YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

Bought with the income
ofthe
WILLIAM C. EGLESTON FUND

JESUS AND PAUL

by

BENJAMIN W

. BACON

Galatians

Introduction
to the
New Testament
The Sermon
ON THE
Mount
JESUS AND PAUL
LECTURES
GIVEN AT MANCHESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD,
FOR THE WINTER TERM, 1920

BY
BENJAMIN W. BACON
D.D. "*
Buckingham Professor of New Testament Criticism
and Interpretation in Yale University

H3eto gotb
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
1921
All rights reserved

Copyright, 1921,
By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

Set up and electrotyped. Published March, 1921.

TO
THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
IN GRATEFUL REMEMBRANCE OF THE DEGREE
OF DOCTOR OF LETTERS CONFERRED
MARCH 9, 1923

PREFACE
The following course of lectures was delivered at
Manchester College, Oxford, during the Hilary (mid
winter) term, 1920. Previous engagements had com
pelled the lecturer to reduce the period of his stay from
the full year originally proposed to these relatively nar
row limits. This drew from Principal Jacks the sugges
tion that the topic be made comprehensive, in order to
afford a completer survey of the lecturer's understand
ing of New Testament Literature. With this design
in view a subject was chosen which has of late received
the attention of many scholars, but which seemed capa
ble of a mode of treatment emphasizing the relation of
growth rather than that of mere apposition or contrast.
The transition from the gospel of Jesus to the gospel
of Paul might thus be studied in a way to make it a
means of relating the whole group of writings of the
New Testament canon to the general movement of reli
gious thought and life from which they sprang.
The course as originally given contained but eight
lectures. At its conclusion the lecturer was asked to
take part in the Oxford Summer School of Theology
in the ensuing August, with the suggestion that the
closing lecture of the original course (on the Johannine
Literature) should be expanded into two for this pur
pose. The suggestion was adopted, and the Lectures
as printed are therefore nine in number, the added ma
terial of Lectures VIII and IX being inclosed in [].
In submitting his work to the judgment of a wider
public the lecturer aspires to no richer reward than to

V1U PEEFACE

win an approval in some degree approximating the
generosity of treatment accorded at the ancient seat of
English culture and religious thought.
New Haven, Ct., September, 1920.

CONTENTS
LEOTUKD PAGE
I Introductory  1
II Beginnings and Growth of the Gospel of
Keconceliation  27
III The Transfiguration of the Gospel .... 53
TV The Transfiguration of the Gospel (Continued) 79
V The Heavenly Intercessor as Seen and Inter
preted by Paul  107
VI Back to Galilee. The Witness of Peter . . 137
VII The Gospel as Law and Promise  170
VUI The Gospel as Theology  198
IX The Message of the Fourth Evangelist . . . 225

JESUS AND PAUL
LECTURE I
INTRODUCTORY
THE PHASES OF NEW TESTAMENT LITERATURE, AS RE
FLECTING- THE MOVEMENT OF RELIGIOUS LIFE
1. The Phases of the Literature
The aim that we are pursuing in common in this brief
course of study is an analysis of the early literature of
Christianity in order to get at the springs of its life.
We are to apply without reserve or restriction every
process of historical and literary criticism which mod
ern science places within our reach. We do this be
cause as rational students of the history of civilization
no less than as Christian believers we are persuaded of
the preeminent value of Christianity as a force operative
in the social organism. For as such it made itself felt
in the reconstruction of the world which followed upon
the downfall of Graeco-Roman heathenism, and the ele
ments of its power are still available. At the begin
ning of our era national religion in the form of emperor-
worship gave way to the Old Testament ideal of the
Kingdom of God in Christianized form. Personal re
ligion, which had taken the form of various oriental
mystery religions and cults of individual immortality,
also gave way. It yielded to the doctrine of an eternal
life in the keeping of Christ with God. National re
ligion and personal religion were combined in new
forms, and the combination led to the conversion of

2 JESUS AND PAUL
Europe. We look to it still to effect the Christianization
of the world.
Enquiry of the sort here proposed implies, of course,
the application of quite a new form of the doctrine of
Sacred Scripture. Revelation and Inspiration will take
on for us an altered meaning. Conservative brethren
may even deny our right to apply .the ancient terms to
the new doctrine. But unless I quite mistake the mean
ing of Jesus, of Paul, and of that great disciple of Paul
at Ephesus to whom tradition assigns the name of John,
this is exactly what the New Testament calls upon us to
do. A Christian, as against a mere rabbinic doctrine of
Sacred Scripture, implies making of the letter a means
of access to the eternal Spirit, and as such subordinate.
The effort of Jesus and Paul was to secure this subor
dination. They stood opposed to a religion of the letter,
of the scribe, of the written authority of a sacred book.
Jesus waged his conflict against the " lawyers " who had
changed the vital relation of sons to a Father in Heaven
into legalism and book-religion. Paul attacked " the
>law." He took the conflict over into the abstract as an
opposition between Law and Grace.
After Paul came reaction. The compiler of our first
Gospel takes the view-point of the neo-legalist.
" Matthew," as we call him, is a scribe instructed unto
the kingdom of heaven, bent at all costs on keeping in
his treasure both the new and the old. Such is also the
view-point of the Epistles of James and Jude, and of
most of the ecclesiastical literature of the post-apostolic
period. But again the pendulum swings forward. The Ephe-
sian evangelist, to whom tradition gives the name of
" John," lifts the whole debate to a higher level. For
him the value of the records of religion in the past is
their ability to bring men into vital contact with the life
of God in man, " the life," as he calls it, " even the

INTRODUCTORY 3
eternal life, which was from the beginning, which was
with the Father, and was manifested to us in the form of
a living Word, so that our eyes could see it and our hands
handle it, a Word of life with which we still have an
eternal, imperishable fellowship." In his interpretative
Gospel this deutero-Pauline evangelist introduces a scene
of Jesus as the incarnate Logos in dispute with the
scribes concerning the authority of Moses and the Law.
It is Paulinism in other language. The heart of it lies
in Jesus' rebuke of the scribes' conception of Scripture
and its value to religion. To them Scripture was sim
ply a collection of authoritative precepts, obedience to
which would win them the reward of a share in the
world to come. To him it was a voice of the indwell
ing God. " Te search the Scriptures," he says to his
detractors, " because ye think that in them ye have eter
nal life; and they are they that testify of me; but ye
would not come unto me that ye might have life."
This Johannine principle is the Church's charter of
intellectual freedom. We shall search the Scriptures as
never before ; but not because we think that in them, but
only through them, we have eternal life. They bear wit
ness to One that has it, an eternal Wisdom of God who
spake by the prophets, and was incarnate in Christ.
Historico-critical analysis does not disregard the au
thority of the New Testament. It seeks it on a higher
level. We search the Scriptures in order that we may
bring ourselves and others into contact through them
with the life of the eternal Logos, " the life that was
from the beginning with the Father," that lies latent
in the outward universe of order and law, that slumbers
in the brute and dreams in man, but awakes to full con
sciousness in sons who know the Father ; 1 the Logos that
x Compare Philo (conf. ling. 28) : " Those who have real knowl
edge of the one Creator and Father of all things are rightly called
' Sons of God.' And even if we are not yet worthy to be called
' Sons of God,' we may deserve to be called children of His eternal

4: JESUS AND PAUL
is not only "latent" (evSiafleTos as the Stoics said), but
also " manifest " (wpo^opt/co's) ; " for the life was mani
fested, and we have seen, and bear witness, that ye may
have fellowship with us; yea, and our fellowship is
with the Father, and with his Son, Jesus Christ."
Christianity comes down to us as the triumphant sur
vivor in the conflict of religions in the Roman Empire ;
a survivor not by accident, nor by superhuman interven- ,
tion from without, but by an inherent fitness to be the
religion of a civilized and united humanity. Its ideal
was that of a kingdom of God, a universal sovereignty of
law and order in a commonweal of righteousness, peace,
and good will. This ideal was primarily social, though
individualism was already strongly felt. Taken over
from Judaism and glorified, the doctrine of the King
dom of God proved more acceptable in the long run to
the mass of populations mingled in the Empire than the
ideal of Rome's world-religion : Emperor-worship as the
symbolic expression of a supreme loyalty to the genius
of the Roman world order. " Christian " civilization
on its social side means the adoption of Jesus' ideal. It
centers in the prayer: " Thy kingdom come."
What Gsesar-worship had to commend it may be rea
lized by comparing in our own time the patriotic devo
tion of which Japanese emperor-worship is capable I
will not speak of the extravagances of a nominally Chris
tian empire, whose dominant caste aspired but recently
to unify the world under its own Kultur. Civilization
in the period of the Caesars, centered around the Medi
terranean, took over the Hellenistic conception of a su
preme governor in whom as the embodiment of law and
order in the commonwealth the divine impulse that con
trols the progress of humanity is manifest. Rejecting
pagan imperialism the civilization which centers around
'image,' the most holy Logos." Cf. Mt. 11: 27; Jn. 1: 12, 18;
17: 3; I Jn. 3: 1-3; 4: 7; 5: 1-5, 18.

INTRODUCTORY 5
the Atlantic has preferred to take over its social ideal in
the Christian form. And, as we have seen, the basis of
this ideal was the divine sovereignty sung by Hebrew
prophets and Psalmists. We have scarcely emerged as
yet from the convulsive struggle, but we are done at last
with the Roman ideal, which made slavery the lowest
social stratum and military autocracy the highest. The
mediaeval ideal, it has been said, was the City of God.
It may seem to-day to be not only distant but receding.
Still it came within view, and the vision still lives as
the goal of religion on its social side.
Graeco-Roman civilization took over also the essential
ideals of individual religion as embodied in the Oriental
cults of personal redemption. For far and wide ancient
forms of nature-worship had been recast into " myster
ies " through whose rites the devotee sought to share in
the immortality attained by the dying and rising
Savior-god. The modern world has adopted this re
ligious ideal also. But it has preferred to take it over
in the Christianized form of assimilation to the death
and life of Jesus, self -devoted for the kingdom's sake and
for the brotherhood ; rather than in the Oriental form of
assimilation to the death and life of some mythical hero
or demi-god who was very far from representing in his
reputed career the noblest aspirations of humanity.
Christianity comes down to us, then, as the survivor
in the great imperial melting-pot of national and per
sonal religions, triumphant because worthy, surviving
because fitted, to survive. The select literature of its
age of conquest is the New Testament, a group of writ-
ings enshrined by the Church through the centuries as
the very well-spring of its life. To reverent and sympa
thetic scrutiny this literature should yield up something
of the secret of the triumph. We may not thereby bring
ourselves in immediate view of the absolute religion,
but we may at least expect to advance a stage in sorely

O JESUS AND PAUL
needed preparation for wise direction and culture of the
religious impulse in our own disordered generation.
It is natural to our way of thinking to imagine the
first propagandists of our faith advancing into the
heathen world around them armed with an impervious
religious system of their own, inchoate, if not complete,
ready for acceptance by converted Gentiles. Early in
the second century the Syrian church bad indeed pro
duced a compact manual of Christian ethics and escha-
tology known as The Teaching of the Twelve. That
might perhaps be called a system in miniature. But the
gospel of Paul was not a book. When he and his mis
sionary associates set out to convert the Empire none of
them had so much as thought of putting their message in
written form. Their one book of religious faith and
practice was the Synagogue Bible, the Greek Old Testa-
. ment. This they had learned to interpret in a new way,
some indeed not much otherwise than the scribes, but
others more in the spirit of the Friend of publicans and
sinners. Their religion was Judaism — more or less
transfigured — and it carried with it the Bible of Juda
ism. But this was not their special message. For their
message they borrowed a term from Isaiah, calling it
" the gospel of peace," glad tidings of reconciliation
with God, of a coming renewal of the world through the
man ordained of God by the resurrection. The message
was: Forgiveness of sins. The fourth evangelist ex
presses it in his report of the Commission of the Twelve
by their risen Lord : " He said unto them ' Peace be
unto you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.'
Then, breathing upon them, he said: 'Receive ye the
Holy Ghost : Whosesoever sins ye forgive they are for
given them.' " 2
2 Principal Forsyth in an article quoted by Principal Garvie
(The Ritsehlian Theology, p. 420) makes a statement which how-

INTRODUCTORY 7
This " gospel," so far as it found visible expression,
was embodied, after the manner of ancient religion, not
in books but in symbolic ritual. Christianity consisted
in the ordinances and their interpretation. When Saul
the persecutor was called upon to identify his victims he
did not search for writings. It is not even likely that
as a Jew he would think of cross-examination on points
of doctrine. Jewish orthodoxy is guaranteed not by ac
ceptance of a statement of belief, but by a sacramentum,
an oath of loyalty to Jehovah the one God, in whose
service every capacity of man's nature should be united.
Its " creed " is the so-called Shema, the same " yoke of
the divine sovereignty " which Jesus, like many an
other Jewish martyr, took on him when he went to his
death.3 What Saul the persecutor saw and resented
in the spreading sect was a new loyalty. It was attested
by baptism, a new sacramentum, a ritual act of self-
dedication whose significance was renewed by a fre
quently repeated memorial act of fellowship.
The Nazarenes, or Christians, were the people who •
practiced the rites of baptism and the Supper. The lat
ter, a token of their " communion " or " partnership "
(koivwvIo) , as they called it, came from the very hand
and voice of Jesus himself on the night of
his delivering up to the cross. The Church re
peated his farewell message to the disciples in
his own words, it reenacted the supreme parable by
which he had sealed his meaning on their hearts. In-
substance the supper was an act of self-dedication in
which Jesus " covenanted " (Luke 22 : 29, 8uiti%m v/uv)
that the life he was willingly surrendering in the cause
ever sweeping seems to me historically justified: "Christianity
is forgiveness," and he adds, " there is no forgiveness dissociated
from the cross." That also I believe to be a fact as descriptive
of the special message of the primitive evangelist, or missionary.
Of course it is not true of Jesus' own preaching in Galilee.
3Mk. 12: 28-30.

8 JESUS AND PAUL
of the Kingdom should be a sacrifice to God on Israel's
behalf. As other Jewish martyrs had done before his
time,* he offered his body and blood to God as a " pro
pitiation " (iAao>ids) on behalf of his people, and in a
faith which not even the shadow of the cross could
darken he gave tryst to those who had been with him in
his trials at the banquet of the redeemed. He would
meet them again at his table in his Kingdom. This
" covenant " (ota<%7?) is the essence of the rite. As
II. Mace. 7:36 says of the martyrs who " offered up
both body and life for the laws of their fathers, entreat
ing God that He would speedily be propitiated for their
nation," Jesus also " died under a God-given ' cove
nant ' of everlasting life."
The initial observance which marked the Christian
of Paul's day was baptism ; not instituted by Jesus him
self during his earthly life, but adapted by his disciples
from the practice by which his predecessor John had
symbolized repentance from all the evil past in prepara
tion for Jehovah's coming to inaugurate his reign on
earth. The disciples of Jesus adopted it almost coinci-
dently with the awakening of their belief in the Master's
victory over death and his exaltation to the throne of
heavenly glory to await a prompt return.5 And in
adopting it they were convinced that they were acting
under the direction of his Spirit. To them the rite
was the believer's logical response to the " covenant in
the blood of the Master. The Supper symbolized
Jesus' self -dedication unto death in their behalf. " My
life . . . for you," those are its keywords. Baptism
,signified their participation in this death, an answering
4 IV Mace. 6: 27-29; 17: 8-22.
o Save for the vague generalization of Mt. 28 : 19, the Gospels
leave us in the dark as to the occasion of this significant adop
tion of the Johannine rite; for Jno. 3: 22 has reference to pre-
Christian baptism only.

INTRODUCTORY 9
penitent renunciation of all the evil past and a self-dedi
cation under this God-given Christ. Taking upon
them his name, and invoking him as " Lord," they gave
themselves to the same cause for which he had given his
life, and in which he had also received it back again
with eternal glory. In baptism men became "vota
ries " of the glorified " Lord " who for their sakes had
" devoted " himself. They were buried together with
Christ that they might participate also in his resurrec
tion. And their faith and loyalty received as it were
the seal of a divine approval; for ecstatic powers and
manifestations followed upon the act, marking every
assembly of the " brethren " of this " Way " as men
who (in their own estimation at least) had experienced
that " outpouring of the Spirit " which according to the
prophets was to characterize the opening of the mes
sianic age.6
Not books, then, but these two observances form the
true Ur-evangelium. "As often as ye eat this bread
and drink this cup," says Paul, "ye do tell the story
(KaTayyiWere) of the Lord's death until he come." If
he had been thinking of the Greek mysteries instead of
the Jewish Redemption feast with its ritual " telling
of the tale " (haggada) of Jehovah's deliverance, he
might have said " ye do reenact the drama." But it
is only the coloration of the primitive rites which is
Hellenistic, the basis is Jewish. The primitive " teach
ings of baptisms " are less certainly identifiable, but
they undoubtedly had to do with the putting off of the
old man with his sinful deeds, and the putting on of the
new man endowed with a new and heaven-sent life.
Such, then, was the true " beginning of the Gospel."
The sacraments came first, the literature came after
ward. It grew up around the sacraments, interpreting
and enforcing their lessons. The first disciples did not
• Eom. 6: 1-11; I Cor. 10; 1-22.

10 JESUS AND PAUL
appeal, as we do, to two witnesses, the Spirit and the
Word, but to three: the Spirit outpoured from heaven;
and the water ; and the blood.
The proof of it, if we needed proof, is the manner in
which Epistles and Gospels alike concentrate about
these two foci. In the great doctrinal Epistles of -Paul
there are always just these two central ideas: Justi
fication and Sanctification, or (as we might better say)
Life in the Spirit. But justification is simply an ex
pansion of the theme of the new covenant in the blood
of Christ shed for many for the remission of sins, and
Life in the Spirit is an expansion of the teaching of
baptism, which was a " bath of regeneration," a birth
into the eternal life, the life of the risen Christ. Not
the great Epistles only, but Gospel narrative also in its
general outline falls into just the same two divisions.
It has a Galilean ministry which tells the story of how
Jesus received "the Spirit of Adoption to Sonship at his
baptism, and thereafter went about manifesting its pow
ers against temptation, disease, and all the opposition of
evil. It has for its second part a Judean ministry
which tells how he took up the cross and achieved the
redemption, making " propitiation for our sins, and not
for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
There is a third literary type of the Christian canon,
the recorded utterance of contemporary " prophecy," or
(as we call it) " apocalypse." This third type has not
the polarity of the other two, but it manifestly develops
that factor of the Supper observance which is repre
sented in the Gospels by the saying : " Ye shall sit on
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." These
three : Epistles, the utterance of Apostles ; Gospels, the
utterance of evangelists and teachers; Apocalypse, the
utterance of " prophets," form the material of our study.
Because Christianity did not come into the chaotic
religious world of the Empire. as a ready-made system

INTBODUCTORY 11
from without, impervious to the feeling and thought of
the time, nor as a book, or theology, but only as a free
and germinant idea, capable of drawing into itself and
adapting every serviceable element from its environ
ment, we should expect to find, and do find, the ebb and
flow of the tides of religious thought leaving their mark
in the structure of this literature, and not outside alone.
As some of those exquisite flower-like forms of ocean's
bed build themselves up out of material carried on the
currents that sweep in and out through their pores, so the
literature of Christianity's formative age retains within
its structure watermarks of the conflict of religious
forces pouring now from the Jewish, now from the Hel
lenistic world; and while the more vital consciousness
subdues and assimilates the weaker, yet the weaker finds
a place and reappears, though in transfigured form.
National religion in even its proudest development, the
worship of the genius of Rome, disappeared before the
new universal religion. But its best elements were not
destroyed. They were fulfilled in the transfigured doc
trine of the kingdom of God. Nature-worship, in its
Hellenistic adaptation to the hope of immortality by
participation in the divine nature, went down before the
gospel of the risen Christ. But the Hellenistic doctrines
of personal immortality had their resurrection. In con
flict with them the crude Jewish eschatology of a restora
tion of all things in a kingdom lmierlted by flesh and
blood underwent a change so complete as to leave scarce
a trace of its earlier form. Little remains of it in
the fourth Gospel beyond the assurance that departing
we shall be " with Christ." The doctrine of raising
from among the dead (avdo-Tao-is Ik vacpZv) is transformed
into a doctrine of participation in the eternal life that
is " hid in God."
It is the purpose of this introductory lecture to clas
sify the successive types of New Testament literature

12 JESUS AND PAUL
in the well known and generally admitted order of their
appearance. First by an interval of decades come the
great Epistles of Paul, continued in a later succession
of Deutero-Pauline and Catholic Epistles. The latter
are attributed to Apostles and Brethren of the Lord who
had the authority of Apostles, and in substance as well
as form are largely Pauline. Contemporary with some
of the later Epistles come the Synoptic writings, be
ginning with Mark, and including both treatises of
Luke. For practical purposes we group with these the
kindred book of the Revelation of John. Later still, at
the very close of the first century or beginning of the
second, come the so-called' Johannine writings, which
consist of a Gospel and three brief Epistles.
It is important to observe that we cannot reckon the
Revelation in the " Johannine " group, or class ; we
should reserve the term " Johannine " to this book
which alone of the five canonized at Ephesus bears the
name of " John " in its text. The Ephesian Gospel and
Epistles while not much later in date than the Revela
tion are at the widest possible remove from it doctrinally,
and as literature belong in a totally different class. We
should also note that of the three groups described the
first and third (Epistles and Johannine Writings) are
composed exclusively of writings which are Greek, and
never were anything but Greek; whereas the second
group (Synoptics and Revelation) is almost as com
pletely Semitic in origin, scarcely any part save the
story of Paul in the second half of Acts having been
originally composed in Greek. The rest seems to have
been translated from Aramaic in its main substance.
The middle period of New Testament literature repre
sents, therefore, an Aramaic enclave. The statement
seems simple enough. It means only that the Synoptic
writings and Revelation are based on translations from
the Aramaic, and in this carefully chosen expression

INTRODUCTORY 13
would probably be admitted by all philologians. Con
sidered in itself alone it is not a fact of great importance ;
for we may accept the translation as in general quite ade
quate. But considered as a symptom of the origin and
nature of the material embodied in these naturalized
Greek writings, it has an importance which entirely
transcends the apprehension of the ordinary reader.
Stated in other terms the phenomenon is this: prac
tically the whole literature of our European, Greek-
speaking, Pauline Christianity, in those vital elements
which cover the life and teaching of Jesus, and the
founding and extension of the Church, together with its
entire apocalyptic eschatology, is a foreign substance
relatively to its literary context. It is a rib taken out
from the body of the Aramaic-speaking branch of the
Church, and grafted into the Pauline. The Palestinian
mother-church was dispersed in the formative period of
the New Testament, leaving no literature of its own.
What survives is due to the pious care of the Pauline
churches, which incorporated with their own apostolic
writings such of the Aramaic material as could be made
available. This material was foreign in language, and
to some extent in conception also, but not really alien.
Had it been foreign to this extent the adapted material
could never have been vitalized at all. Unchristian ma
terial, whether Jewish or heathen, would never have
been received; or if taken up it would have been
promptly ejected. The enclave is Christian, but retains
something of its Jewish origin. Apart from the single
book of prophecy, ascribed in the editorial framework to
John, this Aramaic material is distinctively, and in
every sense of the word, " Petrine " ; since not only the
foundation narrative transmittedirom Mark to the later
Synoptists is universally understood to represent the
reminiscences of Peter, but the subsequent story of the
founding of the Church is centered on this Apostle.

14 JESUS AND PAUL
But why did the Pauline churches take up this Sem
itic material? For two reasons. First, Paul himself
looked back to and rested upon this Petrine authority
(I Cor. 15: 1-11) ; and after Paul's "departure" his
churches had no other recourse against the unbridled
speculations of Gnostic heresy. Second, while the trans
lation probably errs if at all rather in the direction of too
slavish literalness, the much more important matter of
selection was entirely in the hands of Greek editors.
And unless every indication both of ancient tradition and
modern inference is wrong, these Greek editors took up
only what was most congenial to the Pauline churches
among which their compilations were intended to cir
culate. In Matthew we have a few traces of material
which if not anti-Pauline is at least irreconcilable with
Paul's teaching. The same is true of Acts. But ed
itors anxious to believe that all Apostles taught precisely
the same doctrine found a harmonizing sense quite as
easily as moderns find it in the Epistle of James. Their
catholicity was generously inclusive.
The case of Mark is typical, and this Gospel became
determinative of later Synoptic narrative. There is
good reason to accept the testimony of antiquity that
this Petrine foundation stone of the sayings and doings
of Jesus was compiled under the direction of Mark. At
least it appeared under his authority. And Mark, as we
know, was a follower of Paul. Until the end Mark was
with Paul at Rome, or acting for him from Rome, as his
trusted representative. Such connection as this lieuten
ant of Paul had had with Peter was probably only a mat
ter of his young manhood, at least a score of years before
the time of writing.
It is true that Mark appears in a different relation in
a writing known to us as the First Epistle of Peter.
This is an encyclical, later than the Gospel, addressed
from Rome to the Pauline churches of Asia Minor. It

INTRODUCTORY 15
encourages them to stand fast in the fiery persecution
they are called upon to undergo together with their
brethren throughout the world, apparently the Domiti-
anic persecution of about 90 a. d. It purports to speak
for Peter, and conveys a greeting from " Mark " as
Peter's (spiritual) " son," implying a second association
of Mark with Peter after the death of Paul. I need
hardly say that if the date 90 a. d. is correct the assump
tion to speak for Peter is a literary fiction. The device
was regarded as admissible at the time, and perhaps
at first was fully understood as the mere convention
which it almost certainly is. Few scholars to-day would
attempt to maintain Petrine authorship in any real
sense. At all events everything about First Peter save
the name is Pauline, and Pauline only. Hence we can
use its mention of Mark as Peter's " son " only as wit
ness to the regard which was accorded to the evangelist
at the place of composition as early as 90 a. d. And this
is of no small importance. For we leaxn from Acts that
Mark really had been associated with Peter in the days
before he accompanied Paul and Barnabas on the so-
called First Missionary Journey. We may perhaps
assume also that he came down with Peter from Jeru
salem to Antioch after having left Paul and Barnabas at
Perga. That was about the year 47 or 48. This
early association with Peter might well account for his
being referred to in the Epistle as Peter's spiritual
" son." The data of Acts will also account for Mark's being
called an " interpreter " (ep^rajT^s) of Peter in a very
ancient tradition of Palestinian origin which spoke of c
him as author of the Gospel. In its original form and
sense this tradition is perfectly credible. Before his
journey to Cyprus with Barnabas after the breach with
Paul at Antioch Mark may very well have been associ
ated with Peter. But there is not a word in the tra-

16 JESUS AND PAUL
dition itself to justify the idea which second and third
century writers formed by combining it with the men
tion of " Babylon " in I Pt. 5 : 13. Assuming (as they
did) that Peter himself wrote the Epistle, and that
" Babylon " stands for Rome (which is probably true)
they inferred that after having been Paul's follower to
the end at Rome Mark had become associated for a sec
ond time with Peter, this Apostle having come to take
Paul's place in Rome. Peter was thus made in a direct
sense responsible for the Roman Gospel ; practically its
author. If, however, we place his relation to Mark
before Mark's association with Paul, as we probably
should, Peter's connection with the narrative becomes
much more remote.
The designation of Mark's Gospel the " Memoirs of
Peter " is thus seen to be a typical second-century exag
geration. The Gospel is no doubt a product of the
Roman church. It probably does represent in the most
primitive form, the compilation by Mark of what he
could gather, or remember, of the preaching of Peter.
Its material was largely documentary, and has been
translated from the Aramaic. But it is certainly not a
primary Apostolic record; nor did the oldest form of
the tradition even venture to call it such. It is a post
humous collection of Petrine material by a Paulinist for
Paulinists. It represents the practical use to which
primitive Palestinian material could be put by a great
Greek-speaking, Gentile church, thoroughly Pauline in
all its anti-Jewish tendencies, a decade or so after both
Peter and Paul were dead.
If such be the case with the Gospel of Mark it is
hardly needful to point out that the still later, probably
Antiochian work Luke-Acts, and the Palestinian Gos
pel to which tradition early attached the name of " Mat
thew " have a similar history of adaptation. Both of
these depend largely on Mark. Both are Greek com-

INTRODUCTORY 17
positions, merely employing Aramaic material, and the
greater part even of this material was, like Mark, already
in translation before the composition of the present
Gospels. These, therefore, can no more than Mark
aspire to be considered primary apostolic documents ; but
the later two go far beyond Mark in their exaltation of
Peter. All three embody Palestinian material, some of
it possibly as old as the letters of Paul. With it is
much more which was Aramaic, perhaps Palestinian, but
by no means so ancient.
The point of view of the Antiochian, and especially
of the Palestinian Gospel is, as we should expect, much
less in harmony with the ideas of Paul than the Roman.
In particular they go very much further than Mark in
taking up discourses of Jesus from an ancient source of
unknown origin. This is what critics designate the
Second Source, reconstructing it from the " double-tra
dition " material of Matthew and Luke. It presented
Jesus' ministry largely as that of a teacher, one who
saves men principally by indoctrination in the " wisdom
that cometh from above." Probably the origin of both
Matthew and Luke is largely due to the need indepen
dently felt in different quarters for enriching the
Petrine tradition with this mass of teaching material.
Besides the four narrative books our Aramaic enclave
includes also a fifth, of different type. This is the
Palestinian " book of prophecy " which an Ephesian
editor of about 93 a. d. gives out under cover of seven
" letters of the Spirit " to the seven churches of Asia,
attributing the incorporated visions to the martyred
Apostle John, who is vaguely located on the Isle of
Patmos. This work also is demonstrably an adapta
tion of Aramaic material. It seems to come largely
from the period of Jerusalem's death-struggle with
Rome a quarter-century before the time of republication
at Ephesus. The churches addressed in the present

18 JESUS AND PAUL
work are the Greek churches of the Ionic coast. The
messages of the Spirit in the prefatory letters show
clearly that their problems and dangers are those of
the Pauline churches at this time and in this region.
Their troubles are not with the sword of Rome, but with
" Nicolaitans," " Balaamites," and others who " teach
my servants to commit fornication and to eat things
sacrificed to idols." Name and description alike recall
the three chapters devoted by Paul to this subject in
I Cor. 8-10. The Palestinian churches to which the
visions of the " prophecy " thus introduced would seem
to have been originally addressed had quite other dif
ficulties. Nevertheless in the time of storm and stress
of Domitian, the second Nero, the Pauline " churches
of Asia " threatened by Satan as a roaring lion in perse
cution without, and as a tempting serpent by heresy
within, might well turn with eagerness to the consola
tions and encouragements of Palestinian " apocalypse,"
translating and circulating among themselves the visions
which had done service in Palestine a generation be
fore. For in the last year of his reign Nero had brought
upon Jerusalem the abomination of desolation spoken
of by Daniel the prophet.
Thus the great Aramaic enclave of our Greek New
Testament, the enclave consisting of the four Synoptic
writings and Revelation, covers the period which Clem
ent of Alexandria significantly designates as " post-
apostolic." It begins in 62 a. d. with the martyrdom
of James in Jerusalem along with " others." These
" others " may have included John the brother of the
other James, who had been martyred in 41 ; for Papias
records that the two sons of Zebedee were " killed by
the Jews." The martyrdom of Paul at Rome had fol
lowed that of James the Lord's brother only a year or
two later, and Peter's had taken place at about the same

INTRODUCTORY 19
date. Clement may well say, therefore, that the period
of teaching of the Apostles closes with the death of Paul
under Nero.7 The enclave is later. Its adoption by
the Greek churches represents in a sense a reaction from
the free gospel of Pauline missionary evangelism. It
is a reaction perfectly unavoidable, and on the whole
salutary, toward the standpoint of the so-called Pillar-
apostles. It came to an end, so far as incorporations in
our canon are concerned, not far from the close of the
first century, and was followed, as one might expect, by
a new surge of Pauline re-interpretation of the gospel
message on a higher scale, including the values and em
ploying the forms of both elements. This resurge of
Paulinism is what we have learned to call the Johan
nine literature, meaning by it not the writing which
really names the Apostle John as its author, the Revela
tion, to which I referred above, but the four anonymous j
Ephesian writings of the same locality and but slightly
later date, which came to be attributed traditionally to
the same author. Ephesus had been the great headquar
ters of Paul's mission field. Here he worked longest,
and had most occasion to give his system of thought its
highest and most philosophic interpretation. It was
therefore the predestined place of origin and center of
dissemination for- that " spiritual Gospel," as the Fath
ers learned to call it, which became the foundation of
all the later theologies, rounding out the full cycle of
the Pauline message. Nevertheless neither the thought
of Paul, nor that of his great interpreter at Ephesus,
found easy acceptance. It is full fifty years before any
considerable effect of the " Johannine " type of teaching
can be traced in Christian literature, eighty before any
one quotes the Gospel by name as the work of an Apostle,
and almost a century before it can claim a position of
nearly undisputed authority alongside its three predeces
sors. 7 Strom. VII, 17 (106 f.).

20 JESUS AND PAUL

2. The Reflected Movement of Religious Life
As we bring our preliminary survey of the material
to a close we are reminded that the conclusions of criti
cism are under challenge to prove not only their rational
grounds, but their practical availability. Bible read
ers demand that criticism shall be " constructive," mean
ing thereby that it shall make the Scriptures at least
as serviceable as before to the religious life.
Paradoxical as it may sound, I do not hesitate to
name the Church-historian Ferdinand Christian Baur as
the founder of " constructive " criticism. Before his
time criticism had been predominantly negative and
destructive. Confronted by a literature canonized by
the post-apostolic Church because of its religious values
it had indulged in sporadic bursts of rebellion against
the tyranny of ecclesiastical tradition. It was battling
for the bare " right to investigate the canon," and until
this was conceded it could not " construct." Baur gave
it a definite and comprehensive plan of campaign, with
clearly conceived objectives. In the historian's view
the critic had a larger task than mere disproof of a tra
dition largely based on theological dogma and handed
down as of authority by divine right. He was called
upon to give a better explanation than the traditional of
the literature in question, to account adequately for ita
origin and effect, above all to explain its relation to the
new forces of religious life which produced Christianity
as we know it at the close of the second century, a de
veloped, systematized, unified world-religion. Is not
such criticism constructive ?
Men think of Baur and the Tubingen School as de
structive critics, because they went beyond all who had
preceded them (and indeed beyond the next generation
of their own followers) in sweeping the ground clear of
disputable writings. Nothing was to remain save the

INTBODUCTORY 21
four major Epistles of Paul, whose date could be approx
imately known, and whose authenticity had never been
called in question. Baur indeed believed that it never
could be. He could not anticipate the eccentricities of
a little group of hyper-critics in our own time, any more
than his contemporaries could foresee the antics of our
futurists in music, painting, or sculpture. Baur him
self in rejecting such writings as First Thessalonians,
Philippians and Philemon went beyond all reasonable
requirement of limitation to admitted data. But it
was in order that he might build, like a true historian,
on early documents, clearly authenticated, rather than
on later and dependent, of unknown authorship and in
determinable origin.8
Baur rendered one great service by his insistence on
discrimination in the historical valuation of the docu
ments. He rendered another, still greater, by insisting
on the relation between the literature, and the life from
which it grew and to which it was intended to minister.
To place the writings in their true environment, as
products of their own time and contributory forces in its
movement, is the prime condition of any interpretation
deserving to be called historical. And if our interpre
tation is not historical it is futile. It may display any
amount of wisdom from our own minds, but it certainly
cannot any longer claim to give that of the biblical
writers. As a historical critic, bent on bringing the litera
ture of the Church into mutually explanatory relations
8 It is curious that the author of the slogan " Back to tradi
tion " should make his " Contributions to New Testament Criti
cism " start from the narrative writings attributed to Luke, and
having established the date and authenticity of these to his own
satisfaction, make them the standard to which the Pauline repre
sentation is to be adjusted. However firm the foundation thus
laid down in the eyes of its constructor, there will probably con
tinue to be a certain number, even in Germany, who will consider
the method of Baur on this point the more likely to yield trust
worthy results.

22 JESUS AND PAUL
with the development of its life and institutions, Baur
could hardly fail to seize upon the same conspicuous
point of departure as Marcion, the great Gnostic Paul-
inist of the first half of the second century. The key
to all was Paul's story of his resistance to Peter.
Marcion was an anti-Semite. Born and brought up
in the great Pauline mission-field of Asia Minor he
conceived Christianity as might have been expected
from a typical Greek. Paul alone, said Marcion, un
derstood Jesus. The " Pillar-Apostles " at Jerusalem
had perverted the sense of his gospel. Jesus himself
was not so much a Jew as a divine theophany which
had occurred in Judaea, intended to reveal to the mis
guided Jews that the divinity Moses had taught them
to worship was a mere demiurge, an inferior being
ignorant of the true God, the " Father in heaven " of
Jesus. Jehovah was a god of justice, severe and unre
lenting in the punishment inflicted for disobedience to
the laws he had imposed on his creation. But the
Father in heaven was a God of goodness, loving-kind
ness, grace. Through favor of his manifested Son,
Jesus, human souls could escape the wrath of Jehovah,
and attain to the immortality of their Redeemer. In
short Judaism and Christianity were made two antag
onistic religions.
Marcion naturally excluded the Old Testament from
use by his churches, and substituted a canon of his own.
This, the first Christian Canon, contained the Pauline
Epistles minus the three Pastorals, plus an expurgated
version of the Gospel of Luke. Marcion had removed
from this Gospel what he regarded as the interpolations
of the Pillar-Apostles, including all references to the
Old Testament. It began : " In the fifteenth year of
Tiberius Cassar Jesus came down into Capernaum, a city
of Galilee, and taught in their synagogue." His col
lection of the Pauline Epistles, likewise expurgated,

INTBODUCTOK.Y 23
began with Galatians and its account of how Paul
had at first preached the gospel divinely committed to
him without hindrance from the older Apostles, but later
found obstacles being thrown in his way by Judaizers,
until he was obliged to go up to Jerusalem and protest, in
order that the truth of the gospel might remain unto
the Gentiles. Finally, at Antioch, he was compelled
even to withstand Peter to his face because of his cow
ardice and " hypocrisy " in face of emissaries from
James and the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem. Here
was Paulinism and Gentile Christianity with a ven
geance. And it had no small acceptance in the Greek-
speaking Christian world. It has been credibly esti
mated that Christianity lost one-half its following to
Marcion and other Gnostic heretics bent on divorcing it
from its Jewish affiliations and making it over in the
true likeness of a Hellenistic mystery-cult of personal
redemption. At the other extreme, from Marcion stood, at the same
period, the Jewish-Christian sect of Ebionites, anathe
matizing Paul as a renegade from the Law and a
traitor to the true gospel of Jesus. Salvation was of
course free to all, but on condition of becoming what
Jesus had been, a circumcised Jew. Down to the fifth
century, in Ephiphanius' time, the Ebionites were still
claiming, as they had in Paul's day at Corinth, to be " of
Christ," saying " Christ was circumcised, therefore be
thou circumcised. Christ kept the feasts, therefore do
thou keep the feasts." 9
Extremists of both types, Jewish and Greek, were
inevitably excluded in the long run from the great mass
of the Church in its forward movement. Thrown off as
heretics they gravitated for a time in a separate orbit, to
be lost ere long in that blackness of darkness which Jude
9 EpiDhanius, Panar. xxviii. See Bacon, " The Christ party in
Corinth." Expos. VIII, 47 (Nov., 1914).

24 JESUS AND PAUL
assures his readers is reserved for such wandering stars.
The main mass recovered its equilibrium and kept on a
middle course. Irenaeus, at the close of the second
century, represented this final equilibrium. His very
name indicates, as Eusebius reminds us, his predestined
function of " peacemaker " among the parties inside the
Church, intolerant opponent as he is of all outside
Christianity had by this time balanced accounts with
claimants from Judaism and the Gentile world alike.
Rome had taken the place of Ephesus as spiritual heir of
East and West. It regarded itself as trustee of both
Peter and Paul, supreme arbiter of the faith since the
dispersion in 135 of the Church of the Apostles, elders,
and kindred of the Lord in Jerusalem. The remaining
history of the new religion is a process of consolidation
and development from within. Such was the broader
nexus of historical development within which Baur
sought an explanatory background for the writings of
the New Testament.
As a historical critic Baur was bent on bringing the
literature of the growing religion into proper relation to
the movement of its life, and thus exhibiting its true
significance and values. In view of the outstanding
facts as just outlined, what could be more natural than
to say : This literature is a product of the nascent faith
in the period of its emergence from Jewish particular
ism into its ultimate form of universalism. Those who,
like Paul, perceived its broader destiny would inevitably
encounter opposition at the hands of fellow-Christians
less able to appreciate its larger implications, or more
conservatively inclined ; and from this opposition would
result (unless the two were mutually destructive) a
higher unity. The adaptable elements on both sides
would be combined in the most workable and comprehen
sive common interpretation. This was Baur's scheme of
the literary development. From the point of view of

INTRODUCTORY 25
mechanics it might be called a theory of the resultant
force, an invariable outcome of the opposition of two
bodies moving toward one another, but not in exactly the
same line, or if so, not with exactly balanced power. In
the Hegelian philosophy of history, which is said to have
influenced Baur, it is called the theory of thesis, anti
thesis and synthesis.
It would be superfluous for me to repeat the common
remark how little now remains of Baur's application of
his famous theory to New Testament literature. No
one, of course, denies a development of Christianity in
its process of self-emancipation from the particularism
of the older Apostles to the universalism of Paul. The
struggle was real, but the Tubingen critics extended it
too far down in time. They misunderstood its com
plexity, they misinterpreted the writings in their efforts
to discover the particular " tendency " which should de
termine their place in it. Mark may in a sense be
Petro-Pauline, but certainly not in Baur's sense; and
it is not the latest, but the earliest of the Synoptic writ
ings. Revelation is not the earliest book of the New
Testament. In its present form it is one of the latest,
and far from anti-Pauline. The Johannine literature
may indeed represent that " higher synthesis " of which
Baur wrote, but the date he gave it was two full genera
tions too late. All this must be admitted. But the ad
mission need detract but little from Baur's just claim to
be the founder of constructive criticism; for he had
taught all genuine students of the New Testament that
the literature is but the mask of the enlarging life. )
We may be pardoned, then, a moment's digression to
the criticism of a hundred years ago. Our subject of
study is a kind of collective psychology of religion in
historical manifestation. Baur has taught us fearlessly
to apply to its material the methods of historico-eritical
analysis, and to apply them with a definite purpose in

26 JESUS AND PAUL
view ; the purpose of tracing the movement of the great
est spiritual impulse ever imparted to the human race.
Larger light is available now than in Baur's time on
the conditions and movements of religious thought, both
Jewish and Hellenistic, in the Empire. It should en
able us to make better application than he made of a
principle which, if stated in somewhat different terms
from Baur's, remains profoundly true. It offers, as I
believe, a valid coordinating scheme to the critic. The
statement of that principle I must leave to a subsequent
occasion. You have already divined that it concerns the
impulse of religious life which assumes so different a
shape in its transition from Jesus to Paul. Meantime
let me sum up. The successive phases of the literature
as it reaches us are three : the literature of the Apostle ;
the literature of the teacher, and of the prophet; the
literature of the theologian. But as the Ephesian evan
gelist teaches us, the manifested life is one: even that
which was from the beginning with the Father. He
that sees it bears witness, that all men may share his fel
lowship with the Father, and with His Son, Jesus
Christ. A true answer to this Johannine utterance is
made by the great Jewish philosopher of post-reforma
tion times. " It is not absolutely necessary," says
Spinoza, " to know Christ after the flesh, but we must
think very differently of that eternal Son of God, I
mean the eternal Wisdom of God, which has mani
fested itself in all things, and chiefly in the human mind,
and most of all in Jesus Christ." 10
10 Spinoza, Op. i, 510, Ep. to Oldenburg.

LECTURE II
BEGINNINGS AND GROWTH OF THE GOSPEL OF
RECONCILIATION
1. Movement of Israel's. Religious Development from
Nationalism to Universalism
From the view-point of the historian of religion the
Christian era should begin with the 25th of December,
165 b. c On that date the worship of Jehovah was
restored in the temple at Jerusalem purified from
heathen defilement, and God began to make all things
new. The heroic sons of Mattathias who had won back
both religious freedom and national independence
founded a native dynasty of priest kings, and with the
beginning of the new epoch religion too advanced with
mighty strides. Prophecy took on the new form of,*
apocalypse. Its goal was no longer a kingdom of this
world but a cosmic deliverance. Its conflict was no
longer against flesh and blood, but against principali
ties, powers, world-rulers of darkness in heavenly
places. Israel's enemy was no longer the alien op
pressor, but the invisible foes of humanity, the powers
of Sin and Death.
Next to apocalyptic prophecy among the factors of
the new religious age stands legalism. It had been an
uprising of the people which saved the religion of Je
hovah when the priesthood proved largely faithless. It
was now the people's place of worship, the Synagogue,
an institution unknown to the Law, which began rap
idly to eclipse the prescribed and official worship of
27

28 JESUS AND PAUL
the temple in the real religious life of the nation.
And with the Synagogue came the scribe, the interpre
ter of Scripture, and the Pharisee, its faithful devotee,
who seeks to attain the national hope by faith and
obedience. The later Maccabees became selfish and
degenerate time-servers. The Pharisees proved by
hundreds of martyrdoms the sincerity of their devo
tion to the ideals advanced during the war of liberation :
Not conquest, but freedom to worship God.
The book-religion of scribe and Pharisee strains
every nerve to attain for the nation reconciliation of
Jehovah's favor. For the individual it seeks " a share
in the world to come," that " resurrection of the just "
which now for the first time began to play a part;, soon
to become the controlling part in Jewish piety. This
was the contribution of apocalypse.
But side by side with apocalypse and legalism there
comes into view a third development of other import.
This same new age of Judaism sees the rise and cul
mination of the Wisdom literature, re-interpreting the
religion of Jehovah in terms of ethics and philosophy.
This type of thought flourished chiefly in Alexandria,
and culminated in the Logos-doctrine of Philo, the
earlier contemporary of Jesus. A Wisdom fragment
preserved in the Gospels presents these three great
agents of Jehovah's new-creative Spirit as " prophets,
wise men, and scribes."
Thus while Gentile religions crumbled, or turned
back toward nature-worship, Judaism advanced;
though showing itself anything but impervious to the
currents of thought and life around it. Outward ex
pansion went hand in hand with inward renewal. It
was growth promoted not only under pressure of ad
verse circumstance, but also under stimulus of contem
porary Gentile thought.
However contrary to our inherited ideas, evidence is

THE GOSPEL OF RECONCILIATION 29
not lacking of rapid evolution even in that supreme ex
pression of Israel's religious genius of which Jesus be
came the leader and representative. Not only was
there a great advance from the baptism of John to the
preaching of Jesus, the Gospels themselves, little as
they are disposed to admit a process of development, do
not conceal the fact that Jesus himself increased in
wisdom as in stature, and that his faith was both
broadened and deepened by the things which he ex
perienced and suffered. The humble, expectant faith
of a heathen woman could open to him new vistas of the
comprehensiveness of his calling, as he sought refuge
from the hostility of his own people in the coasts of
Tyre and Sidon. And this was not the only incident
of Gentile faith to lead him to broader views. Con
trasts such as that of the believing centurion with
Jewish unbelief could make him warn the Galilean
cities that Tyre and Sidon, Nineveh and Sodom, would
meet a better fate than they in the judgment. So he
said to Jerusalem also : " The kingdom of God shall
be taken away from you and given to a nation bringing
forth the fruits thereof."
If rejection in Galilee led Jesus to a broader view
of his mission, the more disastrous rejection in Jeru
salem led to a deeper and higher. When he set his face
steadfastly to go up to Jerusalem, accompanied by a
mere handful out of the great multitudes that had eaten
of the loaves and then withdrawn, it was with a clear
premonition of his fate. He could not but foresee
that if he had failed to carry with him the adherents of
the Synagogue in Galilee, his attempt to take the temple
out of the hands of the hierocracy, and make it a house
of prayer for all the people, might have no better re
sult. And the penalty of failure would be death. He
spoke plainly to those whom he invited to join with
him in this forlorn hope, of what was involved in the

30 JESUS AND PAUL
issue. If he carried the people with him it meant that
judgment would begin at the house of God. The step
would have been taken which according to Malachi was
the supreme act of national purification in preparation
for Jehovah's coming. The King's palace would be
purged and ready for His dwelling among a repentant
and loyal people. If he did not, his cause would not
survive another Passover.1
There is nothing improbable in the representation of
the Gospels that it was at the time when Jesus laid
before the Twelve his purpose to carry the campaign for
the reign of God to the central sanctuary that the ques
tion was first raised as to the real nature of his mis
sion. He certainly had neither the desire nor the in
tention to be a political Messiah. Of that the story
of Peter's Rebuke leaves no doubt. On the other
hand direct action such as he now proposed meant the
assumption of national leadership in a sense beyond
that of mere prophet and teacher. And failure, such
as was only too probable, meant that the kingdom, if
realized at all, must come by the intervention of God.
The alternative is expressed in the titles Son of David
— Son of Man. Critics who reject the views of the
fashionable " eschatological school " consider that
i The driving out of the traders from the temple was a coup
d'etat, the carefully planned climax of Jesus' career, by which he
at once symbolized the significance of his mission and staked his
all upon the event. The significance then attaching to the act
will be apparent from a, Jewish interpretation in parable of the
Isaian figure of Israel as the forsaken wife. (Ex. Rahha, c. 51.)
It is a comment on the name " tent of witness " applied in Exodus
to the Tabernacle : " A king was angry with his wife and for
sook her. The neighbors declared, ' He will not return.' Then the
king sent word to her (Mai. 1:6-14; 3: 1-12): 'Cleanse my
palace, and on such and such a day I will return to thee.' He
came and was reconciled to her. Therefore is the sanctuary called
the ' tent of witness.' It is a witness to the Gentiles that God is
no longer wroth." To Jesus the restoration of his Father's house
as " a house of prayer " was a token of national repentance and
divine " reconciliation."

