understand
it." — The Outlook. Cloth, crown 8vo, ti.25 net; by mail, $1.35
By WILLIAM D. HYDE

Outlines of Social Theology

" The dominating idea of Dr. Hyde's book is indicated by
its title, ' Outlines of Social Theology.' It is not sociology
viewed theistically ; it is theology viewed socially. It is full
of life, of blood, of nerves. In it the author reflects in fresh
and vital statements, the latest, and what The Outlook re
gards as the best, theological thought of our time. But this
he does not as a mere reporter ; he is a thinker who has felt
the influence of the Zeitgeist, and reproduces in remarkably
clear statements truths which lie in modern consciousness,
either as undefined experiences or as individual but not cor
related truths."— The Outlook. ti.50 net; by mail, $1.61

PUBLISHED BY
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
64-66 Fifth Avenue, New York

By the Rev. WALTER RAUSCHENBUSCH
Professor of Church History in Rochester Theological Seminary
Christianity and the Social Crisis
" It is of the sort to make its readers feel that the book was
bravely written to free an honest man's heart ; that conscientious
scholarship, hard thinking, and the determination to tell the truth
as he sees it, have wrought it out and enriched it ; that it is written
in a clear, incisive style ; that stern passion and gentle sentiment
stir at times among the words, and keen wit and grim humor flash
here and there in the turn of a sentence ; and that there is a noble
end in view. If the hope be too confident, if there be once in
a while a step taken beyond the line of justice into indignation, if
a quaint old prejudice or even animosity bustles to the front in an
emergency — no matter. It is a book to like, to learn from, and,
though the theme be sad and serious, to be charmed with." —
New York Times' Saturday Review of Books. Cloth, i2mo, $i.Jo net
By Dr. SHAILER MATHEWS
Professor of Historical and Comparative Theology in the
University of Chicago
The Gospel and the Modern Man
"This is a strong, sane book, which ought to be widely read.
The author faces the difficulties of our modern situation with clear
insight and perfect frankness, and he shows with literary skill and
convincing logic that while some old notions must be abandoned,
the essential facts and forces of historical Christianity not only
remain untouched by destructive criticism, but issue from this
searching examination with increased power and beauty." — The
Dial. " It is a pleasure to find such lucidity, temperance, and insight as
Professor Mathews has shown in ' The Gospel and Modern Man.'
He introduces his incisive question at once and proceeds to answer
it. . . . It may easily be accounted among the best books
America has produced within the past twelve-month upon the
subject." — Christian Advocate. Cloth, i2mo, $1.50 net; by mail, $1.60

PUBLISHED BY
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
64-66 Fifth Avenue, New York

New Testament Handbooks
Edited by SHAILER MATHEWS, D.D.
Dean and Professor of Historical and Comparati've Theology, University of Chicago

The Ethics of Jesus
By HENRY CHURCHILL KING $1.50 net; by mail, $1.62
The History of the
Textual Criticism of the New Testament
By Professor MARVIN R. VINCENT, Professor of
New Testament Exegesis, Union Theological Seminary
ti.oo net; by mail, $1.15
The History of the
Higher Criticism of the New Testament
By Professor HENRY S. NASH, Professor of New
Testament Interpretation, Cambridge Divinity School
$1.00 net; by mail, $1.13
Introduction to the Books of the New Testament
By Professor BENJAMIN W. BACON, Professor of
New Testament Interpretation, Yale University
• $1.00 net; by mail, $1.15
The History of New Testament Times in Palestine
By Professor SHAILER MATHEWS $1.00 net; by mail, $1.15
The Teaching of Jesus
By Professor GEORGE B. STEVENS, Professor of
Systematic Theology, Yale University $1.00 net; by mail, $1.15
The Biblical Theology of the New Testament
By E. P. GOULD, Professor of New Testament Inter
pretation, Protestant Episcopal Divinity School, Phila-
, delphia  $1.00 net; by mail, $1.15
PUBLISHED BY
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
64-66 Fifth Avenue, New York

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 03792 6798