THE GOSPEL OF RECONCILIATION 31
Jesus was no more carried off his feet by apocalyptic
messianism than by the nationalism of the Zealots. He
used the term Son of Man, as he used that of " the
Christ " with his own reserves. But he could scarcely
avoid using it on such an occasion as this at Caesarea
Philippi. The author of Hebrews tells us that Jesus " learned
by the things that he suffered." For my own part I
cannot see how it is possible to deny the evidences of
development in his message as the Synoptists report it.
There is an unceasing process of action and reaction
between the urge of the splendid ideal, and the pressure
of stern reality. He finds victory in defeat. Disap
pointment in his case only lends wings to faith, so that
the unbelief of Galilee gives but the greater scope and
the deeper intensity to his self-dedication. The catas
trophe in Jerusalem was more disastrous. It left him
not only deserted by every follower, but betrayed to a
felon's death. Yet faith was victorious. Not, how
ever, by following his own way, but the way of his
Father's leading. The Eschatological school of inter
preters, who make apocalypse the one key to all prob
lems of Jesus' career, are very likely right in maintain
ing that Jesus went up to Jerusalem in the conviction
that if he did not carry Israel with him God himself
would visibly intervene. If so, that was one of the
phases of Jesus' faith that had to be transcended.
And there is good reason to believe that it was tran
scended ; not only later, by the faith of a Church disap
pointed in its cruder expectations, but by the faith of
Jesus himself. Of this we have more than one intima
tion in the so-called Second Source. At present I will
refer to one only.
The demand of a sign from heaven is addressed to
Jesus by certain scribes who had come down from Je
rusalem to destroy his work in Galilee and drive him

32 JESUS AND PAUL
into exile. He meets it with the declaration, " If I by
the finger of God cast out demons, then the divine
sovereignty hath overtaken you unaware." This ap
peal to a present reign of God is something more than
apocalyptic eschatology. The reign of God, Jesus
maintains, is not to be forecast with horoscope or ob
servation, " neither shall they say, Lo, here ; or Lo,
there. For the reign of God is within you " — or, if
you prefer so to render it, " among you." The impli
cation of the saying is that God is already at work.
The overthrow of Satan is already begun. The king
dom is potentially present. If, then, Jesus failed in
his endeavor to make ready for Jehovah in Galilee a
people prepared for His coming, if the work of the sec
ond Elijah taken up by him did not issue in the recon
ciliation of God with His people, still his faith would
not break down. The mustard seed was sown. The
leaven was working. The good grain was cast into the
earth. We can hardly do justice to the records and not ad
mit that Jesus, like other prophets, did foreshorten the
time. The day of harvest and the sending forth of the
reapers was more distant than he thought. But his
faith laid hold not of horoscopes and forecasts, but of
the present, unseen power of God. It had a deeper
root than the visions of apocalypse. It saw God's reign
to be present as well as future, imminent as well as
transcendent. Disappointment as to the mode and
time would have left Jesus as it left the Church still
saying, " Nevertheless the Kingdom of God is come
nigh." 2
Still more certainly may we reason on analogous
lines for the movement of Jesus' faith in the face of
2 Mk. 3 : 22-27 and parallels. For some excellent remarks on
Jesus' superiority to apocalyptic eschatology as such see the
chapter on " The Historical Jesus " by Canon Streeter in Founda
tions.

THE GOSPEL OF EECONCILIATION 33
rejection, desertion, and betrayal to death, in Jeru
salem. He did not have superhuman foresight, but he
did have insight And he had the kind of faith in God
which cries out with martyred Job, " Though He slay
me, yet will I trust in him." If he had not, would the
frightened, scattered handful of disciples who forsook
him and fled in the last calamitous night ever have ral
lied again? So the faith of Jesus in his calling and
his message was not cast down in the face of disaster,
and assuredly it did not stand still. Like the faith of
his people, disappointment only led it to higher forms.
If what seemed to be the cause of God went down with
out His aid, then it did not follow that there is no cause
of God to invite man's self-devotion, but only that man
has not yet conceived it on the scale of its true grandeur.
Therefore it is that in that same night in which he was
betrayed Jesus instead of receding advanced. Instead
of qualifying or explaining former promises, he made
his very martyrdom subserve the end. He took bread
as he was eating with his disciples, and when he had
blessed he brake it and said, " This is my body that is
given for you." And in like manner the cup, saying,
" This is my blood that is shed for many, do tbis in re
membrance of me." The people's faith that martyr-/
doms also advance the cause of God, a faith that flamed;
high in the heroic days of the Maccabees, had not been
wholly stifled by legalism.3
The supreme problem in the history of our religion
is how it could change so profoundly in the brief space
that can be allowed between the preaching of the gospel
of the kingdom by Jesus in Galilee, and the gospel "ffiat
Paul referred to in First Corinthians as received by
3 Note the fact that the names of Jesus' predecessor, of his
brothers, and of his closest disciples, are those of the Maccabean
heroes, Judas, Simon, John. The resurrection hero of Maccabean
times, Eleazar, the Arnold Winkelried and John Huss of Jewish
Martyrology, becomes the " Lazarus " of the Gospels.

34 JESUS AND PAUL
him in the beginning, the redemption faith he expressly
says was common to all disciples. The one is a gospel
of Jesus, and the other a gospel about Jesus. The one
is concerned with the kingdom of God, the other with
eternal life. The one is a religion of social salvation,
the other a religion of personal salvation. The one
seeks the reconciliation of Jehovah to a repentant
people, the other proclaims atonement for the individual
soul estranged from God. There are those who can see
no inward development in the faith of Jesus himself, no
deepening of his insight into the work he must do for
the kingdom's sake, no transfiguration of his religious
ideal in reaction against the stern reality of failure and
martyrdom. Therefore they lay upon Paul all respon
sibility for the change. Arnold Meyer puts the case for
these when he says in their name, " Paul has obscured
the simple gospel of Jesus." He has " made another
God of him who would bring us to God, and has set
him between God and ourselves." He is " responsible
for a tremendous, momentous, distorting transforma
tion of a religion in its essence purely of the heart." *
The marvel is that Peter and Paul, when they differed
so widely and outspokenly on other things, should have
worked as one in this. They seem to know no differ
ence in respect to faith in the crucified and risen Lord
as the common basis of their salvation.5 They have one
Lord, of whose work of redemption they speak in terms
of personal religion : " He loved me, and gave himself
for me."
We need not minimize the expansive power of uni
versalism in the soul of the great Apostle to the Gen
tiles, nor the significance of his struggle to emancipate
the nascent faith from the swathing bands of Jewish
particularism, when we maintain that the expansive
* Jesus or Paul (Engl.), 1909, o. 3.
»Cf. Gal. 2: 15-16; I Cor. 15: 3, 11.

THE GOSPEL OF RECONCILIATION 35
urge was felt from within as well as from without, and
that Jesus, as well as Paul, experienced enlargement in
his vision of the purpose of God as regards the Gen
tiles. Neither need we minimize the effect of the re
ligious atmosphere of the times on the soul of Paul, to
say nothing of his forms of thought and expression, if
we also maintain that Jesus could feel something of the
same. Not indeed because of any Gentile origin or en
vironment, but because all religion, that of his own peo
ple as well as the outside world, was driven by the
yearning for personal redemption and fellowship with '
God. And this was not all. Jesus had his religious
agony as well as Paul. His faith had to lift itself in
the face of disaster to higher and surer ground. There
fore it was not a mistake, but justice and truth, when
not only Paul, but those who before him had come to
the vision of the glorified Redeemer, refused after Cal
vary to go back to the mere gospel of Galilee, taking
instead the new and larger gospel of Atonement in the
blood of the Crucified, the gospel of self-dedication.
The Hegelian principle of thesis, antithesis and syn
thesis, applied after the Tubingen method to the apo
stolic age as a conflict between particularism and uni
versalism, is not enough to explain historical Christi
anity. There was an earlier impulse from within
under the great law of action and reaction by which
all moving bodies find their equilibrium. There was
the backward swing of the pendulum removed from its
first support till it found a new stability. We know
how in the history of Israel's faith the forward sweep
of great prophetic ideals met reaction, whether from
mental and spiritual inertia, or the stern logic of events ;
but reaction only leads to resumption of the forward
movement on a higher plane. We have seen how the
career of Jesus, little as we can know of its detail, re
sponds in the main to this same mode of apprehension.

36 JESUS AND PAUL
His gospel, like Paul's, is a " gospel of reconciliation " ;
but it has progressive phases. Jesus begins by carry
ing the Baptist's work to its completion. He sets out
to gather the lost sheep of Israel and by his message of
repentance and faith to make ready for Jehovah a peo
ple prepared for Him. Certainly it was, as Meyer
says, a " religion of the heart," a message of pure reli
gion and undefiled before God the Father, the consum
mation of all that the law and the prophets had taught.
The parable of the Prodigal Son embodies it. But it
did not win Israel. Of all that work in Galilee there
remains in Acts not one trace save the mention in a geo
graphical formula that after the conversion of Paul
" the Church throughout all Judaea and Galilee and
Samaria had rest." Driven out from Galilee Jesus
took up a larger undertaking attended with far greater
danger. And with it we see his message assuming a
new form. It is now a message of individual life
through death. It is addressed to a smaller group, and
his own person becomes more central. Those that are
faithful to the death will be confessed by him in the
presence of his Father and the holy angels. Again
there is disappointment, and still greater. His attempt
at Jerusalem to win the nation to seek under his own
leadership its historic ideal issued in disaster. But
the movement is not arrested. Jesus seeks through his
death to accomplish what he could not through his life.
He becomes a leader for all who will follow through
death itself into the very presence of the Father.
We have learned to isolate in our minds the gospel
of Jesus from the gospel of Paul, the gospel of Jesus
preached in Galilee of Israel's reconciliation with God
by repentance and faith, to the realization of the king
dom and the gospel about Jesus preached from Jerusa
lem round about unto Illyricum, the gospel of recon
ciliation with God by the blood of his sacrifice, a gospel

THE GOSPEL OF RECONCILIATION 3'
of individual salvation and eternal life. It is well in
deed to differentiate these, for they are far from identi
cal. But when we set them as it were in antagonism
or make them mutually exclusive, are we not applying :
standard which is static rather than dynamic, conceiv
ing the mind of Jesus as if it were the system of a boo!
rather than the growing, expansive energy of a living
conquering faith ? We are now attempting to show tha
the religious movement we seek to understand is con
tinuous rather than disjunctive, a movement of Jesu
and Paul rather than an opposition and alternative o:
Jesus or Paul. Perhaps we cannot do better for thi
purpose than look back over the simple outline of Jesus
career as we know it from elements of the record tha
are beyond all rational dispute, recapitulating the stor
as it must have been known to Paul himself even befon
he became a Christian.
When Jesus took up the work of John the Baptis
after the imprisonment of the great reformer, echoing
the cry, " Repent, for the reign of God is at hand "
when he carried forward the work of his former leader
leaving the solitudes of the wilderness of Judea ane
appealing to the busy throngs of his native Galilee, w<
know what his feeling was toward his great predecessor
We know that he thought of John's work as "fron
heaven," the great " sign from heaven " of that genera
tion. The baptism of John was to Jesus nothing less
than a fulfillment of the promise of a second coming
of Elijah to effect the Great Repentance of Israel, with
out which Jehovah's expected advent would be a curse
rather than a blessing, a coming to judgment rathei
than for deliverance. As Elijah on Carmel had
" turned the heart of the people back again " from the
service of Baal to Jehovah, so Malachi had foretold
that before that great and terrible day of Jehovah's
coming a prophet should be raised up in the spirit and

38 JESUS AND PAUL
power of Elijah, to effect a reconciliation of the people
with their God by a supreme act of repentance. Prob
ably we may take the reading which seems to be fol
lowed by Ben Sirach two centuries before this date as
more authentic than that of our Massoretic text: at
least it represents better what Jesus seems to take as
the mind of the prophet. The second Elijah is " to
pacify wrath before it break forth, to turn the heart of
the Father to the children and the children to the
Father," 6 lest His coming should be to smite the earth
with a curse. It was because this work of preparation
for the coming reign of God was given to John that
Jesus thought of him as a prophet and more than a
prophet, and his baptism as " from heaven and not of
men." His acceptance of that baptism means his dedi
cation of himself to the work of averting the wrath of
God from his people, by turning their hearts to Him in
repentance. Consciously or not, Jesus' own work in Galilee was
a continuation of that of John. As such it could not
be anything else but the work of a prophet. It was a
gospel of " reconciliation." Like John, Jesus, too,
came preaching repentance in view of the coming Reign
of God. Unlike John he went forth to gather the lost
sheep of Jehovah's scattered flock, resisting the self-
righteous legalism of scribes and Pharisees, befriend
ing repentant publicans and sinners. To his own gen
eration in Galilee he was " the prophet of Nazareth " —
when it was not " John the Baptist risen from the
dead." And to a later generation of his own follow
ers, men of Jewish descent and reactionary in their re
ligious tendencies, this activity of Jesus in Galilee was
the sum and substance of his mission. To them he was,
as we still find it in their literature, a prophet, and not
merely " a " prophet, but " the " prophet ; by which
s Ecclus. 48 : 10.

THE GOSPEL OF RECONCILIATION 3!
they meant the " Prophet like unto Moses " promise
in Deuteronomy, who should perpetuate the teaching o
Moses and interpret it for all future time. To th
Ebionite Christian of the second century there wa
nothing higher that could be said of the ministry o
Jesus than that he fulfilled their promise of a prophe
like unto Moses " raised up unto you from among you
brethren." For to a Jew like Philo Moses was no
merely prophet and teacher of Israel, but (as he call
him in his Life of Moses) " the mediator and reconcile:
of the world." 7
When one reads the Sermon on the Mount and th
other records of Jesus' spiritual interpretation of th
Law one must admit the aptness of the comparison
Surely, if he had done nothing more than give utter
ance by his parables and teachings to his own simple
sublime apprehension of what God expects from man
and man may look for from his Father in heaven, Jesu;
would deserve the title of the Second Moses. But thi
Second Source is willing to leave the title of " Prophet '
to John. It depicts Jesus as the " Wisdom " of God
The cause of the prophet met defeat in Galilee
Jesus was driven into exile by the Pharisees in con
spiracy with members of the court of Antipas, with th<
aid of " scribes who came down from Jerusalem.'
Chorazin and Bethsaida turned a deaf ear in spite o:
mighty works that would have converted Tyre ane
Sidon, and a warning from God weightier than thai
which turned Nineveh to repentance. Capernaum, ex
alted to heaven as the scene of the first proclamatior
of the gospel and the center of the work of reclamation
looked away, knowing as little the time of her visita
tion as later did Jerusalem. After the onslaught upor
i Vita Mos. iii, 19. Cf. Assumptio Mos. ix, 16. (When Mosei
is gone, Joshua says, Israel will fall an easy prey to their enemies
for a single provocation of God will lead to disaster, since thej
will have no Intercessor.)

40 JESUS AND PAUL
Jesus a dispersed and discouraged remnant of the hum
bler class were forced to hide their loyalty to his move
ment, if they still cherished it. Jesus himself withdrew
with a handful of followers, never again to appear
openly in Galilee. Such was the end of the first phase
of his ministry, his continuation of the work of John.
True, the proclamation was on a higher scale than
John's. It had a new note of hope and love that came
upon the harsh wailings of the Baptist's cry like wed
ding music after a funeral dirge. Still it did not go
( beyond the domain of Moses and Elias. It was an
effort to bring Israel into reconciliation with God by a
great repentance, and a new and higher obedience. It
failed through unbelief.
What might have come if Jesus' challenge to the re
ligious control of the Synagogue leaders in Galilee had
been successful is difficult to estimate. Actually, if he
proposed to continue his work for the reign of God he
had now only the choice of going to the Gentiles and
teaching them, or of renewing the struggle for the lead
ership among his own people at Jerusalem, where he
must wrest it out of the hands not of mere scribes and
Synagogue leaders, but of the Sadducean hierocracy,
the half-religious, half-political control of the priest
hood in the temple.
As we all know, the story of the second period in
Jesus' career begins with the raising of the question
whether or no he is the Messiah, and if so, in what sense.
The national leadership of the Maccabean hierocracy
had its seat in the temple. This was the last refuge of
Jewish autonomy, the center of all its national hopes,
patriotic as well as religious, and withal it was one of
the strongest fortresses in Syria, garrisoned within by
an ample Levitical police under a " captain of the tem
ple," and without by a Roman cohort. To challenge

THE GOSPEL OF RECONCILIATION 4!
this hierocracy in its stronghold was an undertakinj
that could not well fail to raise the question of author
ity. All the more unavoidable would it be if he whi
took the lead was understood to be one " of the seed o:
David according to the flesh " ; and we know f ron
Paul's own statement that such was the belief regardinj
Jesus. If his conviction that the reign of God was a
hand was still strong enough for decisive action, if hi
now aspired to pass beyond a mere campaign of propa
ganda, and to become in any active sense a leader o:
the nation as a whole, it would involve a definite an
swer to the question: What of the expected Son o:
David? Hitherto there had been no serious mention
of Messianism. Save for the senseless cry of a maniac
there had been nothing in Jesus' career of teacher ane
healer to call it to public notice The Gospels tell ui
that he now raised the question himself. Would h<
now assume the mission of the Christ ?
How much there was to give color of truth to the accu
sation which sent Jesus by Pilate's order to the cross ii
not easy to say. One thing we do know. Jesus pro
tested to the utmost against any messiahship according
to the things of man. His program was not political
But on the other hand it certainly was no longer merely
that of prophet and teacher. It had reference now te
the nation as a whole, and it began with the establish
ment of a new regime in the national sanctuary. Ai
unambiguous " No," to the question of Pilate : " An
thou a king, then ? " supported as it could so easily have
been by convincing evidence of the religious charactei
of Jesus' work, might well have spared him the cross
But he did not give it. His answer was silence, or the
ambiguous " Thou sayest." He was a son of David
and he had at least as much of the sense of obligation

42 JESUS AND PAUL
to achieve, so far as in him lay, the destiny of his peo
ple, as characterized others, such as Hillel, who could
point to a similar pedigree.
The anticipations of a fatal issue carry their own
hint of the nature of the enterprise now undertaken.
When Jesus set his face steadfastly to go up to Jerusa
lem at the approaching Passover, with a warning to
the handful that still followed him that it might mean
death to him and them, he was not thinking of such
dangers as they had already encountered. There is
great latitude of teaching in Judaism, and always has
been. The threat came from a different quarter. If in
the warning the very mode of death, crucifixion, was
mentioned, that would make it certain that the fate
which Jesus apprehended was that of an insurrectionist
against the Roman power. There could then be no
doubt that the nature of his undertaking was akin to
messianism to say the least. But the precise language
of the warning must remain uncertain. The fact we
may be sure of. And even were this denied, it is certain
that Jesus did dispute the leadership of the hierocracy
in the temple itself ; that he was, for a few brief days,
supported by the fickle enthusiasm of the people; and
that he then succumbed to an intrigue of the priests in
collusion with the Roman procurator. He did, then,
assume the leadership in an effort to realize the messi
anic hope. And for the second time he failed because
of unbelief.
Two possibilities opened before Jesus at Caesarea
Philippi as he made the decision to go up to Jerusalem
to confront life or death. It was possible that he might
succeed. Had it not seemed so to the Twelve they
would not have followed him. That it actually was
possible is proved by the event; for the movement was
sufficiently formidable on purely political grounds to
lead the Roman governor, impervious as he surely was

THE GOSPEL OF RECONCILIATION 43
to all merely religious considerations, to send the high-
minded Teacher to the cross. That it seriously threat
ened the control of the Sanhedrin is manifest both from
their mortal hatred of the agitator, and from their fear
of the people, a fear which for days left the question
of his control or theirs hanging in the balance.
Just consider the practical wisdom of Jesus' plan.
To confine the issue to the temple and its interests,
avoiding civil affairs and questions of governmental
authority, might secure immunity from Roman inter
vention. Pilate would not find such a national leader
as this Son of David more obnoxious to Roman suze
rainty than scheming high priests or ambitious Hero-
dians. If in addition Zealot nationalism could be kept
within bounds, and the hostility of Pharisees and scribes
disarmed by the obvious purity and high motive of the
Leader, it was not inconceivable that he should succeed.
A reformation which began at the house of God offered
the one chance of success. In point of fact for the time
being Jesus did succeed. He was welcomed by the
multitude with shouts for the coming kingdom of David.
He did take control of the temple, freeing it from
abuses, and making it a place of pure worship such as
Malachi had demanded as the condition of Jehovah's
presence. The catastrophe which followed this reli
gious coup d'etat was not a foregone conclusion at
Caesarea Philippi, however inevitable it was that the
Church should later so regard it.
On the other hand jhere was an ominous alternative,
of which, as we have seen, Jesus made no concealment
from his followers. It was quite possible that all might
suffer together the fate of insurrectionists. If Jesus
failed of national acceptance and God did not intervene
with superhuman aid they could only save their lives by
losing them. Failure did not mean that the kingdom
would not come. On the contrary, this very generation

44 JESUS AND PAUL
would surely see it. But only the power of God would
bring it. It would have to be given as the prophet
Daniel had seen it in vision, to one like unto a son of
man, brought on the clouds of heaven to receive it before
the judgment throne of the Ancient of Days. There
fore Jesus added to his assurance of the certainty of its
coming the further, personal promise to every loyal
follower, that those who should fearlessly confess him
on earth, defying death, he also would acknowledge in
the presence of his Father before the holy angels. The
promise is recalled a full generation after in one of the
most ancient hymns of the Church :
If we die with him we shall also live with Mm :
If we endure we shall also reign with him:
If we shall deny him he also will deny us:
If we are faithless, he abideth faithful ;
For he cannot deny himself.8
What would have been the consequence if Jesus' ap
peal to Jerusalem had succeeded ? Paul and the fourth
evangelist make very clear what the result would have
been so far as concerns the expansive forces of the faith,
if I may call them so. The gospel would have remained
primarily the affair of the Jewish people. In all the
domain of the might-havebeens surely there is no better
founded statement than Paul's, that the rejection and
death of the Messiah at the hands of his own people was
unavoidable in the providential ordering of the world,
if the ancient middle wall of partition was to be broken
down, and the Gentiles were to be made fellow-heirs of
the promise with the election of God. The cross does
mark the transition from particularism to universalism.
The fourth evangelist depicts the great decision under
the form of a delegation of Gentiles waiting upon Jesus
just before the catastrophe, and receiving as their only
»II Tim. 2: 11-13.

THE GOSPEL OF RECONCILIATION 45
reply from him : " The hour is come that the Son of
Man should be glorified. He that loveth his life loseth
it ; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it
unto life eternal. Now is the Prince of this world cast
out, and I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto
me." This scene, ideal as it may be, does not exag
gerate the significance of what the evangelist calls " the
crisis of this world." The religious unity of the race
was sealed, as Paul well says, in the blood of Christ.
God did reconcile Jew and Gentile in one body through
the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.9 But we
are not speaking now of what may be called the exten
sive, but of the intensive movement of the faith. What
was the consequence to Jesus' own faith of the bitter dis
appointment of his hope, of the frustration of all the
toil, the prayers, the tears that he had given to the
winning of his people to their own national ideal and
the fulfillment of the promise of God so near attain
ment? The answer to our question cannot be given without
the story of the night of final parting and the supreme
parable in which Jesus embodied the last and loftiest
teaching of all. From the time when he had taken up
the message of the Baptist his one effort had been to
prepare for the reign of God by bringing Israel through
repentance and faith into " reconciliation " with its Fa
ther in Heaven. As prophet and teacher in Galilee he
had failed. Out of defeat he snatched victory. He
made the cause national by his appeal as Son of David
and Son of Man in Jerusalem. Again he had failed.
There was but one thing more he could do for the
" reconciliation." He could dedicate his body and
blood as an atonement offering for the forgiveness of
sin, that God might be reconciled to his people.
I am well aware that there is little or nothing in
» Jn. 12: 20-36; cf. Eph. 2: 13-22.

46 JESUS AND PAUL
Jesus' earlier teaching that is akin to this priestly gos
pel of atonement, or " reconciliation," KaraWayr/, as
Paul calls it. It is the very point of what I am saying
V that it was a new development, something which would
never have come but through the agony of a disap
pointed hope, the agony renewed in Gethsemane. But
it does mark the forward leap of a faith TftaT-conquers
even death, the impulse onward and upward of one who
could learn by the things which he suffered. The last
supper was a renewal of the assurance of meeting again
in the kingdom. In the face of disastrous earthly de
feat, desertion, death, it was a reiteration of the prom
ise: Him that confesseth me before men will I also
confess before my Father and the holy angels. It was
a pledge to meet again at the banquet table of the new
Jerusalem, for the reign of God was not defeated. But
there was more in it than that. There remained still a
work to be done by him whose mission had been from
the beginning to turn away wrath by reconciling the
children to the Father and the Father to the children.
Jewish martyrology of Jesus' time tells of a Maccabean
hero who dedicates his lifeblood on his people's behalf,
praying, " Thou knowest, O God, that when safety was
offered me I chose to die in fiery torments for the sake
of the Law. Be propitious (tAews yeVou) to thy people,
let the punishment suffice thee which we endure on their
behalf; make my blood an expiation (Kaddpmov) for
them, and take my life as a ransom (dirtyux01') for
theirs." 10 It is in the same spirit that Jesus also dedi
cates his body and blood, for the forgiveness of the pee
pie's sin, and promises intercession on their behalf in
the presence of the Father.
I know that the words of institution of the Sacrament
10 IV Mace. 6 : 27-29 ; cf . Ignatius ad Eph. viii, 1, and xxi, 1 :
dvTi'j/vxov i/J-wv iyib.

THE GOSPEL OF RECONCILIATION 47
stand practically alone in Gospel narrative to support
that conception of Jesus' work which is the very heart
of the gospel of Paul. One can go further still. The
latest of the Synoptic evangelists, if we follow the most
authentic text, obliterates even what little we find in
Mark of this gospel of atonement. In the entire double
work of Luke you will find but one intimation that the •;
death of Jesus has anything to do with the forgiveness
of sin. It is the reference in Paul's speech before the
elders of the Ephesian church at Miletus to the Church
as " bought with blood." That is a vestigial remnant
of Paul rather than a teaching of Luke. Luke's teach
ing is not evangelic but apologetic. He is never tired
of pointing to the prediction by the prophets of the suf
fering of Christ; but only to prove that such was the
determinate foreknowledge and counsel of God, never
as having any relation to the forgiveness of sin. Those
who cannot realize that these Synoptic records as they
stand represent a reaction fronTThe Pauline gospel of
grace toward the neo-legalism of the Christianized Syna
gogue, go as far astray in one direction as those who
leave no room for the advance of Jesus' thought beyond
the stage of his work in Galilee in the other. Both
would persuade us that this idea of the atonement-offer
ing represents a Pauline innovation, an interpretation
of his own placed on Jesus' words. But somehow we
have got to account for the fact that after this not Paul
only but every Christian looks upon Jesus as his inter
cessor with God, and never offers a prayer without ex
pecting to be heard " for Jesus' sake." Jesus is not
only the Advocate who confesses before His Father the
namejof those who had confessed him on earth, but In
tercessor and Mediator with the Judge of all. He is
One who had been " raised again for our justification."
It is not easy to regard as " innovation " what Paul de-

48 JESUS AND PAUL
clares to be the essential thing committed to every am
bassador of Christ,11 that which forms the heart of the
message in Revelation, in Hebrews, in First Peter, as
well as in Paul, to say nothing of Clement and the later
writers. I do not say that the thought of Jesus in his farewell
utterance to the faithful Twelve was identical with that
which I have quoted from the martyr's prayer in Fourth
Maccabees, but I do say with Arnold Meyer, " The be
lief in propitiation by means of blood dominated the
whole Jewish and Gentile world." 12 True, purifica
tion by the blood of bulls and goats had long since been
recognized in Judaism as symbolic only, a divinely pre
vided substitute for that offering of the firstborn for
one's transgression, the fruit of the body for the sin of
the soul, which the religious instinct at first suggests.
Since Ezekiel's time there had been strong reaction
against the Isaian doctrine of vicarious suffering. It
appears in the growing protest of legalism against the
idea of national or family solidarity. But this ethical
reaction has never obliterated from the instinctive reli
gion of the ordinary man, not even in Judaism, the
belief in the efficacy of voluntary martyrdom to win
back the favor of a justly offended God. You cannot
easily eradicate from the mind of the common soldier
(and perhaps you ought not) the conviction that the
dying prayer of a good comrade who freely laid down
a pure life for God and country availeth much, and (if
he looks for a life to come) the belief that such a com
rade is a friend worth having, even at the court of God.
The songs of the suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah
11 II Cor. 5 : 20.
12 Jesus or Paul, Engl., p. 52. For a sympathetic interpreta
tion of the feeling of antiquity see Gilbert Murray, " The Essence
of Christianity " in The R. P. Q. Annual, 1918, p. 14. Marduk the
Redeemer-god is " the Faithful Son " who gives his life for his
people, facing death, to atone for the sins of others.

THE GOSPEL OF RECONCILIATION 49
give sublimest expression to this belief as the poet's mes
sage to the " crucified nation " of the ancient world.
Legalistic Judaism obscured, but did not eradicate this
faith. In the Jewish as in the Gentile world men con
tinued to believe in a personal God who is moved by
the intercession of those who have died for His sake,
and for the hope of the nation.13 In the Aramaic
Targum on the famous fifth verse of that song of the
Suffering Servant, where it is declared that he is
wounded for our transgression, to achieve our peace, the
translator renders : " He will intercede for our sins
and transgressions, and for His sake they will be for
given." For this he is " exalted and made very high."
The author of the Maccabean martyrology from which
I have already quoted goes further still. He believes
with Paul that those whose lives were thus given are
" raised for our justification," and that immediately.
With the author of the Revelation he conceives of them
as pleading for Israel from underneath the altar of
God's presence. Resting upon a passage from the
Blessing of Moses in Deuteronomy he declares that " be
cause of their heroic endurance they already stand be
fore the throne of God and are even now living the
blessed life. As Moses said, 'All thy sanctified ones
are underneath thy hands,' so these too, having been
sanctified on God's account (i. e., having dedicated
themselves in His cause), were honored not with this
reward alone (i. e., the special ' first resurrection ')
but also with victory of their people over the enemy,
punishment of the tyrant, and purification (Kadapuriwi)
of their fatherland; so that they became a redemption
(avTixjrvxov) for the sin of the nation."
13 Cf. Eth. Enoch. XLVII, 1, 2, on the reconciliation of God by
blood and intercession of martyrs, and on Jewish belief as a whole.
Oesterley, The Jewish Doctrine of Mediation, 1910. On the inter
pretation of Is. 53, Dalman Jesaia 53, 1914, and Der Leidende und
sterbende Messias der 8-ynagoge, 1888. The fundamental work is
Neubauer and Driver, Jewish Interpreters of Isaiah LIII, 1877.

50 JESUS AND PAUL
Fortunately for the deepest, truest message of Chris
tianity to the world it is impossible to dissociate from
the farewell parable of Jesus its fundamental signifi
cance as a covenant in the blood of the Christ. The
Sacrament has many meanings, but deepest of all is that
of the self-dedication of Jesus, accompanied by a prom
ise that he would carry the cause of his loyal ones into
the very presence of the Father. Thus he would make
intercession for them with his blood. This is not later
innovation. This is " from the Lord." Every other
word of the New Testament might be undermined or
discarded, but this would remain unshaken as long as
one believer remained to do this in remembrance of
him, and to tell the story of the Lord's death until he
come. I admit that it is a new teaching not heard in
Galilee. It is not the utterance of a prophet. The
work of the prophet and teacher had failed. It is not
the utterance of the Messianic leader.14 The work of
the national leader had also failed. It marks a new
, phase in the ministry on a new and higher stage. It
/ is the utterance of the dedicated priest and intercessor
with God. The last office which Jesus' loyalty to the
cause of the kingdom compels him to take is one that
no man taketh upon himself but when he is called of
God. It was an unforeseen consequence of Jesus' at
tempt to take the temple out of the control of a corrupt
and unworthy priesthood, and make it again his Fa
ther's house. The Temple and its priesthood disap
peared, but in three days another and a greater temple
took its place. Through the very agony of his defeat
Jesus himself was " made a highpriest forever after the
order of Melchizedek."
i4Dalman (uoi supra) has produced abundant evidence that
Is. 53 was interpreted in some quarters as applying to the Mes
siah. The Targum on the prophets so interprets it, and the early
Chureh did so. But there is no sufficient evidence that Jesus did,
and the Twelve clearly did not.

THE GOSPEL OF RECONCILIATION 51
It was not my purpose in making this retrospect of
he progressive phases of Jesus' " gospel of reconcili-
.tion " to plead for higher valuation of the epistolary
iterature of the great missionary age of the Church, as
ources much more ancient and authentic than the Syn-
iptic Gospels. Earliest of all the records, in fact coeval
sdth the utterance of the Master is the Sacrament itself. ~*
3ut it was not my purpose here to plead for the prior
ecord. Still less was it my purpose to defend any of
be mediaeval caricatures of Jesus' parting " covenant
f blood " which go by the name of " theories of the
tenement." The exegete has no parti pris in matters
f doctrine. My object was purely historical. The at-
smpt was simply to show that the relation of Jesus and
'aul is not a static parallelism or opposition, but dy-
amic. The sweep of that great tide of faith in God
diich made the religion that we own was driven by no
arth-born power. The impulse was " from heaven."
esus took over its leadership and interpretation from
ne who was a prophet indeed, and more than a prophet.
le carried it to a higher, and yet higher level. Not
1 obedience to his own design, but as confessedly and
msciously acting for God, and constantly walking by
lith and not by sight. The leadership of prophet gives
ay perforce to that of Messiah and Son of Man, and
lis again gives way, because God willed it so. God,
ho controls both outward event and inward prompting,
od, I say, sent defeat; and sent also the eternal, un-
sen power that surges through generations of longing,
spiring human hearts winning them to the Father.
he leadership of a national Christ, yes, even of a uni-
3rsalized Son of Man, gave way. It was not this ideal
tat won the homage of the world, but that of a priest-
!ng of all humanity.
There is no standing still in the career of Jesus. His
st and greatest defeat is the signal for an advance that

52 JESUS AND PAUL
carries him to the final goal of human religious need.
When he parts from the Twelve it is not to leave them
downcast, but as men that stand gazing up into Heaven,
beholding there, as Stephen did, their Advocate with
God. Is it any wonder that when their faith returns
it is to recognize him in the breaking of the bread ; and
not as a mere ghost, not as a mortal returned again to
earth, but as " one that liveth and was dead and behold
he is alive for evermore, and hath the keys of death and
hell." Paul's gospel does not indeed go back to Galilee.
But would you expect it to ? The gospel of Jesus had
moved forward since then, to become what Paul
preaches, a gospel of personal redemption, a " gospel
of the Reconciliation, how that God by the agency of
Christ was restoring a guilty world to His favor,15 not
imputing unto men their trespasses."
is Only a historical study of the word " reconcile "
(KaTaKhiuTBeiv) , especially of its occurrence in Jewish literature
of Paul's time and later (in the religious sense it does not occur
before the Maccabean period), will dispel the false impression
made by modern renderings of the passage above quoted. As
Thayer's Lexicon makes unmistakably clear, it does not mean
merely " dispel enmity," as if it were a hostile feeling on the
world's part which required to be removed ; but " restore to
favor," and the succeeding clause " not imputing to men their
trespasses " shows that such is here the sense. God, through the
agency of Christ, was restoring an unworthy world to His favor.

LECTURE in
THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL
1. The Apostleship not from Man
The preceding lecture was really an attempt to take
position at the vantage point of Paul, and look back
(though with other eyes than his) at the career of Jesus,
then unrecorded save for the ordinance of the memorial
Supper and the answering rite of self-dedication by
baptism into his name. To-day we ask how it comes
to pass that Paul's view is so different from ours. He
continues Jesus' work; but admittedly it is a trans
figured gospel.
We have seen that even before Jesus took up the in
terrupted work of John the Baptist the movement could
properly be called a " gospel of reconciliation," though
of course in a quite different seuse from Paul's. It was
a national movement — a movement in the spirit and
power of Elijah to "turn the heart of Israel back
again." By repentance and faith the children would
be turned to the Father, and the Father to the children.
God's anger, so manifest in the evil case of his people,
would be appeased before it brake forth into wrath,
and the long-awaited forgiveness and salvation would
appear. As the a'lthor of tin Second Source puts it,
John came " bringing a way o^;" justification " which the
publicans and harlots entered by repentance and faith,
though the Pharisees held abof.1 That which began
i See the article " John as Preacher of Justification by Faith "
in Expositor VIII, 93 (Sept., 1918). 53

54 JESUS AND PAUL
as a national movement became more and more indi
vidual. By force of adverse circumstance, or, if you
choose to put it so, by the providence of God, Jesus'
direction of this upheaval of reawakened prophecy was
forced more and more into channels of individual and
personal religion. With his death it transcended the
limits of mortality as it had previously transcended
those of mere nationality. In the end the supreme ex
pression of his gospel became the symbolic utterance
of the Sacrament. Having loved his own he loved them
to the end, and made the fate he would not seek to
escape a ground of appeal to God on their behalf. Bap
tism, adopted almost at once by his followers upon the
reawakening of their faith, was an answering self -dedi
cation in penitent loyalty to the risen Lord.
Thus Christianity, as Saul the persecutor first came
in contact with it, was more than a reform. It was
almost a new religion. Saul, at least, refused to recog
nize it as any longer within the pale of Judaism, and
priests and scribes agreed with him. This new religion
found expression for its essential meaning in its two
observances, and as yet had found no other utterance.
It was a gospel of " grace," the renewed " favor " of
God obtained by the martyrdom and intercession of the
Lord Jesus Christ. What the law had not been able to
do through all the long struggle of Synagogue leaders
with popular frailty had (in Christian belief) been at
last accomplished. God had been reconciled to a peni
tent, believing people. The proof of it was already
patent in Jesus' time. Together with hisr message of
forgiveness to the penitent had come the power of God
to heal. The inquirers from John could report what
they had seen and heard. In view of these " powers "
of the Spirit Jesus could denounce the opposition of the
scribes as impious and declare the Kingdom poten
tially already begun. Even greater works followed the

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL 55
resurrection. The Spirit of adoption moved the vo
taries of the Crucified to cry, " Abba, Father," in mani
festations which were taken as the fulfillment of the
promise of the " outpouring of the Spirit in the last
days." There had been progress, therefore, from the
Baptism of John to the Baptism of the Spirit. There
had been both intensification of the message and change
in its nature ; and the new brotherhood would have been
the last to deny it. They rather gloried in it. The
water of the Jews' manner of purifying had been
changed into wine.
The change was analogous to that which came over
prophecy with the extinction of the national political
life. Apocalypse is prophecy universalized and tran-
scendentalized. It is also individualized. With the
death of Jesus something similar was seen to have taken
place in his gospel. Defeated on earth it had taken
refuge in heaven. Rejected as a program for the na
tion, it had become universal, offering an ideal for the
individual lost son, were he Jew or Gentile. The gos
pel was transfigured. Old things were passed away;
behold all had become new.
We have to-day a group of religious leaders in whom
the prepheijc, ethical motive predominates over the
mystical and sacerdotal. These raise the cry: "We
have had too much of Paul, too much of individual sal
vation. Social salvation is the need of our times.
Back to Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount ! " An
other group follow the opposite tendency, denying the
very existence of a historical Jesus, and assuring us that
all the religious values of Christianity are to be found
in the idea of the dying and rising Redeemer-God com
mon to the mystery religions of the time. The latter
tendency curiously recalls the teaching of Marcion,
Cerinthus, and the Docetic Gnostics. These found no

56 JESUS AND PAUL
difficulty with a Christ-emanation assuming temporary
embodiment in Jesus (or indeed any other avatar).
Individual fellowship with this divine Being insured
immortality. What they could not tolerate was a real,
flesh and blood Leader, a High priest and King of hu
manity. But surely the mythical interpretation of the
gospel record has little to contribute to the science of
religion. Science of any kind must deal with objective
historic fact. The larger its basis in concrete reality
the better. A science of mythology is possible; but a
record of life in real moral union with the Father in
Heaven is a better basis for the scientific student of
religion, as well as for the convert.
What primitive Christianity rejoiced in as an accom
plished fact was " access for Jew and Gentile in one new
Spirit unto the common Father." That consciousness
and its basis of historic fact should be the province of
our study. But present-day enquiry seems largely
taken up with reaction against what is termed the
" theologizing " gospel of Paul, resenting his emphasis
upon personal redemption and the life of the individual
soul " in God." The cry is : " Back to Galilee, with
its simple ethics of brotherhood, and its social goal of a
commonwealth of humanity."
We have many brilliant scholars (I have already
mentioned Arnold Meyer of Zurich, and might now add
the lamented William Wrede)2 in whose view the new
faith incurred a loss that quite outweighed the gain
when it secured as its chief interpreter to the Greek-
speaking world Saul of Tarsus, the converted scribe and
sanhedrist. Back to Jesus, is the cry. Back to the
simple doctrine of the Prophet of Nazareth. Genuine
Christianity is the monotheistic humanitarianism of the
prophets stripped of its temporal and racial limitations.
z See also H. Mackintosh, Natural History of the Christian Re
ligion. 1894.

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL 57
Well, so it is ; stripped not by academic analysis, but
by the mightier logic of events and the movement of
world history; or rather reclothed in new and higher
forms. Prophecy was universalized in Apocalypse, and
ipocalypse was stripped of its temporal and racial limi-
iations by the progress of events. When the expected
:ataclysm failed to materialize the Hellenizing inter
pretation of the Johannine eschatology took its place in
he Church. Back to Jesus ? Yes. But Jesus did not
itand still. He was a Prophet in Galilee. He was a
3on of David and Son of Man in the appeal to Jerusa-
em. He was a Mediator and Intercessor with God
vhen he passed within the veil of the temple not built
vith hands. Paul is our earliest witness, and Paul has
ilready determined to know no Christ save a Christ not
ifter the flesh. Had he done otherwise Christianity
vould not have survived his generation. If it be a
[uestion of words and names and book authority, and
ur alternative is to swear either by the words of the
faster or those of the disciple, then by all means let
is take those of the Master — if we can be sure of them.
Jut if our teacher is to be the eternal Logos of God,
rho leads into all truth, — if it is the Creator Spiritus
f the cosmos of soul-life who is to take of the things of
Jhrist and interpret them to us, then we shall need to
ike a leaf from the book of Paul and of the great
Iphesian evangelist, learning to look at things "from
ie point of view of the Eternal." Then, perhaps, we
lay recognize the directing, controlling guidance of a
'ower that works in and through and above the currents
f man's religious instinct, and most of all in the person
E its supreme leaders such as Jesus and Paul. To the
Lartyr Ignatius that Logos of God was an inward voice
ying : " Come to the Father." To Augustine it pro- *
aimed the same message. To Jesus and Paul alike
was, as we have seen, above and beyond all else an

58 JESUS AND PAUL
appeal to lost sons, " Be ye reconciled to God." But
Jesus and Paul do not claim to speak for themselves.
We learn most from them when we take action and ut
terance alike as expressions of the divine purpose to
which they were dedicated in every power. The Christ
whom Paul preaches is great only as the agent of God,
and Paul asks no more for himself than to be accepted
as the dedicated agent of this agent. The Christ of the
fourth evangelist sums it up in the cry of Jesus as he
leaves bis public ministry : " He that believeth in me
believeth not in me, but in Him that sent me."
I have tried to indicate something of the movement of
this religious tendency impelling men from within to
ward the Father in Heaven, guided from without by
the discipline of circumstance. I have tried to view it
from the standpoint of the historian of religion, sur
veying that greatest of all periods, the transition from
Jesus to Paul, seeking to identify the thread of real
continuity. The disciple clothes the message of the
Master in the forms of the Hellenistic religions' of per
sonal redemption whose atmosphere had surrounded him
from boyhood, and whose phraseology was current coin
with the Gentile world to which he preached. If he
has thus obscured it only, then our effort should be
limited to removing the disguise. The Pauline Epis
tles will be useful mainly as approaches to the Synoptic
tradition, woefully meager in their few grains of gold
overlaid by tons of gravel and clay. If, contrariwise,
the genius of the Hebrew faith has triumphed in this
case as in earlier contacts with Gentile religion, ab
sorbing and assimilating, but not itself absorbed, — if
Paul makes use (as he demonstrably did) not only of
the phraseology, but also of the ideas of Hellenistic re
ligion to convey the essential message that was given
him " from the Lord," and yet took over nothing which
could not be controlled and vitalized by it, then he uses

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL 59
the Greek forms of thought as he uses the Greek lan
guage; and the only question is as to the literalness of
his translation. If we understand from study of the
Hellenistic faiths their language and mode of thought,
we shall recognize behind the Greek dress the vital idea
which Paul laid hold upon because it had fundamental
value, and was in truth germane to his own. Still we
must also look for difference and advance. The mes
sage which Paul took up was not that of the Prophet of
Galilee. It offered no nationalistic Christ, " a Christ
according to the flesh," nor even " thrones of the house
of David." It had almost ceased to be apocalyptic.
Paul does not mention the title Son of Man, and his
equivalent, if he has one, is a still more universalized
abstraction. His Christ had been, to be sure, " of the
seed of David " ; but that was only " as concerning the
flesh," a consequence of historical circumstance, just
as he had become a minister of the circumcision to fulfill
the promises made to the fathers. Paul's Christ is es
sentially the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, exalted " to
make intercession for sin." He is the fulfiller of the
mission of Israel, a righteous though suffering Servant,
who by his knowledge brings the godless world to justi
fication. It was the resurrection from the dead which
by miraculous power had demonstrated the Crucified to
be the Son of God. Thus the " glad tidings of recon
ciliation " was no Pauline novelty. It was the general
and common gospel. But Paul took it up at the point
where it had reached its supreme and ultimate form as
an expiation for the sin of the world by the blood and
intercession of its predestined King ; whereas his prede
cessors could remember the preaching in Galilee. The
difference is in degree of individualization. Paul does
not speak of the restoration of Israel to the favor of
Jehovah. He does not say " Christ, who loved his peo
ple, and gave himself up for the national hope." Only

60 JESUS AND PAUL
once does he say " who loved the Chureh, and gave him
self up for it." His most characteristic utterance is
" Who loved me, and gave himself for me." And in
dividualization is universalization. A gospel for the
world must be " the word of the cross."
To Philo Moses was the " mediator and reconciler of
the world." He is identified by later Jewish teachers
with the Servant of Jehovah, because he not only
brought the knowledge of Jehovah's will, but sought
forgiveness for Israel at the cost of his own share in
the book of life. Philo and the rabbis differ only in the
breadth of their horizon. The Servant is for Paul an
other, a prophet like unto Moses in the knowledge of
God's will, but chiefly one whom God had " highly ex
alted" because he had humbled himself and become
obedient unto death. This exalted One is now Paul's
Advocate with the Father against the great Accuser.
He is fulfilling his promise to confess his loyal ones in
the presence of God. He has become an Intercessor
for Paul's forgiveness, as the Spirit on earth also
maketh intercession with groanings intelligible only to
God. This, for Paul, is the supreme meaning of the
resurrection. " He was raised for our justification."
" If Christ be not raised we are of all men most miser
able," because we are " yet in our sins." We have
neither Advocate nor Intercessor at the judgment-seat,
and we go as conscious transgressors of the law. Con
trariwise, if God has raised him from the dead, and
given assurance of it to all men by demonstration of
the Spirit and power, He thereby commends His own
love to us, in that while we were yet sinners this Christ
should have died for us. If you apply the story of
Jesus in terms of personal religion you cannot avoid
making it both universal and transcendental. Calvary
itself becomes a scene whose supreme actor is not on
earth. It is God himself who there set forth Jesus in

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL 61
his blood as a propitiation s through faith. It demon
strates His own righteousness, in spite of His forbear
ance in the passing over of sin in the past. For if a
man have that self -dedicating faith in Jesus which is
betokened in baptism, God is not unjust if He treat him
as just, forgiving his sin freely, for Jesus' sake. We
are accustomed, I know, to a most un-oriental, forensic,
almost mechanical conception of divine justice, by which
the law has, as it were, rights of its own, which God
himself may not disregard. But to the Jews God
would be most unjust if He did not forgive and forth
with treat as just any truly repentant sinner. That is
what the psalmists and Isaiah mean by " justification "
(zedek). A better translation in most cases would be
simply " forgiveness." That is the meaning when the
Psalmist says : " He shall bring forth thy righteous
ness (i. e., forgiveness, " justification ") as the light,
and thy judgment as the noon-day." Israel's restora
tion to Jehovah's favor shall be as public as her repudi
ation had been. That is what Isaiah means by saying
Jehovah's " righteousness " is near to come, and com
paring it to his breastplate which he puts on when he
comes to the rescue of his people along with the helmet
of his salvation. Both the " forgiveness " and the " sal
vation " are from, not for Jehovah. The mere term
" justification " or " righteousness " (SiKatoo-uw;) instead
of " forgiveness " in the Pauline Epistles may be " theo
logical," if you will J but it is purely Isaian, like the
figure of the Servant which gives Paul his ideal of
Jesus. It belongs to the " gospel " (another Isaian
word) which he tells us he " received " when he became
a Christian, the assurance " that Christ died for our
8 The word IXaprriptov in Bom. 3 : 25 may be masculine or neuter.
In either case its sense is best determined from the parallel in
IV Mace. 17 : 22. " Through the blood of those pious men and
the propitiation (IKaorriplov) of their death, divine Providence
saved Israel that had before been ill-treated."

62 JESUS AND PAUL
sins according to the Scriptures." The terms are bor
rowed (quite naturally) from Isaiah, the prophet of
the Reconciliation, but the doctrine was not embodied
in a book but in the rite which proclaimed from the be
ginning : " This is my blood of the new covenant
which is shed for many." When Matthew adds to this
the clause, " for the remission of sins," transposing it
from its connection in Mark 1 : 4 with the baptism of
John, he is doing no violence to the sense in which the
Church observed the sacrament.
2. Conversion of Paul
To this Pauline gospel of " justification by faith
apart from works of law " we must devote further con
sideration at a later time. Our first concern must be
with what has justly been termed the new beginning of
Christianity. We must try to appreciate in its full sig
nificance tbe story of the conversion of the persecutor;
for Paul himself rests everything on this. It is not
merely the foundation of his own religious life, but also
of his call to preach to others. His Apostleship and
his gospel, denied by his Judaizing opponents, are de
fended by him in common. They have not a separate
origin, but spring together out of the same religious
experience. It is almost a commonplace of criticism to point out
the supreme importance of this event. Here alone do
we come directly in contact with a man who can say:
I saw the risen Christ. Paul's letters are the only
documents that really authenticate the gospel story.
He knew personally James the Lord's brother and others
who had followed Jesus in Galilee. He had heard
Peter's story of the first resurrection appearance from
Peter's own lips but a few years after his experience.
And Paul is at the same time the founder of Gentile
Christianity. As the great mountain wall behind his

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL 63
birthplace, the Taurus range, with its single narrow
opening, the Cilician Gates, divided, for antiquity, the
Greek-speaking, European world from the Semitic; so
this all-decisive event, the conversion of Saul of Tarsus,
stands between Christianity in the form known to us, a
Hellenized oriental faith, and the primitive belief to
which Paul looks back. For he implies an earlier gos
pel common to both when he reminds Peter at Antioch
of their common religious experience and its meaning,
or tells the opponents of a Jewish type of resurrection
doctrine at Corinth what sort of faith had been preached
by all the witnesses in common from the beginning. If
we can climb to the summit of this great mountain-peak
— if we can actually lift ourselves in a real sense to
Paul's point of view, we may be able to connect in our
minds these contrasted modes of thought, and see Chris
tianity as a progressive whole, a movement of the eter
nal Spirit, a work of the redemptive Wisdom of God
ever pleading with lost sons to return to their Father.
The two accounts which come down to us of Paul's
conversion, the one in the occasional references of his
own letters, the other in Church tradition as embodied
in the Book of Acts, are strangely different in motive
and point of view. In fact the almost opposite idea
conceived by the author of Acts of what this experience
signified to Paul as regards his Apostleship and gospel
is the chief obstacle to acceptance of the Lukan author
ship. It is hard to believe that this- Antiochian his
torian of Petrine proclivities, even though writing at a
much later time, can be the same individual who was
closely associated with Paul during the decade of his
life-and-death struggle to vindicate the superhuman au
thority of his apostolic calling and the complete inde
pendence of his gospel. Acts leaves no stone unturned
to prove that Paul had neither work among, nor apostle
ship to the Gentiles until after the martyrdom of James

64 JESUS AND PAUL
the brother of John, twelve years after the crucifixion.
Even then, according to Acts, he received it from men
and through men at Antioch, after the Holy Ghost had
signified : " Separate unto me Barnabas and Saul unto
the work whereunto I have called them." Acts is
equally eager to prove that Paul's gospel was identical
with that of Peter, a gospel which he had ample oppor
tunity of learning at the feet of the Apostles at Jerusa
lem. For according to Acts he was introduced by Bar
nabas almost immediately after his conversion at Da
mascus, and began his work among them, going in and
out among them until his preaching to the Greek-speak
ing Jews (not Gentiles) of Jerusalem was interrupted
by the mob. In both representations " Luke " (as we
call him) verily thinks he does Paul service. He can
not think of higher praise for his hero than to tell the
story in a way to prove Paul's dependence on those who
were Apostles before him. He cannot imagine him
" turning to the Gentiles " until the " twelve years "
tradition accorded to Israel have expired, and even then
not till the Jews have " put the word of salvation from
them." He cannot think of better defense for Paul's
gospel than to identify it with Peter's. This may not
be quite the kind of corroboration sought by Paley in
his Horae Paulinae, but as matter of fact it is of im
mensely greater value to the student than if " Luke "
had simply gone to the Epistles and copied his story
from them. On the surface the differences are an in
convenience. They are perplexing to the critic, and a
stone of stumbling to the champion of tradition. In
reality they are of utmost value. They are what paral
lax is to the astronomer who attempts to measure our
distance from the stars. Without them we should have
no scientific method of approach at all.
Of course the main difference between the two ac
counts of Paul's conversion, apart from motive, is the

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEtL 65
fact that " Luke's " report is that of the observer from
outside; whereas Paul concerns himself only with the
inner meaning of his experience. " Luke " tells what
it meant to the Church, which after the sudden collapse
of the campaign of bloody persecution " had rest."
Paul tells what it meant to him. Acts describes the
persecutor thrown to the ground, blind and helpless,
until, led by the hand into Damascus, humble and sub
missive, he is told by Ananias what he must do, and
receives again his sight. Its narrative might almost
be derived from the same sources as that which the
Ebionite writer of the Clementine Homilies puts in the
mouth of Peter, rebuking the Magus who falsely claims
to be an Apostle of Jesus. " Can a man be qualified
for apostleship by mere visions ? " asks Peter. " The
Lord did no doubt appear to you when you were perse
cuting the Church, but it was to stop you on your
bloody course, as when the angel with drawn sword ar
rested Balaam as he was seeking to curse the chosen
people." " Luke " feels no call to explain psychologi
cally how it was possible for the arch-persecutor thus
suddenly to espouse the faith he had opposed, and yet
retain the deep sincerity, the ardor and devotion of a
Paul. To us, contrariwise, it is obvious that for men
tal consistency there must have been a transition in
Paul's case from a condition of unstable to stable equi
librium. Such mere physical experiences as " Luke "
narrates could not have had this effect unless in some
way the mind had been prepared in advance. Recover
ing consciousness Paul would simply have said to him
self : "Paul, thou art mad." Or else: "What if a
spirit or an angel hath spoken to me. Even Satan
fashioneth himself into an angel of light." To under
stand the transition we must somehow account for the
fact that the soul of the persecutor suddenly passes from
a condition of strain and agony sufficient to wring from

66 JESUS AND PAUL
him the cry, " O wretched man that I am ; who shall
deliver me from this body of death ? " into a condition
in which like one awaking from the wild ravings of
delirium to quiet and peace he whispers in hushed tones
of gratitude : " I thank my God, through Jesus Christ
our Lord." Paul has no explanation of his sudden
change save " the good pleasure (eiSoKia) of God " ; but
the author of Varieties of Religious Experience tells us
that with the twiceborn, as he calls them, this uncon
sciousness of means is almost the normal mark of con
version. Even had he been conscious of it Paul would be as
far as " Luke " from any design of telling us his own
part in this death and resurrection of his soul. His
aim, like " Luke's," is to emphasize God's part and
minimize his own. If " Luke " is anxious to make his
readers appreciate how wonderfully God interposed to
deliver his persecuted people, Paul is even more con
cerned to prove that the greatness of the power was not
of men but of God, and that so far from his having
planned the career which he now undertook, or having
thought out the gospel that now came to him, it was, on
the contrary, at the utmost remove from all his thoughts.
He was not tormented with growing scruples as to the
rightfulness of his bloody course. That he makes
amply clear.
We do not underestimate the agony to a soul like
Paul's of dipping his hands in the blood of men like
Stephen. We only deny that the pain was to his mind
a reason for desisting from his course. On the con
trary, the more it cost the more he verily believed he
did God service. There was agony of soul. There was
strain and stress, up to, and beyond the breaking point.
But so far as Paul's conscious thought was concerned it
was not impelling him toward the faith of his victims.
We misinterpret the sense of the proverb, " It is hard

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL 67
for thee to kick against the goad," if we take it to refer
to remorse of conscience experienced by the wavering
persecutor. It is not the pain suffered by the restive
ox which the proverb calls to mind, but the futility of its
lashing out against the driver. Paul makes emphatic
and repeated declarations that he had no such misgiv
ings. We do him injustice if we fail to see that the
approach to the crisis was subconscious. On the other
hand without such subconscious approach the psycho
logical overturn is inexplicable. For we also know
from many a narrative of sudden conversion, from
Luther to modern times, how easy it is for all the prepa
ration to be thus made, so that the subject seems to him
self suddenly to awake a new man, although in reality
the barriers to the new current of life had long been
secretly undermined. It happens then as when the
ocean, which for months and years, perhaps, has worked
its way unobserved beneath the dike, in a moment breaks
through, and with sudden rush sweeps all before it.
God himself respects the free-will wherewith he has
endowed us. He does violence to the personality of no
man, not even the persecutor. In Paul's own language
we work out our own salvation, even if it be God that
works in us both to will and to do. But in the case of
his own conversion it is God's part and not his own on
which all his attention is concentrated, for the simple
reason that it is this which his opponents denied. It
does not follow that there were no human antecedents.
On the contrary it is of the utmost importance for a
right understanding of the divine working that we
search out to the limit of our ability the human channels
through which the divine influences flowed.
It is more or less habitual with those who hold Paul
responsible for sweeping innovations on the simple gos
pel of Jesus, to meet the psychological objections by
saying : " Paul as a Pharisee had already in his mind

68 JESUS AND PAUL
the elements of that theological system which we find
advanced in his letters as the gospel of justification by
faith. All that was needed was the vision on the road
to Damascus to make him ready to insert the figure of
the crucified Nazarene in the vacant central niche.
Once convinced that Jesus whom he had been persecut
ing was the expected Messiah, all the rest might follow
logically in his mind."
Far be it from me to deny the use of the scribal sys
tem of thought and expression by Paul. He who so
freely employs those of the Greek religions of personal
redemption around him, in spite of the ineradicable
Jewish hatred of heathen worship, would not have dis
carded the teaching of Gamaliel from his mind, even
had he been able. One might almost say that in Paul
the gospel of Jesus has undergone a double translation,
first into the forms of thought and expression which be
long to the Jewish rabbi, then a second time into those
which would be most intelligible to his heathen converts.
Nevertheless the vital, organizing factor never ceases
to be what Paul himself so emphatically declares it.
The gospel of Jesus is not absorbed by, or assimilated
to, these more or less alien forms and modes of expres
sion. The reverse is true. They are made its vehicle.
It is for us to distinguish between form and vital sub
stance. Is it then the fact that Paul's gospel of justification
by faith in a glorified Redeemer is an innovation upon
the gospel of Jesus ? Certainly it was not so to the con
sciousness of Paul; and (what is more convincing) it
does not appear to have been so to Paul's fellow-dis
ciples. For even the Pillars in Jerusalem make no
qualification in their endorsement, and Peter himself,
when publicly taken to task by Paul at Antioch, makes
no objection to Paul's imputation to him also of this

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEI. 69
very same gospel of justification by faith in the Cruci
fied, apart from works of law.4
The fact is this attempt to remove a psychological
difficulty by appeal to the supernatural is a return to
the old vice of mediaeval theology. To remove one
difficulty we create a greater further back. If we make
the vision responsible for the transfer to Jesus of the
attributes of Paul's rabbinic Messiah, how do we ac
count for the fact that Paul had such a vision % In the
psychology of religious experience creative miracles do
not occur. The mind operates with the material at its
disposal. Even the most catastrophic revulsions, such
as Paul's, have their antecedents, and the proof that
Paul's vision was not after all an act of violence to his
own mind and personality, and did not introduce new
and alien factors to his thought, is that when he looks
back to it, and before it, he can see that all unknown
to himself God had set him apart from his mother'3
womb for this very thing, and directed all his way to it.
After the cataract it is still the same river that flow3
on, but in deeper, fuller stream.
The key-note to Paul's whole life is the antithesis of
" Law " and " grace." Before his conversion he sums
up as it were in his own person the whole effort of
progressive Judaism since the time of Ezra. He was a
Pharisee of Pharisees in seeking the hope of Israel
through obedience to the Law. Since the return from
the Exile Israel had become " the people of the Book."
Prophecy had come to mean for it the national hope of
restoration to the divine favor (Suauoowj, zedek,
zedakah) and salvation, God's acknowledgment of them
as his people before the world. The law was the means
of obtaining this divine acknowledgment. Since Syna
gogue religion had taken the place of temple-worship as
* Gal. 2: 1-10, 14-21.

70 JESUS AND PAUL
the real religion of the people, scribe and Pharisee had
labored together with untiring, marvelous devotion to
make ready for Jehovah a people prepared for Him by
the spirit of obedience.5 What we call the legalistic
tendency of post-Maccabean Judaism was epitomized
in Paul. He plunged into it heart and soul even be
yond his contemporaries. And, as was characteristic
of him, he applied it with intense individualism first of
all to himself. He would have for Israel (but to begin
with for himself) a " righteousness," or, as we might
also render, " a justification " (Sixauxrvvq) of his own,
" even that which is through the Law." It is just be
cause of the fact that Paul perceived more keenly than
others the irrepressible conflict between the gospel of
forgiveness to penitent sinners preached by Jesus, and
the ideal of obedience cherished by scribe and Pharisee,
that he became a leader in persecuting the Way of Jus
tification by the grace of the Lord Jesus. The Phari
see's indignation was great when Jesus appealed to his
healings to confirm his message of forgiveness. It was
accentuated a hundred fold when the followers of the
Nazarene began to advance the doctrine of expiation
through his blood, applying to his self-dedication to
death the Isaian prophecy of the Suffering Servant for
whose sake the " many " are forgiven.
Such was the doctrine of " justification " by the grace
of the Lord Jesus 6 which provoked the persecution of
Saul of Tarsus. But we have no reason to doubt that
if Saul of Tarsus had been in Jerusalem or Galilee at
the time of Jesus' ministry, he would have been the
conscientious leader of the scribal opposition to the
Friend of the publicans and sinners, just as he was
afterwards. Paul took Pharisaism seriously, and ap
plied it remorselessly. Hellenism appears only in the
b Cf. Jubilees, i, 24-26.
e Gal. 1: 16 f.; cf. Acts 15: 8.

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL 71
fact that his religion is personal rather than national.
Like the author of Jubilees he seeks Tightness with God
as the supreme end. Only he is more intensely indi
vidualistic and sets a more exacting standard. On this
basis one who like Paul combines clearness of vision
with ardor of soul will find himself inevitably in just
the impasse which Paul describes as the immediate ante
cedent of his collapse. The Law could not accomplish
the deliverance expected of it, " in that it was weak
through the flesh." Paul found himself no better than
any other " sinner of the Gentiles," in fact his very
knowledge of the law made his condition worse; for
instead of giving him victory over the law of sin which
he found in his members, warring against the law of his
mind, it seemed rather to provoke him to all manner
of evil concupiscence, and then to leave him more than
ever the object of the wrath of God. Thus the very
ordinance of life (for such is inherently the purpose
of the commandment) becomes to a mind in slavery to
the untamable propensities of the flesh a savor of death
unto death.
Can we imagine any other issue to this hopeless con
flict of soul than that which actually took place ? Yes,
perhaps; despair, and moral death. Despair and
death, if Paul had not really already known another
" Way." If he had not all this time been clearer than
any other man as to the true alternative. If he had
not already penetrated to the very heart of the teaching
of Jesus as a gospel of " reconciliation " by grace, and
the loving-kindness of a forgiving God. If he had not
witnessed, not once but often, such scenes as that of
Stephen standing before his judges with face trans
figured like an angel's as he looks up into Heaven and
cries : " Behold, I see the Son of Man standing at the
right hand of God," my Advocate with Him. But the
very intensity of the persecutor's opposition to this Way

72 JESUS AND PAUL
brought the alternative the more vividly before his
mind. If such were the antecedents of Paul's religious ex
perience, as seen from his own inward point of view in
stead of the external of " Luke," what shall we say
of the vision itself ? He saw Jesus, says " Luke," not
in shame and humiliation, but as Stephen saw him, as
the five hundred saw him, shining in the glory of God,
transfigured, glorified. Paul also says as much. " Am
I not also an Apostle," he demands of his detractors,
" have I not seen Jesus our Lord ? " He saw the Lord
intervening to defend his martyred Church, says the
external observer, as the angel of God stood in the way
to oppose the false prophet who sought to curse the
people of God. Paul very likely might not have denied
this, any more than he would have denied the place and
time, as he drew nigh to Damascus,7 or perhaps the
experience of dazzling light followed by temporary
blindness. Of course the vision did stop the persecu
tions. But these are not the things which signify to
one whose inward experience had been such as Paul de
scribes. He saw Jesus as Peter had seen him after the
utter collapse of his self-confidence, after the denial and
the bitter tears, after the promises of reciprocal loyalty
at the supper, after the utterance : " Simon, I have
prayed for thee," after Gethsemane and Calvary.
" God, who energized in Peter," says Paul, " unto an
apostleship of the circumcision, energized in me also,"
when it was His good pleasure to reveal his Son to me,
" unto an Apostleship of the Gentiles."
These visions of Peter and Paul were not, then, dif
ferent in kind, but in all essentials the same. "He
appeared first to Cephas," Paul tells us, " last to me."
After Peter had turned again and stablished his breth
ren, the visions multiplied. Many experienced the
1 Gal. 1 : 17.

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL 73
opening of the eyes of their heart to see what had be
come soul-reality for those who had heard and remem
bered the farewell promise of Jesus. And Paul does
not differentiate his experience from theirs. On the
contrary he emphasizes their identity. The series
which constitutes the apostolic witness of the resurrec
tion, certified to by Paul to the Corinthians as not his
own merely, but the common resurrection gospel, starts
with a reference to the Isaian promise of forgiveness for
the sake of the martyred Servant. It closes with Paul's
own experience, which thus forms part of the group
which began with the appearance to Peter. Moreover
the substance of the vision is essentially the same, not
merely for these apostolic witnesses, but even in the
case of the many later " visions and revelations of the
Lord." As in the vision of John on Patmos, the figure
is " one like unto a Son of man " radiant in the dazzling
light of heavenly glory. And if the symbols of victory
over man's last enemies are there in that he holds the
keys of death and of Hades, and the breath of his mouth
is as a sharp sword, the historic origin of this faith is
not forgotten. The figure is also, with that strange
mixture of symbols characteristic of the book, that " of
a lamb as it had been slain " ; and it occupies the place
of the Mediator and Intercessor with God, it is " stand
ing in the midst of the throne."
Paul has nothing to say of the dazzling light, above
the brightness of the noon-day, which Luke describes
as blinding the persecutor; but he has a reference of
sublime beauty and majesty to the " light of the knowl
edge of the glory of God which shone upon his heart in
the face of Jesus Christ" He has nothing to say of
that aspect of the vision which presents the risen Son
of Man in the attitude of defending his persecuted flock,
though certainly the vision did have this effect so far
as the Church was concerned. The risen Christ whom

74 JESUS AND PAUL
Paul saw was " highly exalted," even as he had hum
bled himself and became obedient unto the death of the
cross, he was " at the right hand of God," expectant till
his enemies be made the footstool of his feet. But his
office and occupation there is " to make intercession for
us," to be our Advocate with the Father, so that God
may justify, no matter who condemns; for Paul is
" persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor
principalities nor powers, can separate us from the love
of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." 8
We all know how Paul defends his God-given apostle
ship and gospel in Galatians by referring his detractors
to the well known story of his conversion. It was true
of Paul, as of the humblest evangelist, that his supreme
asset was his religious experience ; and he told it in the
forms which he found best adapted to bring out its re
ligious values to his hearers. Unfortunately those who
best appreciate the vital significance of these first chap
ters of the great controversy too often fail to follow it
through to the triumphant close in the great chapters on
the ministry of the new covenant in II Cor. 3-6, where
the Apostle sums up its significance for the repentant
Church restored at last to full loyalty to its founder and
" father in Christ." In Galatians Paul speaks for
himself individually. At Corinth also he had been
obliged to fight an even more desperate conflict against
Judaizing opponents of his gospel and deniers of his
right to speak in behalf of Christ. After a direct af
front to himself, which his delegate Timothy had proved
unable to counteract, Paul had despaired of bringing
this great church at Corinth back to its allegiance. At
last, in Macedonia, tidings came from Titus, his second
messenger, telling of their repentant return. Paul will
not repeat the bitter remonstrances with which they had
compelled him to vindicate his own apostleship, and
sCf. II Cor. 4: 6; Phil. 2: 9-11; Rom. 8: 33-34.

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL 75
prove the right to speak with authority which should
have been so needless in their case. He refrains from
the mad boasting they had forced upon him, but he will
not quit the field without a clear statement of the terms
of peace ; and that not for himself only, but for all who
claim with him the authority belonging to ambassadors
for God. Since he is speaking to men to whom the
conceptions of the mystery religions are the common
places of religious expression it should cause us no sur
prise that he uses their terminology. He uses its sym
bols to depict his own supreme experience, and even
thinks of his own immortality as thus achieved. It
comes by " illumination " (<£omo-/uds) through light re
flected " as in a mirror " (io-oirrpov) from the face of
the glorified Jesus, who is the " image " (ukwv) of God.
By this vision of the glorified One, this illumination
of the gnosis of the glory of God, we also, he says, are
" metamorphosed " (utrafioptpovntSa) or " transfigured "
into the same " likeness." In this assurance of immor
tality the heralds of the cross convey the message to
others. This is the very vernacular of the mystery cults. No
man can fail to recognize it who has any familiarity
with the current ideas of the religions of personal re
demption concerning assimilation to the nature of the
dying and rising Savior-god by gazing upon his image
(OeoT-q'i Sia. Oeas, or k-KOirriai ; VergOttung durch GotteS-
schau), as to being "transfigured" into the same
" likeness," as to immortality being the destiny of the
" reborn," and the like. Paul is using the ideas, and
even the language of the mysteries to compare the min
istry of the new covenant and its revelation with the
revelation to Moses and the ministry of the old covenant.
But it is his own experience in the vision of the risen
Christ which he translates into this symbolic language.
And he is describing it not for himself alone, but treat-

76

JESUS AND PAUL

ing it as typical for all who had thus been made am
bassadors for God and witnesses of the resurrection.
It goes as far beyond the brief glimpses afforded us in
Galatians, as Galatians itself goes beyond the mere ex
ternalities of Acts in the insight it gives us into the
basis of Paul's religious experience. Study of the be
ginnings of the great controversy over Paul's apostle
ship in Galatians should never be dissociated from its
climax and close in II Cor. 3-6.
Time will not allow me to follow in detail the ma
jestic progress of the thought as Paul compares his
revelation with that which Moses had received, still less
to adduce the parallels from the Hermetic writings and
similar sources which show the significance which it
bears to him.9 I will only remind you of the familiar
story of Exodus, how Moses, after the people's sin, goes
up to intercede on their behalf with God. On the
height of Horeb he entreats that his own name may be
blotted from God's book of life, if only Israel may be
pardoned. Last of all he prays : " I beseech thee,
show me thy glory." To that the answer is given:
" Thou canst not see my face ; for no man shall see me
and live. But I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and
will cause my glory to pass before thee." Then, as
Moses stands hidden in the cleft of the rock, Jehovah
passes by and a voice proclaims : " Jehovah, a God
merciful and gracious, forgiving iniquity, transgression
and sin." And as Moses descended from the mount
with his message of pardon his face was transfigured
with the reflection of the glory of God. But Paul was
not the first to think of this reflected glory on the inter
cessor's face as preparing him for immortality. Per
haps it may help us to appreciate what the apostle sees in
» See Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mystery Religions, and Morgan,
Religion and Theology of Paul, pp. 113-145.

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL 77
this story of the intercession of Moses, and his revelation
of the " grace " and mercy of the forgiving God, if we
remember that to the orthodox Jew this is the supreme
instance of intercession for the forgiveness of sin.
It is the Mosaic gospel of the " reconciliation "
(/caraWayi)) manifesting the " grace " of God in not im
puting unto the people their trespasses. Paul's refer
ence to the passing glory on the face of Moses, a trans
figuration that caused him to put a veil upon his face
that the people might not see how soon it was gone, may
seem strange to our mode of thought. If so it may
help us to know that Philo, thirty years before this time,
had already advanced the doctrine of a transfiguration
of Moses through his intercourse with God and that
Philo also makes this Moses' preparation for immortal
ity. Describing his departure into Heaven at the sum
mons of the Father (p*.TaKkrfiu<i virb tov ¦jrarpos) Philo
declares that by the vision of God Moses' soul and body
had been blended into a single new substance, an im
mortal mind-substance having the appearance of the
sun.10 It is not in the words of Philo, but in the
mystic language of the mystery-religions that we read
in Paul of the gnosis that conveys immortality by re
fleeting the image of the glorified Savior-god on the
mirror of the retina. Paul borrows the phraseology of
this religious mysticism to describe the experience of
new creation which qualifies for the ministry of the new
covenant. Unlike Moses those who receive this min
istry have no veil upon their face. As they gaze upon
the glorified Master, who for their sakes died and for
their sakes was raised again from the dead, the radiant
figure is reflected in them as in a mirror. As the retina
forms the image of the object gazed upon, so Christ is
"formed in them." They are progressively " trans
it) Vita Mos. II, 39.

78 JESUS AND PAUL
formed by the renewing of their minds " in preparation
for immortality, they are " transfigured into the same
image, from glory to glory."
So the long conflict of Paul for his God-given apos
tleship comes back to its starting-point, the manifesta
tion of the Son of God in him, even as he had been
manifested to Peter first of all. Only now he speaks
not merely of apostleship, but of a " ministry " of the
new covenant whose revelation surpasses the revelation
to Moses. He speaks of an " ambassadorship " of the
reconciliation ; for in it both he and all his fellow wit
nesses of the resurrection are heralds of peace to the
world. He speaks of an immortality for which we were
created in the image of God. For that same God who
in the creation commanded the light to shine out of
darkness had made a new creation ; and of this Paul was
made a " witness " when the God that " forgiveth
iniquity, transgression and sin " shined in his heart to
give the light of the knowledge of this his glory " in
the face of Jesus Christ."

LECTURE IV
THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL (Continued)
II. THE MESSAGE OF THE RECONCILIATION
1. Historical Interpretation
The attempt was made in the preceding lecture to
show from Paul's own references to his experience in
conversion that the ordinary way of reasoning from it
almost inverts the true principles of religious psychol
ogy. We must learn to look upon the vision as effect
rather than cause. Paul had indeed a theory of sal
vation before his conversion. But the vision of the
glorified Jesus did not come into this as a new, inex
plicable datum supplying the needed deus ex machina.
On the contrary it was the collapse of preconceived ideas
which brought about the vision. And however unex
pected to him, the vision was by no means without its
antecedents. Of these the most obvious are two: on
the one side an utterly unbearable strain upon his own
soul to achieve peace with God through obedience; on
the other the testimony of men who like Peter had found
this peace through the grace of the Lord Jesus. There
was also the spectacle of men such as Stephen trans
figured by the vision of their Advocate with the Father.
Paul's knowledge of his victims' experience uncon
sciously predisposed him to repeat it. At his conver
sion it was indeed as though scales had fallen from his
eyes, so sudden was the change from darkness to light.
But this does not mean that others, conscious, as Paul
was not, of the hopelessness of his effort to achieve the
79

80 JESUS AND PAUL
ideal of the Pharisee, might not have foreseen the out
come. It only means that Paul was blind to it, so blind
that afterwards he stood in amazement at himself. In
fact this is the very basis of his conviction of the divine
origin of his apostleship and his gospel, inseparable as
we have seen them to be in his thought, that they were
"wrought in him," not of himself, but by the direct
intervention of God.
It is not the purpose of these lectures to argue for
Paul's idea of the supernatural method of the divine
action in his case. There is just as much of God in it if
the process turn out to be intelligible under known psy
chological laws. It is not my purpose to argue for
Paul's theory of vicarious suffering and piacular atone
ment. It seems to me far superior to the mediaeval
caricatures which are supposed to represent it in the
later theologies. The piacular conception entertained
by Paul may represent only a transition stage in our
philosophy of religion. I do not aspire to be a thee
logian but a historian; not an advocate, but an inter
preter. Suppose Paul to have been quite wrong as to
the modus operandi of the divine action in bringing
him to the knowledge of the eternal Son of God; still
he was brought into reconciliation with God, and it was
an effect beyond his own capacity. The same is true
of piacular atonement. Suppose that the spiritual new
creation to which men testify would be otherwise char
acterized by the technical psychologist. Men speak of
it as an experience of peace with God and of participa
tion through Jesus in the eternal life and eternal ac
tivity of God, victory over evil propensity, victory over
fear, victory over death. This may not be put in proper
philosophical language when we describe it as " recon
ciliation with the Father." Still the peace, the new
creation, are there. Let experts in the psychology of
religion use their own terminology in explaining it, the

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL 81
point is it exists. Suppose we hold strong objections
to such modes of conception and expression as Paul's
when he says, " The wrath of God is revealed from
heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of
men." There cannot be reasonable objection to our
finding modes of expression which convey the essential
idea in less anthropomorphic terms, so long as we recog
nize that there is a real idea, a real experience, an ex
perience of most vital importance to men who have not
peace with God, nor victory, nor joy in an eternal hu
man Christ. We are studying the history and psy
chology of religion, in particular that movement of the
eternal Wisdom of God which produced Christianity.
The first step is to understand the witness. After that
improve on his mode of statement of his experience if
you will — and can. Fortunately the self -dedication
of the worthiest for the unworthy is not yet a forgotten
fact. It is still there to challenge valuation by the
theologian. In Paul's case the witness tells us things which he
has seen and heard. They are more or less obscured
by that process of double translation of which I have
spoken, first into the forms of thought natural to a
Jewish rabbi, second into those current in the Hellen
istic religions for the benefit of Paul's converts. But
we surely are justified both by his explicit testimony
regarding the common apostolic teaching antecedent to
his own, and by the unchanging principles of religious
psychology, in maintaining that the core and kernel of
this common gospel was salvation by the grace of the
Lord Jesus, forgiveness of sin obtained by his atoning
death and present mediation, triumphant assurance of
the hope of Israel and of the world in the fact that God
had raised him from the dead and revealed him in glory.
I have admitted that the Synoptic Gospels retain
scarcely a trace of this doctrine of redemption by the

82 JESUS AND PAUL
blood of the martyred Leader. Their pages are marked
rather by a strange absence of the Isaian figure of the
suffering Servant, exalted " to make intercession "
which is so fundamental to the thought of Paul. It is
only in Hebrews, and Revelation, and First Peter, .and
Clement of Rome, and the most ancient liturgies of the
Church, that we find this central doctrine of grace
through the blood of the cross and the intercession of
the risen Mediator. But we are not entitled to argue
from this partial silence of a single restricted group, of
later date, that the Pauline gospel of the " reconcilia
tion " was a speculation of his own, a peculiar interpre
tation of the meaning of the cross, which later writers
otherwise so diverse as the authors of Hebrews and the
Revelation of John have agreed in adopting from the
Apostle to the Gentiles. On the contrary, Paul insists
that whether it were himself, or Peter, or the other
Apostles, this was the common faith; and the Sacra
ment bears him out. Of course we recognize the ex
travagances, obnoxious to both ancient and modern
thought, so apt to attach to this primeval doctrine of
blood-redemption. We know how easily vicarious suf
fering and intercession of martyrs and saints can be
misapplied in a way offensive to our sense of the right
eousness of God, and dangerous to practical morality.
But we cannot escape the historical fact that Christi
anity as a religion distinct from Judaism did originate
in this belief. The statements of our oldest and most
authentic documents would be decisive on this point,
even if we did not have in addition the assurance just
derived from our review of Paul's account of his con
version, to prove that the issue of his soul-conflict was
not the question whether the crucified Nazarene did or
did not correspond in character and experience with
some preconceived messianic ideal, but whether the
Pharisean Way of obedience, or that of the publicans

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL 83
!and sinners, the Way of forgiveness of sins for Jesus'
sake, the Way of " grace," brought peace with God.
The dispute with Peter at Antioch proves that this was
the heart of the common faith. Paul's own religious
experience proves it. For his vision was not an acci
dent. It repeats in its most essential characteristics
those which had been the experience of men who were
of this faith before him. It took this form partly be
cause there was no other way out, once his false hope
came to its inevitable collapse; partly because the vi
sions of his predecessors had taken similar form. And
the similarity of form is not a mere coincidence. It
was suggested by the parting promises of Jesus. Our
business is first to appreciate how such utterances as
those of the last supper could lead to the mystical ex
perience of Peter and all the rest who " saw the Lord,"
afterwards to express if we can in philosophical lan
guage the precise value and meaning which these ex
periences continue to have as part of the history and
psychology of progressive religion.
We have seen already that there is a real continuity
in the religious movement from John the Baptist to
Paul, and that while the sense of the terms is less per
sonal it was already a gospel of " reconciliation " when
John brought his " way of justification " by repentance
and faith. It is our undertaking now to trace what we
can of the earlier form under its double disguise of re
duction to rabbinic modes of thought, and retranslation
into those of Hellenistic personal religion. Is Paul's
gospel the same fundamentally as the gospel of Jesus ?
I cannot but consider that all attempts hitherto made
to set forth exactly what Paul's gospel was, are more or
less vitiated by two misapprehensions. The first con
cerns its source or derivation. There is failure to ap
preciate in its full significance the principle I have al
ready expressed in the statement that Christianity was

84 JESUS AND PAUL
to Paul the Way of justification, or peace with God,
which he saw symbolized in the two primitive observ
ances of baptism and the supper — or (to put them in
a more logical as well as a more historical order), the
supper, and baptism. It was not the teachings and
miracles which we find related in the Gospels, since
Paul neither possesses these, nor even seems to care for
their story.1 Nevertheless we find great effort expended
by scholars to enlarge to the utmost the minimal traces
in the Epistles of acquaintance with the teaching of
Jesus, and a strong disposition to assume that it must
have played a much larger part in Paul's preaching than
these extremely meager references suggest. I have af
firmed on the contrary that Christianity as Paul knew
it was the Way characterized by these two observances,
symbolizing respectively forgiveness for the sake of the
risen Redeemer, and new life in his Spirit. I shall at
tempt presently to illustrate by a typical instance how
great a difference this makes.
Before doing so let me venture (presumptuously per
haps) on a second general criticism of modern interpre
tations of Paul's gospel. This concerns its simple as
against its elaborated form. As I read such intricate
discussions of the Pauline system of thought, or the
Pauline theology, as Baur's or Pfleiderer's or Holtz-
mann's, or those of countless other great biblical thee
logians, I am impressed with the conviction that there
is a failure here to distinguish between (a) the pri
mary conception which Paul repeatedly and emphati
cally declares was not his own; and (b) the apologetic,
the defense which he personally weaves about it in an
swer to particular opponents. The apologetic in the
1 It seems to be regarded almost as a matter of course that " the
gospel " means the moral and religious teachings of Jesus in
Galilee. But if we take the term in Paul's sense as " the power
of God unto salvation " what is the teaching of experience? Is it
the moral and religious teachings; or the story of Calvary?

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL 85
nature of the case must have more or less of an ad
hominem character. The gospel must have been simple
and general. The Pauline gospel and the Pauline
apologetic, therefore, are not precisely one and the same
thing; and if we go to Epistles such as Galatians, and
still more Romans, which are defenses of Paul's gospel
against certain specific accusations, we must remember
that this elaboration is not quite what we should read,
if it were not that Paul was being accused of " making
Christ a minister of sin " by his doctrine of " justifica
tion by faith apart from works of law," and of making
God unrighteous, and an unjust judge of the world. I
shall also use illustrative examples to show what differ
ence it may make when we duly allow for this fact ; but
let me first indicate something of what may be implied
in Paul's reminder to the Corinthians that he had not
brought them a theology as his message, although he
could have done so, but simply " the word of the cross,"
the same story which they continued to " proclaim "
(#coToyy£AA«Te) as often as they observed the sacrament,
a gospel which he and others had " received."
2. Justification by Faith
All authorities will agree that Paul's way of salva
tion has two stages: (1) Justification, by which is meant
not making men just, nor even making them out to be
just when they are not; but simply forgiving them,
treating them for Christ's sake as if they were just.
That is what Luke means when he makes Peter say in
Acts 15:8: " But we believe that we shall be saved
by the grace of the Lord Jesus." (2) There is Life in
the Spirit, or sanctification; the progressive assimila
tion of the believer, not only in character, but even
physically (so Paul believes) to the glorified Lord.
For both of these experiences the sole requirement is
"faith," a term which is admittedly taken from the

86 JESUS AND PAUL
gospel of Jesus in Galilee, but which Paul is said to use
in a new and peculiar sense. My contention is that
these two great Pauline doctrines reflect the sense he
finds in the Supper and Baptism.
The term " justification " sounds formidable. It
rouses at once the apprehension of a theology instead of
a gospel. We know it is used once or twice in the
preaching of Jesus, as when he speaks of the publican
who after his humble prayer " God be merciful
(l\do-6r)Ti) to me a sinner " went down to his house with
better hope of " justification " than the Pharisee. We
know that Jesus spoke of John as having brought to the
publicans and sinners a " Way of justification " by re
pentance and faith, and in these connections we have
no difficulty with it. We know it means the simple
doctrine of all the prophets and the law, that God for
gives the penitent. Deutero-Isaiah the proclaimer of
glad-tidings of restoration to exiled Israel constantly
associates the terms " justification " (zedaka, Swaiovvvr))
and " salvation " in the sense of divine vindication and
restoration. Thus in the Song of the Suffering Serv
ant it is predicted that the Servant will " justify many,"
himself " bearing their iniquities." We understand, of
course, that " justify " means " obtain the forgiveness
of their sins." When the poet declares that this comes
through the Servant's " knowledge " (i. e., Israel's
knowledge of God, not " the knowledge of himself," as
the margin renders) this also is the proper function of
the people whom God makes His " witnesses." 2
Israel's witness for God and intercession with God bring
this " justification " of the many. It is thus expressed
in the Apocalypse of Baruch, " God scattered Israel
among the nations that He might do the nations good."
In the prophet's view the exiles would be witnesses for
God even among their oppressors, and as a people of
2 Is. 43 : 10.

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL 87
" priests " and " ministers of God " would make inter
cession for them. The Gentiles also would then be
" treated as just." It does not seem at all strange to
us that this Isaian poem of the martyred people of God
should have been taken up by the followers of Jesus
almost immediately after the crucifixion as applying to
the work he had accomplished. For the " justifica
tion " (Sucaiocrvvr)) and " salvation " which Jehovah is
about to make manifest are Isaiah's great theme. They
form his " gospel of the reconciliation " for the whole
race of mankind. If, then, the disciples believed that
Jesus had dedicated his body and blood that God might
be " reconciled " to his people as others had before dedi
cated themselves, and even " given their bodies to be
burned" out of devotion to the law — if Jesus had
promised to make intercession on their behalf at the
judgment throne, as the Isaian Servant makes interces
sion for transgressors, why should they not so apply the
song? Indeed we have seen that the Targum of the
Synagogue already did apply it to the Messiah.
We are quite able to understand then, how Jesus
should occasionally, and the Pauline Christians oftener,
use the Isaian term " justification " as equivalent to
forgiveness at the tribunal of God. We can understand
how Peter and the rest who had been witnesses of Jesus'
parting act of self-dedication, and after his martyrdom
compared his fate with that of the suffering Servant,
should be convinced (as Paul tells us they even then
were) " that he died for our sins according to the scrip
tures," even if in Synoptic tradition no other trace re
mains than an echo here and there, in references to the
cross and the sacrament, of the Isaian phrase, " he
justified the many, bearing their iniquities."
But somehow there seems to be a difference (and
there really is a difference) when Paul begins to speak
about individual " justification by faith, apart from

88 JESUS AND PAUL
works of law." Just what the difference is, and how it
comes about, we may perhaps see more clearly after we
have considered the second qualification for our under
standing of Paul's expression. Meantime it ought to
be easily apparent that the thing itself of which he is
speaking is exactly what is betokened in the cup of the
new covenant in the blood of Jesus, which was shed
" for the many, for the forgiveness of sins." The
Ephesian evangelist, who speaks of Jesus as the " pro
pitiation " (IXaap.o's) for our sins, and not for ours only
but also for the sins of the whole world, means nothing
different when he says quite simply a few verses fur
ther on : "I write unto you, little children, because
your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake." Paul
means by " justification " just what all Christians of
his time mean when they celebrate the sacrament. He
means " the forgiveness of our sins for his name's sake,"
i. e., because we bear the name of Jesus. He does not
mean " righteousness." He simply uses the Isaian ex
pression for " Tightness " with God.
Again, if we take the other term of the great for
mula, and ask what is the new and special sense which
Paul gives the word " faith," our best answer will be
found in the other sacrament, baptism, whose sense I
have already given as an answering self-dedication of
the penitent believer to the self-dedication of Jesus. In
baptism the convert " confesses his ' faith.' " In Jewish
practice it was the rite by which converts from heathen
ism put off the pollutions of idols, and were received
as members of Israel.
To Paul as to Philo Abraham is the hero of " faith "
because he left the gods whom his father had served
beyond the river Euphrates to serve a living and true
God. Circumcision was given him as a kind of bap
tism " made with hands." Rahab, who renounced the
gods of her own people to cast in her lot with the God

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL 89
of Moses and Joshua, is the feminine parallel to Abra
ham. Both were saved by their " faith." In Josephus
we read the story of Izates, a convert of Judaism, of
Paul's own time, who was at first excused from the for
mal rite of adoption into Israel by circumcision, but
afterward learned in Josephus' words that " the fruit of
piety does not perish for those that look to God, and
fix their faith on him only " (ireirioTeuKoo-iv hr' avr<p p.6vu>),
Izates probably received the Jewish rite of baptism, and
if so it was in confession of this " faith." John's con
verts were similarly baptized in token of repentance and
" faith." They were thus received as members of the
people " prepared for Jehovah's Coming." After
Jesus' death the first act of the brotherhood of those who
were determined to avail themselves of the new Way of
reconciliation with God, believing that God had actually
made him both Lord and Christ, was to take up the rite
of baptism, significantly making it not merely a token
of repentance, but a confession of " faith " and loyalty.
They were baptized " into the name of Jesus." They
dedicated themselves to him. They confessed him as
" Lord," by which they meant their Advocate, their
Mediator, their Friend in the court of heaven. Hence
the "faith" which is denoted in baptism is far from
being a dry intellectual conviction. With Paul, as with
Philo, as with Deutero-Isaiah, it is the saving grace of
Abraham, the Rock-foundation 3 of Israel. It implies
both trust and obedience. It implies loyalty without
limit. It means self-dedication to Jehovah, under His
Christ, for this world and the world to come. Indeed
the Jewish " confession of faith," the well known
Shema which Jesus quotes as the sum and substance of
religion : " The Lord our God is one Lord, and thou
shalt love him with all thy heart and all thy soul and all
thy strength," is not a creed, even if James does treat
sis. 51: 1.

90 JESUS AND PAUL
it so when he says " Thou believest that God is one ; the
devils also believe and tremble." Israel's religious
teachers were never so foolish as to imagine you could
unite men by anything so inherently divisive as a creed.
The Shema is a sacramentum, an oath of loyalty. The
man who utters it " takes upon him the "yoke of the
divine sovereignty." He knows but one supreme object
to which all his powers should be directed, and they are
unified in unreserved dedication to Him. If we took
the Shema as our " confession of faith " as Jesus did,
both our " faith " and our unity would be immeasurably
the gainers. In the language of New England Uni-
tarianism it is the covenant and not the creed which
constitutes the basis of unity.
Returning to the question of Paul's special use of
the term " faith," it seems to me we can have no better
interpreter of his real meaning than the rite by which
he and all his fellow-Christians expressed their relation
to the risen Lord. " Faith " includes for Paul far more
than mere intellectual assent, more even than passive
trust ; but not more than the Christian believer expressed
in the rite by which he " confessed his faith," being
" buried with Christ through baptism into death, that
like as Christ was raised from the dead through the
glory of the Father so we also might walk in newness
of life." The " faith " betokened in baptism is an an
swering self-dedication of the penitent believer to the
self-dedication of Jesus. To use Paul's chosen expres
sion he " presents himself to God as alive from the
dead." Is God unjust if he treat as just the sinner that
comes to him in this self-dedicating faith % Or is it not
rather an act of faithfulness to His promises and thus
of "justice" (in the Hebrew sense of the word) "to
forgive us our sins, and (by progressive conformation to
the image of his Son) to cleanse us from all unrighteous-

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL 91
I have tried to show by this example of the first of
the two principles of Paul's gospel, Justification by
faith, that we only need bring his terms to the test of
those visible expressions of the common faith, the sacra
ments, to see that there is no real innovation whatever.
To some extent the terms are new. At least they seem
to bear a new connotation. They begin to sound theo
logical rather than evangelical- But for this also there
is a reason, besides Paul's individualism, and besides
the influence of Isaiah. It is what I may call Paul's
apologetic. The great passage which is made central by all the
biblical theologians for Paul's gospel of Justification by
Faith is the text in Romans 3 : 24. But instead of tak
ing this absolutely as an utterance by itself we should
have observed that it sums up a long defense of Paul's
gospel of grace against objections brought by Jews, or
Jewish Christians of legalistic tendencies, who aver that
it opens the door to sin, and is inconsistent with the
divine justice. Paul declares that he is not ashamed
of this gospel, in spite of these objections, because there
is revealed in it " a righteousness (or ' justification,'
Sixaioowi?) of God by faith unto faith." In spite of
the slanderous misrepresentations of his doctrine, this
" justification " is witnessed even by the law and the
prophets.4 It is a free acquittal at the divine judgment
seat, without distinction of Jew or Gentile, since all
alike are sinners. If they come with faith in Jesus
Christ they are justified freely by God's grace, through
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Then Paul be
gins to expound what he means by this redemption or
ransom, corresponding to the ransoming of Israel when
they were slaves to the Egyptians. " God," he says, in
highly figurative language, " set Jesus forth in his blood
* The expression is general, but if a specific passage were in
mind it would doubtless be the Servant's " offering for sin " ( Is.
53: 10-12; cf. Eom. 4: 25).

92 JESUS AND PAUL
as a token of the restoration of His favor, a ' propiti
ation ' " (IXao-Tr/pwv) . God did this, he adds, to prove
His own righteousness, because in His forbearance He
had passed over a long record of human sin, but now
because of this martyrdom He can at the same time be
just while he freely forgives him that hath faith in
Jesus. For the sinner's trust leads him to a sincere
act of self-dedication and so makes him trust-worthy.
It is " by faith unto faith."
This is apologetic. The point of it is directed against
those who deny the " justice " of a God who should for
give sinners on any such conditions. The language is
not such as Paul would have chosen for catechumens.
Indeed it would be hard to find a passage more charac
teristically secondary and ad hominem in its presenta
tion of the doctrine. The proof is that nowhere else
in the New Testament, not even in Paul's own epistles,
do we find this theological motive put forward as ae
counting for the sacrifice on Calvary, that God was
thereby vindicating his own respect for the law He had
Himself ordained. This is made the very foundation
stone of modern doctrines of the Atonement. Yet apart
from the heat of theological debate it would probably
never have entered the mind of Paul or of any enlight
ened Jew to limit the privilege — nay the duty of the
Almighty to forgive the truly repentant, sacrifice or no
sacrifice. The Occidental idea of a judge who is lim
ited in his endeavor to secure the highest good of all con
cerned by fixed principles of law is foreign to the Ori
ental. To the Semite, from time immemorial, the
judge is a father, whose decision is made to fit the given
case. Precedent is merely his guide to the highest
good of all concerned, and he leaves to the parties in
volved absolute power to inflict or remit the penalty.
To the ancient Jew as to the modern Moslem Jehovah
is the "All-Merciful" (Er-Rahman). It is the very

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL 93
essence of His glory that He " forgives iniquity, trans
gression and sin." It is an evidence not only of His
" faithfulness," but of his " justice " that he does so.5
Jesus' idea of the attempt to limit the divine " grace "
by appeal to what the Occidental calls " justice " is
illustrated in the parable of the Eleventh-hour Laborers,
of all the parables that with which the modern finds it
hardest to sympathize. The householder, who of course
represents the divine Arbiter of reward and punish
ment, gives this answer to the complaint of inequality:
" May I not do what I will with mine own ? or is thine
eye evil because I am good ? "
We cannot infer any change in Jesus' Galilean gospel
of free forgiveness from the fact that under the shadow
of the cross in Jerusalem he dedicates his life in what
the Maccabean martyrs would have called " propitia
tion " of God. His sense of individual peace with God
in spite of the calamities and persecutions of the world
remains undisturbed, whether the problem of national
deliverance be solved or not. Jesus is not obliged to
Tetract the parable of the Prodigal Son when he utters
that of the Usurping Husbandmen who slay the Heir of
the Vineyard. In the Galilean gospel of " reconcilia
tion " the problem of unmerited suffering is simply left
untouched. In the midst of persecution the little flock
will still rejoice in assurance of a great reward in
Heaven. But face to face with the national catastrophe
of his own rejection and death Jesus was forced to find
an answer to the question which Isaiah had answered
with the doctrine of vicarious suffering. For some rea
son the repentant, obedient, and loyal remnant are per
mitted to suffer. Why is this ? The question will not
down. Contemporary writers conceived of the delay
in God's saving intervention as due to a " measure of
suffering " which must be " filled up." Why this should
b I Jn. 1:9.

94 JESUS AND PAUL
be was variously explained. As Deutero-Isaiah and the
Apocalypse of Baruch conceive it God has a design of
redemption for the heathen world, to which the catas
trophe to Israel is a necessary means. As the Apoca
lypse of Baruch expresses it, " God scattered Israel
among the Gentiles that he might do the Gentiles good."
Paul's doctrine of the " hardening of Israel " as a means
to the conversion of the Gentiles has a certain resem
blance to this Isaian doctrine, and I should like to be
lieve with Canon Sanday, that Jesus himself adopted it;
but the evidence seems to me too slender. The Synop
tic report can hardly be said to bear this construction,
and Paul makes no reference to vicarious suffering as
a teaching of Jesus, but only of " Scripture." On the
other hand the martyrologies of II and IV Maccabees
explain the delay as due to the need of placating the
indignation of Jehovah at Israel's disobedience. The
martyrs willingly dedicate their bodies and blood as a
"substitute" (dvTtyvxov) , an "expiation" (Ka8dpmov)
to " propitiate " (e&Aao-ftu) Jehovah's favor, or to turn
away his just " wrath " (opyrj). Here too we are still
without the means of answering the question (and prob
ably always shall be) to what extent, if at all, Jesus
shared this anthropomorphic point of view. We only
know that he had come face to face with the probability
(humanly speaking the certainty) of the rejection of
his message and his own martyrdom. Why he must
drink the cup he did not profess to understand.
Enough that it was His Father's will that he should
drink it, and that His Father's way was the right way
for the salvation of the whole people of God everywhere.
But the spirit in which he drank it was not an indiffer
ent thing. By offering it willingly to God he could
make the cup of his own suffering a " cup of blessing "
to all that followed Him.
The great difference between this and the Pauline

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL 95
" gospel of the reconciliation " is that from the nature
of Paul's mission it loses its national character and be
comes individual. It could not otherwise be universal.
The " wrath " of God must be propitiated not merely
as respects Israel, but for the individual sin of all men,
everywhere. This is already a fateful step along the
road that leads to the mediaeval theories and dogmas of
the Atonement. And it is carried further by Paul's
apologetic, his answer to those who said : " Are you not
ashamed to preach a gospel which by offering unmerited
forgiveness makes the Christ a minister of sin, and God
an easy-going Judge lax in the enforcement of His own
law?" Apologetic such as Paul's cannot fairly be treated as
though it were the original and spontaneous product of
his own mind. The primary statement of the doctrine
of " grace " is one thing. Rebuttal of objections is an
other. We must look at Paul's transfiguration of the
gospel with this distinction in mind.
Two things may well strike the reader of the Gospels
as strange in Paul's controversial statement of the doc
trine of " the grace of the Lord Jesus " ; first, that God,
rather than Jesus himself, should appear as agent in the
redeeming sacrifice. In Paul's conception Jesus no
longer offers himself. Cod offers him up. God even
" sets him forth in his blood to be a propitiation "
(DuuTTTjpiov) . But it is quite unfair to regard Paul as
responsible for this. The representation belongs to
Isaiah ; and to the primitive Church, which even before
Paul became a convert had already taken as the very
basis of its gospel the scripture in which Isaiah ex
plained the suffering of the martyred Servant by declar
ing that Jehovah " delivered him up," that " it pleased
the Lord to bruise him," and more especially that Cod
had "made his soul a sin-offering" in behalf of the
many who regarded not.6 The Servant's part in the
« Is. 53 : 12.

96 JESUS AND PAUL
Isaian Song is only " to make intercession for the trans
gressors." Paul does indeed repeatedly speak of the
sacrifice as God's, as a transaction in which God " com
mends his own love toward sinners," in which He, rather
than Jesus, is the offerer of the sacrifice, and the mani-
fester of the great propitiation for the sin of the world.
Paul does make the part of Jesus mainly that of inter
cession. But in this respect he has a complete defense
against any charge of theologizing innovation. The
conception is simply Isaiah's. It had already been
adopted by those from whom Paul " received " this
teaching as something " witnessed by the law and the
prophets." In point of fact how did Jesus go to the
sacrifice, if not in submission to the inscrutable will of
His Father and very much against his own ?
But, secondly, we are also struck by the fact (already
noted as peculiar to this single passage of the New
Testament) that the motive for the sacrifice is said in
Rom. 3 : 26 to be God's intention " to prove his own
righteousness," both in the exercise of forbearance in
passing over sin in the past, and in the present time in
" justifying him that hath faith in Jesus." To make
his assertion the strongest possible Paul uses the para
dox : " To him that has no works, but only puts his
trust in the God that justifies the unjust, his faith is
reckoned for righteousness." If you put it that way
even an Oriental judge who undertakes to forgive the
criminal as a favor to an interceding third party does
owe an explanation to the public. He will be injuring
his own reputation as unsparing to the guilty, and will
be liable to undermine the law itself as a deterrent from
wrong-doing. But how does Paul come to " put it that
way " just here, and here only ? As I have already
pointed out, it is not because this way of looking at the
matter is natural to him or to any other Jew, ancient or
modern. It is purely controversial and ad hominem.

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL 97
The very fact that it occurs nowhere else should have
been a warning to the successive generations of theo
logical writers on the Atonement not to begin, as they
so often do, with the idea of the claims of the law to
vindication, as if that were really the basis of Paul's
thought. The idea might never have occurred to him
if he had not been forced to defend the simple gospel
of salvation by the grace of the Lord Jesus against de
tractors who declared that he " made the law of none
effect," and God indulgent toward sin. Let us distin
guish between occasional ad hominem arguments of Paul
in defense of his gospel against those who blasphemously
misrepresented his teaching, and his simple proclama
tion of " the grace of the Lord Jesus " which he em
phatically declares to be in complete harmony with that
of his predecessors in the faith. The ad hominem ar
gument was that God had (in Scripture) given the " ex
planation to the public."
After all, the question as it presented itself to Paul
was supremely practical in its nature. On the one side
a given number of repentant souls who come to God
conscious of ill-desert and condemnation, but asking for
giveness for the sake of one who loved them and gave
himself up for their sake. On the other the God and
Father of all, not ignorant as to whether the profes
sion made by these is sincere or insincere, but able to
look on the heart, well aware that this one and that other
that comes to Him in the faith of Jesus had indeed died
unto sin, living henceforth in the faith that is expressed
by baptism, a new life of utter self-dedication to the
risen Lord, and to the kingdom he died to bring to pass.
The real question is : What treatment should this God
mete out to souls that come to Him in such repentance
and such faith ? Knowing them to be already truly a
new creation in this repentant faith, should God treat
them as just in spite of their evil past; or should He

98 JESUS AND PAUL
for the sake of the law, or because of the impression
His lenience may make on others, or for any reason
whatever, treat them as if they were still unjust?
Should He (to use a colloquialism) exact the penalty
" on general principles " ? Certainly this exaction of
the penalty without regard to the present attitude of
the transgressor is not what Paul would consider the
justice of the God and Father of Jesus Christ. Cer
tainly it is not what any right-minded Jew would con
sent to believe of the All-merciful, forgiving God of the
law and the prophets. Legalists, ancient, mediaeval,
and modern, will raise objections to a simple gospel of
forgiveness of the truly repentant, through the grace of
the Lord Jesus. It is against such that Paul declares
that in the predicted " offering for sin " God vindicates
His own righteousness notwithstanding His forbearance
in past time, and His free forgiveness in the present of
those that have faith in Jesus. God can forgive, be
cause in the Scriptures of old He pointed forward to
the martyrdom of Jesus; therefore His forbearance in
past time cannot be counted laxity. He can forgive
now, because the forgiveness is for those, and only those,
" who were washed, who were sanctified, who were justi
fied in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the
Spirit of our God." Let us take from the ancient con
troversy what is applicable in our own time. This is
Paul's apologetic, valid against the objector. It is not
his gospel. 3. Life in the Spirit
I have dwelt at greater length than I could wish upon
the first of the two great Pauline principles, Justifica
tion by Faith, in the hope of showing that if we inter
pret in the light of the symbol of the cup of the new
covenant, which in Paul's time was its only visible ex
pression, if we also bear in mind the distinction be

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL 99
tween gospel and apologetic, we shall be less oppressed
by our sense of innovation and difference from the
primitive teaching of Jesus. In point of fact when we
turn to passages in which Paul is not using theological
argument, but simply recalling what had been taught
in common by all from the beginning, passages such as
the report of the institution of the Supper in the night
of betrayal (I Cor. 11:17-24), or the reminder to
Peter in the story of the Rupture at Antioch that both
alike had " believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be
justified by faith in Christ, because we knew that a man
is not justified by works of law, but only through faith
in Jesus Christ " (Gal. 2: 16), we find continually the
same gospel of forgiveness through the sacrifice of Jesus,
but in connections in which it is impossible not to admit
that the assumption Paul makes that these doctrines are
the common property of all must correspond to actual
fact. There remain but a few moments in which to
apply similar principles of interpretation to the other
fundamental teaching, the doctrine of Life in the Spirit.
Just as we must go to the words of institution of the
cup of the new covenant, " This is my blood that is shed
for you," with or without the explanatory addition,
" for the remission of sins," in order to understand
what Paul meant by Justification, so we must go to
baptism, that other rite which he underwent once for all
when he confessed Jesus as his Lord, the rite which he
always interprets as a voluntary participation in the
death and resurrection of Jesus, in order to understand
fully what he means by Sanctification, or Life in the
Spirit. Paul's baptism really forms part of the religious ex
perience which it so shortly followed. It was the out
ward expression of the inward grace. What he brought
to it we already partly appreciate from his many refer
ences to the rite, and from the history of the observance

100 JESUS AND PAUL
even before its adoption by the followers of the Naza-
rene Messiah. The convert brought to it repentance
and faith, a putting off of the former life, a self -dedi
cation to a new loyalty. All were baptized into Christ,
says Paul, as the slaves redeemed from Egypt were
brought under the leadership of Moses ; when, released
from the darkness of their house of bondage, they passed
through the Red Sea, and emerging from its waters were
overshadowed by the cloud of Jehovah's presence. Re
pentance, it has been observed, is a word that has
scarcely a place in Paul's vocabulary. The remark is
characteristic. Paul's words are new; but not the
things for which they stand. He talks of " justifica
tion " where the Gospels speak of " forgiveness of
sins." So he speaks of " dying to sin," " putting off the
old man with his deeds," " being buried with Christ
through baptism into death," " being crucified with him
that the body of sin might be done away, that so we
should no longer be in bondage to sin," where the Gos
pels speak simply of " repentance," " change of mind "
(lierdvoia), or in Hebrew phrase teshuba, "turning
again." If there is a difference in Paul's expression
corresponding to the difference between his experience
and that of a Mary Magdalen or a Zacchaeus, it cer
tainly is not one that shows less depth and reality of
feeling. For him, as for the rich ruler whom Jesus
" loved," repentance was " from dead works." The
term " faith " likewise receives new enrichment in pass
ing through the alembic of Paul's mind. It is invested
now with the connotations of the later Jewish literature,
and here as Dr. Morgan notes,7 the grace of " faith "
plays a primary role. It is still further enriched, as
we have just seen, with the connotations of the bap
tismal rite. The case is similar with the term " re
pentance " ; only that now we have new terms alto-
i Religion and Theology of Paul, p. 114.

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL 101
gether. Paul translates first into the language of his
personal experience, and then a second time into the
language of Greek religious mysticism, in which the
forms of initiation symbolize a participation in the
death and resurrection of the Savior-god, the condition
being self-dedication to the service of the divinity, the
reward immortality. Paul's experience was something
more than ordinary repentance. He " died unto sin
that he might live unto God in Christ Jesus."
We were forced back, when we sought the real basis
of Paul's doctrine of justification, upon his references
in Galatians, Romans, and Second Corinthians, to his
personal religious experience, his conflict of soul, its
sudden solution by a divine intervention, his revelation
of the glorified Jesus, surpassing the revelation to
Moses of the glory of the forgiving God. We must
again turn in like manner to these same allusions, par
ticularly those of Romans and Second Corinthians, to
reach the real basis of Paul's gospel of Life in the
Spirit, the thing which the believer takes away with him
from baptism as God's part in the transaction.
Paul is no exception to the New Testament writers
generally in basing everything on the Gift of the Spirit,
the expected accompaniment of baptism, without which
baptism itself cannot be considered Christian, but must
be repeated.8 " If any man have not the Spirit of
Christ he is none of his." Conversely, if the question
be raised whether Paul has not offered the Galatians a
share in the messianic promises on too easy terms, he
has but one appeal : " This only would I know from
you, when and how did ye receive the Spirit." Peter's
early excursion into the Gentile mission-field is at first
questioned in Jerusalem, but all opposition is silenced
when he relates how, " the Spirit fell upon them, even
as upon us at the first, and they began to speak with
a Acts IS: iff.

102 JESUS AND PAUL
tongues." Well may he ask, " Who then, was I, that
I should resist God ? " The very proof of the resur
rection, and of God's acceptance of these brethren of
" the Way " as His people of the new covenant, is ac
cording to Acts, the " pouring forth," in audible and
visible manifestations, of the promised Spirit of
prophecy and vision. Unless it was the " religion of
the Spirit " Christianity, even in the eyes of its own
adherents, was no religion at all but a delusion. The
powers of " tongues," " prophecy," " healings," " mira
cles," dedication of goods, which followed in hundreds
of cases as hundreds were baptized, were regarded as a
" seal " of heaven setting the name of Jehovah upon
them, even as the prophets had foretold the pouring out
of the spirit of vision and prophecy, and the manifesta
tion of signs and wonders, before the great and terrible
day of the Lord.
Paul differs from the ordinary view in making the
supreme evidences the moral. Faith, hope and love are
to abide long after the tongues have ceased, the prophe
cies found their fulfillment, the miracles been forgot
ten ; and these three are the best " gifts of the Spirit,"
love being chief among them. The Apostle shows a
striking discernment of the true religious values in this
warning to the marvel-loving Corinthians, but he forms
no exception to the rule among all Christians in holding
that the visible manifestations of the Spirit, miracles,
tongues, visions and revelations of the Lord, are also a
demonstration from God. They are " signs of an Apos
tle," signs of a divine adoption when granted to the
ordinary believer. The power of victory within, of
which the believer is personally conscious, may not serve
to convince the outsider. But if this be insufficient
proof, the opposition will be silenced by these outward
manifestations. They are therefore, as Paul plainly
declares, " for a sign not to them that believe, but to the

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL 103
unbelieving." And the body of believers who straight
way, from the very outset, began to appeal to these
mighty works as proof of the presence of the Spirit, and
of God's acceptance of their self-dedication in the name
of Jesus, were doing no violence whatever to the teach
ing of their Master. Jesus himself had appealed to
similar works when asked by the disciples of John as
to the expected Coming of the Messiah. He had de
clared that the rejection of the testimony they bore was
the ground of condemnation for the unbelieving cities
of Galilee. He had pointed the scribes to them as proof
that the Kingdom he preached was potentially already
present among them, that " the Spirit of God " was at
work, and Satan's throne already tottering. If we can
not accuse the pre-Pauline Church of departing in this
respect from the teaching of Jesus, still less can we do
so in the case of Paul, who supports his doctrine of the
forgiveness of sin, by pointing to the inward effects of
the Spirit, its victory over the law of sin in our mem
bers, as tbe highest proof of all. Is there indeed any
essential difference between Paul's argument in First
Corinthians for victorious, soul-renewing love, as the
highest gift, the highest proof of the adoption, and the
argument by which Jesus justifies his declaration to the
penitent harlot : " thy sins are forgiven " ? Jesus ap
peals to the same inward new creation by the power of
God in the parable whose point is " Her sins, which are
many, are forgiven; for she hath showed much love:
but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little."
Measured by his own standard of works the Pharisee is
here put to shame by the forgiven harlot. Is that essen
tially different from Paul's appeal to the fruits of the
Spirit? It would be well to remember that Paul has
such instances in view when the question is raised
whether it is compatible with the justice of God to
grant free forgiveness to the unjust. What is the

104 JESUS AND PAUL
practical result? Do they, or do they not, "love
much " ?
In the first five chapters of Romans we have a de
fense of Paul's doctrine of Justification by Faith. The
remainder of the doctrinal section down to the point
where he begins his explanation of the rejection of
Israel in chapters 9-11 is taken up with a defense of
his doctrine of Sanctification, or Life in the Spirit ; and
this must be understood, if we follow the principle of
interpretation already laid down, as a teaching of the
significance of baptism. But I must again recall also
the distinction between gospel and apologetic ; for while
after the brief transition in the last verse of chapter 5
Paul does immediately plunge into the meaning of bap
tism as a moral participation in the death of Christ,
and in the closing eighth chapter wind up with a sub
lime description of the transfiguration of both soul and
body effected by the incoming of the new Spirit, it is
quite obvious from the argumentative character of the
long elaboration in the intervening chapters describing
his own death to sin under the law, that he is defending
his gospel of grace from the charge that it takes away
the restraint of the law, and thus makes Christ " a
minister of sin." In fact the whole development should
be read in the light of the briefer summary in Gal. 2 :
19, 20: "I died to the law that I might live unto
God. I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no
longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me, and to the
extent that I still live in the flesh I live in self-dedica
tion to the Son of God who loved me, and gave himself
for me." This is manifestly Paul's answer to those
who denounce his doctrine of the abolition of law, de
claring that he removes all barriers to sin. It is hardly
needful to repeat his splendid defense in the exhortation
to the Galatians to "Walk by the Spirit" (Gal. 5:
13-6: 10), and the ampler defense in the great chap-

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL 105
ters we are considering in Romans 6-8. These repeat
in greater detail the figure of dying to sin through the
law that we may present our members as instruments
of righteousness to God in a new life not our own but
the life of Christ re-incarnate in us, so that " we were
made dead to the law through the body of Christ (whose
death we share) ; that we should be joined to another,
even to him that was raised from the dead, that we
might bring forth fruit unto God." We are more espe
cially concerned at present with that element of Paul's
doctrine of Life in the Spirit which has to do with its
continuation after death ; because here there is most
ground for the charge of innovation, seeing that both in
the eighth of Romans and in the section of II Corinth
ians on immortality, the section which joins on to his
comparison of the revelation of the ministry of the new
covenant with that of Moses, he unmistakably employs
the conceptions of the Hellenistic mystery-religions.
Thus when he speaks of the Spirit of Him that raised
up Jesus from the dead quickening even our mortal
bodies, " changing them," as he says in another place,
" into the likeness of the glory-body of the risen Christ,"
when he declares that God "transfigures" our very
flesh by the continual renewing of our minds, because
of (or through) His Spirit that dweileth in us, the con
ception is certainly akin to that which Philo expresses
in his reference to the transfiguration of Moses in prepa
ration for immortality. Paul comes in some respects
even closer to the ideas of the mystery-religions when
in the great resurrection chapter of First Corinthians
he uses the figure of the seed-corn, renewed after disso
lution in the earth in a body given it by God, and most
of all in the passage of II Corinthians on the immortal
ity for which we were intended by the Creator,9 and
which is fully attained when our earthly house of this
all Cor. 5; cf. Sap. 1: 13-16; 2: 23.

106 JESUS AND PAUL
tabernacle is dissolved, and we are clothed upon with
our house from heaven of God's own building.
It cannot of course be claimed that this mystical doc
trine of transfiguration by conformation to the likeness
of the glorified Lord is part of the teaching of Jesus.
According to Paul it effects first a moral new creation
here upon the earth, because those who live " live no
longer unto themselves but unto him who for their
sakes died and rose again " ; but it also effects a re
clothing with a spiritual body, so that mortality is
swallowed up in life. This is not part of what Jesus
taught in Galilee; but it is emphatically part of the
original gospel; for it is the very reflection of Paul's
own vision of the risen Christ. He is speaking that
which he knows and has seen, even if he is driven for
expression to language borrowed from the Hellenistic
faiths. It is the very essence of Paul's message that he
not only has it from the Lord himself that Jesus dedi
cated his body and blood for our reconciliation to the
Father, but that he can also testify of his own knowl
edge that God accepted the sacrifice. For when it was
the good pleasure of God to reveal His Son in him, Paul
too received the earnest of the Spirit. The revelation
of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus
Christ was to him a pledge of immortality, since we
who reflect as in a mirror the glory of the Lord are
transfigured into the same likeness, from glory to glory.
For this is from the Lord, who is himself the Spirit.
These two things, symbolized respectively by the cup
of the new covenant in the blood of Christ, and the laver
of regeneration — these two, " the word of the cross,"
and new life through the vision of the glorified Son of
God, give Paul his gospel and his apostleship. Those
who bear this message are as it were ambassadors for
God, as though God were entreating by them on behalf
of Christ : Be ye reconciled to God.

LECTURE V
THE HEAVENLY INTERCESSOR AS SEEN AND INTER
PRETED BY PAUL
1. Jesus as the Servant
When as critical historians we take our departure
from the Pauline Epistles as earliest and most authen
tic witnesses for the origins of our religion, we discover
first of all that the two ordinances of the communion
and baptism are the true Urevangelium, and that Paul's
Christianity is an interpretation of these. His own
religious experience was indeed to his mind a miracu
lous intervention of God, removing the veil from his
eyes so that he, like others who had experienced it be
fore him, could see Jesus in his actual condition of
glory in Heaven. But even this was not to Paul pri
mary in any other sense than that it gave him a direct
authority for his gospel and apostleship, beyond all
human teaching. It did not give him a new gospel of
his own to preach, hitherto unheard-of, but the same gos
pel which till now he had been persecuting. What he
had experienced had been wrought by God in Peter
before him. What he taught now was the doctrine of
" grace " which as champion of " the law " he had
persecuted before. When he refers to it in passages
limited to the basic common ground, such as his rebuke
of Peter at Antioch, or his declaration to the Corinth
ians of agreement with all the other witnesses in the
common resurrection gospel, he leaves no question of
its nature. " We believed on Christ Jesus that we
might be forgiven our sins by faith in Christ," the faith
107'

108 JESUS AND PAUL
symbolized by baptism into his name, the faith that he
had " died for our sins according to the scriptures,"
and that he had been " raised again for our justifica
tion " as the Intercessor and Reconciler of sinners to
God; for so it had also been written of the martyred
Servant, that " He maketh intercession for transgres
sors." It is true that Paul nowhere makes any direct appeal
on his own account to the Isaian passage which he re
fersjx> as fundamental to the common gospel, and~tnat
weTonly trace its effect upon his thinking indirectly in
such passages as the references to Jesus' sinlessness
(II Cor. 5:21; cf. Is. 53:9, 10; I Pt. 2:22), his
having been " delivered up for our transgressions "
(vapiSoOrj Bia ra irapaTTTWfiaTa 17/Moj') and raised for our jus
tification (8ik<u'o>o-is) so that " while we were yet sick
men " (do-Oevii; cf. Is. 53 : 5, 10), " sinners," and " ene
mies," we were " justified by his blood," " reconciled "
(KaTrjWdyrjfiev) , and " saved from wrath by his life"
(Rom. 4: 25-5 : 11) ; or in the famous passage in Phil.
2 : 5-11 on the " exaltation " of the Servant. This
seeming neglect of the prophetic proof-text by Paul is
something which calls for explanation together with the
still more surprising neglect of the Synoptists.
It is also true that we do not get Paul's gospel at
first hand, but only through the perspective of his
apologetic. It forms the background of a polemic
wherein Jewish-Christian reactionaries occupy the fore
ground with their objections to Paul's sweeping on
slaught on legalism. We are thus under the necessity
of looking for the ultimate facts through a double me
dium, first Paul's controversial application, second, and
behind this, his personal religious experience, which
compels him to appropriate the faith of his former vic
tims in terms applicable to his own sense of the supreme
religious need. In spite of this double refraction (if I

THE HEAVENLY INTERCESSOR 109
may call it so), when we take as our touchstone the
two symbolic ordinances by which those of " this Way "
expressed their idea of the hoped-for salvation while
Paul was still a persecutor, we need not go far astray.
We shall see that the original common gospel was ex
actly what Paul calls it; a "gospel of reconciliation,"
glad tidings of peace with God, who had been estranged
by the sin of the people, but had now given assurance
of forgiveness to all that come to Him in the name of
Jesus, participating by baptism in his self -dedicating
death. For in baptism, or even before it in special
revelations, God opened the eyes of their heart. They
saw Jesus in the glory to which he had been raised up.
He was now their Advocate with the Father, interceding
for their transgression. And the confirmation of this
inward sight was the visible outpouring of the Spirit,
most of all the gift of tongues, teaching them to cry
like new-born children, Abba, Abba, and offering out
cries to God intelligible only to Him. The Spirit was
thus another Intercessor and Advocate, pleading for
them with God, and at the same time by its very pres
ence convicting the world of its injustice to them.1
Paul was compelled to defend this doctrine of for
giveness for Christ's sake (or, as he called it, " justi
fication by faith in Jesus ") against the charge that it
" made Christ a minister of sin " ; and his defense was
that those who were baptized lived no longer unto them
selves but unto him who for their sakes died and rose
again. They were given a new Spirit, which produced
in them more real righteousness than was within their
utmost power before. Paul could and did apply to this
" new birth," or " new creation," of the Spirit, all the
symbols of Jewish poetry concerning the " redemption "
from Egypt ; he used in addition the symbolism of the
i Cf. Rom. 8: 26-29. See also Jn. 15: 16 ff.; 16: 8 and the arti
cle "The 'other' Comforter" in Expositor VIII, 82 (Oct., 1917).

110 JESUS AND PAUL
mysteries concerning the dedication of the votary to the
Savior-god, whose soldier, slave, or freedman he be
comes. Christians are not their own, but bought with
a price; they are redeemed with the precious blood of
their Leader ; their life is no longer their own but Christ
that lives in them; they are freedmen, no longer under
law, and yet in voluntary obedience to the " law of
Christ." All these expressions and more are made
needful by the double necessity of reminding his con
verts of their duty to live as " sons and daughters of
the Highest," and his opponents as well that the claim
to be " not under law " did not mean without law to
God, but under law to Christ. But the immeasurable
superiority of Paul's teaching to the figures of speech
which he borrows from Hellenistic religion is instantly
apparent when we think of the poor and empty moral
ideal presented to the votary of the mysteries, as com
pared with that of the Sermon on the Mount. Imagine
the difference between being infused with the " mind "
or ethical animus of Jesus, and the mind of an Attis,
a Dionysus, an Asclepios ! " Partaking in the nature
of " the divinity, " life in the Spirit," " living in
Christ," " living the life that is hid with Christ in
God," are all terms that would be intelligible to the
Hellenistic religionist, perhaps more so than to the
average Jew. But what would they all amount to, be
yond mere magic and superstition, if the convert did
not know what manner of spirit the spirit of Jesus was ?
Hence the story of Jesus' blameless life was indispensa
ble. At least the spirit which controlled it and made
it an absolutely God-devoted life, " obedient unto death,
yea even the death of the cross," must be made un
mistakable. The convert must understand that his
death with Jesus is a death to sin, his union with the
risen life of Jesus a participation in that moral union
with the Father which was achieved in the absolute self-

THE HEAVENLY INTERCESSOR 111
dedication of Jesus. He must have in him the mind
which was also in Christ Jesus, and which is epitomized
in the portrait of the Servant, humbled to the utter
most as a slave for the many,2 undergoing the cross at
the behest of God's inscrutable will, in order that God
also might exalt him, and make him very high.
Thus the double necessity of maintaining the moral
standard of the Church from within, and vindicating it
as against its detractors without, led Paul inevitably
to lay special stress upon the implications of baptism,
and this in turn to emphasis upon the character of
Jesus. Later we find this process issuing in Gospels,
which like the Gospel of Mark, describe first how the
baptism of Jesus results in his ministry of power and
goodness in Galilee, then, secondly, his martyrdom in
Jerusalem in devotion to the cause of the kingdom.
With Paul it was inevitable that ethical teaching of this
kind should delineate the character of Jesus in terms of
the Isaian description of the martyred Servant, as we
have just seen to be the case in his exhortation to the
Philippians to " have in them the mind which was also
in Christ Jesus."
Looking back at the process by which the figure of
Jesus had come to be conceived in terms such as the
Isaian description of the martyred Servant even before
Paul became a convert, we can see from Paul's own
references that the course of events in Jesus' career
2 Maurenbrecher, Von Nazareth nach Golgatha, 1908, p. 174,
declares that according to Paul, Jesus was actually a slave.
This shows just as unenlightened a use of Paul's expressions in
Phil 2: 7, which are based upon Is. 53 (in this case Is. 53: 11,
LXX iv Sov\eiovra ttoXXois) as in the case of defenders of the doc
trine of Jesus' sinlessness, who imagine Paul enquiring in Naza
reth as to his moral conduct in boyhood, instead of recognizing
that in II Cor. 5:21, where he declares that Christ "knew no
sin," he is simply using Is. 53 : 9, as in I Pt. 2 : 22. The strange
expression God " made him to be sin " may even be a direct quo
tation of Is. 53: 10; for the Hebrew has literally "when thou
shalt make his soul to be sin."

112 JESUS AND .PAUL
must have been substantially as follows: After his
two-fold vain attempt to bring Israel by repentance and
faith into reconciliation with God, Jesus, in the fare
well to his disciples before his martyrdom, took pains
to impress upon them in terms which could not be, and
which never were forgotten, that his body and Wood
were " devoted " for their sakes. In Mark's descrip
tion of the scene, and in one other dependent passage,
this evangelist employs the single Isaian word " many "
(Mk. 14 : 24, " My blood shed for many " ; cf. 10 : 45).
This is hardly enough to warrant the belief that Jesus
himself specifically quoted the Song of the Suffering
Servant. However, we have seen abundant reason to
think that Jesus did declare that he went to his death
voluntarily for the Kingdom's sake, making his martyr
dom a sacrifice to God for the restoration of His favor ;
and that he also made it clear that he believed this self-
dedication would be accepted, since he made the occa
sion symbolic of a meeting again at the heavenly ban
quet of the redeemed. The age, as we know, was satu
rated with the idea of the efficacy of the intercession of
martyrs. It was familiar with the theme of the self-
dedicating intercession of Moses for the sin of the peo
ple, and it may well have harbored the belief apparent
in Fourth Maccabees and the Revelation of John, in an
immediate resurrection of those whose lives were given
in martyrdom, so that " they are already standing be
fore the throne of God." It would have been a marvel
if in such an age the followers of the Crucified had not
connected his assurance with the prophecy of the suffer
ing Servant, exalted and lifted up to be a Priest for
many nations, delivered up for the transgression of Je
hovah's people, made a sin-offering to take away the
sin of many, and interceding for the transgressors.
The week following the fateful Passover in Jerusa
lem finds Peter a fugitive in Galilee, broken-hearted

THE HEAVENLY INTEBCESSOR 113
with shame and despair.3 Practically all we know of
the spiritual crisis which led him to " turn again, and
strengthen his brethren " is what Paul tells us. It is
apparent, however, from the comparison, that Peter's
experience was parallel to Paul's own. Nor can we
stop here. We have seen that Paul's vision presupposes
the latent presence of its elements in his own mind. So
was it in Peter's case also. When the waters of despair
seemed to have gone over his soul his mind recalled the
words, " Simon, I have prayed for thee." So with
later visions. What all see is the Christ who had prom
ised to make their cause his own in the presence of the
Father, standing there doing as he had said. The next
step is the gathering of twelve (doubtless former dis
ciples)4 whom Peter now "strengthened," and whose
inward vision was quickened to see what Peter had al
ready seen. After that we hear of " five hundred at
once " having the same experience. Since this implies
some general rendezvous such as must have taken place
before the migration to Jerusalem, and since it is fol
lowed by the vision of James and " all the Apostles,"
whom we find not long after established in Jerusalem
(Gal. 1 : 17, 19), we may reasonably conjecture that it
took place when the company of believers went up to
gether at the ensuing Pentecost, expecting the Lord's
return. We can imagine them camping at the fords of
Jordan where John had baptized, and there adopting
for the brotherhood the rite which we know was adopted
at about this time as a command of the risen Christ.
Coincidently with the baptism, or perhaps shortly after,
at Jerusalem, when Pentecost was fully come, the mani-
s For the date see Ev. Petri, close. This perhaps represents the
lost ending of Mark.
* "The twelve" of I Cor. 15 : 5 can hardly be identified with
the eleven enumerated in the Gospel lists. It is more probable
that the fixed number " twelve " dates from the rallying by Peter,
and is carried back in the lists (whose names vary) to the days
of Jesus' ministry.

114 JESUS AND PAUL
festation was given of which Paul speaks. The five
hundred became witnesses. Either now, or almost at
once thereafter, the Spirit came upon them and they
spake with tongues.
It is after this, and after two further appearances,
first to James, then to " all the apostles," 5 that the ex
perience of Paul begins. Certainly there was sufficient
interdependence here to account for a basic unity in the
conception. As we have seen, the unifying factors are
on the one side the parting message of Jesus, on the
other the figure of the suffering Servant, making recon
ciliation for sin as he stands exalted in the presence of
God. Did Peter perhaps hear it read on that Sabbath
after the days of Unleavened Bread as it still reads in
the Aramaic targum : " Behold my Servant the Mes
siah shall prosper. He shall be high, and increase and
be exceeding strong " ? It continues after a descrip
tion of Israel's humiliation : " then for our sins he will
pray, and our iniquities for his sake shall be forgiven.
All we like sheep had been scattered. We had each
wandered off on his own way. But it was the Lord's
good pleasure to forgive the sins of all of us for his
sake. He prayed and was answered, and ere even he
had opened his mouth he was accepted." Of the de
liverance which should follow the suffering the Targum
has this to say : " It is the Lord's good pleasure to
test and to purify the remnant of his people so as to
cleanse their souls from sin. These shall look on the
kingdom of their Messiah. . . . From the subjection
of the nations he will deliver their souls. By his wis
dom he will hold the guiltless free from guilt, to bring
many into subjection to the Law, and for their sins
he will intercede. . . . He shall intercede for many
s In Paul's use of the term " Apostle " it covers many outside
the number of " the twelve," including besides himself such names
as Silvanus, and even Andronicus and Junias.

THE HEAVENLY INTERCESSOR 115
sins; yea, even the rebellious for his sake shall be for
given." But however clearly we demonstrate that the Christol-
ogy of Paul and that of his predecessors in the gospel
has this common starting-point of the exalted Inter
cessor, whose life was made a sin-offering on our be
half, there is no denying that there is broad difference ;
and again we plead for observance of the distinction
between Paul's gospel and Paul's apologetic. We find
in Paul not one application to Jesus of the ancient title
of " the Servant." It only remains in four vestigial
survivals in the Petrine speeches in Acts, and a half-
dozen more in the most ancient liturgical fragments.
Elsewhere Jesus is spoken of as " the Son," even when
(as in the story of the Voice from Heaven at the bap
tism) the passage from Isaiah, " Behold my Servant
whom I have chosen, My Beloved, on whom I set my
good pleasure," has to be altered to the form, " behold
my Son whom I have chosen." 6 Not only the title is
later disused, the conception of forgiveness because of
the vicarious suffering of the Servant disappears. It
has vanished entirely from the Lukan writings, which
use over and over again the Isaian prophecy of the suf
fering of the Christ, but never connect it with forgive
ness of sin. In Mt. 8 : 17 we actually find the central
passage of the Pauline doctrine " He hath borne our
griefs and carried our sorrows " translated : " He hath
borne our sickness and carried our diseases " and ap
plied to physical healing. Only in the words of the
Sacrament itself, together with one connected passage
of Mark, is the idea of forgiveness for the sake of
s Sap. Sal. which likewise develops the Isaian figure of the
martyred Servant, making him the hero of " faith " (3:9;
16:26), uses interchangeably "son" (vlos) and "servant."

116 JESUS AND PAUL
Christ's suffering permitted to remain — and even here
it is cancelled by Luke.
The explanation of this must be sought in the un
avoidable exposure of the Isaian doctrine to abuse, espe
cially when (as in the Markan form of expression " a
ransom instead of [dirt] many") it becomes a doctrine
of substitution of the innocent for the guilty. It is
significant that Paul always avoids this. He speaks
only of a sacrifice " for " (wept) sin,7 and of Christ's
suffering " for our advantage " (vnip). We have seen
already what pains he takes to guard against the danger
(both from within and from without) of misrepresenta
tion on this score. It is hardly matter for surprise that
in the period of reaction to 'neo-legalism which set in
after the death of Paul the doctrine of " grace " in the
strongly " evangelical " form (to use a modern expres
sion) should have become still further obscured.
We may properly compare this obscuration to the
obsolescence of another title at a date so early as to
include the Pauline writings themselves. The title Son
of Man, which has been called " the favorite self-desig
nation of Jesus," disappears in later times because the
conception of the risen Lord which it connotes became
eclipsed in favor of one more acceptable to the Greek-
speaking Church. In this case Paul not only drops the
expression, which would be at least as difficult to explain
to Gentile converts as " the Servant," but recasts the
thought itself. It is not that he would ignore the Son
of Man doctrine, which unquestionably played an im
portant part in the teaching of Jesus, and was essential
to Paul's own conception of the ultimate triumph of the
kingdom, but that he would blend it with a form of
teaching more congenial to the Hellenistic world, the
quasi-philosophical doctrines of the Wisdom writers,
and so make it intelligible. Had any convert asked
i The regular Septuagint form.

THE HEAVENLY INTERCESSOR 117
Paul the meaning of the title " Christ," he would of
course have been obliged to explain that " according to
the flesh " Jesus had been born of the seed of David
and was really the fulfillment of the national hope of the
Jews, though not as the Jews themselves understood it.
He would also have added that even if he had known
such a Christ, yet now he would know such a Messiah
no more. The title Son of David is to Paul completely
obsolete, that of Son of Man survives only in altered
form. But Jesus himself had as it were set these two in appo
sition. He did go up to Jerusalem claiming national
leadership as Son of David, but not without plain warn
ing to his followers that it might be given him only as it
is given in the vision of Daniel by the Ancient of Days
to one " like unto a Son of man " brought upon the
clouds of heaven.
There are many, including those of the most radical
school, who believe that at Jerusalem before his bitterest
opponents in the temple Jesus himself purposely raised
the question of Messiah's descent from David, in order
that he might confound them by quoting the coronation
Psalm of Simon the Maccabee :
Jehovah said unto my lord: Sit at my right hand,
Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet.
For my own part I cannot regard this addendum of
Mark to the series of debates in the temple with the
Pharisee, Sadducee, and Scribe, as authentic. It seems
to be a mere anticipation of one of the earliest proof-
texts of the resurrection constantly employed after
Jesus' death both by Paul and all other New Testa
ment writers. Use of it by Jesus in this way seems to
me in the last degree improbable. I cannot conceive
him publicly debating against the scribes whether his
claims to Messiahship should be based on his descent

118 JESUS AND PAUL
from David, or rather, as Paul says, on his raising from
the dead by the power of God to sit at His own right
hand. But the later raising of this issue is no reason for
questioning Jesus' conviction that God would give him
the kingdom as Son of Man, if Israel refused it. The
use of the title in the earliest Synoptic sources makes
Jesus' application of it in some sense to himself ex
tremely probable. Certainly it leaves no room for
doubt that to Paul, and even to Paul's predecessors in
the faith, this Maccabean Psalm, of which the writer
of Hebrews in particular makes such elaborate develop
ment, was a prophecy of the glorification of Jesus as
the second " Man," the heavenly Heir of the Kingdom.
Another example of Pauline change of form obscur
ing for us identity of substance with Synoptic teaching
is the representation of Christ's conquest of the demonic
powers. It is a striking fact that neither Paul, nor the
fourth evangelist has any direct reference to exorcism.
In both these writers exorcism is the casting out of the
Prince of this world from his usurped domain. As in
Apocalypse generally, the conflict is transcendentalized.
Our wrestling is not with flesh and blood, but with the
principalities and powers in the heavenly places. The
enemies that Christ subdues are the personified powers
of sin and death, the enemies of humanity, not the mere
oppressors of Israel nor obsessing evil spirits.
But in Synoptic story also Jesus appeals to his own
exorcisms as an evidence that the promised reign of
God is already potentially present, since it is nothing
else but the Spirit of God which by his agency is over
coming the strong man armed, and making spoil of his
household. If we accept the story of the " travel docu
ment " in Acts, Paul also could have appealed to exor
cisms of his own. But Paul, as I have said, prefers to
transcendentalize. One reason may well be the dubious

THE HEAVENLY INTERCESSOR 119
nature of this kind of mighty work, which did not stand
in the best repute with the enlightened, whether among
Jews or Greeks. A better reason might be found by
analogy of Paul's subordination of the spectacular gifts
of the Spirit to its inwardly working moral powers, his
sense of religious values. But perhaps after all the best
is that the two prophecies which to his mind most
clearly express Christ's conquest of the powers of evil
both refer, as Paul understands them, to that overthrow
of the powers of darkness which is effected by the resur
rection. In the Septuagint, which is Paul's version of
the Song of the Exalted Servant, the poet declares that
" Because his soul was delivered up to death, therefore
he shall inherit many, and shall divide the spoil of the
strong." In his repeated employment of the figure of
the risen Christ leading in triumph the released captives
of the underworld, and distributing the spoil of the
demonic powers Paul shows that he understands this
passages as the Septuagint translator did, that the Serv
ant receives as his portion " many " who had been the
captives of the Powers of darkness. . It is so understood
in the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs, and by the
second century Fathers. In fact this " spoiling " of the
last enemy, and deliverance of " us his captives " be
comes the doctrine which in mediaeval times receives the
designation: The Harrowing of Hell. When in the
great resurrection chapter of First Corinthians and else
where Paul also uses the language of Ps. 110 to describe
Christ's session at the right hand of God, " from hence
forth expecting until his enemies be made his footstool "
he explicitly defines the last " enemy " to be Death. So
also in Ephesians he uses Ps. 68, the triumph-song " Let
God arise, let his enemies be scattered," to set forth his
idea of Christ ascending to Heaven and distributing
gifts to men as the conqueror " distributes spoil." All
this is so different from the Synoptic proof of the near-

120 JESUS AND PAUL
ness of the kingdom based on the exorcisms of Jesus
that we scarcely recognize the fundamental identity.
Tet this " spoiling " of the demonic powers is really
Paul's equivalent for it, as the language proves. It is,
so to speak, his translation into terms of apocalypse of
Jesus' parable of the Strong Man Armed, whose usurped
domain is broken by the Spirit of God. The interme:
diate stage is the application to the raising up of Jesus
of the songs of the Exaltation of the Servant, the en
thronement of the Messiah, and the Triumph of the
Champion of Jehovah.8 2. Jesus as Son of Man
In what is perhaps the earliest Christian writing we
possess Paul gives an account of his own missionary
preaching in briefest possible compass. He reminds the
Thessalonians in his first letter what manner of entering
in he had unto them, how they " turned from idols to
serve a living and true God, and to wait for His Son
from Heaven, even Jesus wbich delivereth us from the
wrath to come." Compare this with the famous account
in Acts of Paul's preaching at Athens only a few weeks
before. The closer your study of the outline, the more,
I think, you will be struck with the extraordinary like
ness. At first one is disposed to think it must be due
to actual report, though in other cases " Luke " seems
to follow the well-known Thucydidean method of com
posing such material. Further study, however, reveals
the fact that the resemblance is not confined to Paul and
Luke. What we have is simply what Harnack calls a
kerygma, a more or less stereotyped outline of mission
ary preaching, easily traceable back into pre-Christian
times, and showing many early Christian parallels not
based either on Paul or Acts. This, then, is one of the
rare glimpses Paul affords us of his gospel, as distin-
sls. 53: 11 (LXX) ; Ps. 110: 1; Ps. 68: 19.

THE HEAVENLY INTERCESSOR 121
guished from his apologetic. And if the note of " ree
onciliation " is dominant (as we should expect) in the
clause " which delivereth us from the wrath to come,"
it is scarcely less so than the note of apocalypse, the
Pauline form of the Son of Man doctrine, which in the
version of Acts becomes " God now commandeth men
that they should all everywhere repent; inasmuch as
He hath appointed a day in the which He will judge
the world in righteousness by a man whom He hath
ordained." Paul naturally does not quote the Book of Daniel to
his Greek converts. On the other hand he is far
from concealing from them that they are to stand every
one of them " before the judgment-seat of Christ."
Whether the elaboration of tbe Anti-Christ legend, with
its little apocalypse of the " mystery of iniquity " in
Second Thessalonians, is really Paul's is doubtful. It
is quite unparalleled elsewhere. It must also be al
lowed that there is an unmistakable advance in Paul's
eschatology from these earliest Thessalonian letters, to
Philippians with its expectation of departure " to be
with Christ." Paul's doctrine of immortality by pro
gressive transformation of the body through the indwell
ing Spirit into the image of the glorified Lord, has
really made his inherited Jewish eschatology super
fluous long before either he or the Church is aware of
the fact ; and the process of its falling away is traceable
in his own epistles. The Ephesian canon, with its
curious inclusion of the two extremes of Hellenistic
and Jewish-Christian eschatology in the fourth Gospel
and the Apocalypse respectively, shows the division
much further advanced. But it would be superfluous
to show how profoundly Paul is imbued with the spirit
and the doctrine of Jewish apocalypse. Nor will there
be any disposition, in our time at least, to deny that in
this he fully reflects his predecessors in the preaching of

122 JESUS AND PAUL
the faith. The only question will be as to the extent to
which the admittedly onesided " millenarianism " (to
use a modern term) of the primitive Church represents
the mind of the Master. Was Jesus "an ecstatic " ?
Did the belief in his calling to be supernatural Son of
Man so predominate in his mind as to control his mes
sage ? I have admitted that it seems to me impossible
to account for Synoptic use of the title Son of Man with
out supposing Jesus to have made appeal to the Danielic
prophecy as having real application to himself as the
nation's divinely intended leader and representative, so
that if rejected here he and his associates would receive
their vindication in the presence of God. Also that he
used the language of Daniel about receiving the ever
lasting dominion in presence of the heavenly court, and
the language of Ps. 122 about sitting with the Twelve
on the thrones of judgment in the new Jerusalem, " even
the thrones of the house of David." But this does not
prove him an eschatological fanatic, any more than his
saying to the Twelve on one occasion " I beheld Satan
as lightning fallen from heaven " proves him " an ec
static." Jewish teachers, if no others, must be allowed
some little degree of poetic and figurative use of their
own Scriptures. I must commend the judicious lec
tures of von Dobschiitz, delivered here in the summer of
1909, as showing a more historical appreciation of
" The Eschatology of the Gospels " than the school of
J. Weiss, Wrede, and Schweitzer, which has enjoyed
such sudden popularity.
It is to the problematical Second, or Teaching
Source (Q), that we must look for our most important
evidence on the use of the title Son of Man in the earliest
period ; and I think it can be shown that the Christology
of this source is not apocalyptic. On the contrary its
conception of the work and personality of Jesus is that
of the appealing, winning, Wisdom of God, rejected by

THE HEAVENLY INTERCESSOR 123
wayward men, but destined in the end to restore the
world. This Wisdom of God " which in every genera
tion entering into holy souls maketh men to be prophets
and friends of God," as Wisdom of Solomon has it,
makes its supreme appeal in Jesus, according to the
Teaching Source ; and this " glad tidings to the poor,"
this offer to all the weary and heavy laden of rest for
their souls under her easy yoke, is placed in intentional
antithesis with the Baptist's terrifying warning of judg
ment to come. John the Baptist came as an ascetic,
with notes like the wailings in the house of death. The
" Son of Man " came as a bridegroom to the wedding
feast, with a message joyous as nuptial music in the ears
of " the children of Wisdom." We shall see in due time
that the conception of Christ as the redeeming Wisdom
of God is at least as familiar to Paul as the apocalyptic ;
and if we are seeking a guide in this perplexing problem
of Jesus' own conception of his person and work, what
better can we expect to find than the example of Paul ?
It may seem as though we were attacking our prob
lem from the wrong end if we attempt to account for the
striking difference of Paul's Christology from the Syn
optic by considering first his " conception of the last
things." As Baur has said, the Synoptic Christology
is an apotheosis doctrine: God exalted the Servant who
had been obedient unto the death of the cross to His own
right hand, where he waits to receive the promised king
dom, and whence he will bring it again to earth. The
drama begins and ends on earth. The Christ is an
earthly man who for a time is made heavenly. Those
who are faithful to him will reign with him in the new
and glorified Jerusalem. Contrariwise the Pauline
Christology is an incarnation doctrine. The drama
begins and ends in Heaven. The Christ is a " heavenly
man " chosen " before the foundation of the world," the
" firstborn of the creation," the agent of God both in

124 JESUS AND PAUL
creation and redemption ; for in pursuance of his con
sistent course of self-devotion he inverts the action of
the earthly first Adam, and leads back the race to the
Paradise from which it fell, restoring the immortality
for which it was destined by the Creator. The King
dom of the Messiah is only preliminary to its delivering
up to God, that He may be all in all. The redemption
is not so much of Israel as of humanity. The first
Adam was made in the likeness of God, but counted
equality with God a matter to be seized by robbery ; for
when Satan said " ye shall be as God knowing good and
evil " he put forth his hand to seize the forbidden fruit.
The second Adam likewise was made in the same image,
but sought likeness with God in the way of self-dedica
tion, forsaking riches to become poor for our sakes,
becoming a " good servant of the many " even to suffer
ing and death, and for this was exalted to the throne
that is above all. Here everything is transcendental-
ized. The earthly career of Jesus is a mere episode.
The beginning and end of the drama is " in the heav
enly places." Is there anything that can bridge the
chasm between two conceptions so wide apart as the
apotheosis Christology of the Synoptics and the incar
nation Christology of Paul? We deem that there is,
and that the two spans of this bridge are the apocalyptic
ideas and the wisdom ideas which are common to both.
Apocalypse is the Jewish substitute for philosophy.
The Gentiles have speculation, God has given His own
people revelation. As the Assumption of Moses puts
it : " God created the world on behalf of His people.
But He was not pleased to manifest this design from the
foundation of the world, in order that the Gentiles
might convict themselves of ignorance by their vain
speculations. Hence he designed and devised me
(Moses) and prepared me from the foundation of the
world, that I should be the mediator of his covenant."

THE HEAVENLY INTERCESSOR 125
The revelation to Moses of the purpose of creation as
stated in the first chapter of Genesis is that man (which
Jewish interpreters take as righteous and redeemed
mankind subject to the Messiah) should have complete
dominion over it. The Jewish revelation is here con
trasted with Greek cosmology. Of this covenant of God
to make His people heir of the world, a covenant re
newed to Noah and Abraham, Moses was made the
mediator in the revelation at Sinai. The mystery hid
from the foundation of the world, made known not even
to angels, is the divine purpose in the creation, as it is
written " things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,
nor have entered into the heart of man to conceive, even
the things which God hath prepared for them that love
Him." These things which God freely gives to His
people are the subject of the revelation. Apocalypse
concerns itself with these. Noah, Enoch, Elijah,
Moses, all the men who have been taken up into heaven
are permitted to see the inner workings of the creation
both physical and moral. They are admitted to the
council chamber of the Highest, and see how He has de
signed the whole, foreseeing the end from the beginning
and forestalling every obstacle.
It belongs, therefore, to the very nature of apocalypse
that it sees the last things as preexistent from the first.
If the world was created on behalf of God's people
under the rule of their Messiah, then God must have
chosen them " in him " before the foundation of the
world. Israel is God's First-born, His Only-begotten,
for whose sake He created the world; so says Esdras
explicitly.9 All these titles of Israel are transferred in
the singular to Messiah as the representative of the peo
ple. If they are the people of the Saints of the Most
High, the Elect, the Beloved, the Just, he has precisely
these titles, resting on the same scriptures. And he and
s>Esdr. 6: 55-59.

126 JESUS AND PAUL
they are in the same sense preexistent. Hence the
Greek translators of the Psalm beginning " Jehovah
said unto my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I make
thine enemies thy footstool," render the passage just
before the ascription to the hero of the everlasting high-
priesthood of Melchizedek : " I have begotten thee
from the womb before the morning star." Messiah
cannot be the omega without also being the alpha.
Israel cannot be the heir of the creation without having
also existed (in God's thought) before the creation.
Indeed even all their works were wrought for them, as
Isaiah had said (Is. 26:12), and as the apocalyptic
writers and Paul are careful to point out when they
wish to discourage the idea of merit.10
This is not mere poetry. It is the Jewish idea of
logic. As Harnack clearly sets forth in a valuable Ap
pendix to Vol. I of his History of Dogma (p. 318) :
According to the theory held by the ancient Jews, and by
the whole of the Semitic nations, everything of real value that
from time to time appears on earth has its existence in heaven.
In other words it exists with God, that is, God possesses a
knowledge of it; and for that reason it has a real being. But
it exists beforehand with God in the same way that it appears
on earth, that is with all the material attributes belonging to
its essence. Its manifestation on earth is merely a transition
from concealment to publicity (<j>avepovo-6ai) .
The great denouement, accordingly, toward which the
whole creation moves, is the " manifestation of the sons
of God," those whom He created to be (as Paul says)
"heirs of the world, and joint-heirs with Christ."
Meantime their life is hid with Christ in God. When
Christ who is their life shall appear, then shall they also
appear with him in glory. When a Jewish logician
desires to express his sense of the things which have real
value he mentions seven preexistent things, enumerating
io Slav. En. liii, 2; Eph. 2: 10.

THE HEAVENLY INTERCESSOR 127
them in the order of their necessary appearance on the
earth before the consummation. They are given with
some variation as follows: The Torah, Repentance,
Paradise, Hell, the Throne of Glory, the Sanctuary,
Messiah. When he wishes to raise hope to the pitch of
certainty he says, " The soul of Messiah is laid up in
paradise from the foundation of the world." Assur
ance is made doubly sure when the revelators declare
as in Enoch that they have seen him waiting for the
time of his appearance in the treasure-house of souls.
True the distinction is made by our modern theologians
with great care between logical and real preexistence.
But the distinction is at best a tenuous one and in prac
tice tends to disappear. The later Jewish mystics de
pict the Messiah as impatient of the delay, imploring
to be sent to the rescue of Israel. Pseudo-Barnabas al
ready quotes an Enoch-fragment which seems to be
using Ps. 102 : 13, 23 (LXX) of the " shortening of
the time to have pity upon Zion," as in the Gospels also
the days of waiting are " cut short." According to Bar
nabas Enoch had said : " For to this end hath the
Master cut short the periods and the days, that His
Beloved might hasten and come to his inheritance." n
If the simple narrative of the Synoptic evangelists con
tains no trace of the doctrine of the preexistence save
the Voice from Heaven at the Baptism, which declares
the foreordination and election of the Beloved in
Pauline terms : " Thou art my Son, the Beloved ; upon
thee my choice was set," this is no more than we should
expect from a narrative which leaves little room for
theological evaluation of the scenes elsewhere than in
the prologue. But Paul has both room and occasion
for such theological evaluation; and Paul's equivalent
for the Synoptic passage just quoted is the famous verse
11 See the article, " Heb. 1 : 10-12 and the Septuagint Reading
of Ps. 102: 23 " in ZNW III (1902), p. 180 ff.

128 JESUS AND PAUL
in Colossians : " It was the ' good-pleasure ' that the
whole pleroma of the Spirit should take up its abode
in the Son of His love, in whom we have our redemp
tion, the forgiveness of our sins. For he is the Image
of the invisible God, the Firstborn of all creation; for
in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon
the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether
thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all
things have been created through him and unto him,
and in him all things consist."
We shall see presently why it is needful for Paul
here to set the higher sovereignty (and hence by Jewish
logic earlier origin) of Christ over against that of the
angelic hierarchies, and on what scriptural basis he
rests the claim, the teachings of Hebrew Wisdom. But
without waiting for this it must already be apparent
that Paul could not be a believer in revelation as the
Hebrew understands it, — could not have had the mys
tical experience of vision of the " Son of God " in glory
which he shared with his predecessors in the faith, above
all could not possibly have taken over the utterances of
Jesus which embodied their faith in him as the Son of
Man destined to appear upon the clouds of Heaven —
without constructing from this as the very basis of his
world-view a doctrine of the preexistence of the Christ.
If in his case the preexistence of the Messiah is not a
mere waiting in the treasury of souls, but an active
participation in the work both of creation and redemp
tion, this comes in part from his familiarity with the
doctrine of the Wisdom writers concerning this spiritual
agent of God in the work of creation, revelation, and
redemption. In part we must attribute it to the ne
cessity the Apostle is under of conveying to his converts
from the Hellenistic world some sense of the values rep
resented by that discarded title of the Christ, " the
Son of Man." As we have seen, the Son of Man is for

THE HEAVENLY INTERCESSOR 129
Paul the head of that humanity that is to be in " the
manifestation of the sons of God." He is that spiritual
second Adam who was before, even as in the consum
mation he comes after, the natural that was first. It is
the permeation of humanity with the " mind " that was
in him that brings the triumph of the Creator's will,
the unification and reconciliation of all in the spirit of
service. Immortality there cannot be save in this
spirit. Individually and socially the mind of the first
Adam, grasping and self-seeking, is death. The mind
of the second Adam, created anew in the moral likeness
of God, is life and peace.
We have to look back to the teaching and story of
Jesus through a two-fold translation here. We see it as
reflected in the mind of a Jewish scribe, defending the
truth against reaction to Jewish legalism, interpreting
it again to Gentiles steeped in the mysticism of the
religions of personal immortality. But would our
knowledge of the abiding values of that teaching and
that life be adequate without Paul? Is there indeed
any evangelist, save the great disciple of Paul at Ephe
sus, who so teaches the world what it means to have
had a Christ in their midst ?
3. Christ as the Wisdom of God
Little time indeed remains in which to speak of the
third great factor in Paul's Christology, the conception
which he takes mainly from Hellenistic Judaism of the
saving Wisdom of God. Later we find an increasing
disposition to substitute the infinitely poorer term the
Logos, as a concession to Stoic metaphysic. Philo be
gins the change for Jewish writers, the fourth evangelist
among Christians. But the moral values are almost
wholly wanting to the Greek conception. Heraclitus
does make the Logos complain of human neglect in
something like the tones of the Hebrew plaints of Wis-

130 JESUS AND PAUL
dom, but the resemblance is remote. The Stoic pan
theist's conception of the Logos has nothing of the hu
man tenderness of the brooding Spirit of God, whose
voice is the murmur of the dove, whose wings are
stretched protectingly over her wayward young. The
Hebrew conception of the creative Spirit is of a being
whose delight is with men, who comes forth with en
treaty to save them from the error of their ways, long
ing for their return. The Stoic Logos compares with
this as the physicist's conception of the ether compares
with the Christian's belief in a saving Spirit of God in
Christ. When Paul thinks of the Wisdom of God, he
has in mind that which the writer of the Wisdom of
Solomon calls " the Spirit of the Lord which hath filled
the world, and which holdeth all things together"
(1:7), she that was the artificer of the creation, and
rejoiced with God in his habitable earth, a " hidden
wisdom " which the wise of the world cannot search
out, but which as a saving spirit " goeth about herself
seeking those that are worthy of her ; and in their paths
she appeareth unto them graciously" (Sap. 6:16).
Paul thinks of the Wisdom of God as " a holy spirit,
only-begotten (/^ovoyeves) yet manifold . . . beneficent,
loving toward man, all-powerful, all-seeing, pervading
and penetrating all things, a breathing forth of the
power of God and a clear effluence of the glory of the
Almighty, an effulgence from the everlasting light, an
unspotted mirror of the working of God, and an image
(eiKo>v) of His goodness." Paul thinks of this Wisdom
of God as the spirit of revelation and redemption, which
" from generation to generation passing into holy souls
maketh men to be friends of God and prophets." He
thinks of it as " reaching from one end of the world to
the other with full strength and ordering all things
graciously." He believes that " it is given her to live
with God, and that the Sovereign Lord of all loved her."

THE HEAVENLY INTEECESSOR 131
He believes with the Son of Sirach that this spirit
"came forth from the mouth of the Most High and
covered the earth as a mist," that it made its throne in
the pillar of cloud and made its tabernacle in Israel, in
order that in the end it might go forth to the world as
the four streams from Eden, watering all lands, " bring
ing instruction to light as the morning, and making
Israel's knowledge of God to shine forth afar off." He
believes with Baruch that Israel's calamities came when
she forsook this way of Wisdom, even as the nations
perished because they had it not. With Baruch he ex
claims in the words of Moses concerning the Law:
" Who hath gone up into Heaven and taken her and
brought her down from the clouds ? Who hath gone
over the sea and found her and will bring her for choice
gold ? " God only gives this spirit of his own knowl
edge and goodness, " He that sendeth forth the light
and it goeth, who called it and it obeyed Him with fear.
He hath found out all the way of knowledge, and hath
given it unto Jacob His Servant, ^and to Israel that is
His Beloved. After this did she appear upon earth
and was conversant with men." 12 Paul believes that
this creative and redemptive Spirit, this spirit of the
knowledge, fear and love of God, this spirit of revela
tion of the purpose and will of the Creator, so hidden
from the world, is the special endowment of Israel,
whom God chose for this very purpose, that it might
be His Servant to bring peace and reconciliation with
the universal Father to all the ends of the earth through
the knowledge of Him. He believes that this eternal
Spirit tabernacled for the redemption of humanity in
Israel as a whole, and was incarnate in successive lead
ers of Israel by divers portions and in divers manners,
in Joseph, in Moses, in Solomon ; for this is the belief
12 The quotations are made in abbreviated form, from Sap.
1: 7ff., 6: 12 ff., 7: 21-8: 7; Ecclus. 24; and Bar. 3: 9-37.

132 JESUS AND PAUL
of the Wisdom writers of Paul's time. He believes
above all that the Messiah, the supreme representative
of Israel as Jehovah's Servant and witness to the na
tions, will embody all the hidden treasures of wisdom
and knoweldge, comparing with those who had partial
revelation in past days as the knowledge of a beloved
son compares with that of servants of the household;
for this is the belief of the vision of Enoch, of the in
exhaustible fountain of righteousness and wisdom
opened for all the thirsty upon earth in the days of the
Son of Man, " whose name was named before the sun
and the constellations were created in the presence of
the Lord of Spirits, the Head of Days." " He will be
the light of the Gentiles, and the hope of those who are
troubled of heart," says Enoch. " All who dwell on
earth will fall down and bow the knee before him, and
will praise the Lord of Spirits. And for this reason
hath he been chosen and hidden before Him before the
creation of the world. . . ." For when the Elect One
cometh " wisdom is poured out like water, and glory
faileth not before him for ever and ever. For he
standeth before the Lord of Spirits, and in him dwells
the spirit of wisdom and the Spirit of Him who gives
knowledge, and the spirit of understanding and of
might, and the spirit of those who have fallen asleep in
righteousness. And he will judge the secret things and
no one will be able to utter a lying word before him;
for he is the Elect One before the Lord of Spirits ac
cording to his ' good pleasure.' " 13
Combining in his thought the conceptions of the
apocalyptists and the Wisdom writers as they are com
bined in the passage from Enoch I have just quoted,
how was it possible for Paul not to think of Christ as
the personified Wisdom of God ? Not because he is so
is Eth. Enoch xlvii-xlix condensed.

THE HEAVENLY INTERCESSOR 133
filled with admiration for the pure ethics and the lofty
religious teaching of the Sermon on the Mount (though
I grant the conception would hardly seem a natural one
if Paul had not more knowledge than he displays of
these sublime teachings), still less because of acquaint
ance with, or dependence on particular writings such as
the Wisdom of Solomon, and the philosophical mysti
cism of Philo, though I think it would be easy to go
further than Grafe has done in his well known attempt
to prove a direct dependence of Paul on Wisdom of
Solomon; but because to an educated Hellenistic Jew
such as Paul, converted by such an experience as his
to belief in Jesus as the exalted Servant, the leader of
Israel in its God-given calling to bring the world into
reconciliation with God, it was inevitable that he should
think of him as the agent of God in creation, revelation
and redemption. As such it is inevitable that prayer to
God should be offered through him and for his sake, and
answered by his agency. He is to Paul the Son of
Man who was " begotten before the morning star,"
chosen by the Lord of Spirits and hidden before Him
before the creation of the world, who stands in God's
presence as the Elect of His good pleasure until he re
ceive his kingdom at the throne of the Ancient of Days.
Paul, may, or may not, have known of Philo's employ
ment of the mythical flgure of the primal man, made
in the image of God without distinction of sex, before
the creation of the earthly Adam, destined to dominion
over the creation; but he certainly believes in a Man
from Heaven who is to be " manifested," and he could
not fail to identify the Spirit of the exalted Servant
who became obedient unto death for the reconciliation
and redemption of the world with that eternal Spirit,
the Firstborn, Only-begotten and Beloved of God, who
is His agent in the creating and ordering of the world

134 JESUS AND PAUL
no less than in its redemption and reconciliation to Him
self. These are not isolated, individual ideas. They
are the guiding principles of the highest messianic ideal
ism of Paul's times.
With all this I cannot avoid the feeling that my
hearers look upon all this higher Christology of Paul
as a " speculative interpretation." No misapprehen
sion could be greater. We are unfamiliar with con
temporary Jewish modes of thought. Their personifi
cations taking the place of abstractions, their visions in
stead of logical processes are alien to our thinking.
We find it hard to sympathize with a mythopoeic type
of philosophical reasoning which in Philo is already
recedingi„into the background, though even in Plato is
still within view. Therefore we think Paul is indulg
ing in speculation, when in reality he is merely making
use of the most available forms, first as regards his own
self-representation of the eternal significance of Jesus'
person and ministry, second for its presentation to his
converts. That presentation of the Beloved, " in whom
we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins " as
" the Image of the invisible God, the Firstborn of all
creation, in whom all things visible and invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or principalities or pow
ers, were created," was addressed to the Colossians, a
body of converts who were being " robbed of their prize
as heirs of God, by a gratuitous self-humiliation and
worship of angels." They were being led into a de
grading superstition by teachers of the mongrel type of
Jewish-heathen theasophy which professed to have deal
ings with the " elemental beings of the world."
Against this type of neo-Judaic idolatry Paul falls back
upon the splendid monotheism of the creation chapter
of Genesis, with its exaltation of man in the likeness
of God as true lord of creation, the " weak and beggarly
elemental beings " his mere stewards and guardians.

THE HEAVENLY INTERCESSOR 135
Practical monotheism was at stake, and Paul's instinct
for the true religious values bids him reject the road
of compromise along which the Chureh later advanced
so far under the lead of Arius. It bids him identify
the Heir with no other than that Firstborn Wisdom of
God who is " before all things, and in whom all things
consist." It is not a speculative but a practical interest that
leads Paul to supplement Colossians by the great paral
lel epistle on the Unity of the Spirit, known to us as
Ephesians. In its opening chapters his prayer for his
converts' enlightenment to appreciate the sublimity of
their calling rises to rhapsody as he dwells upon the gos
pel of peace and reconciliation by which God through
the cross has slain the enmity between man and man and
man and God, giving all access in one new Spirit to the
Father. But the Apostle does not stop with this theme
of the building of the new temple of humanity ; he goes
on to make practical application of it in the entreaty to
keep this unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. It is
a practical interest which leads him to set forth how
the possession of one Lord, one faith and one baptism
is the world's real hope of order and peace. If the
Spirit into which we are baptized is the spirit of this
common Lord, self-dedicated to the world-dominion of
the God of righteousness and concord, we have the
higher loyalty which can and will break down the
enmity between man and man, in the relations -of do
mestic life, social and industrial life, political life, even
as it breaks down the enmity between man and God.
It is a practical matter for Paul, and not less practical
for us, whether that life in the Spirit to which the fol
lower of Jesus is dedicated is or is not the ultimate goal
of human aspiration, both for the individual and for
humanity as a whole.
There may be those who can conceive of Christianity

136 JESUS AND PAUL
as the mere following of a high moral example. As for
myself I see not how it is possible for Christianity to
be a world-religion (or indeed, to be a religion at all),
unless the Spirit of Christ, into which our own person
ality is merged in a self-dedication answering to his
own, be nothing less than the eternal Spirit of the Cre
ator and Father of all, the Spirit of righteousness and
love. For in all the cosmos of life to which our sense
extends there is but one body, and one ordering and re
deeming Spirit, even as we were called in one hope of
our calling. There is one Lord to whom all loyalty is
due, one faith, one baptism. There is one God and
Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.
In this unity of the eternal Spirit lies our eternal gospel
of peace.

LECTURE VI
BACK TO GALILEE, THE WITNESS OF PETER
1. Gospels as the New Standard of Teaching
It is difficult to withstand the sense of shock and
change as one passes from the soaring imagination of
Paul in Romans, Colossians, Ephesians, to the simple
narrative of Mark. It is true the evangelist also aims
to set forth Jesus as " the Son of God," * and prefaces
his narrative with a quasi-theological vision-story in
which a Voice from Heaven proclaims him such. But
there is a difference between prologue and narrative.
The evangelist tells the story of the Baptism in a way
to make clear that John was the expected Elijah, whose
function in Jewish eschatology was to anoint the Mes
siah, before which anointing he would be unknown even
to himself. The story goes on in a form corresponding
to the Isaian Servant-song :
Behold my Servant whom I have chosen ;
My Beloved on whom my soul set her choice ;
I will put my Spirit upon him.2
It conveys thus the same conception of Jesus as the
elect Servant, endowed with all the powers of the di
vine Spirit, which Paul had expressed in Col. 1 : 19.
Paul declares that it was the " good pleasure " (the
evSoKia) that the whole " fullness," or as one of the
earliest uncanonical gospels has it, " the whole fountain
of the Holy Spirit," should take up its abode in the Son
i The words vlov 6eov are wanting in some manuscripts, but the
aim is self-evident.
2 Is. 42 : 1-4. The rendering is that of Mt. 12 : 18.
137

138 JESUS AND PAUL
of God's love. Mk. 1 : 1-13 puts this in the form of
apocalypse, or revelation.3 But the prologue of Mark
is like the prologue of John so far as regards its rela
tion to the body of the work. The fourth evangelist
introduces Jesus as the Logos incarnate, and does his
best to tell the story from this transcendental point of
view. But the title never reappears in the body of the
work, and in the nature of the case it is impossible to
carry through the conception. Mark also makes the
effort to tell the story from the point of view announced
in his prologue. But in the nature of the case he can
not maintain the Pauline level. He can only relate a
series of anecdotes from the Galilean ministry of preach
ing and healing to show how Jesus was endowed with
" the whole fountain of the Holy Spirit." Thereafter
he tells how he was glorified through his suffering and
resurrection. This latter section of the narrative is
prefaced by another vision story in which a second Voice
from Heaven explains again the meaning of what is to
follow. Jesus is again manifested as the " Beloved
Son," or the Elect of God, and his suffering on the cross
is revealed as being in reality the victory over death.
Mortality thus puts on immortality, and this earthly
tabernacle is transfigured into the eternal " house which
is from Heaven." We have thus a second introduction
of the values of Pauline teaching, which again takes the
form of revealing vision, or Apocalypse. After it the
evangelist proceeds with the anecdotes connected with
Jesus' fate in Jerusalem. But do what he will to em
phasize the miraculous powers of Jesus in the story,
and the marvel of his wisdom and prophetic foresight,
it is of course impossible foil him to make it at the same
time the story of a real man under real historical con
ditions, and also the story of the superhuman being who
3 See G. Friedlander. Jewish Sources of the Sermon on the
Mount, p. 2.

BACK TO GALILEE. THE WITNESS OF PETER 139
steps down from the " Heavenly places " of the post-
resurrection Christology. The combination is, how
ever, attempted, even in this earliest known record of
the sayings and doings of Jesus, and it is in this at
tempt that the influence of Paul, however indirectly, is
most clearly seen.
It is fortunate indeed for us that the attempt could
not be carried through. " John " has gone further than
Mark in this direction of making the whole story of
Jesus one long transfiguration scene, and we all know
how fatal would have been the result for real religious
values if this late Gospel had succeeded in completely
superseding all its predecessors. Mark superseded all
earlier Gospels. Had the apotheosis been consistently
carried through the real and historical Jesus would have
been completely eclipsed behind the glories of apoca
lyptic vision. The solid ground of plain, hard, fact,
in the work-a-day world we have to live in whether we
approve it or not, would have disappeared. There
would have been left us as the basis for our science of
religion a figure scarcely more substantial than the
mythical heroes of the mysteries. Let us be thankful
that the whole Gospel was not written in the mystic
style of the vision-stories at the Baptism and Trans
figuration, that there was so much of unwelcome fact,
resistent to the alembic of the most ardently devout
imagination, so much fidelity to things established in
the mouths of many witnesses, that it was impossible
for the idealizers to have their way. Well is it that the
Church did not follow the lead of that ultra-Pauline
element, which after the death of the Apostles sought to
limit attention and interest to the Man from Heaven,
ignoring the Galilean mechanic whom Paul had not
known in the flesh. Sober, moral, common-sense led it
to fall back rather on the Petrine reminiscences of the
sayings and doings of Jesus.

140 JESUS AND PAUL
The sense of change in passing from the Pauline
Epistles to what I have called the " Aramaic enclave "
including the Synoptic Gospels, Acts and Revelation,
is indeed abrupt, and if we have any sympathy for the
Greek conception of religion as participation in the life
of the immortals, it tends to bring us back to earth with
a sense of shock. No wonder Marcion would tolerate
but one Gospel, and not even that until he had thor
oughly expurgated what he regarded as the Jewish
interpolations of the Galilean Apostles. Nevertheless
if any ladder is to bridge for us the chasm between earth
and Heaven it cannot be suspended from the clouds.
It will have to rest upon the solid rock of earthly ex
perience. It is not otherwise even with that Son of
Man on whom the Ephesian evangelist sees the angels
of God ascending and descending to meet our human
need. One made in all points like ourselves is a better
leader through the valley of the shadow of death than a
demi-god ; and a Galilean peasant better than an Indian
prince. The interval between Paul and the Synoptic writers
is considerable in time, but still more so in situation.
The one thing that ancient tradition surely knows as
regards date is that Markan tradition is post-apostolic.
The Gospel represents Peter's story, but without such
consecutive arrangement as the evangelist would have
given it if he had himself been conversant with the facts,
or been able to consult the eyewitnesses. Mark was
not himself a follower of the Lord, but afterwards of
Peter ; and even what he remembered from the teaching
of Peter could not be made into an orderly narrative be
cause through his death or otherwise Peter (and infer-
entially the other eye-witnesses) could not be consulted.
This is absolutely the only tradition we possess con
cerning Gospel origins earlier than the middle of the
second century. It is the statement of " the Elder "

BACK TO GALILEE. THE WITNESS OF PETER 141
consulted by Papias, and dates from before 118 a. d.
Fortunately it is also not only reasonable in itself and
unlikely to be an invention, but of very great impor
tance ; because scholarship is now unanimous in regard
ing Mark as the oldest extant Gospel, and the source,
so far as narrative is concerned, of both the North-
Syrian Gospel of Luke, and the South-Syrian to which
the name of Matthew had come to be attached before
150 a. d. It points, then, to the very beginnings of
extant gospel story. In addition there are reasons
which I have tried to state elsewhere 4 for accepting the
ancient belief that the compilation of this " Petrine "
material into our so-called Gospel of Mark was accom
plished in the great Pauline church of Rome, and for
dating it in the earlier years of Domitian, not far from
the period of Hebrews. These reasons still seem to me
adequate. Here no more will be needful than to point
out briefly the significance of this date and place of
origin. Only a score of years, more or less, since the death
of Paul, and James, and perhaps John the son of Zebe
dee, and Peter. But that means that the chief eye
witnesses, if not all of them, were gone. For James the
brother of John had already been martyred in 41 or 42.
In the eighties men must have begun to speak, like the
author of Hebrews, of the gospel as having " at the first
been spoken by the Lord, and afterward confirmed unto
us by them that heard." It means, if we use the care
ful chronology of Clement, that men were already look
ing back to Nero's time as marking the end of " the
teaching of the Apostles," and considered their own
generation as belonging to another age. In fact the
extinction of the Julian dynasty with the suicide of
Nero, the chaos of the world in the renewal of the civil
* Harvard Texts and Studies VZ.I. " Is Mark a Roman Gos
pel?" 1919.

142 JESUS AND PAUL
wars, the Jewish war, siege of Jerusalem, and burning
of the temple, finally the restoration of order under the
new dynasty of the Flavians, might well seem to mark
a new epoch, especially for the brotherhood of the new
people of God, the pre-ordained heirs of the age to
come, as the Christians regarded themselves.
I need not repeat what has already been said as to the
great difference in language in this new type of church
literature. The books are Greek, obviously composed
for a Greek-speaking Church which uses the Greek
Bible, as do the evangelists. But the material of Mark
has almost certainly been translated from the Aramaic.
Aramaic words and phrases are incorporated. Where
special significance attaches to the utterance the evangel
ist reproduces the very words of Jesus in the original.
Clearly there is a distinct effort to reproduce the past
in the most authentic form obtainable. The book is
new, but the material is old; and to judge by the un-
couthness of the translation in many cases, there is
already much of that desire which could hardly fail to
appear, to get back to the authentic words and deeds of
the heavenly Lord as they had taken place on the soil
of Palestine. The Gospel closes with an invitation
from the angel of the resurrection to come and view the
place where the Lord had lain, almost a hint of the
coming days of pilgrimage to this shrine.
But the difference of language is only the outward
symptom of a deeper contrast between the new type of
Church literature and that which had preceded. It is
a new functionary of the Spirit who now takes up the
word. We have been listening to the voice of the Apos
tle. We shall soon take note of that of the " prophet "
who speaks in Christian apocalypse. Here we are deal
ing with a third type. It is the " pastor and teacher "
whose voice is heard in the narrative books. And the
difference in tone is great. The Apostle speaks with

BACK TO GALILEE. THE WITNESS OF PETER 143
the authority of his own experience. He testifies what
he has seen and heard for the conversion of others.
The teacher addresses converts already made, relating
and interpreting not his own but his predecessors' ex
perience. And for that reason he attaches no name to
his literary work. The authority is not his. It belongs
to those whom he represents. Only later tradition,
compelled to distinguish between rival forms of the
common record, discriminates one " aspect of the gos
pel " (as Irenaeus calls it) as " according to " this or
that authority, from another.
2. Evangelic Tradition at Rome
The place of origin of our oldest Gospel (as well as
its date) is also highly significant. It was as far as
possible from the scene of the events. Written records
are valued where oral tradition is scanty. The mate
rial, of course, comes from Palestine ; but the language
alone would prove that the work was compiled in a
Greek-speaking country, and the character of it con
firms the ancient tradition that it emanates from Rome.
For in its whole structure it employs Petrine material
in the interest of a Pauline gospel, thusyillustrating the
Petro-Pauline character of the metropolitan church.
For we are informed on reliable authority that the Ro
man church began as a foundation of those who taught
a Jewish-Christian gospel of continuance under the
Mosaic ordinances, and only later came under the more
liberal influence of Paul. This liberalization had al
ready taken place at the time when Paul wrote his great
Epistle to the Romans; for, Paul finds it necessary to
urge more consideration for the " weak," that is, the
scrupulous Jewish-Christian element. These for them
selves followed the example of Peter, though conceding
liberty to Gentiles. When Paul wrote, accordingly,
the Paulinists must have been at Rome predominant.

144 JESUS AND PAUL
As at Corinth, the church needed no urging in the di
rection of the freedom wherewith Christ had set them
free. It required rather to be reminded that Paul,
whose freedom they emulated, had refrained from as
serting it when it might cause the " weak " brother to
stumble. Now the kind of Paulinists from whom we
get the Gospel of Mark are in fact of just this " strong "
sort. Emancipation from Jewish legalism is their no
tion of his doctrine. They have been informed concern
ing Paul that he " teaches the Jews which are among
the Gentiles everywhere not to circumcise their chil
dren, nor to obey the customs." As we see from Acts,
common report told this about Paul long before men
had opportunity to learn from the Epistles his doctrine
of Life in the Spirit producing the fruits of love and
peace. The former teaching, justification by faith
alone, without works of law, spreads quickly and easily.
It is a proclamation of emancipation which one man can
carry in a few years from Jerusalem round about unto
Illyricum. The latter, life in the Spirit, is a slow proc
ess of soul eulture which will occupy the pastor and
teacher for generations — if indeed the finer Paulinism
is ever learned.
The whole conception and object of the Gospel of
Mark are " Pauline " in the former broad sense for
which we might perhaps more properly use the term
Paulinistic. Its message is salvation " not by works
of the law, but by the grace of the Lord Jesus." It
represents in this respect a marked antithesis to Mat
thew, the Gospel of the new Torah, in spite of the fact
that practically all the narrative material of Matthew
is derived from Mark. Per contra the absence of the
teaching element from Mark is conspicuous. We have
anecdotes of both sayings and doings, but the selection
is made to show what Jesus did. There is scarcely an
attempt to show what he taught, save by example.

BACK TO GALILEE. THE WITNESS OF PETER 145
Take as an example of the difference between Matthew
and Mark the story of the Rich Enquirer. In Matthew
he is told that if he obeys the Ten Commandments, plus
the new commandment of love, he shall have eternal life.
If he would " be perfect " he may go on to give all his
goods to feed the poor and take the road of martyrdom.
This is bald neo-legalism. In the earlier, Markan form
the story is strikingly different. The enquirer is told
that observance of the commandments is not enough.
One does not so obtain eternal life ; for true " good
ness " belongs to God alone. Whoso would follow the
Son of God to his heavenly seat must renounce all and
take the path of martyrdom with Jesus and the Twelve.
Jesus looks indeed with affection on one who from child
hood has obeyed the precepts, but only self-dedication
to the way of the cross gives eternal life. Every man,
rich or poor, renounces all. Mark knows no other gos
pel than this : " He who would save his life shall lose
it." Life through death, after the example of the Son
of God. That is Mark's gospel, and it is in the broad
sense Pauline, however lacking in the subtler traits of
Paulinism. One of the most generous appreciators of Jesus whom
the liberal Synagogue has ever produced declares the
teaching of the Synoptic Gospels to be " inspired by an
ideal and heroic spirit " lacking to the sayings of the
Rabbis, however admirable.5 This " ideal and heroic
spirit " is the special contribution of the Gospel of
Mark. It is this evangelist who sums up the example
of Jesus in the parallel to Paul's description of the
" mind of Christ " : " The Son of Man came not to be
ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a
ransom instead of many." It is this Gospel which re
ports as Jesus' summary of all moral and religiotis obli
gation : " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
s C. G. Monteflore. Synoptic Gospels, p. cv.

146 JESUS AND PAUL
thy mind and strength, and thy neighbor as thyself."
Subtract Mark from the Synoptic tradition and you will
be surprised to find how little of the " heroic spirit "
remains. It might, perhaps, seem un-Pauline that Mark has so
little to say about the resurrection. The story of the
empty tomb, unfinished in the authentic text, is com
pletely different from the apostolic resurrection gospel
reported by Paul. It would seem to have been attached
.after the close of an earlier form of the Gospel which
ended with the centurion's testimony : " Surely this
was a Son of God." The later Gospels give little more,
and all follow the lead of Mark rather than Paul. But
there is a special reason for the omission. It was not
the province of the mere teacher to bear witness to the
resurrection. That was the work of the Apostle. The
resurrection could be presupposed as something with
which every convert was familiar. In relating the say
ings and doings of the Lord the catechist might take it
for granted. In relating the earthly life of Jesus he
could only point forward prophetically to his exaltation
and the outpouring of the Spirit. His record, if lim
ited to what Jesus began to do and to teach, might for
this reason appropriately close with the centurion's
word. As an example of this " forward pointing " let us
take the story of Jesus' baptism by John which falls
in a sense outside the strict province of the evangelist.
The Christian teacher will not pass it by. But he may
well give his narrative such a form as will most clearly
indicate to the convert the ideal of Christian baptism.
Only Matthew tells how the latter was instituted. But
Mark attains the same practical object by so describing
the baptism of Jesus as to bring out its relation to
John's baptism of repentance. John himself in the
story is made to predict the coming baptism of the

BACK TO GALILEE. THE WITNESS OF PETER 147
Spirit, while Jesus' experience is so described as to
show that its supreme significance lies in the descent
and indwelling of the Spirit of Adoption which fills
all Christians with the powers of the new Messianic age.
One can hardly imagine the Christian catechist telling
the story of the baptism of Jesus without this special
practical interest. It might be beyond his province to
relate the Pentecostal baptism of the Spirit; but he
would be very apt to introduce an allusion to this in the
form of the promise : " He shall baptize you with the
Holy Ghost," which in Mk. 1 : 8 is inserted as a proph
ecy of John the Baptist, but in the Second Source is
more credibly attributed to Jesus.
The catechist would find means also, no doubt, in
his narrative of Jesus' self-dedication to the cross, to
make it clear that the death which he was ready to
undergo, and which he called upon his followers to face
with Him, was not to be defeat but victory. We expect
the evangelist to accompany his story of the revelation
of the mystery of the cross, with a prophetic foreshadow
ing of the resurrection. This he really does by a
method which we shall examine presently. But we
take him beyond his province if we expect him to con
tinue his story in a way to include the experience of the
apostolic witnesses. The most that can be expected of
a teacher, or catechist, whose province is to tell the story
of Jesus' earthly ministry, is that he will tell it as one
who knows what came after, and who therefore inter
prets its significance in the light of the resurrection
glory. Certainly none of our evangelists falls short in
this respect. Indeed when we look at the Roman Gos
pel which became so completely the standard for this
whole class of literature that no other considerable rec
ord of Jesus' activity survives, — when we see how the
material has been selected, and what motive controls
the elaboration, it will be perfectly apparent that we

148 JESUS AND PAUL
have in Mark not a biography, not a history, but a
selection of anecdotes; and even this selection is made
for purposes not of history but of edification. There
is even something like the converse of that process of
double translation which I have attributed to Paul. In
stead of a translation of the story into Hellenistic forms
of thought and language, we now have the Pauline con
ceptions translated into Jewish forms of thought and
language and read back into the story. The vision and
Voice from Heaven which interpret the significance of
Jesus' baptism, and the corresponding vision and Voice
from Heaven which interpret the significance of his
martyr death, are examples of this process of carrying
back the later-understood values into the primary story.
And the method is one which every Jewish scholar will
recognize as embodying the classical forms of religious
teaching as practiced in the Synagogue, under the name
of midrash, i. e., " exposition," a method adapted to
men whose abstract reasoning is in the mythopoeic stage.
Haggada, or edifying exposition, gets its very name
from nagid, " to tell a story." We shall see presently
that the two examples already cited stand by no means
alone in the process by which the experience of Peter
is related in such a way as to give it religious values
which were really the discovery of Paul.
The Gospel of Mark, early as it is, really represents
an advanced stage in this process of adaptation for
pragmatic purposes, ^pbs rets x/3"'015, as Papias expresses
it. And the values which its collection of preachers'
anecdotes is framed to exhibit are in marked degree the
values of the Pauline gospel ; not indeed in Pauline lan
guage, for, as we have seen, the material is of Pales
tinian, Aramaic derivation. Not in the finer, deeper,
more mystical elements of Paul's individual religious
experience, but in the elements which his converts most
readily absorbed, when they declared, " I am of Paul,"

BACK TO GALILEE. THE WITNESS OF PETER 149
"lam saved by my faith," " We are not under law,
but under grace," " We die with Christ, that we may
be raised together with him." " As many as are led by
the Spirit are sons of God." "He that hath faith
moveth mountains."
For this more commonplace, work-a-day type of
Paulinism, I have proposed to use the term " Paulinis-
tic " rather than " Pauline." I need not dwell upon
the Paulinistic sense in which the Gospel of Mark makes
use of Petrine tradition of the story of Jesus, because
in other writings I have already tried to make this
clear. As we know, this Gospel passes over entirely all
that precedes the baptism of Jesus, making his divine
sonship begin with his baptism and endowment with the
powers of the Spirit of Adoption, just as all Christians
undergo the same experience in degree and part. It
does not even mention his Davidic descent, though Paul
himself refers to it. Instead it introduces later (12 :
35-37) a special section in which Jesus argues from
the 110th Psalm that Davidic descent is needless, be
cause the Messiah is really manifested as such with
power by an exaltation to the heavenly throne. The
dependent Gospels of Luke and Matthew supply in mu
tually inconsistent ways this initial defect of the Roman
Gospel, by what we call the Infancy chapters, combin
ing the claim of Davidic descent with a later legend of
supernatural birth.
The Gospel of Mark has been understood from the
earliest times (and doubtless to some extent justly un
derstood) to be composed of anecdotes derived from the
preaching of Peter. We should naturally expect it to
present Peter in a favorable light. On the contrary it
never mentions Peter individually except to make him
the target for severe rebuke, and an example of the
callousness and " hardness of heart " (7rwpiacri^) which
are shared even by the Twelve with Israel as a whole.

150 JESUS AND PAUL
In the Revelation of the Mystery of the Cross which
opens the second part of the Gospel Peter actually be
comes the mouthpiece of Satan by his protest against
the fundamental doctrine of Paulinism. Even at the
end of the narrative Peter still remains under the cloud
of desertion in the face of the enemy. He stands the
conspicuous example of vain-glorious boasting, " though
all should forsake thee, yet will not I," followed by col
lapse before the challenge of a maid-servant. So is it
with the other " pillar-apostles." James and John are
introduced in 10 : 39 as the martyr " sons of Zebedee " ;
but they play no individual part in the Gospel save for
this rebuke of their selfish ambition for superior places
in the Kingdom. John by himself alone comes to the
front but once. It is to meet rebuke for narrow in
tolerance. The kindred of the Lord, who played so
conspicuous a part in the Jerusalem caliphate, have two
appearances in the Gospel of Mark. The first is their
attempt to arrest Jesus in his work, when they are re
nounced in favor of Jesus' spiritual kin " that do the
will of God." The second is when at Nazareth they
appear among those who refuse to believe a prophet in
his own home. Naturally both Luke and Matthew can
cel both these reflections on the revered desposyni.
We cannot doubt that the Gospel of Mark comes from
a really early period, when material was relatively
abundant. Since it is not possible to imagine that there
was nothing at the compiler's disposal in the way of
anecdotes about Peter, James and John, and the kin
dred of the Lord, which did not place them in the atti
tude of examples to be avoided, we are almost forced
to recognize a certain hostility to the pretensions of the
Jerusalem caliphate.
In addition to this we find this Gospel introducing
but a single full example of Jesus' preaching in Galilee,
and this an adaptation of a group of parables to the

BACK TO GALILEE. THE WITNESS OF PETER 151
theme of the hiding of the mystery of the kingdom from
Israel as a whole as unworthy. According to Mark
the parabolic method of teaching was adopted by Jesus
in order to conceal his message from all but a select
few of his spiritual kin, while the rest of the Jews are
" hardened." It is impossible here to overlook the con
nection with the Pauline doctrine expounded in the
great apologetic on the " hardening of Israel " in Rom.
8-11. Mark adopts the idea of the " hardening "
(Tro>pu>oi<s) , the "spirit of stupor, eyes that they should
not see, and ears that they should not hear," but he ap
plies it specifically to the teaching in parables (Rom.
11 : 8 ; cf. Is. 6 : 9 quoted in Mk. 4 : 12).
There is a very general disposition among critics to
admit some Paulinistic influence in this section of
Mark. What men fail to see, however, is that the whole
Gospel is composed from a Paulinistic point of view.
The only great discourses of Jesus are denunciatory of
the Jewish nation. The Jewish law and Jewish ob
servances never come into view but to be rejected by
Jesus as a " vain worship," " precepts and ordinances
of men," contrary to what God enjoined in the very ere
ation. Jesus overrides the Sabbaths, disregards the
fasts and ablutions, and declares all meats clean, abol
ishing the Mosaic distinctions. The scribes whom he
denounces call him an agent of Beelzebub. The Phari
sees, in company with " all the Jews," are described by
the evangelist as addicted to a religion of outward form,
Jesus speaks of them as " hypocrites " ; they conspire
with the Herodians to put him to death. In Luke and
Matthew much of this is of course retained. But in
the later Gospels there is discrimination. Jesus op
poses not Judaism as such, but the particular classes
who misrepresent it, not the Law of Moses, but the false
interpretation of it. Mark, like the fourth evangelist,
speaks of " the Jews," and Judaism in general, as re

152 JESUS AND PAUL
nounced by Jesus, and contrasts what Moses commanded
for the hardness of Israel's heart with " the command
ment of God."
All this is recalled only to show that while we un
doubtedly have in Mark the oldest form of that Aramaic,
Palestinian, tradition which all Christian antiquity
associates with the preaching of Peter, and which we
call " Petrine " in this sense, nevertheless the selection
of material, and the mode of presentation, are not only
anti-Jewish, but anti-Jewish-Christian. They are not
to any great extent Pauline in language or in the finer
shades of the Apostle's thought, but they are " Paulinis
tic " in their whole structure and adaptation.
Our interpretation of Synoptic literature in general
cannot afford to ignore this Paulinistic character of
Mark; because admittedly Mark is the foundation of
the whole Synoptic narrative, and therefore gives us
practically all we know about the historical Jesus.
This fundamental source, as we now see it, groups its
material around the same two foci which we have seen
are central to the thought of Paul.
Mark's story of the Galilean ministry is an account
of Jesus' baptism and exercise of the gifts of the Spirit.
Opposition by the scribes leads to his rejection of Jew
ish legalism, but the Twelve receive from him the " mys
tery of the kingdom " and the wonder-working power of
faith, and are by degrees emancipated from their Jew
ish " hardness of heart." Mark even relates at the close
of the Galilean ministry a mission of Jesus to the Gen
tiles, which must, of course, be regarded as unhistori-
cal ; but not so much because both later Synoptists can
cel it, as because it anticipates both the work of Paul
and the opposition Paul encountered from the legalists.
At all events it is subordinate to the principal theme.
The second focus is the Supper. The story of the
Jerusalem ministry starts with the revelation of the

BACK TO GALILEE. THE WITNESS OF PETER 153
mystery of the cross and resurrection as the real goal
of Messiah's work, leading up to the " three days " as
the climax. It relates such anecdotes, and only such,
as have a direct bearing on- this sacrifice as the ground
of salvation. But Peter, James and John lag here even
more than in the first half behind the mind of Christ.
The reader is left at last looking forward to the pre
dicted resurrection, but without actual narration of it,
a defect which the later evangelists seek to remedy in
ways which agree neither with one another nor with
Paul. But this phenomenon has an explanation of its
own. Such a selection of narratives from the story of Jesus
out of the rich abundance which must have been in early
circulation, and such an application, could hardly have
been made in circles where the highest reverence was
paid to Peter and the Twelve. It bespeaks a church
already grounded in the leading principles of the gospel
of Paul, but impelled by the same necessity which led
Paul to emphasize the moral nature of the Christian's
mystic union with his Savior-god to fall back upon the
life and teaching of Jesus as its ideal and standard.
The church whose type of teaching is here reflected has
small appreciation of the great ethical and religious
discourses of Jesus. It thinks of him less as rabbi than
as martyr, and it heartily believes that eternal life comes
only by self-dedication to death with this " Christ."
It holds before many eyes, as Paul did, Christ crucified,
a Jesus who teaches less by word than by example.
For the Church already feels the need of being taught
through surviving anecdotes from Jesus' life, in par
ticular the lessons implied in its own ordinances of bap
tism and the Supper.
We shall see that this increasing emphasis on the
moral aspect of the story tends to greater and greater
use in later Gospels of a Second or Teaching Soxirce, of

154 JESUS AND PAUL
whose origin we have no information whatsoever; for
the alleged tradition describing its contents as " logia,"
and connecting with it the name of " Matthew " refers
to nothing else than our own canonical Matthew. As
referred to the Second Source it dates back, as Dr. Sal
mon caustically remarked, no further than the nine
teenth century. This Second Source makes no special
reference to Peter. Indeed we should rather infer from
its character, and from the way in which it is subordi
nated to Mark in the treatment accorded it by Luke and
Matthew, that it comes from some author outside the
number of the Twelve. What was the nature of this
Second, or Teaching Source ? What was its view-point
in setting forth the character of Jesus ; and how far can
we rely upon its witness as a faithful record of the Mas
ter's utterance ? These are questions for our considera
tion hereafter. For the present we limit ourselves to
the narratives associated with the name of Peter, among
which, if anywhere, we must find the most authentic
materials for supplementing the meager outline deriv
able from the allusions of Paul. We shall see that here,
too, the doctrine is Paul's, though given in the name
and under the authority of Peter.
3. Pauline Teaching in the Name of Peter
I have already said that the employment of the name
and traditions of Peter in the post-Pauline period as a
vehicle for ideas which in their origin are distinctively
Paul's is a phenomenon by no means confined to the
Gospel of Mark. On the contrary, until the name of
" John " is advanced at a period certainly subsequent to
the appearance of the Apocalypse under this pseudo
nym, and probably as a consequence of it, the name of
" Peter "' serves as the guarantee for all apostolic tra
dition. In the Pauline churches of Italy and Asia
Minor " apostolic " doctrine would of course in all es-

BACK TO GALILEE. THE WITNESS OF PETER 155
sential features be distinctively Pauline, however it
might seek sanction under the growing authoritv of
"Peter." We could not have a better example of the extension
of the Petrine protectorate after the death of Paul than
the great word of encouragement sent apparently from
Rome but in the name of Peter to the suffering
Churches of the Anatolian peninsula in the midst of
the fiery persecution of Domitian. The Epistle known
to us as First Peter encourages these Anatolian Chris
tians to stand fast, and assures them that the gospel
they had received from Paul is " the true grace of
God." The date and place of origin of First Peter
cannot be far (if the prevailing jtidgment of critics be
correct) from our Gospel of Mark. As Harnack points
out, if we were to cut off the first single word of the
writing, just the name " Peter," no one would ever
dream of attributing it to this Apostle. It purports
to be from Peter, and always did; for the attempt of
Harnack to make it appear that the name " Peter " is a
later interpolation breaks down entirely before the over
whelming evidence both external and internal. The
name " Peter " is original, but assumed. The writer
is a Paulinist if ever there was one. So much so that
one eminent German critic proposes to regard the writ
ing as by the same author as Ephesians, the material of
which is constantly employed. I am by no means ready
to admit that Ephesians is deutero-Pauline ; but First
Peter is so unmistakably so that even Zahn proposes
to regard it as owing at least its phraseology to Silvanus.
Mark, as we remember, appears in this writing as
Peter's spiritual " son."
An equally cogent example of the incorporation of
Paulinism under patronage of Peter is the first half of
the narrative of Acts, covering that portion of the work
which appears to have been translated from the Ara-

156 JESUS AND PAUL
maic, and in which the hero and central authority is
Peter. Notoriously we have in this narrative a kind of
duplication of everything that had been related of Paul
in the earlier Greek narrative which has been incor
porated in the second half of the book. This second
half of Acts is the more authentic ; for it is based upon
a contemporary document, and not only has ample cor
roboration in its main features in the Pauline epistles,
but in its intrinsic characteristics is much less tinc
tured with legendary features. The dependence and
adjustment necessary to produce the parallelism must,
then, be on the side of First Acts, the document of
which Peter is the hero, and which extends to 15 : 33,
with some additions from other sources. It is certainly
not historical when here the entire work of Paul is an
ticipated by Peter. We certainly cannot agree when
Acts 15:7 makes Peter declare that God chose him to
be the Apostle to the Gentiles. But under what stand
ard were the Pauline Churches to come after Paul's
death ; if not that of the older Apostles ? Through no
other authority than Peter could they relate themselves
to the historic Christ. In Acts the process is particu
larly conspicuous in the story of the conversion of Cor
nelius at Caesarea (a parallel to Paul's conversion of
the proconsul at Paphos) and Peter's subsequent de
fense of his conduct in disregarding the Mosaic distinc
tions, even to the point of " eating with the Gentiles."
A conclave at Jerusalem after reviewing his conduct
and the divine sanction it had received, pronounces
upon the whole transaction the verdict : " Then to the
Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life."
This of course anticipates all Paul's conflict on their
behalf. When we read in Galatians of the obstacles
put in Paul's path, and the opposition from Peter him
self in refusing to " eat with the Gentiles " — when we
remember the long struggle through which Paul ob-

BACK TO GALILEE. THE WITNESS OF PETER 157
tained from these same Jerusalem authorities the con
cession of only a part of what is here declared to
have been piiblicly and officially conceded to Peter be
fore Paul's first missionary journey, it is apparent that
the narrator is getting ahead of the facts. In his story
the whole battle of Gentile freedom from the law, in
cluding the abolition of all distinctions of meats as
merely man-made (" what God hath cleansed make not
thou 'common'"), and the sweeping recognition that
" God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation
he that feareth him and worketb righteousness is ac
ceptable to Him " is carried to a victorious conclusion
by Peter officially and publicly in Jerusalem, before
Paul appears upon the scene, or has so much as ap
proached a single Gentile. How then could it have
had to be fought all over again by Paul with far less
decisive results, and failure by his own acknowledg
ment to win over Peter himself ? There is here, then,
most undeniably, a Paulinization of Peter. The writer
of this Aramaic source, incorporated by the compiler of
Acts, is doing in his own way what the writer of First
Peter does. He is attributing to Peter, as head of the
apostolic college and chief source of authority for the
age in which he writes, ideas which for that age, and
for the compiler, are indeed axiomatic; but which in
point of fact were with difficulty driven home by Paul
upon the older Apostles, and to some extent were really
resisted to the end by the actual historical Peter of
whom Paul tells.
Acts gives more than a mere precedent for the process
which I have spoken of as affecting the Gospel of Mark.
Both writers use the same Paulinized tradition of Peter.
In the case of Mark also, as well as Acts, the process is
antecedent to the evangelist's own work; for it is just
as certain that Mark himself has not composed, but
simply incorporated, the Transfiguration story (to take

158 JESUS AND PAUL
the salient example) as it is that " Luke " has not com
posed, but incorporated, the story of Peter's revelation
of the abolition of the Mosaic distinctions of meats in
the vision of Joppa. The process is older in both cases
than the compilation of the present Greek work. In
fact it would probably be possible to establish on lin
guistic grounds that in both cases the source was Ara
maic. But in both cases it is certainly later than the
time of Paul. For during the life-time of the two
Apostles it would be impossible to attribute to Peter a
divine revelation teaching him that his reluctance to
partake of anything " common " or unclean was a
man-made obstacle to the divine purpose, that there is
no distinction with God between Jews and Gentiles,
and that he ought to have no hesitation about entering
in to men uncircumcised and eating with them. Only
after the death of the great Apostles could the repre
sentation become current. For we know that Paul was
driven to resist Peter publicly to his face because Peter
and all the Jews at Antioch, including " even Barna
bas," stood for the very things here rejected by divine
authority. In like manner it could only be after the death of
both Paul and Peter that men would come to represent
" Peter and those that were with him " in " the holy
mount " receiving their apostleship of the new covenant
in terms which under the forms of Jewish midrasE are
an equivalent for Paul's great exposition of the reve
lation given to " ministers of the new covenant " in
II Cor. 3:1-6: 10.
It need not necessarily be the very same document
that has afforded to the author of Acts his story of the
vision and Voice from Heaven by which Peter is di
vinely taught the lesson so hardly learned from Paul
at Antioch, and to the author of Mark his story of the
vision and Voice from Heaven by which the pillar

BACK TO GALILEE. THE WITNESS OF PETER 159
Apostles 6 are taught the Pauline gospel of the mystery
of the cross. We know of many very early writings
which purported to give the " Preaching " or " Teach
ing," or " Revelation of Peter." It is possible that two
different documents might contain representations of
divine revelation to Peter on the salient points of
Pauline doctrine which are as closely akin as the Trans
figuration story of the Gospels and the vision at Joppa
in Acts. The point at issue is not a question of par
ticular documents and sources, but of the process by
which after the death of Peter and Paul the Aramaic-
speaking branch of the Church endeavored to infuse
Petrine tradition with the religious values of Paul's
teaching; just as conversely Paul's churches at Rome
and throughout the Greek-speaking world inevitably
turned to the older Apostles as authorities for the au
thentic faith. So Polycarp and Papias urge return to
the " tradition handed down to us from the very first " ;
as the only possible bulwark against the heretics who
are " perverting the precepts of the Lord to their own
lusts." Polycarp and Papias are not Jewish-Chris
tians. They simply continue the inevitable reaction
already conspicuous in the Pastoral Epistles, a reaction
which could not do otherwise than appeal to the name
of Peter in support of " the true grace of God " which
it had actually learned from Paul. That the process
has affected our Gospel of Mark, and by this means our
entire record of the life of Jesus seems to me an unde
niable fact, and one of obvious importance.
Many, I know, will resist to the utmost the suggestion
that the authentic story of Peter can have suffered any
infiltration of Pauline ideas in the form of midrash, or
homiletic exposition.. They consider that the admis-
6 " James " in the trio of witnesses of the transfiguration is of
course a different James from the " James and Cephas and John "
who endorsed the gospel of Paul in 47 a. d. in Jerusalem, but
confusion of the two James goes back to a very early period.

160 JESUS AND PAUL
sion of such an idealizing factor, especially in narra
tives such as the visions at the baptism of Jesus and in
the Mount of Transfiguration, endangers the historical
credibility of the whole record. My own sincere con
viction is that the ultimate result of such critical dis
crimination will be just the contrary. It is the refusal
to discriminate between the record itself, and parabolic
attempts to bring out the religious values of the record,
which makes the mass as a whole historically inadmis
sible, and practically unintelligible to the modern west
ern mind. It is as if in reading the Talmud we should
insist upon combining with the text the edifying com
mentary and application, which in the original are
printed in small type round about the text in the mar
gin and at the foot of the page. Discrimination of the
historical record in the Gospels from edifying pulpit
exposition and application is indispensable. It should
be made by scholars familiar with the conventional
Synagogue forms, since the tradition has been trans
mitted through the Christianized Synagogue. Genuine
appreciation of both elements, on the one side the actual
course of events, on the other the primitive religious
evaluation, will bring us closer than ever before to the
actual Jesus of Nazareth, and the real impress of his
spirit upon the souls of men.
But for the sake of those who are reluctant to be
lieve in the alleged process of the infusion of Petrine
tradition with Pauline doctrine by methods similar to
the haggadic teaching of the Synagogue, let me suggest
two comparisons. First, a comparison of the exact
process taking place, as it were under our very eyes,
between the time of the appearance of Mark's Gospel,
and the incorporation of its narrative in the later, Pales
tinian Gospel of Matthew. The later Gospel has three
additions to the Markan story, all bearing, as compe
tent authorities admit, decisive marks of Jewish

BACK TO GALILEE. THE WITNESS OF PETER 161
midrash, that is, elaboration by the use of symbolic
imagination. Tbey are (1) Peter's Walking on the
Sea, (2) Peter's Ordination to Bind and Loose, (3)
Peter's Payment of the Temple Tax. The story of
Jesus' Walking on the Sea in Mk. 6: 45-52 has a sup
plement in Mt. 14 : 28-33 which further draws out the
parallel ; for in Jewish symbolism power to tread upon
the sea, or triumph over it, signifies victory over the
power of Sheol. In Matthew we find an allegorizing
parallel to Peter's offer to go with Jesus to prison and
death, the collapse of his faith in the crisis of the night
of betrayal, his restoration by the personal intervention
of the risen Christ, and finally his stablishing of his
brethren by faith in Jesus as a risen Lord. All this is
compressed into a brief and telling addition to Mark.
The addition relates how when Peter saw Jesus walking
on the sea he sought to follow him over the waves, how
he lost faith when he saw the storm was boisterous, but
was rescued by the Master's extended hand, and re
turned with him to the frightened, despairing company
in the boat, who now exclaim : " Truly thou art the
Son of God." This seems to me a typical example of
that kind of homiletic expansion of sacred story with
symbolic detail which the Synagogue designates mi
drash. A second Matthean supplement improves upon Mark's
story of Peter's confession of the Christ by adding a
parallel to what Paul says of the revelation of God's
Son in bim, not by flesh and blood, but as an apostle
ship from God. In Mt. 16 : 16b-19 the Markan ac
count of Peter's confession is emended by adding the
words "the Son of the living God" to. " the Christ,"
and by attaching a counter declaration from Jesus that
Peter's utterance is a revelation " not from flesh and
blood, but from my Father which is in Heaven." Jesus
thereupon pronounces Peter the Rock on which His

102 JESUS AND PAUL
Church is to be founded, assuring it of victory over the
imprisoning powers of darkness. He also formally en
trusts Peter with the authority to determine for it what
is obligatory and what is not. Peter, by virtue of the
revelation of the Son granted him by the Father is thus
equipped with authority to speak for the whole Church.
He represents Christ and the Apostles in the same man
ner as the scribes who " sit in Moses' seat " have author
ity " to bind and loose " with respect to the precepts of
Moses. Of course this is a late addendum to gospel
tradition, though quite authentic in the text of Matthew.
For it is not an interpolation in the interest of Rome,
as Julius Grill and a few anti-Romanists would make
out. Rome has nothing to do with the evangelist's idea.
His horizon for the seat of apostolic authority is strictly
limited to " the cities of Israel." We are here at an
earlier stage. The connection of the name of Peter
with Rome is a later development, growing out of the
First Epistle and the circumstances of Peter's martyr
dom. The passage of Matthew is as Palestinian and
as early as the composition of the rest of that Gospel;
but it is certainly later than the Gospel of Mark which
it supplements. Still more certainly must it be later
than Paul's defense of his own authority as an Apostle,
through the revelation of God's Son in him; for the
addition borrows the very language of Gal. 1 : 16,
and its whole motive is to give to Peter's apostleship
a divine authority at least equal to that claimed by
Paul. A third example of supplementation of Matthew in
the same interest follows in the next chapter. The
story of the Coin in the Fish's Mouth is a characteristic
" edifying tale " (haggada) of Jewish midrash, belong
ing to the same type as those of the Old Testament
which are expressly so-called, or (as in the case of
Jonah) are left to the common-sense of the reader to

BACK TO GALILEE. THE WITNESS OF PETER 163
be understood as representing not fact but truth. The
object of Matthew's story is to resolve the perplexing
question of Christian Freedom and the Giving of Of
fense. It uses the phraseology of Paul (" lest we cause
them to stumble"). It even applies Paul's principle
of refraining from the use of a liberty to which as fol
lowers of Jesus we are entitled out of consideration for
others. In this case, however, the " others " are not
the scrupulous " weak brethren " of the Pauline
churches who said " I am of Cephas." They are not
Jewish Christians, but actual Jews. Those who make
the concession to avoid " stumbling " represent the
Jewish church in Palestine, under the leadership of
Peter, who here appears again as representative of the
Apostles and steward of Christ. The decision is to
pay the temple-tax, from which Christian Jews might
fairly claim exemption, in order to prove their contin
uing loyalty to the ancient faith. This supplement
also seems to me a manifest example of the process I
have designated the Paulinization of Petrine tradition.
Just as in the two preceding instances a supplementary
anecdote has been grafted upon the stock of Mark by
Jewish-Christian hands at a period later than our form
of the work.7
i On the " Petrine Supplements of Mark's Gospel " see the article
of this title in Expositor VIII, 73 (Jan., 1917). The Lukan
Gospel also contains some admirable examples of midrashic elabo
ration of Mark. The Miraculous Draft of Fishes (Lk. 5: 1-11) is
a typical instance, in which the figure of Peter assumes the same
prominence as in the Matthean. More beautiful is the contrasted
utterance of the Two Thieves (Lk. 23:39-43). He who repre
sents the bitter disillusionment of the mass of Israel " railed on
him, saying, Art not thou the Christ? Then save thyself and
us," a parallel to the challenge of Satan in the second Temptation.
The other replies in language expressive of the penitent faith of
the believing " remnant " : " Jesus, remember me when thou
comest in thy kingdom." Midrashic development of the canonical
material goes on even in the post-canonical Gospels. Of this
character is the supplementation of the story of the Rich En
quirer in the Gospel according to the Hebrews to show that his

164 JESUS AND PAUL
If any of my hearers are still unconvinced of the
reality of the process I allege of an infiltration of
Pauline ideas into the tradition of the words and deeds
of Jesus derived from Peter in the period after the
death of the two great Apostles, I would commend to
them, besides the examples I have cited from Matthew,
a close and careful study, which I think will prove
independently rewarding, of the relation of the two
interpretative vision-stories of Mark, the Baptism, and
the Transfiguration, with their Pauline equivalents.
These are, as I have said, (1) Paul's definition of the
elective decree of Adoption and its fulfillment in the
indwelling of the Spirit in Jesus, in Col. 1 : 13-20, (2)
his account of the revelation of the glorified Son of God,
which gives to the ministers of the new Covenant their
gospel of reconciliation and immortality, as set forth in
II Cor. 3-6 and kindred passages. Both these vision
stories, or " revelations," are key-passages for our inter
pretation of the Gospel of Mark ; for they are designedly
so placed as to shed the light of Heaven upon all the
earthly scenes which follow. But it is especially on
the Transfiguration story that I would concentrate your
attention, reminding you that for the evangelist no other
method was so effective for making clear to his readers
the contrast between a Christ according to the things of
men, such as Peter had confessed, and the other-
claim to have fulfilled the law was unwarranted, and that of the
healing of the man with the Withered Hand. The same is true
again of the addition in the same Gospel to the parable of the
Talents of a fourth servant who squandered his Lord's substance
with flute-players and harlots, and paid the penalty. Clement's
" myth, if indeed it be » myth," of a young man " restored from
the dead" by the aged Apostle John is a still later example of
the use of this favorite parable of the Prodigal Son in Christian
midrash, or, as Clement ventures to call it, " myth." Haggadic
teaching, whether Jewish or Christian, has no restrictions in the
use of fiction save that it bring home the religious or moral truth
intended. Its one rule is: "Let all things be done unto edifi
cation."

BACK TO GALILEE. THE WITNESS OF PETER 165
worldly messiahship set forth in Jesus' rebuke. I
would also remind you that the doctrine of immortality
through " transfiguration " ( p-erapop^oxn';) into the " im
age " or " likeness " of the " body of glory " of the
risen Christ, so that the exchange of that " bouse from
heaven " for earthly " tabernacles " would be the height
of folly, is not a doctrine which Paul learned from
Peter, but that it belongs to the most vital and intimate
elements of Paul's own transcendent experience. The
Transfiguration story aims to show how Peter and his
companion Apostles were brought to see that their con
ception of a Christ according to the things that be of
men was false, that the Son of God belongs essentially
to the world of the glorified, and that the goal of im
mortality involves an exchange of this " tabernacle "
for the " transfigured body." Its very phraseology be
longs to that part of Paul's vocabulary in which he bor
rows most largely from the modes of thought and expres
sion of the mysteries. It is impossible, therefore, in
this case to reverse the relation. It is as completely a
Paulinized Peter here as in the Second Epistle, who
talks about a " putting off of the ' tabernacle ' of the
flesh," and shows his Jewish " hardness of heart " by
wishing to provide " tabernacles " for the glorified ones,
as though it were for them to come and dwell in " tene
ments of clay " with men upon the earth.
On the other hand a much greater task awaits those
of us who are convinced that we must discriminate in
the Gospels between record and interpretation. We
hold in particular that these two key-narratives of
vision and Voice from Heaven, prefacing the two main
divisions of the story of Mark, represent the work of
some early Christian haggadist laboring to infuse the
tradition of Peter with meanings really derived from
Paul, just as in the story of the vision at Joppa Peter
receives by revelation the doctrine that distinctions of

166 JESUS AND PAUL
Jew and Gentile, clean and unclean, are not of God,
but of man. If so we must learn to appreciate these
midrashic elements at their true value. Our task is
not destructive but constructive. We cannot simply
take away the interpretation in terms of religious values
which Paul has first put upon the career of Jesus, and
after him some early teacher of the Christian synagogue
has embodied in symbolic story, leaving the record with
out an interpretation. We are not historical critics for
criticism's sake; else we should not be applying its
processes to a record which if it have not values for the
history, psychology, and philosophy of religion has no
value at all. We cannot leave a mere void in place of
the interpretation which the evangelist has put upon the
story of how Jesus came to the baptism of John and
there dedicated himself to the reconciliation of wayward
Israel to its Father in Heaven by the path of repent
ance and faith in the coming kingdom. In the Trans
figuration vision the evangelist interprets in terms of
apocalyptic symbolism what it means to religion that
Jesus again dedicated himself, after his first effort had
failed, to seek as Son of David and Son of Man recon
ciliation with God and realization of the kingdom. If
we do not accept his interpretation we remain debtors
for a better. A learned Jewish writer who attempts to
answer the noble work of Montefiore to which I have
referred declares that Jesus was not a prophet because
he " preached about the coming of the kingdom, but in
vain " ( !) The objector seems to think the great Old
Testament prophets, such as Jeremiah, scored an imme
diate popular success. We, on the contrary, are con
vinced that Jesus neither preached in vain, nor suffered
in vain. Nevertheless we are not limited to the at
tempts of Paul, or the age after Paul, to interpret the
story sub specie eternitatis. There is ever room for
new evaluations of the record in terms of the modern

BACK TO GALILEE. THE WITNESS OF PETER 167
history, psychology, and philosophy of religion. It will
be interesting to see if the modern constructive theo
logian can do as well for our time as Paul and his follow
ers did for theirs.
It would appear from the foregoing that the Petrine
tradition of the Sayings and Doings of Jesus comes
down to us only from a period after the death of the
great Apostles, and in a form affected not only by the
reaction of the Greek-speaking churches of the West
toward the authoritative testimony of the eye and ear-
witnesses, but also by a doctrinal infiltration from the
Pauline side. Are we thus impoverished in the ma
terial available for our religious faith ? Quite the con
trary. The true basis of our faith is not the bare record
of Jesus' words and deeds, but what God wrought
through him, both in his earthly career, and in the
reaction to it of men like Paul. It includes the effort
of the generation after Paul to combine the values of
what Paul had seen, using the eye of the spirit, with
what the older witnesses had seen with the eye of the
flesh. Would it be easier, think you, or harder —
would it require less discrimination, or more, to extract
those elements of the story which have permanent mean
ing for our own religious life, if we possessed on phono
graphic plates and photographic films a complete record
of all the thirty years of Jesus' life ? Selective discrim
ination must be our guide, as with all the generations
past, including the evangelists themselves. And when
we have discriminated record from interpretation, his
torical occurrence from pragmatic application, we shall
not be worse off than before, but better. We shall see
at the one extreme in this post-apostolic age a radical
wing of ultra-Paulinists, endeavoring to interpret the
Incarnation and Resurrection in terms of the mystery
myths of personal immortality by participation in the
divine nature. We shall see at the other extreme a re-

168 JESUS AND PAUL
actionary Jewish-Christian wing, who would interpret
it in terms of Jewish Law and Apocalypse. We shall
see between these two extremes the central body of the
Church driven by dangers without and within into a
rapprochement between " those of Peter " and " those
of Paul " of which First Peter is the first great irenicon.
We shall see this central body feeling its way little by
little to a faith which retains the values from both sides
that are practically approved, and leaving the result to
future generations.
To return, then, to the Gospel of Mark. We have
here, it would seem, a Roman compend of the sayings
and doings of Jesus, gathered from the anecdotes of
those who had seen and heard the Lord. The remi
niscences are turned to account that those who sought
forgiveness for the sake of the Crucified might know
what was meant by the offering of his body and blood,
and that those who dedicated themselves in penitence
and faith might understand what was meant by new
life in his spirit. Suppose that when we had subtracted
from the record those elements which the critic must
regard as belonging rather to the interpretation than to
the record itself, nothing more were left than could
already be inferred from Paul's own incidental refer
ences. Still we should have enough. We should know
of one Leader in the history of man's quest for the life
of God, whose ideal was all that the loftiest aspiration
can conceive, a gospel of reconciliation of man to man
and man to God. We should have at the same time the
portrait of One whose loyalty to that ideal knew no
shade of reserve, no taint of self. We should know a
Christ not after the flesh, but Son of God and Son of
Man. But thank God that there is much more than
this. As Dr. Morgan admits : " The risen Christ of
Paul represents a generalized picture of the historical
Jesus. The central and the new fill the horizon to the

BACK TO GALILEE. THE WITNESS OF PETER 169
overshadowing of much, the loss of which would have
been an unspeakable calamity. In particular those
features in Jesus which make him so real and so human
pass out of sight. Paul's Christ has not the inexhaust
ible richness nor the human winsomeness of the histori
cal figure." It is to this that the churches turned after
the death of the Apostle, and as Dr. Morgan justly says:
" The preservation of the Synoptic Gospels meant noth
ing less than the saving of Christianity." 8
8 Religion and Theology of Paul, p. 40.

LECTURE VII
THE GOSPEL. AS LAW AND PROMISE
1. Conditions of the Later Synoptic Period
The period from which are derived the remaining
elements of the Aramaic Enclave, the writings of Luke,
the Gospel of Matthew, and the Apocalypse of John, is
not more than a score of years earlier than the Epistles
of Ignatius and Polycarp. It is that of the Pastoral
Epistles in their present form, an elaboration of auth
entic letters of Paul. James and Jude, encyclicals
which address the Church at large in the name of two
of the " desposyni," are best assigned to the same period,
the closing decade of the first century; and even II
Peter, later as it is, and dependent upon Jude, throws
light upon the conditions of the age. All these episto
lary writers are greatly concerned for the morals of the
Church, threatened as in Paul's time, but more danger
ously, by teachers of antinomian tendency.
The Hellenistic conception of fellowship with God is
intellectual and mystical rather than moral, a participa
tion in His omniscience and immortality by enlighten
ment, or ritual. The Church insists upon conduct.
God's nature is beneficent goodness, toward which the
road of fellowship lies open by dedication of the will
to the fulfillment of His righteous commandment. This
is the burden of the Johannine Epistles, which we con
sider in the next lecture. In II Peter the interest in
ethics is extended to eschatology. It supplements the
warning of Jude against the autinomians by adding a
preliminary chapter on the certainty of the promise of
glorification as guaranteed by the transfiguration vision,
170

THE GOSPEL AS LAW AND PROMISE 171
and a closing chapter reaffirming the certainty and near
ness of the predicted judgment. In I-III John, we
have letters belonging to about the same date and
region. These also strongly reflect the antinomian tend
ency, and oppose to it the new commandment of love.
But the Epistles and Gospel of John take no such inter
est as Second Peter in the apocalyptic eschatology; or
rather they concede a more Hellenistic view. They
connect the heresy with the docetic doctrines denounced
by Ignatius, and seek their remedy in worthier ideas of
Jesus' life and teaching. Here, then, is a kind of bifur
cation. In respect to the " denial of resurrection and
judgment " the " Johannine " writings take one road,
Second Peter and the Revelation quite another. But
the dominant interest of the age is an easy one to define.
The more immediate danger is from those who " pervert
the oracles of the Lord to their own lusts.". Over
against this antinomian tendency the current of ortho
doxy is already setting strongly toward neo-legalism.
In the Catholic Epistles the life and death struggle
against incipient Gnosticism has already begun, but
theoretic Gnosticism scarcely affects the Aramaic En
clave. The Church everywhere is laying fresh empha
sis upon the nature of its gospel as a " new command
ment," but with different sanctions. In the Aramaic
Enclave the effort is not (as in Jn. and I-III Jn.) to
present the gospel as a way of moral union with God,
so much as to reenforce the authority of the new com
mandment by more positive declarations as to the com
ing Judgment and the reality and certainty of its re
wards and punishments. Most conspicuously of all in
the Palestinian Gospel (Matthew) the message is con
ceived as Law and Promise.
We have quoted from the epistle written by Polycarp
in 112-118 to Paul's church in Philippi the warning
against the false teachers who " pervert the ' oracles of

172

JESUS AND PAUL

the Lord ' to their own lusts and deny the resurrection
and judgment." His later associate Papias at another
Pauline church of Asia, Hierapolis, is still concerned
with the same peril. Polycarp had advised to " turn to
the tradition handed down to us from the beginning."
Papias applied the advice in the very practical way of
publishing a book of Interpretations of the Oracles of
the Lord. His " oracles " were found in the Gospel of
Matthew, with some additions from Mark. He sought
to prove their true meaning as against Gnostic perver
sion by citing traditions of Palestinian Elders carefully
authenticated. Papias' quest for " commandments
(eVroAat) of the Lord " was earlier than 118. His pub
lication is probably not earlier than 140. If, however,
we look backward from Polycarp to the long letter of
Clement written from Rome in 96, with its repeated
reference to " sayings " (Ao'yot; not Ao'yia — " oracles ")
of Jesus containing moral teaching, and to the Pastoral
Epistles with their emphasis on " the healthful words,
even the sayings (\6yoi) of our Lord Jesus " it will be
quite apparent that a body of such teaching was current
in the Church throughout this period. A new impetus
was given to their circulation by the antinomian peril.
As is well known, the two later Synoptic writers, who
cannot be far apart in date since both use the same two
principal sources without any evidence of acquaintance
with one another's work, employ in common as their
" second " source a compilation of discourses of Jesus.
This so-called Second Source constitutes in its surviving
fragments our main dependence for his teaching. The
work in its primary, Aramaic form is probably older
than the canonical form of our Gospel of Mark, which
seems to make a very limited use of it. Unfortunately
we have little to guide us in determining its character
and reliability. Besides the internal evidence there is
only the manner in which the source is employed by our

THE GOSPEL AS LAW AND PROMISE 173
evangelists. Tradition there is none, since no writer of
antiquity so much as suspects its existence. The inter
nal evidence of the Source is strongly in its favor; for
its material is derived from the Aramaic, and in the
sublimity of its moral and religious teaching, no less
than in the character attributed to Jesus, it corresponds
much more closely than Mark to the allusions of Paul.
These traits incline us to give high respect to its wit
ness. On the other hand our evangelists disregard its
connections, and reject most of such narrative as it con
tained in favor of Mark. This is hardly compatible
with belief in its apostolic origin. Moreover, its dis
courses differ widely from most of those in Mark, and
are framed in a highly developed literary style resem
bling that of the Stoic diatribe, or still more nearly the
better type of Jewish " Wisdom." These considerations
make it difficult to regard the Second Source as com
posed by one of the Twelve. It cannot even be said to
bear the marks of the eye-witness. Nevertheless it
clearly and certainly reflects the spirit which Paul de
scribes as " the mind that was in Christ Jesus." Indeed
the predominant traits in its portrait are precisely that
" meekness and lowliness " which Paul refers to ;
whereas, curiously, these particular traits are not even
mentioned in the Gospel of Mark. In the pages of the
Second Source we are probably nearer than in any other
gospel writing to the actual teaching of Jesus, though
even here we cannot depend on the precise words.
Supplementation of Mark's all too meager account of
Jesus' teaching was sure to take place from this superb
reserve. Indeed it seems to be the chief raison d'etre of
Matthew, if not of Luke also. As we have seen, the
danger most acutely felt in this period was the tendency
to moral laxity. " Commandments delivered by the
Lord to the faith " were the supreme desideratum, and
this conviction is the more strongly shown the nearer we

174 JESUS AND PAUL
approach to the Jerusalem church with its body of " sue
cessors of the Apostles and kindred of the Lord." The
epistles of James and Jude appear, to be sure, under
fictitious names; but they are intended to reflect the
spirit of this group of their successors in Jerusalem.
The Epistle of James would make an excellent preface
to the Second Source. Jude might serve a similar pur
pose with respect to Matthew. Mark fell into the back
ground chiefly because it contained so few of the " com
mandments." But there was clear recognition of other
defects also in the Roman Gospel, defects which could
not be remedied from the Second Source, and therefore
are met in totally different ways by Matthew and Luke,
without any indication of literary connection, direct or
indirect, between the two.
There was first Mark's beginning. The genealogies
of Matthew and Luke, inconsistent as they are, of course
represent a reversion to the primitive belief, attested
by Paul but neglected by Mark, that Jesus was " of the
seed of David according to the flesh." How to preserve
this, and at the same time to hold to the higher concep
tion of a spiritual birth after the Pauline teaching, was
of course a problem. It could no longer be solved by
the Markan method of a prologue to the Gospel describ
ing under the form of vision the descent of the Spirit of
Adoption, declaring Jesus the Beloved Son of God's
" good pleasure," and enduing him with all the pow
ers of the age to come. Heretics had already laid hold
of this prologue and made it their own. Adoptionism
(as it later came to be called) was the sheet anchor of
Docetics like Cerinthus, who maintained that Jesus
was a mere " receptacle of the Holy Spirit," a Christ
who came by water (of baptism) only, and not by blood
(of the sacrament of his suffering). To ensure both a
continuous and unbroken full presence of the divine

THE GOSPEL AS LAW AND PROMISE 175
Spirit in a real humanity no other way seemed open than
that which our supplemented of Mark independently
adopt. As Isaac was " God-begotten " by a word of
promise,1 so Jesus by special miracle had been " the Son
of God " from his mother's womb.
Even more conspicuous than at the beginning was the
need for supplementation at the end of Mark. The
complete divergence of the later evangelists in their story
from the moment they reach the point where the mutil
ated Mark breaks off, suggests that this mutilation had
already occurred. It cannot have been accidental, but
must be due to dissatisfaction with the story of the ap
pearance to Peter " in Galilee." Whether the dissatis
faction was due to the doctrinal or the geographic repre
sentation we cannot say. We do know, however, that
questions as to the nature of the resurrection body had
been vehemently agitated between Jewish Christian and
Greek Christian since Paul had written to the Corinth
ians. In this age of docetic heresy, as may readily be
seen from the Ignatian Epistles, it was doubly urgent.
What part the birth in real manhood from the Virgin
Mary, and the resurrection in real " flesh " (draorao-is
rijs o-apicos) has to play in this age of docetic heresy we
may learn from its baptismal confession, commonly
called the Apostles' Creed. Luke is more largely con
cerned in his supplements with the refutation of docetic
heresy, Matthew with Jewish objections to the Markan
story of the empty sepulchre. But these additions of
the later evangelists at beginning and end of the Roman
Gospel are principally of interest to the student of early
apologetic. They tell us indirectly what was the course
of debate over the nature of the body in which Jesus
came into and went out of the world, but are of far less
importance to the student of his life than the teaching
iRom. 4: 16-21; 9: 6-9.

176 JESUS AND PAUL
drawn by both North-Syrian and South-Syrian evan
gelist in common from their mysterious Second Source.
2. The Teaching Source
In the Gospel of Matthew the " doubletradition "
material, or material shared with Luke though not de
rived from Mark and commonly designated Q, is nearly
all consolidated into five books of precepts, the first of
which, the so-called Sermon on the Mount, is familiar
to us all. The narrative merely serves as an introduc
tion to these, just as the Pentateuch narrative frames in
the great discourses in which Moses presents the law.
Each of the five books into which the substance of the
Gospel is divided begins with such narrative, combining
material from Mark and the Second Source in various
proportion. Only in Book IV (Chapters 14-18) is
the narrative introduction derived almost entirely from
Mark. On the other hand nearly all the narrative intro
duction to Book III (Chapters 11-13) is from Q.
Each of the five books of Matthew concludes with a stere
otyped formula repeated from the end of the first book,
where it had occurred in the Second Source. The bor
rowing and application of the formula proves this five
fold division to be really intended by the compiler ; but
the two chapters on the Infancy form a Prologue, and
the story of the Passion and Resurrection in Chapters
26-28 an Epilogue. The evangelist has thus given us a
fivefold book of the new Torah, which with Prologue
and Epilogue contains seven divisions in all. In the
second century the five-fold division seems to have been
still observed; for a versified " argumentum," of a type
characteristic of that age, celebrates Matthew's refuta
tion " in five books " of the deicide people of the Jews.2
I cannot now take time to describe these five bodies
2 See Bacon, Expositor, VIII, 85 (Jan., 1918).

THE GOSPEL AS LAW AND PBOMISE 177
of precepts of the Lord, the five Sermons (or Pereqs, as
Sir John Hawkins has called them) of Matthew. Only
the first, whose theme is The Righteousness of Sons, is
wholly made up of Q material,, not in its original order,
but based on an original Q discourse expanded with other
Q material. There are four others. That on The Duty
of the Evangelist, occupies chapter 10, that on the
Mystery of the Kingdom occupies verses 1-52 of chapter
13, that on The Duty of the Church Ruler occupies
chapter IS, and that on The Final Judgment occupies
chapters 23-25. These four are based on briefer dis
courses of Mark filled out with Q material. Three
things prove the arrangement secondary. (1) The de
struction of the order of the Second Source, even in the
Sermon on the Mount, where no Markan pattern called
for readjustment ; (2) the use of a Markan basis for the
other Sermons; (3) the incorporation of considerable
masses of Q in the narrative introductions, particularly
in chapters 3—4, and 11-12. These structural phe
nomena show that the present arrangement of Q in Mat
thew is not that of the source, but is due to our canonical
evangelist, whose idea of the world's needs in this line
is shown by his conclusion. The Apostles are sent to
teach all men everywhere " to observe all things whatso
ever I have commanded you."
Critics generally hold our own canonical evangelist
responsible for the agglutination of diverse Q material
in Matthew's version of the Sermon on The Righteous
ness of Sons, because in Luke it is referred to various
more appropriate occasions. Unfortunately a large
number of critics, perhaps the majority, have been mis
led by the mistaken idea that ancient tradition in some
way connects the Second Source with the name of Mat
thew. They therefore take this late Gospel, constructed
in the interest of a neo-legalistic type of Christianity,
more or less as the model for their reconstructions. We

178 JESUS AND PAUL
are even told that Q was not a gospel at all, but a mere
agglutination of " oracles " (Ao'yia) ; that it contained
few such anecdotes as Mark, and no account at all of the
Passion and Resurrection. Still it is admitted that it
began with a fuller account than Mark's of the Ministry
of the Baptist, and of Jesus' Baptism and Temptation;
that it included at least the anecdote of The Believing
Centurion, besides others, which owing to their being
also reported by Mark are not identifiable ; and that its
central theme was Israel's rejection of " the Son of
Man." This is hard to reconcile with the theory of a
mere collection of sayings. Indeed had it not been for
this false connection with the Apostle Matthew more
would doubtless have recognized that not the order only,
but the whole spirit and purpose of this ancient gospel
(for most emphatically it was a " gospel ") are more
nearly reflected in Luke than in Matthew. Had its
structure been compared with the setting of the great
discourses of Luke on Abiding Wealth (Lk. 12 : 13-34),
or Effectual Prayer (Lk. 11 : 1-13; 18: 1-8), or those
of Acts 1-7, our insight into its true nature and bearing
on the portraiture of Jesus would be far clearer than is
now the case.
The fact that our first evangelist subordinates this
source to the Gospel of Mark for all narrative material,
especially toward the close of the story, makes it impos
sible to determine what part, if any, of the narrative
material peculiar to Luke is taken from it. Luke does
diverge quite widely from Mark in narrative, especially
in the Passion story, but as our recognition of Q depends
on his coincidence with Matthew, and Matthew here
fails, we lose our primary means of identification.
Further inference can proceed on but two grounds:
We may say : Matthew would have diverged along with
Luke, if the Second Source had offered important mate
rial. This is the common mode of reasoning, and is

THE GOSPEL AS LAW AND PROMISE 179
valid within certain limits1. The other ground of
reasoning, is that of internal affinities connecting double
with single or tripletradition material. The primary
definition of Q is : " coincident material of Matthew and
Luke not contained in Mark." The definition is cer
tainly too narrow for the Source, which we might desig
nate S. S was greater than Q because the Second
Source undoubtedly contained some of the material
which now appears only in Matthew or only in Luke
(single-tradition), as well as some which appears in all
three Synoptics (triple-tradition material) and thus
eludes identification. Of course the attempt to identify
this further content of S by affinity with the known
elements is most precarious. Inference must be accom
panied with a double ? ?. On the other hand it is
quite wrong to act as if Q (doubletradition material)
and the Second Source were the same thing. If we
were to treat S and Q as geometrical areas and super
impose the one upon the other we should find the out
line of each extending beyond that of the other at
various points. Some of Q should probably not be
included in S, and much, no doubt, that is not included
in Q really should be; though identification is pre
carious. Limiting ourselves to the admitted factors it is still
possible from Q alone to define certain general charac
teristics of the Second Source which will greatly help
us in our endeavor to place alongside the Petrine tradi
tion of Mark an independent early estimate of the char
acter and career of Jesus. As already intimated there
is a decided difference. The Second Source will be
found to coincide much more nearly than Mark with the
conception of Paul, though Paul's also is an idealized
portrait, in which the Suffering Servant of Deutero-
Isaiah forms the background. I will mention but three
features in this primitive Gospel's portraiture of Jesus :

180 JESUS AND PAUL
its conception of Jesus' relation to the Baptist, its doc
trine of faith, and its theory of the person and work of
the Christ.
(1) It is only in Q that we gain any insight into the
work of John the Baptist as a movement of independent
significance. Were we to judge by the meager refer
ences of Mark, we should imagine this really mighty and
epoch-making movement in the religious life of con
temporary Judaism as a mere preliminary to Christian
ity. For Mark as for the late Ephesian evangelist the
Baptist has no significance in himself. He is a mere
anointer of the Christ sent solely to draw attention to
him. We should have learned a truer valuation from
the question put by Jesus to the delegation from the
Sanhedrin concerning John, if not from Josephus,
and from the later history of the Baptist sects. Unlike
Mark, in Q full credit is given to the Baptism of John
as the supreme " sign of the times." It forms a parallel
in Israel to the appearance of Jonah with his message of
warning to the Ninevites. It is an even more fateful
sign, because Nineveh repented, whereas Israel did not.
In Q Jesus declares John the greatest born of women,
more than a prophet, because he stands like the promised
Elijah at the threshold of the coming Kingdom, turning
the heart of Israel back again in the " great repentance "
before the end, and thus " preparing the way " for the
coming of Jehovah.3 In this Source he expressly char
acterizes the work of John as a " way of justification "
which the publicans and sinners welcomed by repent
ance and faith, when the self-righteous did not even
repent themselves after they saw the sign. On the
other hand this source, unlike Mark, represents John as
unconscious of the mission of his great disciple. John
hears of Jesus' work of healing and comfort to the poor
and penitent, and sends to enquire if this may perchance
s Not as Mk. 1 : 1 ff. takes it, the coming of Jesus.

THE GOSPEL AS LAW AND PROMISE 181
be the expected Christ. Jesus sends but an evasive
answer, bidding him note the character of the work and
take no offense at the person of the agent. This occa
sion is then made the point of departure in Q for a long
discourse whereby the writer brings out the relative
character of the two movements, showing how that of
Jesus corresponds to the work of the Isaian Servant,
who brings healing, comfort and " glad tidings to the
poor." In the same connection he proceeds to show the
guilt of Israel in " stumbling " at this work, which is
really that of the Wisdom of God, and will be " justi
fied " in that minority of the people who can be called
Wisdom's " children." The rest remain under heavier
condemnation than the Gentiles because of their greater
opportunity. If any of us fail to remember how lightly Mark
passes over all this Q material about the Baptist, how
he makes John prepare the way not of Jehovah's, but
only of Jesus' coming, it would be well to read through
the Gospel of Mark once more, and note the difference.
Not only is the representation of the Second Source in
comparably more historical, especially in its recognition
that the Baptist has no divine revelation of the character
and work of Jesus, but its parallel between the two move
ments, in which tbe message of Jesus follows upon that
of the Baptist as the Isaian message of comfort and
healing follows upon the warning of Jonah " yet forty
days and Nineveh shall be destroyed," is in highest de
gree instructive. It conveys, as we shall see, the whole
point of view of this primitive evangelist.
(2) From this Q comparison between the work of
Jesus and that of John in the narrative introduction to
Matthew's third book (Mt. 11-12) let us turn to certain
Q elements in the introduction to the first book (Mt.
3: 7-12; 4: 1-10). The first is the Baptist's preach
ing of Repentance, which Mark was not interested to

182 JESUS AND PAUL
record, though we have strong reason to believe that he
had it before him. Its point is certainly not far from
the Pauline doctrine that not they are children of Abra
ham who descend from him according to the flesh, but
those who show his faith. In Q the message of John is :
" Abrahamic descent gives no guarantee of escape from
the coming wrath of God. God can make children of
Abraham from the stones. Wash you, make you clean,
put away the evil of your doings, or a more terrible
baptism awaits you: The fire of judgment predicted
by Malachi." Thus in Q the contrast is not, as in Mark,
between a baptism of water (John's) and a baptism of
the Spirit (Christian), but between the baptism of water
unto repentance now offered, and the purifying flame of
Jehovah's threshing-floor, destroying the chaff for ever
more. However, I have already said enough regarding
what we learn from Q as to the independent value of
John's ministry and as to its nature. I must pass on
to the Temptation story, a section which serves in the
Second Source a purpose similar to that of the prologue
of Mark or John ; that is, it gives the reader a survey of
the career that opens before Jesus as " the Son of God."
It defines under symbolic forms what is involved in the
term. It is implied in the Temptation story that it
followed upon and elucidated some account of the Bap
tism and Voice from Heaven. As before, Mark was not
sufficiently interested in this Q section to give its content,
though when he comes to the question what is involved
in the title Son of God, he does not fail to avail himself
of the language of Jesus' reply to Satan in it. In Mk.
8 : 33, its language is directed against Peter, who in re
sisting the doctrine of a martyr-Christ makes himself
the tool of Satan.
As I said, the point of the midrashic temptation-story
is to interpret the Christian sense of the title Son of
God, which had just been divinely revealed. We may

THE GOSPEL AS LAW AND PROMISE 183
therefore conclude that the " triple-tradition " (Markan)
story of the vision at the baptism is really tlerived in
the main from the Second Source. At all events it is
based on the Isaian Servant-song " Behold my Servant
whom I have chosen, my Beloved on whom my soul fixed
her choice; I will put my Spirit upon him; he shall
bring forth judgment (mishpat, i. e., knowledge of God)
to the Gentiles." Jesus is the Servant-Son. We shall
best get the idea of the parabolic attachment known as
the Temptations by turning to one of the greatest of the
pre-Christian Wisdom writings in which the Isaian fig
ure of Israel as Jehovah's suffering Servant is developed.
I may again remind you that in this Greek writing, the
so-called Wisdom of Solomon, the titles of Servant
(irais) and Son (wo?) are used interchangeably. Both
stand for Israel as the agent of Jehovah in restoring the
world. In the second chapter of Wisdom a long poem
describes the suffering and the shameful death to which
the Righteous one is exposed by enemies who deride his
claim to be the Servant of the Lord and to have knowl
edge of Him. Because he claims that " God is his
Father," and believes that " if the righteous man is
God's Son He will uphold him " the wicked put him to a
shameful death, to try if his words be true. The
martyrdom issues in a crown of immortality for the
Righteous Servant, and the poet concludes with the fol
lowing general application.
The souls of the righteous are in God's hand,
And no torment shall touch them.
In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died ;
Their departure was accounted disaster,
And their journeying away from us, ruin.
But they are in peace, having a hope full of immortality.
God made trial of them and found them worthy of Himself,
And He will reign over them for evermore.
They that trust in Him (oi ire7roi0oY« «r* avrm) shall under
stand truth,

184 JESUS AND PAUL
And those that are faithful in love (oi irioroi ev aydiry) shall
have their dwelling with Him.
I make the quotation in slightly abbreviated form not
merely as a parallel to the second temptation (which
shows how he that is truly God's Son is really upheld by
Him even if in the eyes of the foolish he seems to have
trusted in vain), but to make clear that in both cases
the victory is a victory of " faith." Satan says : " cast
thyself down ; for it is written ' He shall give His angels
charge concerning thee.' " The answer is in substance
" Trust God, and be obedient even unto death." It is
for Him to test thee, not for thee to put Him to the test.
Faith and faithfulness, trust and " faithfulness in love "
(a term that comes very close to Paul's " faith working
through love "), are the qualities by which God " makes
trial of " those who should be His Sons.
Another quotation from the same Wisdom writing will
show still more clearly the writer's idea of the training
of God's sons in " faith," and will at the same time
show still closer affinity with the Temptation story.
Wisdom 16:20-26 employs the same passage from
Deuteronomy which is placed in the mouth of Jesus in
the first Temptation, and in the same application. Ac
cording to Wisdom Israel was given " bread from
Heaven " in the wilderness in order " that thy sons
whom thou lovest (ot vtoi o-ov ois ^yaTnyo-a?), O Lord, might
learn that it is not the growth of earth's fruits that nour-
isheth a man, but that Thy word preserveth them that
have faith in Thee." Men who had read this passage of
Wisdom would hardly need elaborate exposition to teach
them the meaning of the Temptation, " If thou art the
Son of God command that these stones be made bread."
They would certainly not need special parallels to ex
plain to them the third temptation with its contrast of a
" Son of God " who sits on the throne of David, the

THE GOSPEL AS LAW AND PROMISE 185
kingdoms of the world and the glory of them at his feet,
with another who rejects all this as a kingdom of Satan,
a kingdom according to the things of men.
We have dwelt long on the Temptation stories because,
as I said, they serve in Q the purpose of a general intro
duction to the scenes of Jesus' life, explaining by their
symbolism in what sense his claim to be the Son of God
is to be understood, and how his humble obedience unto
death, even the death of the cross, so far from conflicting
with the scriptural ideal, is precisely in line with the
divine purpose as revealed by Isaiah and those who fol
lowed with similar insight. I do not think any of us
will fail to note how momentous a part is played here by
the qualities of " faith " and " love " as the basis of
divine " sonship," nor how near we come along this line
to the teaching of Paul. I have time now only for one
more citation from the Second Source, and I shall choose
it in such a way as to bring out the writer's theory of
the person of Christ, and of the way in which God
works through him to the fulfillment of His redemptive
purpose. (3) We have had occasion already to observe in pass
ing that this source has a noticeable parallel to Paul's
doctrine of the " spoiling " of the Powers of darkness,
and the working of the Spirit as evidence that the reign
of God is already a potential reality. I have also had
occasion to point out that the conception of Jesus' work
of healing and glad tidings to the poor, as well as the
depiction of his calling to be a " Son " in the sense of
the submissive and martyred Servant, presuppose the
same conception as Paul sets forth, based on the Servant-
songs of Isaiah. There is, however, this difference, that
in the Second Source this Isaian conception is even
more strongly tinctured than in Paul with ideas charac
teristic of the later Wisdom literature. Not that any
thing here appears of preexistence, or the activities of

186 JESUS AND PAUL
Wisdom as the Firstborn of the creation, but of her
redemptive activity as God's agent in winning back lost
and erring humanity. Look at the sequel to the Q con
text which condemns unbelieving Israel in comparison
with the believing and penitent " children of Wisdom,"
and which predicts that the " cities which believed not "
will fare worse in the judgment than Tyre and Sidon,
or Nineveh that repented at the warning of Jonah. We
find here as the closing appeal in Mt. 11 : 25 ff. a typical
Hymn of Wisdom. The first strophe is a thanksgiving
of the Son to the Father for the hiding of the mystery
from human knowledge, and the revelation of it to
" babes." Such, the hymn declares, was the " good
pleasure " (euSWa) of the Father. A second strophe de
clares that the Father gives full knowledge of Himself
to the elect Son in order that this saving knowledge may
be conveyed through the Son as agent to as many as he
wills. The third strophe is not found in the Lukan
form, but it continues with Wisdom's invitation to all the
weary and toil-worn to take upon them her easy yoke
and learn her " meekness and lowliness," which will give
rest to their souls. No student of lyric Wisdom, with
its appeals to wayward men, and its claims to a knowl
edge of God given only to His chosen, can mistake the
nature of this hymn. It follows the stereotyped form
of such lyrics, in which " Wisdom praises herself " as
the means of human redemption. She speaks here in
the name of the Isaian Servant-Son, whose mission is to
bring back all the wandering races of men by his knowl
edge of the true God. The writer of the Second Source
places it in the mouth of Jesus because as supreme leader
in the divinely given redemptive mission of Israel the
Servant is " Wisdom " incarnate. We can all recognize
at once a close connection with Paul's teaching in I Cor.
1 : 18-2 : 16 concerning the mind of Christ as a wisdom
hidden from the worldly-wise, but revealed to us by the

THE GOSPEL AS LAW AND PROMISE 187
Spirit. It is more important for us at present to notice
that the use of it in this connection admits us to a very
close view of the distinctive Christology of the Second
Source. This evangelist too has his conception of the
divine "good pleasure" (euScucia). It is an indwelling
of the " fullness " of the Spirit of Adoption in Jesus as
the chosen Son, the representative of Israel as the elect
Servant of God, he whose mission is to bring the world
to the saving knowledge of the Father. This evangelist,
too, thinks of the Servant as " despised and rejected of
men." He too believes in the " hiding of the mystery "
from all but the " little ones " who are Wisdom's chil
dren, as do Paul and many other Hellenistic writers of
the period. And he believes strongly in the shaming
of the unbelief of Israel by the repentance and faith of
the Gentiles. The last point is made peculiarly em
phatic by such anecdotes as the believing Centurion, and
such warnings as the denunciation of the Galilean cities
that " believed not." It is easy to see that if this
writer's story of the baptismal vision is based (as it
would seem) on the passage from the Servant-song:
" Behold my Servant whom I have chosen, my Beloved
on whom my soul fixed her choice, I will put my Spirit
upon him " the influence was not limited to these words,
nor to the representation of the divine Spirit as the
brooding dove, the messenger of peace and reconcilia
tion.4 The succeeding context is also reflected : " He
shall bring forth true religion (mishpat) to the Gen
tiles." This becomes unmistakable in a further explicit
quotation from Wisdom writings which in Matthew's
order comes at the very close of Jesus' public teaching,
and clearly reflects the author's view of its outcome so
4 Because of the cooing tones of this bird, always the charac
teristic spoken of in Jewish references. The divine Spirit of
Wisdom utters her message of winning entreaty in these tones.
According to rabbinic teaching the 'Voice from Heaven (bath qol)
was like the gentle cooing of a dove.

188 JESUS AND PAUL
far as Israel is concerned. In the Lukan form the ut
terance is explicitly ascribed to " the Wisdom of God."
Indeed none other than this redemptive Spirit could
claim to have sent the " prophets, wise men, and
scribes," whom Israel had persecuted and rejected.
Only she can appropriately compare herself to the
mother-bird who has sought again and again to gather
Zion's children as a bird gathers her nestlings under her
protecting wings. This is, then, an utterance of the
divine Spirit of redeeming Wisdom. It repeats in sub
stance what the Old Testament Chronicler had said
shortly after his reference to the stoning of Zechariah
between the altar and the temple : " God sent to them
by His messengers, rising up early and sending, because
He had compassion on His people, and on His dwelling-
place : but they mocked the messengers of God, and de
spised His words, and scoffed at His prophets, until the
wrath of Jehovah rose against His people, till there was
no remedy." All this is embodied in the poetic lament
of the rejected Spirit of God which begins : " Behold I
send unto you prophets and sages and scribes," recalling
the shedding of their blood from Abel to Zecbariah, and
denouncing Jerusalem as murderer of the prophets. It
closes with the words : " Behold, your house (the
dwelling-place of God's Spirit of Wisdom) is left unto
you forsaken. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me
henceforth, till ye shall say ' Blessed be he that cometh
in the name of Jehovah,' " that is, until ye receive God's
messengers with blessing, instead of insult and abuse.
The quotation appears in Q as the closing utterance of
Jesus' public ministry. But the primitive evangelist
would not have so employed it had it not expressed per
fectly his conception of Jesus' ministry to Israel and its
outcome. We have, therefore, in spite of the frag
mentary nature of the material, a clear view both in
prospect and retrospect of this precanonical evangelist's

THE GOSPEL AS LAW AND PROMISE 189
conception of the person and work of Jesus. Jesus was
to his mind' the supreme embodiment of the redeeming
Wisdom of God, which, as Wisdom of Solomon puts it
" in every generation, entering into holy souls maketh
men to be prophets and friends of God." As divinely
appointed leader of Israel to the fulfillment of its destiny
to be Jehovah's Son and Servant to bring the knowledge
of Him to all that are afar off, Jesus summed up the
message of all the prophets and sages. But he also met
their fate, which is rejection and martyrdom. In faith
and obedience he fulfills his task, accepted in Israel only
by a believing remnant of the " little ones," and meet
ing larger measure of faith only among the Gentiles.
But a time of vindication and return is coming, and the
beloved " dwelling-place," now forsaken of God, will see
His presence again. It will be when they greet with the
hosannas of the redemption feast the messengers of peace
whom now they kill and persecute from city to city.
Little, therefore, is really wanting to make our under
standing of this writer's theory of the person and work
of Christ complete. It is a Wisdom Christology, whose
affinity with Paul's is strikingly close. And yet there is
no doctrine of the cross. What might be found if we
could restore the missing close, the record of the Supper
and its farewell message, falls, of course, beyond our ken.
All that can be said is that had the doctrine that God
made His Servant's soul an offering for sin been really
present some trace would have been likely to survive.
As it is, the Epistle of James, with its conception of the
implanted wisdom of God as the source of all holiness, is
not far from this teaching of sonship by true gnosis.
On the other hand James falls far indeed below the
level of this writer's doctrine of saving " faith."
Our real portrait of Jesus as he was can be drawn
from no one of these sources alone. Petrine tradition
may supply the element of the heroic and ideal, Paul

190 JESUS AND PAUL
may lend aid with his speculative apologetic and his
mystical experience, but we shall ever owe to this un
known evangelist of the Second Source the choicest,
most exquisite reflection of the teaching; and it is in
this as well as in his life and death of devotion that
Jesus proves his supreme right to be called the chosen
Son. It is not only by making his soul an offering for
sin that he " justifies many." The Servant brings peace
and reconciliation to the world by his " knowledge of
the Father."
3. The Christian Prophets and Their Message
In the pseudonymous Epistle known as Second Peter
we have a striking example of the manner in which the
post-apostolic age combined renewed emphasis upon
commandment, with zeal for its sanction in reward and
punishment in an impending day of judgment. Once
the great crisis was over wherein Roman persecution
under Domitian had threatened the Church with actual
extinction, it was keenly realized that the remaining
peril (perhaps after all the greater one) was moral
laxity. The doctrine of grace and forgiveness, still
more the conception of Christianity as gnosis, gave op
portunity to new teachers who turned the grace of God
into lasciviousness, perverting the new commandment
of love to their own lusts, contemptuous of abstinence
from meats offered to idols, as unworthy the attention
of one whose gnosis teaches him that no idol is any
thing in the world, and even looking indulgently upon
immoralities connected with heathen worship. In an
encyclical of a single chapter a writer of this age ad
dresses the Church at large under the name of Jude the
brother of James, fulminating against the false teachers
of moral laxity in language largely borrowed from such
writings as Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. Sec-

THE GOSPEL AS LAW AND PROMISE 191
ond Peter follows suit, incorporating the whole of
Jude's denunciation of the followers of Cain, Balaam,
and Korah, but prefixing a chapter on the testimony of
the Transfiguration to the reality of the resurrection
body, and appending another on the certainty of the
coming judgment. These two pseudonymous epistles
show the conditions at the close of the century. In the
same way the student who will give adequate attention
to the distinctive characteristics of the individual Gos
pels will find that our Gospel of Matthew, a writing of
the same period, reflects the same feeling. It com
bines its systematic arrangement of the teaching of
Jesus in the form of " commandments " and the ac
companying repeated denunciations of those who teach
and work " lawlessness " with an elaborate depiction of
divine reward and punishment which goes far beyond
anything to be found in the other Gospels. We have
already observed to some extent how in Synoptic litera
ture the " turning back to the tradition handed down to
us from the very first " becomes increasingly, from
Mark to Luke and from Luke to Matthew, a reaction
to neo-legalism. We have now to observe how at about
the same period, among the Greek-speaking Pauline
churches of Ephesus and its vicinity, another element of
the older Aramaic teaching material is resurrected in
Greek form to meet the new danger.
Among the three examples current among the
churches in the second century of what was called
" prophecy," that is, the utterances of the " prophets "
in the form of apocalypse, or revelation, only one out
lived the intense opposition roused by the excesses of
the millenarian followers of Montanus. The apoca
lypses of Peter and of Hermas lost ground and were
finally discarded. The Ephesian apocalypse which
bore the name of " John " would have shared this fate
but for the vigorous assertion of its authenticity by men

192 JESUS AND PAUL
such as Papias and Justin. By the narrowest possible
margin, and solely because it was declared to be the
writing of an Apostle, the Revelation of John finally
succeeded in maintaining its place among the Western
churches. Thanks to the violent dispute over this
" prophecy," as it calls itself, we have more precise and
definite statements from the earliest writers concerning
its origin than about any other in the entire canon. It
was declared to have appeared at Ephesus " in the end
of the reign of Domitian." In all save the underlying
material, drawn from older compositions, in part at
least from the reign of Nero, this traditional date is
fully confirmed by modern criticism. Revelation in its
present form is an Ephesian work of 93-95 a. d. The
visions of the main body of the work are indeed con
cerned with the conflict between Jerusalem and Rome,
and have neither mention of the churches of Asia, nor
trace of interest in their vicissitudes ; whereas the intro
ductory Epistles of the Spirit to these seven Pauline
churches are just as destitute on their part of interest
in, or mention of, the Palestinian situation. Never
theless introductory letters, and incorporated visions are
both, it would seem, translated from the Aramaic.
There seems to be the strongest reason to regard the
work as composite. The prefixed letters and the epi
logue at the end, in which it is represented that the vi
sions were all granted to the Apostle John, brought
" for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus " to
the isle of Patmos, must of course belong to the age of
Domitian, as already shown. No other situation is pos
sible for them. On the other hand the main body of
the work whose scenes and interests are purely Pales
tinian, certainly contains elements belonging to the
struggle against Nero and the destruction of the tem
ple. Its author speaks of the Apostles objectively,
placing himself outside their number, and ranking him-

THE GOSPEL AS LAW AND PROMISE 193
self definitely as one of the hierarchy of Christian
"prophets." It is of course only natural if the later
reviser reissues the work in Ephesus equipped with in
troductory Epistles to the Churches of Asia, that these
epistles should be full of imagery derived from the in
corporated visions. But why should this portion also
have been written in Aramaic ? The fact (for it seems
to be such) has been brought up as a serious objection
to the theory of adaptation to the conditions of Asia
in 93-95 of a Palestinian book of prophecy (or prophe
cies) of 65-70. At first sight it really seems so. The
evidences of translation are quite as strong in the first
four chapters and the last as in the rest of the book.
But in order to carry out the dramatic mise en scene
which assumes that the speaker is the Apostle John
writing from Patmos at the dictation of the Spirit, it
would be natural for an editor whose own mother-
tongue was Aramaic to represent the Apostle as using
his native language, even if actual use among the
churches addressed required (as it evidently did) sub
sequent translation into Greek. Hence even if the en
tire book (except perhaps the first three verses and the
last) be shown to be translated from the Aramaic, this is
no real obstacle to the theory of composite origin. At
least it offers none to the view here advocated, that the
visions of 4 : 1-22 : 7 are merely adapted from earlier
Palestinian " prophecies " to the situation in procon
sular Asia " in the end of the reign of Domitian." Can
we derive, in any event, from this peculiar and primi
tive literature a conception of Jesus as seen by the
Christian prophets?
It is singular how completely the danger from the in
roads of heresy in the seven churches of Asia seems to
have driven out of the mind of the author of the intro
ductory epistles the conflict which is the sole concern
of the rest of the book. After 4 : 1 the whole field is

194 JESUS AND PAUL
occupied with the great battle of Christ and Anti-
Christ, the ultimate triumph of the new Jerusalem, the
city of the saints, over Babylon the Great, the city of
the Beast and the false prophet. Not a word appears
of the foe within. Even the false prophet is an open
supporter of the worship of the Beast, and depends upon
his weapons of raging violence. This Devil goeth about
as a roaring lion.. In the letters the situation is differ
ent. We have one allusion to a single case of martyr
dom which has occurred some time before in Pergamum,
the seat of emperor-worship, and one warning of a " ten
days' " outbreak against the church in Smyrna. Other
wise there is no reference to persecution. The general
situation is rather that of the reaction and lassitude
which come after days of heroic resistance. Sardis is
indolent, Laodicea has become so rich and self-satisfied
as to scarcely retain its place as a church. Even Ephe
sus has left its first love, and Pergamum, where Antipas
had been martyred, is not exhorted to bold out against
persecution, but against the Balaamites and Nicolaitans
who teach an immoral heresy. The Devil has adopted
a new line of attack. He is now no longer a roaring
lion, but a seducing serpent.
It is quite apparent from the reference to the Balaam
ites in 2 : 14 that the heretical tendency is identical
with that combatted by Paul in I Cor. 10. In like
manner it is apparent that the depiction of the glorified
Christ in the introductory chapters, while it systemati
cally reproduces the traits of the warrior on the white
horse who appears in the closing vision (19 : 11-22: 7)
as the Word of God 5 has also definitely Pauline traits,
as when he is called in 1 : 5 " the firstborn of the dead,"
who " loved us and loosed us from our sins by his
blood " ; or in 1 : 18 receives attributes barely less than
6 That is, the Babylonian destroying Word, the Hebrew Memra,
as in Wisdom of Solomon 18: 15 f. ; not Hoqma, which is Logos
in the sense of " Wisdom."

THE GOSPEL AS LAW AND PROMISE 195
the eternal self -existence which in 1 : 8, 4 : 8, and 21 : 6
belongs to the Almighty. Pauline influence therefore
makes itself felt here, and perhaps in the closing vision
of the conquering Memra-Logos in 19 : 11 ff. ; though
of course the representation as a whole is purely Jew
ish, borrowing copiously from the visions of Daniel and
Ezekiel. But when we come to the inner substance of
the book nothing whatever remains of these Pauline
traits. The figure that represents Christ is always and
constantly the " Lamb (dpvlov) as it had been slain,"
that is, not the mute lamb of the Isaian Song of the
martyred Servant (&pv6s)y but the male "yearling of
the flock " prescribed for the celebration of Passover,
the feast of redemption. When the royal court of
Heaven is set, and the books of judgment are opened,
none is found worthy to open the book of life save the
Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Scion of David, who
was slain and who purchased to God with his blood men
of every tribe and tongue, and made them a kingdom
and priests to the God of Israel, to reign upon the earth.
In Chapter 7 he is seen as Leader of the army of the
144,000 martyrs, shepherding them in the heavenly pas
tures, and guiding them to unfailing springs. A new
series of prophecies begins with Chapter 11. The tem
ple is measured off, as in Ezekiel, to be preserved from
the treading down by the Gentiles which is to be the
fate of the outer court and " the holy city," a repre
sentation surely first, formulated before 70 a. d., and
Palestinian in origin. In the city appear the two " wit
nesses of Messiah," Moses and Elijah, bearing their tes
timony. Satan secures their martyrdom, and for three
days and a half their dead bodies lie in the street, the
sport of the mob. But God raises them from the dead
and they ascend to heaven in a cloud, after which comes
the consummation; but only after a new interlude in
which Michael and his angels intervene to preserve the

196 JESUS AND PAUL
woman with the child who is to rule all nations, against
the dragon's attempt to destroy her. Foiled in his at
tempt the dragon goes away to make war with the rest
of the woman's seed, who are explained to be the Chris
tian Church. This further war, waged by angels on
behalf of the Lamb and his following of martyrs, who
now appear on Mount Zion, results in the overthrow of
the Beast and his following, and the destruction of
Babylon the Great. The scene closes with the mar
riage supper of the Lamb. The seer is on the point of
worshiping the angel who conducts him, but is forbid
den. One can hardly avoid recognizing here a reflec
tion of events in Jerusalem in the great crisis of 62-70,
to which older prophecies, perhaps pre-Christian, have
been adapted.
Many features of this vision of the redeeming Lamb
are carried over into the remaining vision of the con
quering Memra-Logos and the appearance of the new
Jerusalem, but not all ; and where the term " the Lamb "
is used it is incongruous. Especially incongruous is
the repetition of the seer's former attempt to worship
the angel (22 : 8 ; cf. 19 : 10). We cannot therefore re
gard the book as a unit, and are compelled to carry back
some parts of it to the period before the destruction of
Jerusalem when, as we learn from Josephus, James the
leader of the Palestinian church was stoned by the mob
in the streets of Jerusalem, together with others whom
Josephus does not name. From a fragment of Papias,
and some further evidence it" becomes probable that one
of those who shared the fate of James in the year 62 was
John the son of Zebedee, whose brother had been be
headed by Agrippa I, in 41-42 a. d. Our author seems
to be comparing the martyr pair to Moses and Elijah,
who were expected to appear just before the consumma
tion as " witnesses of the Messiah " and to suffer this
fate. Our chie: interest, however, is not with the

THE GOSPEL AS LAW AND PROMISE 197
course of events, interesting as they are. They may be
reflected in this primitive " prophecy " whose deriva
tion is so remote from the influence of Paul that even
the doctrine of the suffering Servant scarcely appears.
But we are chiefly interested to note the character and
nature of Jesus, as he appears to the eye of this
" prophet," who is not even of the number of the Twelve,
though taken to be " John " by the Ephesian adapter of
the visions. Let the attribution to " John " have value
or not, we at least have here, in the older elements of
this composite book, a primitive Christian " prophecy "
from the homeland of Jesus. Its conception of Christ
carries us directly back to the very beginnings; for it
reverts to the symbolism of the farewell Passover, the
self-dedication to martyrdom in the cup of the new
covenant. Its very foundation is the promise of the
heavenly banquet, in which the Son of Man, Jesus,
would sit down with the Twelve in his kingdom, and
they should reign with him in the new Jerusalem.
Other features connected with the Pauline Christology
appear in the later elements, but at bottom the concep
tion is simply that of Jesus' parting words. He is for
the seer of Revelation the Son of David, who became a
passover victim (to dpviov) that he might redeem the
people of God. Ill indeed could we spare these visions
of Palestinian prophets. We may be grateful that they
were preserved to us by the effort of an Ionian church
to combat antinomian heresy and to hold up the moral
standards of a degenerate time by revival of the ex
pectation of judgment and of the approaching end of
the age, whatever judgment we pass on the editor's rep
resentation of the authorship. From the midst of the
martyrdoms of that great crisis of the mother church
its " prophets " look up to Jesus as their Passover, slain
on their behalf, and interceding for them " in the midst
of the throne."

LECTURE VIII
THE GOSPEL AS THEOLOGY
[Among the " Aspects of Contemporary Theology " which
we are here invited to consider 1 is the Eeinterpretation of
the Fourth Gospel in view of conclusions of criticism regard
ing its authorship and date which must now be admitted to
have at least a considerable measure of probability. If it be
the work of an unknown Ephesian disciple of Paul of about
the year 100-110, what will be its meaning and value to us ?
All the advance of modern exegesis over the past may be
summed up in one great foundation principle of what is
known as grammatieo-historical interpretation. The princi
ple may be stated as follows : The real contribution of any
biblical writer to the religious thought of our time must be
found, if at all, in the message he intended to convey to his
own. He wrote primarily for his contemporaries. Therefore
what his language and his references meant to them is the
measure of legitimate interpretation. There is no royal road
to direct application. The leaps of undisciplined fancy are
sauts perilleux. We have indeed the largest liberty of ap
plication and adaptation once the author's real intention has
been discovered. In most cases he himself will be found to
have set the example in adapting the work of his predecessors.
But we have no right to cloak our own ideas with the mantle
of his authority, nor may we lightly dispense ourselves from
the long and toilsome search of grammarian and historian
into the conditions of the author's time. That background
and environment of language, thought, and circumstance af
ford the only legitimate key. First the historical sense, after
that the inference or lesson.
I am asked at this time to expand a lecture recently given
on the service of the fourth evangelist to his own age, and to
1 The general subject of discussion proposed for the Summer
School of Theology at Oxford was " Aspects of Contemporary
Theology." The section here printed in smaller type was prefixed
to the closing lecture of the former series, in order to adapt it
(in expanded form as two lectures) for the Summer School.
198

THE GOSPEL AS THEOLOGY 199
include his contribution to ours. The method must be that
of the principle stated. In the lectures which preceded I
traced the line of development which leads over from the gos
pel of the kingdom preached ~by Jesus in Galilee to the gospel
about Jesus preached by his disciples and Paul to the world.
The so-called "Johannine" writings (by which are usually
meant the three Epistles and Gospel ascribed to John, but
which unlike the Revelation are anonymous) mark the su
preme achievement in this development. Antiquity and mod
ern Christendom alike recognize the fourth Gospel as the in
terpretative climax of New Testament literature. Con
sciously or not, this evangelist has placed the key-stone in the
arch whose piers are on the one side the Pauline and post-
Pauline Epistles, on the other the Synoptic literature and
Book of the Revelation. Antiquity names him " the theo
logian," appreciating that in his work foundations are laid
on which all later theology has built, though when the name
was coined it had not as yet attained its modern sense. But
the fourth Gospel does present the story of Jesus as theology.
What then, was the purpose and bearing of this higher syn
thesis ?] 1. The Higher Synthesis
The greatest of Paul's disciples was an unnamed suc
cessor in Ephesus, the headquarters of his mission field.
This is the writer who in the so-called " Johannine "
Epistles and Gospel seeks to combine the values of the
Synoptic record of the sayings and doings of Jesus with
the Pauline Christology. As I have tried to show in
the volume entitled The Fourth Gospel jn Research and
Debate it is no fault of this author if the name of
" John " (which he himself does not so much as men
tion) became attached to his work in an age which had
begun to demand apostolic authentication. To meet
this demand a later hand has attached the well known
appendix to the Gospel (Chapter 21). But this section
is admitted even by Lightfoot and Zahn to be at least
in part an editorial postscript. In fact it does not seem
to be known to the epitomator of the resurrection gospel
who quotes Jn. 20 : 11 ff., in Mk. 16 : 9-11. And even

200 JESUS AND PAUL
the Appendix does not as yet venture explicitly to name
the Apostle John as author. It attributes the writing to
the mysterious " beloved disciple " who appears in it on
several occasions. The name " John " is not mentioned
in connection with the Gospel until 181 a. d. The first
claims to Johannine authorship were made in behalf of
the Apocalypse, which had emanated from the same
region in the year 93, and which from the first had
purported to be the work of the Apostle. It is easy to
see what would happen. However diverse in character,
language, and doctrinal standpoint (and no two writ
ings of the entire New Testament are more so), the four
anonymous writings of the Ephesian canon (the Epistles
and Gospel) would inevitably come to be attributed to
the same apostolic hand as the pseudepigraphic fifth, the
Revelation. The Appendix meets the demand for au
thentication with an adaptation of the legend of the
Two Witnesses, " red " and " white " martyrdom. But
it purposely leaves the precise identity of the " beloved
disciple " undetermined. Still it makes the conjecture
of John very easy, and by the last quarter of the second
century the hint had been widely adopted. The Gospel
and First Epistle as well as the Apocalypse were attrib
uted to the Apostle. There was strenuous denial, but
this was overcome by the efforts of Irenaeus together
with his pupil Hippolytus and men like-minded. Only
the Second and Third Epistles, which bore on their face
the superscription " the Elder," were still classed for a
time with the " disputed " writings. Ultimately all five
were considered " Johannine." The belief in Apostolic
authorship could not but deeply affect the interpreta
tion. What would our interpretation be were it quite
unaffected by this assumption ? That is the question we
must now attempt to answer.
Papias and the author of the Muratorian Fragment

THE GOSPEL AS THEOLOGY 201
seem to have found First Peter a useful writing on
which to base an introduction to the second Gospel.
We have ourselves found that the Epistle of James
might be similarly applied to the Second Source, and
Jude to the Gospel of Matthew. But at Ephesus proph
ets and evangelists furnished their own introductory
epistles. Revelation has seven preliminary letters; so
that it is not (as the Muratorianum has it) Paul who
follows the example of his predecessor, John, in writing
to seven churches by name in order to address all, but
it is Pseudo-John who follows the example of Paul.
The fourth evangelist also seems to appreciate the value
of covering letters, but he limits himself to the example
of Paul's group of three letters sent to this same region,
one personal, to Philemon, one to a local church, Colos
sians, and one general, Ephesians. In like manner the
" Elder's " letter to Gaius (III Jn.) covers a second
to the local church (II Jn.), which is accompanied in
turn by a third, the general epistle (I Jn.). From
these so-called " Johannine Epistles," wherein the au
thor addresses himself directly to his readers using the
first and second person, we can gain some insight into
the conditions which gave rise to them and to the
Gospel. In the Johannine Epistles it is not persecution, as in
the Revelation, which is the peril of the churches, but
false doctrine. In fact the author repeatedly and ex
plicitly identifies the Anti-Christ with the specific heresy
which denies that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, that
is, Docetism. He thus excludes the idea of the Apoca-
lyptist, who quite as explicitly identifies Anti-Christ
with the persecuting power of Rome. The false teach
ers have the same pronounced tendency to moral laxity
complained of by Jude, Matthew, II Peter, the Pastoral
Epistles, and the Epistles of the Spirit to the churches
of Asia. But in First John as in Ignatius false doc-

202 JESUS AND PAUL
trine is apprehended as the chief danger. The Docetic
and Gnostic character of the heresy no longer admits of
doubt. The false teachers aspire to fellowship with
God. They have mysticism without morality. They
claim to have knowledge of God, and even to be begot
ten of Him; but they seek this communion by way of
the intellect rather than of the will. They are " Gnos
tics " who forget the " new commandment " of love, and
ignore the teaching of Jesus and of Paul that to par
take in the divine life as beloved children we must
be imitators of Him : that we must " walk in love, even
as Christ loved us and gave himself for us," because (as
this writer adds) love is the essential quality of the di
vine nature. The danger apprehended by the Johan
nine writer is then fundamentally the same " lawless
ness " (dvo/iia) combatted by the Epistles of Jude,
James, and II Peter, by the later Synoptists, and by
the introductory Letters of the Apocalypse. But the
reaction against it is from the side of Paulinism, not
from that of the Palestinian tradition.
The situation of the Church at this time imperatively
demanded new emphasis upon the teaching and the life
of Jesus. It confronted the vague emanation doctrines
of the Docetists, who held to an aeon-Christ that comes
by water only, and not by water and blood, a particular
theophany of the divine Logos, which had occupied the
body of an otherwise negligible J esus as its " recepta
cle " until just before the cross, the martyrdom of Cal
vary having been an illusion ; for so we have it still in
the docetic Acts of John. Against this kind of theo-
sophic religiosity it was vitally important to insist upon
the historical and tangible reality of the apostolic testi
mony. The Church bears witness of things actually
seen and heard and handled, not vague myths and " old-
wives' fables." It was equally vital to insist upon the
demand for moral obedience. Talk about mystical ex-

THE GOSPEL AS THEOLOGY 203
periences, gnosis, insight into mysteries, fellowship with
God and participation in His eternal life, new birth into
eternity and the rest of the current mystical jargon of
the day, is all froth and self-deception unless it issues
in practical deeds of unselfish service. " Hereby know
we love, because That One laid down his life for us:
and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
. . . Little children, let us not love in word, neither
with the tongue, but in deed and truth." " Abiding in
Him " means keeping his commandments of love. His
torical and moral realism, that is the writer's aim.
Thus the Johannine Epistles, with their direct on
slaught on the false religion of the time, furnish the true
historical key to the Johannine Gospel. Two things
were indispensable if any headway was to be made
against the docetic tendencies here so apparent: (1) the
story of Jesus' sacrificial life and death as told in the
Petrine-Markan tradition, (2) the exposition of the new
commandment of love as seen in Jesus' teaching as to
the righteousness of sons who imitate the loving-kind
ness of the heavenly Father reported in the Second
Source. But both records must be recast ; for no single one of
the sources represented in our Synoptic Gospels, nor all
of them combined, could possibly satisfy the need of a
church trained in the Christology and soteriology of
Paul. Take up first the story of Mark as modified by
Matthew and Luke. Their addition of the Teaching
Source is a gain of immense importance, enough in
itself alone to justify the appearance of the two new
Gospels. But how could disciples accustomed to think
of Christ in terms of the preexistent Spirit of creative
Wisdom be content with Gospels which merely correct
the adoptionism of Mark by combining descent from
David with stories of miraculous birth ? Paul's Chris
tology, as we have pointed out, is in its very essence an

204 JESUS AND PAUL
incarnation doctrine. The Synoptic Christology, even
as improved by Luke and Matthew, and in spite of its
interpretative vision-stories of the Temptation and
Transfiguration, which throw a momentary light from
the unseen world, is essentially an apotheosis doctrine.
To give the story the Pauline religious values it would
have to be re-written throughout. It must be lifted
everywhere to the supernal realm of Gnostic specula
tion, though without Gnostic superstition. Jesus must
appear " the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form."
And he must be so depicted consistently, and not merely
at his baptism and when he takes the way of the cross.
Without relinquishing the realism of Petrine story,
which would be to play into the hands of the Docetists,
there must be such a restatement of the gospel record
as would show how Jesus came forth from God mani
festing the glory which he had with his Father from the
beginning as the Firstborn of the creation. It must
be shown how he again went to God, not as defeated by
his enemies but in calm and unperturbed majesty, ful
filling the known purpose of his Father, drawing hu
manity to himself, and casting out the Prince of this
world. No disciple of Paul could be satisfied with less.
If the Synoptic form of the story required raising to
this higher level in its earlier part, much more would
restatement be required in the later. As Polycarp
shows us, " resurrection and judgment " (in the cruder
Jewish sense) were a stumbling-block to the entire
Greek-speaking world. The apocalyptic eschatology of
the Synoptic Gospels is superseded in the fourth even
more completely than in Paul. Instead of a Doom
chapter on the fate of Jerusalem and the approaching
end of the world, we have the discourses of the upper
room. Here the Return is an indwelling of Christ and
the Father in the heart of those who keep the new com
mandment. Judas (not Iscariot) exclaims : " Lord,

THE GOSPEL AS THEOLOGY 205
what is come to pass that thou wilt manifest thyself
unto us and not unto the world?" But this is not a
surprise to the reader, who knows from the conversation
with Nicodemus that the judgment is already accom
plished by a natural gravitation of the sons of light
toward the great Light that has come into the world,
while those who are of the darkness flee from it to abide
under condemnation and death. The history of this
conception of the Messiah as a " great light " entering
the lower world of darkness and death to effect both
judgment and deliverance would carry us far back into
preChristian interpretative application of the Isaian
passage : " The people that sat in darkness have seen a
great light ; unto them that dwell in the shadow of death
hath the light shined." 2 Paul in Eph. 5 : 14 quotes a
form of the prophecy in which it had been applied to
the Messiah, just as the Targum applies the Song of
the martyred Servant, as a " scripture." This un
known prophecy ran : " Awake, thou that sleepest, and
arise from the dead, and the Christ shall shine upon
thee." Paul applies it to the judgment which the
saints, who have been roused from the darkness and
death of sin by the new light of Christ's resurrection,
must bring against the world by conduct befitting " chil
dren of the light." No one who reads Eph. 5 : 7-14
need be surprised, then, to find from II Tim. 2 : 18
that there were false teachers in the Pauline churches
who maintained that the resurrection and judgment
were past already, because the darkness was past and
the true light already shining. Still less should we be
2Cf. Bereshith Rabba: "When they who were bound in Ge-
hinnom saw the light of the Messiah they rejoiced in receiving
him, and said, 'This is he who will lead us forth out of this
darkness ' ; and Irenaeus, 'Ets 'Eir/8etf iv tov dvooroXucov KripvypLaros,
c. 38, 238, v. ' Light entered our prison-house and brought resur
rection.' Slav. En. xlvi. 3 adds, ' When God shall send a great
light, by means of that there will be judgment to the just and
the unjust, and nothing will be concealed.' "

206 JESUS AND PAUL
surprised to find an Ephesian evangelist toward the end
of the century reversing the point of view of Revelation,
and presenting as the teaching of Jesus that " Now is
the judgment of this world, and the casting out of its
Prince," that for judgment the Son of Man came into
the world, and that it is already convicted and con
demned by its attitude both toward him and toward
those endowed with his Spirit (Jn. 5:22-47; 16:
8-11), those who hate the light fleeing from it lest their
deeds be reproved, as those who are of it walk and live
in it.
No more remains, then, in the Ephesian Gospel, of
the expected great assize in the end of the world than
the lifegiving summons to the saints in the last day
(5:25-29). This complete transfer of the emphasis
under the influence of Paul away from the expected
judgment of the apocalyptic type in the end of the
world, described in the Gospel of Matthew, back to a
judgment already executed in principle by the coming
of Jesus and the Spirit, is anticipated in Paul's Epistles
to the Romans (Rom. 8:1) and to the Ephesians; but
it necessitated a complete recast of the traditional teach
ing. Hence a " spiritual gospel " to teach the " last
things " from a rationalized point of view was needed
just as urgently as one to teach the " first things " from
the view-point of Christ's preexistence as the creative
and redemptive Wisdom of God. At least these two
restatements of the Church's doctrine in the domain of
Christology and eschatology respectively were indis
pensable wherever Paulinism stood confronted by Greek
thought. Again, no church which cherished the finest and high
est teaching's of Paul could possibly be satisfied with
Gospels of the Synoptic type for the full record of the
doings and sayings of Jesus, to say nothing of differ
ences between Rome and Asia on the score of ritual and

THE GOSPEL AS THEOLOGY 207
observances. If the teaching of Paul survived at all it
was inevitable that it should find expression, in days
when Gospels of the Synoptic type were coming into
use, in a restatement of the tradition of Jesus' ministry
and teaching in a form to bring out its higher religious
values. This is what the Fathers mean when they re
port that when John saw what the other evangelists had
reported of the bodily things concerning Jesus, he was
moved to write a" spiritual " Gospel. In his story of
the public ministry also, the fourth evangelist really
does carry us back to Mark, and behind Mark ; but the
supreme Teacher to whom it harks back is not the Jesus
of Peter but the Christ of Paul.
At the period when the fourth Gospel was written it
was already much too late for a critical record of mere
fact regarding the life of Jesus, even had the interest
been present to recover it. For two generations the use
made of it had been religious and pragmatic. Men had
sought in it not fact but truth, and just as in modern
times we are conscious that truth may be conveyed in
many cases more effectively by fiction than by fact, so
with the ancient world, but in much higher degree. As
Plato is fond of using myth to convey a philosophical
truth, so do the teachers of the Synagogue revel in para
bles and tales whose end is edification, and whose value
is reckoned according to the attainment, or failure to
attain, this end. The rule of haggada is Paul's rule:
" All things for edification." As we have already seen,
there is decisive evidence for the employment of just
such interpretative haggada, or midrash, in the early
Christian Church, long after the period of our Gospels,
in the tradition of the sayings and doings of Jesus. In
fact our own Gospel of Mark was seen to employ for its
key-narratives accompanying the story of Jesus' bap
tism, and of his taking the way of the cross, two vision
stories of precisely this midrashic character. The task

208 JESUS AND PAUL
of the fourth evangelist in relating the ministry was
essentially the same as that which had been imperfectly
fulfilled in the Roman Gospel by the incorporation of
these two midrashoth. Not the mere beginnings of the
two periods of Jesus' career must be glorified in the
light of the supernal world, but the ministry in its en
tirety. From start to finish it would have to be so
narrated as to exhibit its relation to things eternal, ac
cording to the Christology of Paul. At the same time
it must retain the strong note of human reality which
gave to the Petrine record cherished by the Church its
immeasurable superiority to the grotesque fables of the
Docetists, such as we meet in the docetic Acts of John.
For this purpose the fourth evangelist wisely follows
the example of Mark in prefixing a prologue (Jn. 1:
1-18) which apprises the reader in quasi-philosophical
terms of the inner significance of the narrative which is
to follow. Also in the body of the work he limits him
self to a selection of illustrative discourses and mighty
works (in this Gospel designated " signs ") applied ex
plicitly to the single purpose of eliciting the belief that
Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, a faith which
issues in eternal life (20: 30-31).
Men of far greater knowledge than mine of the ex
tent to which Jewish teaching for edification could re
sort to fiction even when fact might have been available
have expressed their readiness to regard this writing as
the work of the Apostle John. Such is in fact the late
second-century tradition, which maintains that this
highly idealized representation of the story and teach
ing of Jesus was the work of an eye-witness, yes, the
closest and most intimate of all the eye-witnesses,
though only after he had become thoroughly indoc
trinated with the ideas of Paul. This was the view of
that superb scholar and profoundly Christian spirit, so
lately the ornament of this college and university, Prin-

THE GOSPEL AS THEOLOGY 209
cipal Drummond, who certainly approached the ques
tion of Johannine authorship with unusual freedom
from bias, however possibly disposed in much later
years to stand by a conclusion once logically reached,
even against an altered phase of the argument. It may
be that Principal Drummond's exceptional and sympa
thetic appreciation of Philo, the Jewish mystic and
Gnostic, made it possible for him to maintain the view
which he adopted. This view, however, requires us to
hold that one who knew the actual facts of Jesus' min
istry in Jerusalem as an eye-witness, one who alone
of all men alive could tell the real story of the Master's
tragic end, deliberately consigned to oblivion the facts
for which the Christian world was thirsting, and con
cocted a fiction to take their place. For " fiction " is
the word applied by Principal Drummond himself to
the story of the raising of Lazarus from the dead ; and
it is this event which in the Ephesian Gospel takes the
place of the Purging of the Temple as the occasion of
Jesus' martyrdom.
Fortunately the evidence for Johannine authorship
is not really so strong as to require this feat of imagi
nation. The fourth evangelist does not pretend to be
an eye-witness, nor does he intentionally substitute fic
tion for fact. He merely uses such material as was cur
rently employed for similar purposes in his time, mak
ing no more enquiry as to its historical reliability than
was customary under the prevailing rule : " Let all
things be done unto edification." The Ephesian evan
gelist tells the story as it had been told to him. He
makes no more use of " fiction " than that free employ
ment of edifying story which in that age was accorded
by common consent to every synagogue teacher. The
insoluble difficulties arise only when we think of him
as the Apostle and eye-witness which he never professed
to be. We should conceive instead the preacher and in-

210 JESUS AND PADL v
terpreter of a Paulinized type of Christianity who used
the recognized methods of his age against the false teach
ers he himself denounces. Next to ridding ourselves of
this traditional prepossession, and placing ourselves at
the evangelist's own point of view, face to face with his
own environment, by means of the three Epistles, the
most important step toward real appreciation of the
fourth Gospel is to avail ourselves of the theological
key which the evangelist himself supplies in the Pro
logue. 2. The Prologue
The very able and acute Swiss critic Overbeck pointed
to the story in Acts 18, of a community of prePauline
disciples at Ephesus (of which the learned Alexandrian
Jew Apollos had been a member until won over to
Paulinism by Priscilla and Aquila) as offering the ex
planation why this Ephesian Gospel, so deeply tinged
with Alexandrian-Jewish ideas, should have been at
tributed to " John." For the first Ephesian community
was " Johannine." They were disciples of the Baptist.
Luke speaks of them, to be sure, as " disciples," and of
Apollos, their leader, as " instructed in the wav of the
Lord." He even declares that Apollos " spoke and
taught carefully the things concerning Jesus," though
the whole group knew of no other baptism than that of
John. By this use of language Luke becomes in some
degree responsible for a very startling theory pro
pounded by a fellow-countryman of mine, Professor
Wm. Benjamin Smith, formerly of the chair of Mathe
matics, now of Philosophy in Tulane University, La.
In this respect Professor Smith resembles Sir Isaac
Newton, that his mathematics are much better than his
interpretation of Scripture. Professor Smith infers
from this passage that the Apollos group were worship
ing a " pre-Christian Jesus." In reality all that Luke

THE GOSPEL AS THEOLOGY 211
means by the Way of the Lord as taught by the Ephesian
Baptists can be seen by Lk. 3 : 18, where the evangelist
speaks of the Baptist himself as " preaching the Gos
pel." For Luke the Baptist himself was a preacher of
Christianity, minus the doctrine of the Spirit ; hence a
Baptist community in Ephesus would be (to his mind)
" disciples." Having heard the " preaching of the Gos
pel " from the Baptist they would know " the way of
the Lord," and even " the things concerning Jesus " ;
though to become complete Christians they would re
quire to receive (after further catechizing) the baptism
of the Spirit and its accompanying gifts. The " pre-
Christian Jesus " is a modern myth, destitute of other
foundation than this misunderstanding of Luke. How
ever, there were Johannine Baptists in Ephesus before
Paul's coming, and they doubtless knew more or less
about Jesus. Under the leadership of Apollos they had
probably given a more or less Alexandrian cast to the
Baptist's teaching of whose discrimination we have some
traces in other localities also.3
Overbeck's suggestion is hardly necessary to account
for the attachment of the name of " John " to the
Ephesian Gospel, because after Revelation had been ac
cepted as authentic by men such as Papias and Justin
it was practically certain that the same Apostle's name
would be attached to the rest of the Ephesian canon
anyway.4 But the prePauline brotherhood of John at
Ephesus whose leader was Apollos is an important fac
tor in the history of this Ionian center of Hellenistic
theosophy which was the birth-place of the fourth Gos-
sDositheus, the predecessor of Simon Magus in Samaria, is
said in the Clementine Homilies to have been a disciple of the
Baptist. The Mandasan sect on the Persian Gulf are Gnostics
who trace their origin to the Baptist.
4 The existence of this community of " disciples of John " may
very well account for the existence of two rpoirata of John in
Ephesus, as alleged by Dionysius of Alexandra in his attempt to
discover evidences of a non-apostolic John having resided there.

212 JESUS AND PAUL
pel. We can no more afford to neglect it than we can
venture to neglect the post-Pauline advent to this and
the sister churches of the Lycus valley of a contingent
of utterly different type in the person of the Evangelist
Philip of Caesarea and his four prophesying daughters.
If it be reasonable to connect the latter factor with the
Johannine " Revelation," it is no less so to connect the
former with the fourth Gospel. In observing the char
acter of the Ephesian Gospel we cannot but recall how
Paul had written to the Corinthians from Ephesus com
mending Apollos, and that he adds the assurance that
he (Paul), too, could, had he chosen, have preached the
gospel in terms of mystical gnosis. Apollos' devotion
to this type of " wisdom " will have been of earlier date
than his conversion by Aquila and Prisca, and may
well have characterized the " Johannine " group of
which he seems to have been the leader. While, then,
the name of " John " is hardly likely to have become
attached for this reason to the fourth Gospel, it is by
no means without significance that even before the ad
vent of Paul, Ephesus had been the seat of an Alex
andrian sect which Luke could regard as quasi-Chris
tian, though in reality followers of the Baptist, whose
" gospel " they had doubtless developed in their own
characteristic way. If we knew more of the Second
Source, inferences would be less precarious. As it is,
we may venture to recall that we found the Christology
of the Second Source to be distinctively a " Wisdom "
Christology (or in other words, Alexandrian), and
moreover that in this source the prominence given to
John the Baptist is vastly greater than in Mark. On
the other hand a curious polemic against an exaggerated
esteem for the Baptist has been recognized for nearly a
century and a half 5 as a characteristic feature of the
5 See Baldensperger, Der Prolog des vierten Evangelium's 1898.
Michaelis had already made some observations in this line.

THE GOSPEL AS THEOLOGY 213
Ephesian Gospel. In fact Wellhausen has good reason
for his denial of the relevancy of the interjected re'
marks about John the Baptist in the Prologue (1 : 6-8,
15). The first parenthetic remark (verses 6-8) warns
the reader not to suppose that John was the eternal
Logos, the creative life which was the light of men ; the
second (verse 15) interposes a reference to a witness
of John of which the reader is not informed, that Jesus
was greater than he in spite of coming after him. It is
inserted between the words " the Logos became flesh and
dwelt among us, full of grace and truth " and their
sequel " For of his fullness we all received, and grace
for grace," thus breaking the connection. It is hard
to believe that the original form of the Prologue con
tained these two asides about the claims made for the
Baptist. H we simply pass over these intrusive remarks about
John the Baptist, the Prologue (which nominally iden
tifies Jesus with the incarnate Logos, the Stoic princi
ple of cosmic order and intelligibility) will be seen to
be a typical Wisdom Christology of the purest Alex
andrian type. One need only compare the close paral
lels adduced by Professor Rendel Harris in his recent
little book, Origin of the Prologue to St. John's Gospel
(1917), which are only part of what could be adduced,
to see that the term " Logos " is a mere accommodation.
The writer is as genuine a Jew as Philo himself, and
has taken on far less than Philo of Hellenistic color.
In fact, while John's Prologue is at least as much in
line as Mark's with the Gospel it introduces, and forms
a true key to its meaning, the word " Logos " never re
appears in its technical sense except in the preamble
to the first Epistle. Let me repeat that this is not the
Memra-Logos of Wisdom 18: 15 and Rev. 19: 13, the
Destroyer-Logos of Babylonian literature described by
Professor S. Langdon, but the Hoqmah-Logos of Philo

214 JESUS AND PAUL
and the Wisdom writers, the divine spirit of creation,
revelation and redemption. The Prologue, then, sim
ply applies the Christology of Paul as the key to the
story of Jesus in the way that we might expect an
Apollos, or men of the school of Apollos, to do it. No
longer is it put, as in Mark, in the form of midrash,
or symbolic vision-story, but in the habitual forms of
Jewish philosophy. As Canon Sanday has said:
" Harnack says that the Philonean Logos and the Johan-
nean have nothing in common but the name. We may
go a step further and add that St. Paul's doctrine and
St. John's have everything in common but the name. " 6
The same might be said of the later Jewish doctrine of
redemptive Wisdom. As we have seen, the name Logos
is mere accommodation. All the Wisdom writers from
Ben-Sirach to Baruch would simply have used " Wis
dom." If our evangelist in this respect follows the
example of Philo rather than Philo' s Jewish predeces
sors it is merely on the surface. His meaning does not
differ from the Wisdom writers, nor from Paul. In
deed he merely borrows Philo's term " the Logos " to
paraphrase the same Pauline passage (Col. 1:15-17)
which the writer of Mark's prologue had partially repro
duced in the language of Palestinian midrash. Per
haps we can form our own conception of how the person
and work of Jesus were understood at the beginning of
the second century in cultured Pauline circles in no
better way than by paraphrasing the Prologue, a sub
lime Hymn of Incarnate Wisdom, whose two strophes
of three utterances followed by one of four constitutes
a kind of Christian Decalogue.
Strophe I describes the nature of what Paul calls
" the mind (vow) of Christ " as preexistent with God.
The Logos is divine, God's agent in creation and in
a Expositor (1892), p. 287. Cf. Harnack, Dogmengesch.fi p. 85,
and contrast Sabatier, St. Paul.

THE GOSPEL AS THEOLOGY 215
revelation; for it is ever distinguishing truth from
error. A stoic would define it perhaps in threefold
form as Aoyos evStafcros, Aoyos 7rpo<£opocos, and Xoyos
Sicuc/omKos. Paul's parallel statement is : " We have
our redemption in the Son of God's love, who is the
Image («W) of the invisible God, the Firstborn of
the whole creation, because all things in heaven and on
earth were created in him, through him, and unto him.
And he is before all things and in him all things con
sist, because the divine ' Good Pleasure ' (cicWa) was
that the whole ' Fullness of the divine attributes '
(¦jr\ijp<aixa.) should take up its abode in him." The Pro
logue of Mark had put this in the midrashic form of
vision-story and a Voice from Heaven. The Prologue
of John puts it in three epigrammatic utterances which
we may paraphrase as follows ( Jn. 1 : 1-5) :
(1) In the beginning, dwelling with God and par
taking of the nature of God, was the Spirit of creative
and redemptive Wisdom.
(2) It dwelt with God in the beginning; it was His
agent in creation: there is nothing that exists apart
from it.
(3) Whatever has life derives it from this source,
and what men are guided by as light (inward and out
ward) is nothing else but this divine agency that also
appears as life; its function in the world is discrimi
native, perpetually in victorious war with darkness.
(Here at the end of Strophe I is appended the digres
sion of verses 6-8, to warn the reader not to confuse
John the Baptist with this Light, to which he merely
bore witness. )
Strophe II, which also has three utterances, speaks
of this redemptive Spirit of God as the revealer of truth
to all past ages of mankind, but with the tragic fate
of rejection by all save Wisdom's children, the classic
theme of all the Wisdom lyrics (w. 9-13).

216 JESUS AND PAUL
(1) This true light, that illuminates every human
being, was unceasingly coming into the world; it was
in the world ; the world came into being through it ; and
yet the world refused it recognition.
(2) It came to its own things (to. iSia), but even its
own people (ot tStot) did not receive it. Nevertheless on
as many as did give it welcome it bestowed the right to
be children of God.
(3) These are they who believe on His name; for
such are not born of blood, nor of human choice or de
sire, but are begotten of God.
Strophe III makes up the total of ten with four
utterances dealing with the incarnation of this divine
Spirit, which in Ben-Sirach and Baruch " tabernacles "
with Israel in the pillar of fire and cloud. It journeys
in their midst to rest ultimately over the sanctuary,
making its abode in Israel and its leaders, an incarna
tion for the salvation of the world. The Prologue
adopts this classic figure of the Wisdom lyrics, passing
from it to a comparison like Paul's in II Cor. 3-6 of
the revelation of the Law to Moses with the revelation
of grace and immortality in the face of Jesus Christ.
I will omit the irrelevant interruption in v. 15 and
paraphrase verses 14-18 :
(1) And the Wisdom of God became flesh and
" tabernacled " among us, and we beheld its glory, glory
as of an " only-begotten " from the Father, full of
grace and truth.
(2) For of its " fullness " (« tov ir\i)pi>liaTO<; avrov)
we all received, one eharism upon another.
(3) For the Law was given through Moses, but grace
and fulfillment of the promise came through Jesus
Christ. (4) No man (not even Moses) ever, beheld God.
The only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Fa
ther, he has made Him manifest.

THE GOSPEL AS THEOLOGY 217
3. General Structure of the Gospel
Besides the use of a "Prologue the Ephesian Gospel
also follows the example of Mark in dividing the story
of the ministry into two main sections, a Galilean min
istry, covering the first six chapters, and a Judean min
istry covering the last fourteen ; but since another line
is drawn in a very marked way at the end of chapter 12,
separating the public ministry from the discourses of
the upper room and the Passion story in the last eight
chapters (13-20), we ought perhaps to speak rather- of
a three-fold division into nearly equal parts, chapters
1-6, 7-12, and 13-20.
We have thus in the section on the public ministry, a
general correspondence with the Markan outline ; but it
is considerably obscured by a secondary scheme based
upon the idea that Jesus attended the great religious
feasts of Judaism at Jerusalem. Each occasion of the
kind is then used by the evangelist to bring out their
higher significance by word and miracle. Thus, while
Jesus still makes the beginning of his ministry in Gali
lee, as soon as Passover arrives he goes up to Jerusa
lem, purifying the temple as in the Passion story of
Mark, but at the same time predicting its superseding
by his own death and resurrection. This public declara
tion of his Messiahship to all Israel at the seat of wor
ship is followed by a dialogue with one of the teachers
of Israel interpreting the doctrines of new birth and
justification by faith taken in the Pauline sense. Jesus
then returns to Galilee by way of Samaria, where a dia
logue of similar character with a Samaritan woman
serves to present the doctrine expressed by Paul in
Ephesians as " access for Jew and Gentile in one Spirit
unto a common Father." Thus the temple and its
worship sink out of sight behind the new order. The
story of the Galilean ministry is resumed in the healing

218 JESUS AND PAUL
of the Nobleman's Son in Capernaum and the Miracles
of the Loaves and Walking on the Sea. But between
the two is interjected another " feast of the Jews," prob
ably Pentecost, with a miracle and dialogue at Jerusa
lem corresponding in character with the section of
Mark (2: 1-3: 6), in which Jesus proves his authority
over the Law of Moses and his right as Son of Man to
forgive sins. From this scene in Jerusalem we pass
abruptly to " the other side of the Sea of Galilee " and
the Galilean ministry closes, as in Mark, with the Feed
ing of the Multitude and an appropriate discourse on
the Bread of Life interpreting the sacrament of the
Supper. This takes place at a second Passover, the
Feast of UnleUvened Bread, but this time Jesus remains
in Galilee, because in Judea " the Jews sought to kill
him." The Jerusalem ministry, so far as public, consists
of two visits, at Tabernacles and Dedication respec
tively. The former feast, in connection with its cere
monial of water-drawing and illumination, gives oppor
tunity for Jesus to offer himself as Giver of rivers of
living water, and (after healing a man blind from
birth) as Light of the world. The second, the Feast
of "Renewal" (Hanuka), which commemorated the
martyrdom and resurrection of those who had given
their lives for the national hope, is the occasion for
Jesus' raising Lazarus from the dead, and proclaiming
himself the resurrection and the life. Chapter- 12, in
which we are told of the Triumphal Entry and the
Appeal of the Greeks, brings the story of the public
ministry to a formal close. After this Jesus again
withdraws, to return only at the final Passover.
The end of Chapter 12 marks a major division of the
Gospel. The third and closing Passover which it de
scribes has no public teaching. Jesus merely gives his
parting instructions to the Twelve and is glorified by

THE GOSPEL AS THEOLOGY 219
the cross and resurrection. The sacramental Supper
also plays no part here, all its teaching having been an
ticipated in the discourse in Capernaum, and Jesus' own
death taking place at the time when according to Syn
optic story it was instituted.
We see that the Johannine scheme of the feasts
greatly interferes with the Markan outline. It even
appears to have so dislocated the material in the attempt
to adjust the one fo the other as to bring about several
instances of disorder. Thus in 6:1, we pass from
Jerusalem at " the " feast of 5 : 1, whose name has dis
appeared but which the narrative indicates was Pente
cost (feast of the giving of the Law), to " the other side
of the Sea of Galilee." Conversely in 7 : 1 we are told
that " After these things Jesus walked in Galilee " ;
whereas he is in Galilee, and the next thing related is
his going to Jerusalem. Moreover the theme of dis
course in chapter 5 is carried on much too continuously
in 7 : 14-24 to admit the supposition that more than
half a year has intervened. Apparently chapters 5
and 6 have been inverted in order, as many critics and
interpreters have independently conjectured.
Various theories, too intricate for our consideration
here, have been advanced to explain this and other
displacements. Suffice it for the present that the evan
gelist has certainly made historical considerations en
tirely secondary to those of religious instruction and
apologetic. He himself informs us that the material
he has put together is a mere selection, and that the
object was faith in Jesus as the Son of God to the ob
taining of eternal life. The fact that the entire public
ministry is presented in the form of scenes at five great
religious feasts, Passover, Pentecost, Unleavened Bread,
Tabernacles and Dedication, for all but one of which
Jesus goes up to Jerusalem, reminds us of the five dis
courses of Matthew, and shows how artistically the

220

JESUS AND PAUL

evangelist arranges his material. For on each occasion
he describes a single mighty work of Jesus symbolical
of the religious significance of the feast in question ; and
this is accompanied by a discourse approximating in
form the Platonic dialogue, a form which had become
classic for religious and philosophic teaching. These
discourses are not concerned with the exhortation to
repentance in view of the coming kingdom, as in Syn
optic story. In fact the Johannine Christ is not a
teacher of ethics, new or old. There are no publicans
and sinners in the fourth Gospel. There are only on
the one hand believers, on the other " the Jews," who
are Jesus' opponents. The discourses are theological
and polemic. They start from one of the so-called
" seven I am's " of Jesus, and expound in religious dia
lectic the significance of his person and mission. At
the initial Passover Jesus purges the temple, announc
ing himself as taking its place through his death and
resurrection. The dialogue with Nicodemus follows,
explaining the doctrines of new birth by baptism of
the Spirit, and justification in the judgment by faith in
the crucified Son of Man. Nicodemus disappears.
The dialogue becomes a monologue, and is followed by
a (displaced?) paragraph making clear the fact that
the baptism of John was not " from heaven " in any
such sense as that of Jesus' disciples. The Christian
alone has the divine endorsement of the Spirit (3 :
22-26). A second dialogue, whose scene is Jacob's
well, on the return journey through Samaria, shows
how this doctrine of the Spirit supersedes all local
shrines, giving common access to all of every race who
worship in spirit and truth to the heavenly Father. A
parallel to the Synoptic anecdote of the Believing Cen
turion 7 closes this first section of the work.
? The Pauline conception of the cross (not mere Gentile faith)
as the breaking down of the middle wall of partition (Eph. 2: 14-

THE GOSPEL AS THEOLOGY 221
We need not now take up consecutively the miracles
and discourses of the successive feasts, which for the
present I will merely enumerate. Those of chapter 5,
in which the authority of Jesus is set over against that
of Moses, relate to Pentecost. Chapter 6 relates to the
Passover in Galilee, with its miracle of the loaves and
dialogue on the Bread from Heaven. Chapters 7-9
describe Tabernacles in Jerusalem with its miracle of
healing of the man born blind and dialogue on Jesus
as the " Light of the World." Chapters 10-12 describe
the culmination of the ministry at the feast of Dedi
cation. Its miracle is the raising of Lazarus, and its
closing discourse is on Jesus' self -dedication to the cross
that he may " draw all men unto him."
From this mere enumeration it will be already clear
that the evangelist's aim is not statistical but interpre
tative. He is no mere annalist. He has combined say
ings and doings in his scheme of the five feasts in a
way somewhat suggestive of the five books of the Pales
tinian evangelist. Unlike Matthew, however, he con
ceives the teaching not as law, but as gospel. It brings
life and immortality to light as a present possession.
The writer uses narrative and discourse in something
like the proportion, and with something like the method
of the Second Source; for the Second Source should
not be regarded as a loose string of precepts, but as a
series of discourses with brief connecting narrative, like
the Petrine discourses of Acts. But no discriminating
reader can imagine that the fourth evangelist attempts
to reproduce the historical utterances of Jesus. They
are as freely adapted as those of Socrates in the dia
logues of Plato, or the discourses of Peter just referred
to. All the characters alike, whether John, or Nico
demus, or the Samaritan woman, or Jesus himself, de
16; cf. Jno. 12:20-33) precludes the fourth evangelist from
characterizing the " nobleman " as a Gentile.

222 JESUS AND PAUL
bate such subjects as might have been in dispute in the
schools of Ephesus, when Paul disputed daily in the
school of Tyrannus. They use the language and termi
nology of such debate. All the characters speak just as
the evangelist himself speaks in the three Epistles, and
his style and language have an oracular tone which is
highly characteristic. All the utterances are " as it
were oracles of God."
It must be admitted that the nature of this Gospel's
contribution to its own age and to ours is different from
that which it has often been supposed to render. It was
not written for historical critics, but for disciples who
needed a higher interpretation of the divine revelation
in the coming of Christ. What the author aimed at he
has accomplished. He seeks to convey truth, and not
mere fact. He seeks to reveal the heart of Christ, not
to describe his outward appearance. He wishes to tell
what Christ eternally is to the soul self^dedicated to
him, not what he was to past observers that had neither
eye nor ear for the things of the spirit. " These things
were written that men might believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God, and that in this faith they might
find life," as the writer had found it.
The Christ of the fourth evangelist is truly man,
truly the historical Jesus, depicted as faithfully as the
evangelist's information permits. Doubtless narrative
as well as discourse is freely adapted; but we do him
great injustice if we treat as insincere his insistence on
the reality of Jesus' flesh, its tangible and corporeal
nature, manifest to the historical sense, a witness borne
to eye and ear-witnesses, and cherished in the Church
as its choicest possession. To him on the contrary the
attempt of docetic heresy to vaporize this all away was
the chief danger of the Church. To his view this was
the false and deceitful spirit of Antichrist foretold for
the last times. His Christ is as real and historic as he

THE GOSPEL AS THEOLOGY 223
is able to depict him. But he is also the incarnate
Spirit of the redeeming Wisdom of God, the revealing
" Image of the invisible God," as he had been to Paul ;
and the evangelist is no more satisfied than Paul would
have been with the depiction of a Christ after the flesh.
He retains what he regards as of value in Synoptic
story, but with something like the sovereign freedom of
the Spirit that animated Paul. Thus the values, for
him, are not in the mere record, but in its inner sig
nificance. Critical historicity in the modern sense he
had neither the will nor the power to attain. For the
assumption that he was an eyewitness is no longer ad
missible. Applying no such false and unfair standard
of measurement, attempting neither to defend every
part as historical fact, nor to apologize for it as " fic
tion," we recognize this portrait of the eternal Christ as
a portrait of the heart. The artist " paints the thing
as he sees it " ; but he sees it with the eye of the spirit
" under the aspect of the eterngl." His closing words
of blessing upon those who have not seen, and yet have
believed, have to my mind all the meaning of an utter
ance of one who takes them to himself personally. This
evangelist, like ourselves, had to take his evidence of a
glorified Christ, conqueror of death, from others. He
accepts it as sufficient ; but if it were shown in any given
case to be fallacious, Christ would still be to him the
source of a divine and eternal life, known to inward
experience. This is that eternal life of which he de
clares that it was with the Father and was manifested,
a divine power for us to see, to bear witness to and to
declare, bringing men into the true fellowship with the
Father, the fellowship of self-dedication in love and
service to the triumph of the reign of God. In a sense
the witness is all the greater if this evangelist speaks
to us from an age already remote from what we call the
" historic Jesus." The Spirit of Jesus which " ener-

224 JESUS AND PAUL
gized in " Paul had energized in him also. He was not
remote from the eternal Christ, and he knows it. Per
haps he could afford to regard as knowledge much that
was not so, and to lack knowledge of some things that
we count important, if he could truly make such a con
fession of religious faith as this : " We know that the
Son of God is come, and hath given us an understand
ing, that we know Him that is true, and we are in Him
that is true, in His Son Jesus Christ."

LECTURE IX
THE MESSAGE OP THE FOURTH EVANGELIST
1. The Use of Material
In our consideration of the general structure of the
Ephesian Gospel, I pointed out that its main body con
sists of the story of the public ministry in Synoptic
outline, but that upon this it superimposes a scheme of
the great religious feasts of Judaism with typical
" signs " and discourses of Jesus. The public ministry
begins with a Passover at Jerusalem. In chapter 5 we
have a second visit to Jerusalem with " sign " and dis
course appropriate to Pentecost. In chapter 6 comes
a second Passover, this time spent in Galilee, closing
the first half. After this follow in chapters 7-9 and
10-12 visits to Jerusalem at Tabernacles and Dedica
tion respectively, each with " sign " and discourse ap
propriate to the feast in question. At this point the
evangelist introduces a well marked division closing the
public ministry. Chapters 13-17 are concerned, like
the section between the Prologue (1 : 1-18) and the
beginning of the public ministry in 2 : 12, with dis
courses to the disciples, which have a more esoteric
character. The closing chapters (17-20) present a
somewhat altered form of the story of the Passion and
Resurrection. But into these differences of the narra
tive, great as is their interest to the historical critic, I
shall not enter.
Thus the career of Jesus, according to the fourth
Gospel, covers exactly two years, each period beginning
and ending with Passover. The earlier ministry
225

226 JESUS AND PAUL
(chapters 2-6) is devoted to Judea, Samaria, and Gali
lee, the later (chapters 7-12) is wholly devoted to
Judea. Jesus is depicted in the three discourses of the
former section first as the inaugurator of the new temple
and universal worship in the Spirit (2 : 12^4: 54), then
as the inaugurator of a new Sabbath under greater au
thority than that of Moses (chapter 5),1 finally as giver
of the Bread of Life (chapter 6). In the Judean min
istry he appears first as Light of the World (7-9), then
as the Good Shepherd that layeth down his Life for the
Sheep ( 10-12). 2 Have we any literary parallel that
will help us to appreciate the general method and pur
pose of this arrangement ? I have already adduced the
five " Sermons " of Matthew. Perhaps I can suggest
a parallel that will be still more helpful.
Take up the collections of Synagogue discourses de
livered on occasion of the great feasts and known as
piskoth; or take up better still the Alexandrian pane
gyric on the martyrs of Jewish liberty called IV Macca
bees, an oration for the feast of Dedication. It is what
Americans would call a Memorial Day address. Here
are examples of what continued to be the custom in the
Christian Church, especially in churches such as Ephe
sus, where we know observance of Passover at least, and
perhaps others of the great Jewish feasts, was continued
in Christianized form from apostolic times. Of similar
type is the " Word of Exhortation " as its author calls
it, known to us as the Epistle to the Hebrews. It also
might well be a panegyric for the feast of Dedication
(or Martyrs), written to a church just entering the
shadow of bloody persecution. It has a Jewish parallel
in II Maccabees, another piskah for the feast of Dedi
cation. Even if this judgment be incorrect as regards
Hebrews, later fathers of the Church afford us examples
i Displaced ; see above.
= 10; 1-18 is displaced from after verse 25.

THE MESSAGE OP THE FOURTH EVANGELIST 227
of discourses written to commemorate the " Day of
Martyrs," Jewish and Christian. We can imagine the
great festal discourses on which our fourth evangelist
has based the body of his work to have been originally
sermons of this type. At least they appear to me to
have parallels (as respects mere literary form) in these
Jewish, Alexandrian, and early Christian festal exhor
tations, or piskoth. They use the freedom of this sort
of edifying discourse to present not the mere language,
but the mind of Christ; and the setting of narrative
which frames them in (perhaps in part constructed by
a later compiler) is freely adapted to the same purpose
of edification.
Thus far I have spoken only of the main body of the
Ephesian Gospel, the five festal discourses of the public
ministry. Even more distinctive and characteristic,
perhaps more instructive and uplifting, is the outer en
velope, the introductory and closing narrative which
presents Jesus' private teaching of the Twelve. After
the prologue we have an introductory section corre
sponding to the narrative introduction to the first great
discourse of Matthew. It covers a period of six days
like the six days of preparation before the Transfigura
tion after Peter's Confession. In these six days of
the calling of the first disciples at the baptism of John,
as in the former case, the subject is the revelation of
the Messiahship.
They form a substitute in this Gospel for the Syn
optic story of the Baptism and Temptation, and the
Calling of the First Disciples. Instead of a colloquy
with Satan to explain the higher sense in which the title
" Son of God " is to be taken, John the Baptist, and
ultimately Jesus himself, explain it to the disciples.
The six days begin with John's witness to Jesus as he
who baptizes with the Spirit, the (Isaian) " Lamb of
God " (d/wo's), whose martyrdom and intercession really

228 JESUS AND PAUL
effect that removal of the sin of the world of which
John's rite is merely prophetic. For John himself is
nothing, not even Elijah, merely a voice crying in the
wilderness to prepare for his great successor. So his
disciples are directed to Jesus and learn to know him
first as the Messiah. The evangelist introduces at this
point his parallel to the Synoptic story of the Confes
sion of Peter. Here, however, while Peter receives the
surname, it is Andrew who first makes the confession,
and another, apparently one of the sons of Zebedee,
neither of whom appears in the Gospel by name, is the
companion of Andrew. The final step is taken by a
disciple completely unknown to Synoptic story, Na
thaniel of Cana, who confesses Jesus as " Son of God "
and " king of Israel." But Jesus promises them a
greater revelation. They will come to know him here
after as Son of Man, a being who stands as Mediator
between man and God, serving like the Logos whom
Philo had compared to the ladder seen in Jacob's dream,
as the means of intercourse between earth and heaven.3
So this evangelist deepens and universalizes the promise
given to the Twelve after Peter's confession that they
shall witness the coming of the Son of Man with the
holy angels. Finally, as the seventh day begins at
Cana, Jesus " manifests his glory " by a " sign " which
cements the faith of all his disciples. It is a Chris
tianized parallel to the legendary miracle of the epiph
any, or " manifestation " of Dionysus the Savior-god of
life and resurrection, at whose birth on the night of
Jan. 5—6 legend related that water changed to wine.
Jesus now symbolizes the transition from religions of
form to the religion of reality by changing the water
of " the Jews' manner of purifying " into life-giving
s Jn. 1 : 51 follows the rendering of Gen. 28 : 12 : " Lo, the
angels of God ascending and descending on him" ("bo"), i.e.
on Jacob. It is quite doubtful whether it is affected at all by
Philo.

THE MESSAGE OE THE FOURTH EVANGELIST 229
wine. " He manifested his glory, and his disciples be
lieved on him." Such is the Introduction to the Gos
pel. In the text of Westcott and Hort it is marked
off from the main body of the work, like the discourses
to the Twelve in the upper room (to which I next pass)
by a space of three blank lines. Westcott and Hort are
often found in such matters " workmen that need not
be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
The closing third division, corresponding to the Epi
logue of Mt. 26-28, is likewise limited in its teaching
to the private instruction of the Twelve. It would of
course be superfluous for me to recall to you the contents
of the farewell discourses of the upper room, the prom
ise of the Paraclete, the parable of the Vine of God, and
the High-priestly Prayer. We are on a different level
here from the Doom chapter of the Synoptic Gospels,
and the prayer of Gethsemane. Even the Supper is
now forgotten. A wholly different eschatology has
come in. We are in the atmosphere of Paul's great
chapter to the Romans (Rom. 8 : 18-39) on the two
intercessors, the Spirit on earth and the risen Christ
who pleads for us in heaven. The Second Coming is no
longer a " manifestation to the world " but an indwell
ing of Christ and the Father in those who obey the new
commandment of love. In this sense the Christ " comes
again " to us ; but our abiding-place is not to be on the
earth. There are other mansions than these in the Fa
ther's house. To depart and be with Christ is the bet
ter portion, as in the later epistles of Paul. So here,
as in the introductory chapters, the Son of Man doctrine
is transformed. We have a timeless eschatology, as we
have a timeless Christ. We have a vine of God bearing
fruit in all the world through the vitalizing current of
the Spirit of Jesus, just as in Paul's great Epistle of the
Unity of the Spirit, the world is brought into a brother
hood of order and peace by agency of an organism vital-

230

JESUS AND PAUL

ized by the Spirit which courses from head to members.
In John the eternal life is conceived individually. It
is a present indwelling of God in each regenerate soul,
not admission hereafter into a kingdom of life, the
reign of the Messiah.
The climax of this esoteric teaching is reached in the
Highpriestly Prayer (chapter 18) in which Paul's
hymn of life in the Spirit in Rom. 8, and his paean of
thanksgiving in Eph. 1 : 1-14 are raised to still loftier
tones, expanding the Synoptic promise of the Paraclete
(Mt. 10: 18-20). The Son is now to be glorified; he
prays that those whom God has called and " sanctified "
may be conformed to his own image, that he may be the
firstborn of many brethren. Religious insight and as
piration have never risen to higher flights than these of
the Farewell Discourse and the Highpriestly Prayer.
[I 4 would gladly linger in this holy of holies of the
fourth Gospel, but to have any just sense of the general
structure we must return to consider its main body, the
story of the public ministry.
It is only by accommodation that we can speak of a
Galilean ministry in the fourth Gospel ; for the majority
of the scenes even in chapters 2—6 are not in Galilee, but
in Judea and Samaria. The story opens with a paral
lel to the Synoptic scene of the Purging of the Temple.
Jesus thus presents himself publicly from the outset as
vested with supreme authority to effect reform at the
center of the national religion, and offers as a sign the
resurrection of his body. Of course the evangelist here
completely disregards the historical sequence of events,
but that is habitual with him, since he is really ad-
* The section enclosed in [ ] which here follows was added to
adapt the lecture to the requirement of the Summer School.
Lecture VIII, which formed the last of the original series on
" Jesus and Paul," closed with the Retrospect which now follows
the added section at p. 249.

THE MESSAGE OF THE FOURTH EVANGELIST 231
dressing his contemporaries, to whom the claims of
Jesus to this authority are as well known as the resur
rection which supports it. The writer is completely
indifferent to the charge of anachronism, or hysteron-
proteron, which modern opponents bring against him for
representing the Baptist, the earliest disciples, Nico
demus and the Samaritans as all freely discussing the
claims of Jesus to Messiahship in the highest Christian
sense; because it is, so to speak, an understood thing
in his time, that the discussion turns on the merits of
the case. The particular narrator's order and way of
depicting the scenes is regarded with indifference.
These claims were the claims of Jesus. They are thus
supported. What matter whether the story which pro
pounds them be placed at the beginning, as required by
logic, or at the end, as required by the mere sequence
of history. I ean imagine the fourth evangelist struck
with amazement at the petty and trifling quibbles of a
modern criticism which expects him to follow mere
chronological order in his narrative. It suited his
pedagogic purpose to transfer this story of Jesus' chal
lenge to the temple authorities to the beginning. It
gave him incidentally a chronological point of attach
ment to secular history similar to Luke's, by establishing
a synchronism between the birth of Jesus and Herod's
reconstruction of the temple. He follows the ancient
tradition known to " the elders " quoted by Irenaeus,
but displaced by the Lukan chronology, that Jesus was
upwards of forty when he began his ministry, and dates
his birth in 18 b. c. Why should there be more ob
jection (he might say) to his depicting it as beginning
with the well known scene in Jerusalem, than to Luke's
transfer for similar literary reasons, of the Rejection in
Nazareth, to take the place of Mark's Sabbath in Ca
pernaum as the opening scene ?
Thus introduced at Jerusalem, the work of Jesus con-

232

JESUS AND PAUL

tinues until after the imprisonment of the Baptist in
Judea. It passes next to Samaria; only in the third
place, and for two selected scenes, the healing of the
Nobleman's Son and the Miracle of the Loaves and
Walking on the Sea, is it located in Galilee. Jesus'
brethren, in fact, speak of his disciples as " in Judea,"
and urge him to go there to demonstrate his claims.
Jesus himself, it is explained, went to Galilee because
" a prophet is of no repute in his own country." He
continued there longer than he otherwise would because
in Judea " the Jews sought to kill him." Thus does
our evangelist answer the ancient Jewish taunt of his
Galilean origin, a taunt which is voiced by Celsus, the
second-century opponent of Christianity, in the form:
If he was a world-redeemer, or even the Messiah of the
Jews, why did he hide himself in a corner among a few
obscure and ignorant rustics ?
But what use does the preacher-apologist make of
his selected material ? — The three panels of the suc
cessive scenes in Judea, Samaria and Galilee have each
a figure of typical character, off-setting the figure of
Jesus, and illustrating in the dialogue the attitude to
ward him assumed by his hearers in these respective
regions. In Judea it is Nicodemus, who becomes a
disciple, " but secretly for fear of the Jews." In Sa
maria it is the sinful woman, who with " many " of her
compatriots openly welcomes him as " the Christ, the
Savior of the world." In Galilee it is the Nobleman,
who is convinced by miracle, but of whom Jesus says in
conjunction with bis fellow-countrymen : " Except ye
see signs and wonders ye will not believe." There is no
representative of the Gentile world, because the fourth
evangelist holds (as against Mark, and far more con
sistently than Luke) to the principle that Jesus pur
posely confined his work to his own people. He has
indeed " other sheep not of this fold," but other pro-

THE MESSAGE OF THE FOURTH EVANGELIST 233
vision is made for them. Only at the close of the min
istry do " certain Greeks " make their appeal, and they
are answered in terms closely recalling the Pauline doc
trine that the cross was the means whereby the law, the
" middle-wall of partition," the " enmity " between Jew
and Gentile, was broken down. Jesus' reply to the
Greeks is : " This corn of wheat must fall into the
ground and die, else it abideth alone, and I, if I be
lifted up, will draw all men unto me." For this reason,
I think, the " nobleman " whose son is healed in Ca
pernaum is not (as in Matthew and Luke) a Gentile,
but a type of Galilean believers; while the Woman at
the Well, to whom Jesus expounds the doctrine of uni
versalism as in Mk. 7 : 24-30 to the believing Syro-phoe-
nician, is not a Canaanite, but only a Samaritan. In
the symbolism of Luke, who omits the incident of the
Syro-phoenician, Samaritans play a similar part. Let
us, then, look briefly at the dialogues with Nicodemus,
the Samaritan Woman, and the Galilean Nobleman re
spectively. The subject of the dialogue with Nicodemus is, as I
have already noted, the Baptism of Regeneration by
Water and the Spirit, and Justification by Faith in the
Crucified Son of God. These are the two vital doc
trines of Christianity as expounded by St. Paul, par
ticularly in Romans ; the special doctrines which chiefly
differentiate the new revelation from Judaism. Nico
demus is a name known to us in Rabbinic literature in
the form Naq-Dimon. He appears only as the wealthi
est resident of Jerusalem in this period, one who was
specially remembered for his benefaction to poor pil
grims to the temple by having provided for them baths
of purification free of cost. In the Gospel he seems to
be representative of men like Gamaliel, or Joseph of
Arimathea, well disposed toward Jesus as " a teacher
come from God," but even though " teachers of Israel "

234 JESUS AND PAUL
ignorant of certain first principles of the faith, these
teachings of baptisms.
Why, then, is it so important for the fourth evangelist
to introduce them into his Gospel? Let us reflect on
how little we should get from the Synoptic Gospels alone
of the significance which Paul and all the Pauline
churches attached to baptism as the supreme expression
of the convert's faith, his participation by a moral death
and resurrection in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. To
them it was the " laver of regeneration " (Titus 3:5),
wherein the believer was adopted by the Spirit and
made a son, an heir of eternal life. It was a spiritual
circumcision, a " seal " of the promise of God. Con
sider this, and I think you will hardly need to ask the
question why supplementary teachings should be thought
needful. The Synoptic Gospels refer once or twice to
baptism as an institution of John's preaching of repent
ance. In it Jesus participates and is revealed as he
who will baptize in the Holy Spirit. Acts refers to the
fulfillment of this promise, without explaining, how
ever, how the rite came to be taken over by the Church.
Matthew supplies in part the explanation by reporting
an express command of Jesus to baptize, given after his
resurrection. But it is extremely doubtful if any gos
pel writing known to the fourth evangelist contained
even so much as this to explain the most fundamental
of Christian rites.5
The Dialogue with Nicodemus supplies this surpris
ing lack. In reply to Nicodemus' proposal to class
Jesus with other heaven-sent teachers it propounds the
Pauline doctrine of new birth as the real ground of ad
mission to the kingdom of God, and proceeds to base
the doctrine on the authority of the Son of Man come
from heaven in order that he may be lifted up before
5 The Gospel of Matthew in its present form seems to have been
unknown to the fourth evangelist.

THE MESSAGE OF THE FOUETH EVANGELIST 235
the eyes of a dying race " as Moses lifted up the ser
pent in the wilderness, that whosoever hath faith in him
may not perish but have everlasting life." Believers of
this type are born again of water and the Spirit. For
them there is no more judgment. Those who disbelieve
are already judged.
The six verses at the end of chapter 3 which elaborate
upon the coming of the Son of Man from heaven, the
love of God thus manifested, and faith in Christ as the
sole ground of deliverance in the judgment, show little
or no connection with the discourse of the Baptist in
w. 22-30 to which they are attached. They are really
supplementary to this part of the dialogue, whether
transposed, displaced by the insertion of w. 23-30, or
themselves attached by a later hand. At all events you
will find them more intelligible as a continuation of the
dialogue with Nicodemus than as part of the utterance
of John the Baptist. They further develop the theme
of justification by faith in the Son of God, and deliver
ance from wrath that abides on the unbelieving. Along
side this exposition of the doctrine of new birth from
the Spirit, justification by faith, and the cross as a
manifestation of the love of God to a perishing world,
a means by which those who look to it in faith are saved
from the coming judgment, let us place now some of the
leading principles of Paul. I will quote them con
secutively from Romans. " Therefore by works of the
law shall no flesh be justified. But now, apart from
law a way of justification hath been manifested, wit
nessed by the law and the prophets, even a justification
from God upon faith in Jesus Christ unto all that be
lieve. For God set him forth as a spectacle in his
blood, a propitiatory sacrifice, to make known His own
righteousness in the remission of sins that are past."
" For God commendeth His own love toward us in that
while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Much

236 JESUS AND PAUL
more, then, being now justified by his blood we shall
be saved from the wrath through him." " Know ye
not that as many of us as were baptized into Christ
were baptized into his death ? We are buried with him
by baptism into death that like as Christ was raised from
tbe dead through the glory of the Father so we also
should walk in newness of life." " There is therefore
now no judgment to them which are in Christ Jesus,
who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. . . .
For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are
the sons of God. . . . For the Spirit of adoption which
teaches us to cry Abba, Father, bears witness with our
Spirit that we are born of God. He that spared not
His own Son, but delivered him up for us all, bow shall
He not also with him freely give us all things ? Who
shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is
God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth ? "
Compare these great utterances of Paul on justification
by faith in the crucified Son of God's love, and baptism
as a new birth in the Spirit, with the dialogue with
Nicodemus, realize what this teaching of baptism meant
to Pauline Christians and I think it will scarcely be
needful to ask why the great unknown disciple of Paul
at Ephesus places them in the very forefront of his
Gospel. And if we realize why he depicts the scene as
he does, we may be less disposed to raise the very mod
ern objection that he does not seem to be presenting
historic fact, but only eternal truth.
Verses 22-30, which compare the baptism of Jesus'
disciples with that of John, must, so far as I can see,
be treated either as an editorial interpolation like the
anti-Baptist digressions in verses 6-8 and 15 of the
Prologue, or else as displaced. If we place them after
instead of before verses 31-36 they form just the need
ful introduction to the second dialogue, that in which

THE MESSAGE OF THE FOUETH EVANGELIST 237
Jesus expounds the doctrine of the new temple, and
worship in the Spirit, to the Samaritan Woman.
I have already explained why this evangelist is de
barred from using the incident of the Syro-phoenician
(as do Mark and Matthew) in the interest of his uni
versalism, and, like Luke, can only fall back on the
quasi-Gentile Samaritans. The descriptive introduc
tion gives some of the strongest evidence we have that
the writer had actually visited the scenes described ; but
the discourse, starting with the gift of the Spirit as
" living water " and proceeding to the conclusion that
in the true worship in spirit of God as spirit all distinc
tions of race or local shrine must disappear, is simply
the putting in dialogue form of the great teaching of
Paul in Ephesians : " But now in Christ Jesus ye that
sometime were ' far off,' aliens from the commonwealth
of Israel, are made ' nigh ' by the blood of Christ . . .
for through him we both have access in one Spirit (out
poured alike on Jew and Gentile) unto the Father."
The third panel of the Galilean Ministry covers
verses 43-54 of chapter 4, introducing the figure of
the Nobleman of Capernaum, who for the same reason
as the Samaritan Woman is no longer, as in Matthew
and Luke, a Gentile, but who represents the somewhat
unstable faith of Jesus' Galilean disciples, a faith
based on their experience of his miracles, which did not
long survive. There is only one passing reference in
Acts (9 : 32) to " the church in Galilee." It seems
soon to have become extinct.
The proportion of consideration given to Jesus' work
in Galilee in John might seem unduly short; but with
chapter 4 we should probably connect immediately
chapter 6, which begins, " After these things Jesus went
away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee," and re
lates the Miracle of the Loaves, the Walking on the

238 JESUS AND PAUL
Sea, and Discourse in Capernaum. The intervening
chapter 5 in which Jesus goes to Jerusalem to a feast
(probably Pentecost) seems to be displaced. Many au
thorities, reaching back to and including Luther, have
come independently to this conclusion, and I shall take
the liberty of assuming its truth, though I do not agree
with the majority of these authorities in regarding the
displacement as accidental, but regard it as due to the
editorial revision undergone by the Gospel, or at least
by its material. One object of that revision seems to
have been to introduce the special warnings against too
high a valuation of John the Baptist, another to bring
the work into closer harmony with Synoptic tradition.
Chapter 5 relates the Healing of a Paralytic and a de
bate with " the Jews " as to Jesus' authority as com
pared with Moses', a debate occasioned by his disregard
of the sabbath. It is a manifest parallel to the Synoptic
section Mk. 2 : 1-3 : 6, which of course precedes the
Miracle of the Loaves and Walking on the Sea. Thus
the present order is Synoptic. But in John the course
of the dialogue indicates that the occasion is really
Pentecost, the feast of the Giving of the Law, although
the name of the feast in 5 : 1 has been obliterated. And
if the occasion be really Pentecost, the original place of
chapter 5 will have been immediately after, not before,
chapter 6, which deals with Passover (ver. 4) and Un
leavened Bread (w. 30-59). A further reason for
transposition is that chapter 7 begins with a reference
to Jesus' walking in Galilee because of the threat to his
life in Jerusalem in chapter 5, and continues with the
account of his next going up to the autumn feast of
Tabernacles. Postponing, then, chapter 5 and its controversy with
the Jerusalem scribes, we find as the third section of the
Galilean ministry, the Healing of the Nobleman's Son,
followed by the Miracle of the Loaves, the Walking on

THE MESSAGE OF THE FOUETH EVANGELIST 239
the Sea, and the discourse in Capernaum on the Bread
of Life (4 : 43-54; 6 : 1-71). The events of chapter 6
are appropriate to the occasion; for it is declared in
verse 4 to be Passover, or the Feast of Unleavened
Bread. All these incidents have, of course, close paral
lels in the Synoptic record, as we should expect of scenes
in Galilee. In speaking of Synoptic parallels I do not
except the Discourse in Capernaum; because while the
theme is greatly expanded in John it reproduces the dis
cussion of the meaning of the saying " Beware of the
Leaven of the Pharisees " introduced in Mk. 8 : 10-21
after the Feeding of the Four Thousand, when the
Pharisees encounter Jesus as he is leaving the boat, and
where, as in John, they demand a Sign from Heaven.
Nor do I except the closing paragraph of the section
(Jn. 6:60-70), which corresponds to the Rebuke of
Peter, related by Mark almost immediately after
(Mk. 8:27-9:1).
What, then, is the practical — or shall we say prag
matic — motive of this section of John, the only one to
which the term Galilean ministry can properly be ap
plied? I have already suggested that the key to the intended
application of the incident of the Healing lies in the
word — seemingly so harsh — placed in the mouth of
Jesus : " Except ye see signs and wonders ye will not
believe." Even harsher and more uncalled for by any
thing in the narrative might seem the saying to the
multitude who have come from the scene of the Multi
plication of Loaves seeking Jesus in Capernaum : " Ye
seek me, not because ye saw miracles, but because ye
ate of the loaves and were filled." The Galilean fol
lowing of Jesus does not seem to rank high in the esteem
of this evangelist. But the deprecation of that type of
faith which seeks after a sign and physical benefits is
not confined to this passage, nor to the Johannine writer.

240 JESUS AND PAUL
The fourth evangelist evinces it in the utterance of the
believing Samaritans in 4 : 41 f . It appears again at
the close, in the rebuke of Thomas' unbelief, followed
by a blessing on those who believe without ocular proof.
But there is no innovation here. A kindred note of
equal moral elevation marks Paul's deprecation of the
Corinthians' craving for the spectacular gifts of the
Spirit, and commendation of those which will long out
last miracles and tongues, the gifts of faith, hope, and
(above all) love.
We need hardly ask why the evangelist's selection
from the rich store of Galilean tradition is limited, after
the Healing of the Nobleman's Son, to the Miracle of
the Loaves and the Walking on the Sea. These form
the climax, in all forms of the Synoptic narrative, of
the Galilean ministry. Already in Mark's Gospel there
are unmistakable traces of a symbolizing tendency, shap
ing the form into closer relation with the events of
Passion-week, and Jesus' triumph over the gates of
Sheol, as well as other traits which reflect the ritual
of the Supper. An Ephesian evangelist could hardly
be expected to accept the Roman form of the tradition
made dominant by Mark, wherein the parting supper is
constituted a Christian Passover. In John the last
supper is merely an ordinary meal. The Passover is
eaten without participation by Jesus or his disciples
on the evening of the day of crucifixion. In the scenes
of the upper room the only sacramental feature is the
washing of the disciples' feet. However, it was impos
sible that an evangelist who lays such stress upon the
great sacrifice, Christ as the atoning Lamb of God, the
propitiation for our sins and those of the whole world,
and who makes the cross the very goal of his career,
should neglect the one great sacrament of the Lord's
own institution. Strangely onesided would his work
have appeared in his own eyes, perhaps even Gnostic in

THE MESSAGE OF THE FOUETH EVANGELIST 241
tendency, if after the full exposition of the significance
of Christian baptism in the Dialogue with Nicodemus
he had given no interpretation of the Supper of the
Lord. He uses the occasion of the Miracle of the Loaves
and Walking on the Sea, already partially adapted to
this purpose in Synoptic narrative, as symbolic of
Jesus' victory over death. The discourse, on the
Bread of Life, interprets the meaning of eating the
flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man.
Jesus makes this a condition of sharing in his im
mortality. We have here the evangelist's habitual form of dia
logue, though as before it soon passes into monologue.
The interlocutors are in this case " the people " who
have followed Jesus to Capernaum from the scene of the
Multiplication of Loaves, and who (as in the Synoptics
and also in the opening scene of the Johannine min
istry) demand from him there, as he is teaching in the
Synagogue, " a sign from heaven." This time Jesus
gives the answer of the Second Source in its Lukan
form : the Son of Man who comes from heaven is himself
the sign, as was Jonah to the Ninevites. He is the
means of resurrection also, but only as they assimilate
his nature. To those who eat his flesh and drink his
blood it will be as the manna which Moses gave to
Israel in the wilderness, a true bread from heaven, a
food of immortality. He declares and reiterates in
many forms the assertion : " I am the living bread
which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this
bread he shall live forever, and the bread that I will
give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the
world." Thus far we have a- manifest blending of the Synoptic
story of the Multiplication of Loaves, Walking on the
Sea, and Demand for a Sign from Heaven, with Pauline
teachings on the effect and meaning of the communion

242 JESUS AND PAUL
of the body and blood of Christ. Paul, it is true, had
not directly employed the figure of the manna, any more
than in speaking of God's " setting forth " Jesus in his
blood as a token of propitiation to the eye of penitent
faith he had made express mention of the brazen ser
pent. The specific comparison belongs to the Ephesian
evangelist. So with respect to the " spiritual meat and
drink " supplied from heaven to those who followed
Moses into the wilderness. Paul stops short of men
tioning the " spiritual meat " by name as " manna."
He says that " the spiritual rock from which they drank
was Christ," and merely implies the same regarding
their " spiritual meat." The evangelist is specific.
Nor does he stop with the mere addition and develop
ment of this link. He concludes the long discourse on
the Bread of Life by a paragraph describing division
among Jesus' disciples as to the meaning of his words.
Many forsake him entirely at the " hard saying." To
the faithful remnant Jesus explains that only the assimi
lation of his teaching, the words that transmit his spirit,
are the real food of immortality. " The flesh (the opus
operatum of the rite) profiteth nothing " ; his spoken
word is spirit and life.
It is in this closer distinction as to the meaning and
value of sacraments that we trace a further reason, be
yond mere enrichment from the Pauline Epistles, for
the evangelist's recast of Synoptic story. Here the
Johannine Epistles come to our aid with their denunci
ation of the prevailing false tendencies, tendencies kin
dred to, if not derived from, the mystery religions.
The evangelist deprecates a disposition to seek immor
tality by ritual or sacramental act, without assimilation
of the spirit of Jesusi, or obedience to his new command
ment. I can only briefly characterize the Dialogue on the
Authority of the Son of Man in chapter 5, which (as

THE MESSAGE OF THE FOUETH EVANGELIST 243
already pointed out) is the Johannine counterpart of the
controversy of Jesus with the scribes in Mark 2:1-3: 6,
and may for that reason have been transposed to a cor
responding place, before, instead of after, chapter 6.
We infer from the adaptation elsewhere of the Johan
nine discourses to the feasts on which they are dated,
that the missing name of the feast in verse 1 (an occa
sion of considerable variation among the texts) may
be supplied as y "j* wwdjicoot^s, Pentecost, the feast then
regarded as commemorating Moses' giving of the Law at
Sinai. At all events narrative and discourse alike cen
ter upon Jesus' defense of his higher authority in over
riding the law of Moses in order to give that " life "
which the Law purported to bring, but Paul had de
clared it could not give.
The incident with which the scene opens is a close
parallel, coinciding even in phraseology, with the open
ing scene of the corresponding section of Mark. Jesus
by his mere sovereign word restores a helpless paralytic.
In Mark, it is true, the scene is Capernaum, not Jerusa
lem ; and the Markan debate as to the lawfulness of his
healing on the Sabbath occurs a. propos of another heal
ing at the end of the section (Mk. 3 : 1-6), which also
includes several other instances of objection by the
scribes to Jesus' disregard of religious law and ordi
nance. The issue, however, is the same in both cases,
" the Jews persecuted Jesus and sought to slay him be
cause he did these things on the sabbath." To some
extent even the line of defense is similar. Jesus ap
peals in Mark also to his higher authority as Son of
Man, and challenges the scribes to say which is more
truly consonant with the sabbath law, to save life (as
he is doing with his healing power) or to kill, as they
seek to do in plotting against his life.
Similarly in the Johannine discourse Jesus advances
first of all his God-given authority as Son of Man and

244 JESUS AND PAUL
Judge of the World extending to life and death. This
claim is supported by two witnesses. These do not in
clude John, who was only the bearer in God's mercy
of a special warning to the Jews. The witnesses are
Jesus' own works, and the testimony in Scripture of
Moses and the prophets.
Here the evangelist envisages the great problem of
Paul's missionary career: How reconcile the divine
authority of the Mosaic revelation with the new economy
of grace introduced by the cross ? Mark had merely op
posed the Christian authority to the Mosaic with a bald
appeal to miracle : " But that ye may know that the
Son of Man hath authority to remit sin as judge (verse
28, authority over the sabbath) rise, take up thy bed,
and walk." The fourth evangelist goes deeper. The
eternal life which the Scriptures are supposed to convey
is not there if they are treated as mere rules to be obeyed.
If, however, they are taken as divine witnesses which
point to him they will lead to the real source of life. In
this sense Moses and Elias are his witnesses. Jewish
unbelief is condemned out of the mouth of those to
whom they themselves appeal. I have said that this ap
plication of Paul's contrast of the revelation of life with
that of the handwriting of ordinances given to Moses,
goes deeper than Mark. How deep, appears only when
we take further into consideration this evangelist's
identification of Christ with the eternal Logos of all
revelation, comparing the opening words of the Epistle,
which speak of Christ's coming as a manifestation of
" the life, even the eternal life which was with the Fa
ther and was manifested unto us." Even more com
pletely than in Paul all bondage of the letter is overcome
by the principle that the function of Scripture is simply
and solely to bring men into contact with the eternal
Spirit of Truth in his self -manifestation throughout the

THE MESSAGE OF THE FOUETH EVANGELIST 245
generations. All authority is committed to the eternal
Son of Man. That of Moses and the prophets is not
excepted. It would require a complete commentary on the
fourth Gospel to deal adequately with all the great dis
courses, including those of the Judean ministry. I can
not take time to speak of the Healing of the Man born
Blind and the accompanying discourse on Jesus as Light
of the World given at the Feast of Tabernacles with
its ceremonial of illumination. It occupies, as you
know, chapters 7-9, and is of an increasingly polemic
character as the threats against Jesus' life become more
frequent and menacing. I can only ask you to compare
with Jesus' rejection in 8 : 33 ff. of the Jews' claim to
freedom as the seed of Abraham with Paul's compari
son in Gal. 4 : 21-31, where the free seed of Abraham
according to the Spirit are opposed to the fleshly seed,
who are children of the bond-woman Hagar, and who
prove their Ishmaelite descent by persecuting those who
have been born, as Isaac was, through a word of prom
ise. You should also compare Rom. 6 : 16 on servitude
to sin.
The fifth and last of the festal discourses, perhaps
the greatest of all, is placed at Dedication, the feast of
the Maccabean martyrs who had given their lives for the
faith. By a slight displacement its opening paragraph,
the parable of the Good Shepherd who giveth his life
for the sheep, has become interwoven with the saying
about the Door of the Sheep in 10 : 1-18. Restoring
this parable after verse 22, where Jesus comes to Jerusa
lem at Dedication, we find a consistent whole. The
" sign " of this feast of the resurrection (for such, as
we see from Fourth Maccabees, Dedication had come
to be) is the raising of Lazarus ; for Lazarus (i. e.,
Eleazar) is the Maccabean martyr-hero of the resurrec-

246

JESUS AND PAUL

tion. The discourse centers in the well-known comfort
to Mary and Martha in the scene at Bethany, where
Jesus presents himself as " the resurrection and the
life," something better than rising again " at the last
day." Thereafter the Jews gather in council, and re
solve to put Jesus to death following the pregnant ad
vice of Caiaphas : " It is expedient for us that one man
die for the nation."
Surely it is needless for me to adduce a motive for
this expansion or elaboration of Synoptic story. Syn
optic story has practically no teaching on the all-im
portant question of bereaved souls. It accepts the
Pharisean doctrine of resurrection and tells of Jesus'
answer to the Sadducean objection. It also relates the
story of the Empty Tomb. But of the Pauline doctrine
of eternal life in Christ it is as silent as of the incident
of the raising of Lazarus itself. A gospel intended for
a Pauline church could not overlook this deficiency.
From what source the evangelist drew the story we
know not. We do know that be has framed into it
such " words of eternal life " as come, not indeed in the
mere language, but in vital truth, from Christ alone.
Only an unsympathetic mind can prevent our recog
nizing in this great discourse on the Resurrection, the
hand and voice of one who with the disciples of Paul
had found in the living, eternal Christ one who " brings
life and immortality to light through the gospel."
Should he not give to the Church, in whatever literary
form he could best express it, his sense of this highest
teaching of the Lord ?
2. Values Past and Present
Such survey of the Gospel as the time permitted we
have now made. How shall we express the message of
the evangelist to his own times and to ours ?
Nothing, perhaps, comes with greater surprise to the

THE MESSAGE OF THE FOUETH EVANGELIST 247
reader of the fourth Gospel who approaches it with a
mind emptied of all prepossession, than the freedom
with which its author has cut loose from the already
half -stereotyped Synoptic outline, and has dipped boldly
into the broad and often turbid stream of tradition for
material adapted to his purpose. An extraordinary
license was accorded in his age to the preacher to em
ploy allegory, myth, symbolism, legend, parable, what
ever he will, in the interest of religious edification.
But we must include also a share of that spirit of Paul,
which made the great Apostle turn from the intercourse
we should have expected him to seek among those who
had been apostles before him in Jerusalem in order
first to " go away into Arabia " and thereafter begin
preaching the gospel not from man, the message which
had come to him " in the spirit." Only thus can we
account for so bold a dependence on the insight of faith,
the vision of those who have not seen, and yet have be
lieved. We do know, however, that there were others
in this writer's day who used equal liberty with the
sacred story, yet without this writer's insight into its
moral and religious values ; and it is in relation to these
" Gnostics falsely so-called " multiplying myths and
legends and fantastic speculations, that we must view
his work. Surely it deserves to be considered the great
Christian product of his age, perhaps the greatest of
any age.
I have made special effort, as I cast this hasty sur
vey over the contents of the Gospel, to show you its
completely Pauline character. It does with the story
of Jesus what we might expect Paul to do had he lived
to meet the dangers of that hour. Or perhaps I should
rather say that it selects certain outstanding elements of
the story in order to suffuse them with the glow of
Paul's spiritual interpretation of the whole. The in
carnation of the eternal, redeeming Wisdom of God;

248 JESUS AND PAUL
the atoning Lamb that bears the sin of the world ; Bap
tism as a new birth in the Spirit for those justified by
faith in the Son of God lifted up on the cross as a
token of God's redeeming love; the new Temple as the
shrine of a universal worship in spirit and truth, access
in one Spirit to a common Father ; the Authority of the
living Word over against Moses and the Law; Com
munion in the body and blood of Christ as " spiritual
meat and drink " ; Freedom of the spiritual seed of
Abraham; Eternal life as the present possession of the
believer; the cross as breaking down the wall of par
tition ; the two Paracletes in heaven and on earth — all
these great Pauline themes have been woven into the
gospel texture. And not only so, but the picture as a
whole has become the picture of a Christ " not after
the flesh." It is Paul far more than this evangelist who
deserves the title of first theologian of the Church. It
is Paul who should more justly be called the great
Apostle of Love. But Paul did not survive till the age
when his churches found it necessary to bring his the
ology into some sort of accommodation to the Galilean
tradition of Jesus' life and teaching ; and while Paul's
churches had frequent need that he should remind them
of the new commandment of love as " the fulfilling of
the whole law," there had not yet arisen within the
Church itself a great systematic impulse toward " law
lessness," a " gnosis that puffs up " devoid of the " love
that builds up." The critical hour of Gentile Christi
anity was when forty years after Paul's death the
churches of Asia lay between the Scylla of reaction
toward Jewish legalism and the Charybdis of Gnostic
theosophy. We owe it above all to the Ephesian evange
list, that it found a clear and open course by holding
up to the world the spiritual Christ of Paul, and inter
fusing into the record of the teaching of Jesus the
Pauline doctrines of grace.]

THE MESSAGE OF THE FOUETH EVANGELIST 249
May we hold, then, that there is still need of the gos
pel as theology ? In our time few pay homage to the
fallen Queen of the sciences. " Religion without the
ology " is the cry. Too often it means only that the
speaker has not the courage, if he has the ability, to
make a reasoned statement of his own regarding these
deepest questions of life, and has lost confidence in the
capacity of his fellow-men to do it for him. Too many
are determined, consequently, either to go without a
reasoned faith, or to fall back on what they take to be
the reasoning of the past. Just because the work was
so grandly done at Ephesus for the second century, later
generations have unduly excused themselves. The true
lesson of the great Pauline theologian of the Johannine
writings is not the imitation of his language, or even
of his forms of thought. Still less is it the fruitless
attempt to make his ideas our own precisely as they
stand. Our lesson from this unknown successor of
Paul should be the imitation of his courage and the
freedom of his faith. We should learn from him to do
again for our age what he did for his.
The glimpses that we get of the inner history of
Ephesus, the great metropolis of the Pauline churches,
shows as one of the most significant phenomena of its
earliest years the turning of a community of disciples
of the Baptist under Pauline tutelage to a baptism of
the Spirit, a baptism into the name of Jesus as the Son
of God. Its latest years were marked by the incoming
of grievous wolves not sparing the flock, a teaching of
Antichrist, threatening to sweep away the whole
Church from its relation to the historic Jesus. Asiatic
Christendom was in danger of forsaking the way of
" reconciliation " by moral self -dedication to the God
whose nature is unconquerable love, and of entering the
delusive paths of gnosis. I have thought sometimes it
were well to write over the superscription of the Fourth

250 JESUS AND PAUL
Gospel the two texts that tell the history of that church.
We have first the story in Acts of the winning of Apollos
the learned Alexandrian Jew and the company of dis
ciples of John that were with him, to the Pauline doc
trine of Life in the Spirit. So the first disciples in the
opening scene of this Gospel are won to the Greater than
John that came after him. We might put after that
the utterance of the subjoined Epistle against the de-
niers of the word of the cross : " This is he that came
by water and by blood, even Jesus Christ ; not with the
water only, but with the water and with the blood."
Historical appreciation of the development of Christi
anity at Ephesus between the periods to which those
two texts refer would make us better realize the service
done to the eternal truth by the unknown author of this
" spiritual Gospel." In it the evangelist has made a
restatement for his own age of the whole gospel of the
Church, including both that of the Galilean disciples
and that of Paul. He gives an account to his own age,
in the modes of thought that belong to that age, of the
meaning of the story of Jesus, when looked at from the
view-point of the eternal. Is it not, then, worth while,
when we read the Epistles and Gospel of John, first to
understand as if we belonged to that age, and then to
follow their writer's example, remembering our own
age, and the duty of bringing home to it both the Jesus
of history, and the Christ of faith ?
Thus we return to our starting-point. There is no
greater service men like ourselves can do for our age
than to sweep away the fogs and obscurities which gather
round the figures of Jesus and of Paul. Jesus and
Paul are champions of the only gospel that has real
promise for our struggling world. But we must see
Jesus as Paul saw him, the embodiment of an eternal
agency of the redeeming God. And of all writers,
sacred or profane, who if we take their point of view

THE MESSAGE OF THE FOUETH EVANGELIST 251
are competent to bring us into contact with Jesus and
Paul, there is but one whom the Church has justly
crowned as their spiritual interpreter. The "higher
synthesis " of Jesus and Paul belongs to the Ephesian
evangelist ; for he bears his witness to the story of the
self-dedication of Jesus, not as though it were a mere
romance of martyrdom for the kingdom's sake, but as
a " manifestation of the life, even the eternal life, which
was with the Father, and was manifested unto us."
His joy we make full when we enter into fellowship
with him by declaring to the world this eternal Christ.
" Yea, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with
His Son Jesus Christ."

PBINTED IN THE UNITED STATES 0» AMEBIOA

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 8866