4WI

This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in
cooperation with Yale University Library, 2008. You
may not reproduce this digitized copy ofthe book for
any purpose other than for scholarship, research,
educational, or, in limited quantity, personal use. You
may not distribute or provide access to this digitized copy
(or modified or partial versions of it) for commercial purposes.

THE KERR LECTURES.
THE CHRIST OF HISTORY AND OF EX
PERIENCE.
By David W. Forrest, D.D. 8vo, Second Edition, price
ios. 6d.
"We admire the clear, often eloquent writing, the philosophic breadth and
fulness of treatment, the keenness ofthe critical faculty." — Critical Review.
MORALITY AND RELIGION.
By James Kidd, D.D. 8vo, price ios. 6d.
"We are not acquainted with any other book that has so clearly shown the
vital unity between religion and morality. ... It is a strong book by a strong
man." — Methodist Times.

Edinburgh: T. & T. CLARK, 38 George Street.
THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF GOD AND THE
WORLD AS CENTRING IN THE INCARNATION.
By Professor Orr, D.D. Fifth Thousand. Crown 8vo, cloth,
price 7s. 6d.
Principal Fairbairn says : " I am greatly impressed with the largeness of
its view, its learning, and its grasp. You have made all theologians your
debtors, and given a signal proof that in Scotland, at least, theological learning
and thought is in anything but a state of decay."

Edinburgh: ANDREW ELLIOT, 17 Princes Street.

THE RELATION

THE APOSTOLIC TEACHING

THE TEACHING OF CHRIST

THE RELATION

APOSTOLIC TEACHING

TEACHING OF CHRIST

BEING THE KERR LECTURES FOR igoo

Rev. ROBERT J. DRUMMOND, B.D.
LOTHIAN ROAD CHURCH, EDINBURGH

EDINBURGH
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET
1900

PRINTED BY
MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED,
FOR
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON : SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO. LIMITED.
NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER's SONS.
TORONTO : THE PUBLISHERS* SYNDICATE LIMITED.

3odd

The Rights of Translation and op Reproduction are Reserved.

THE KERR LECTURESHIP

The "Kerr Lectureship" was founded by the Trustees of the late Miss
Joan Kerr, of Sanquhar, under her Deed of Settlement, and formally adopted
by the United Presbyterian Synod in May 1886. In the following year, May
1887, provisions and conditions of the Lectureship, as finally adjusted, were
adopted by the Synod, and embodied in a Memorandum, printed in the
Appendix to the Synod Minutes, p. 489. From these the following excerpts
are here given : —
II. The amount to be invested shall be ^3000.
III. The object of the Lectureship is the promotion of the study of Scientific
Theology in the United Presbyterian Church.
The Lectures shall be upon some such subjects as the following, viz. : —
A. Historic Theology —
(1) Biblical Theology, (2) History of Doctrine, (3) Patristics, with
special reference to the significance and authority of the
first three centuries.
B. Systematic Theology —
(1) Christian Doctrine — (a) Philosophy of Religion, (b) Com
parative Theology, (c) Anthropology, (d) Christology,
(e) Soteriology, (f) Eschatology.
(2) Christian Ethics — (a) Doctrine of Sin, (b) Individual and
Social Ethics, [c) The Sacraments, (d) The Place of Art
in Religious Life and Worship.
Farther, the Committee of Selection shall from time to time, as they think
fit, appoint as the subject of the Lectures any important Phases of Modern
Religious Thought or Scientific Theories in their bearing upon Evangelical
Theology. The Committee may also appoint a subject connected with the
practical work of the Ministry as subject of Lecture, but in no case shall this
be admissible more than once in every five appointments.
IV. The appointments to this Lectureship shall be made in the first instance
from among the Licentiates or Ministers of the United Presbyterian Church
of Scotland, of whom no one shall be eligible, who, when the appointment falls
to be made, shall have been licensed for more than twenty-five years, and who
is not a graduate of a British University, preferential regard being had to those
who have for some time been connected with a Continental University.
V. Appointments to this Lectureship not subject to the conditions in
Section IV. may also from time to time, at the discretion of the Committee,

vi The Kerr Lectureship
be made from among eminent members of the Ministry of any of the Noncon
formist Churches of Great Britain and Ireland, America, and the Colonies, or
of the Protestant Evangelical Churches of the Continent.
VI. The Lecturer shall hold the appointment for three years.
VIII. The Lectures shall be published at the Lecturer's own expense
within one year after their delivery.
IX. The Lectures shall be delivered to the students of the United Presby
terian Hall.
XII. The Public shall be admitted to the Lectures.

PREFACE

This book consists of the lectures delivered, under the
Kerr Lectureship, to the Students of the United Presby
terian Theological Hall in the last session of its separate
existence, 1 899-1 900, and prior to its union with the
Free Church Halls in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Aberdeen.
The Lectureship takes its name from that of the late Miss
Joan Kerr, of Sanquhar, and was founded by her dis
interested Trustees, the Rev. David B. Croom, M.A., and
his brothers, Dr. J. Halliday Croom and James M.
Croom, Esq., the worthy sons of their honoured father,
the late Rev. David M. Croom, of Lauriston Place
Church, Edinburgh, and all of them presbyters of the
United Presbyterian Church. It has already, in the
previous lectures, fulfilled the intentions and hopes of
the founders. And under new and necessarily changed
conditions it will continue to encourage the studious
spirit of younger ministers of the Church.
The subject of the present course is of supreme
importance, and claims a large share of attention at the
present day. What of inadequacy its treatment suffers
from here is largely due to the preparation of the work
amid the stress of a heavy pastoral charge. But it

viii Preface
may be some small compensation that the conceptions
of New Testament truth presented have at least been
subjected to the sifting test of their practical efficacy for
meeting the spiritual perplexities and needs of many types
of men. The Author desires to acknowledge with gratitude the
forbearance and encouraging aid he has received from his
congregation and office-bearers during the preparation of
the work.
R. J. D.

CONTENTS

PAGES

1

-33

34

¦-78

79"

no

in-

•160

161-

211

212-

•256

CHAP. I. THE LITERARY SOURCES ....
II. THE SCHOOL OF CHRIST ....
III. THE FEATURES OF CHRIST'S TEACHING
IV. THE COMMON ASSUMPTION
V. THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND ITS VARIANTS
VI. SON OF MAN AND SON OF GOD .
VII. THE INTENTIONS OF THE CROSS, HINTED AND
GRASPED ..... 257-304
VIII. THE ACTIVITIES OF THE EXALTED CHRIST . 305-346
IX. MAN'S EXPECTED RESPONSE  FAITH . . 347-383
X. RESULTS AND THEIR APPLICATION . . 384-413
INDEX OF TEXTS ..... 4 1 5-4 24
INDEX OF MATTERS AND OF NAMES . . 425-432
%* A Summary of each Chapter will be found at its commencement.

THE
RELATION OF THE APOSTOLIC TEACHING
TO THE TEACHING OF CHRIST

CHAPTER I
The Literary Sources
Subject of Study — Its Importance — A Study in New Testament
Theology — Methods of New Testament Theology : Analysis and
Synthesis — Present Conditions favourable to Study • Agreements
as to Date, Authorship, and Substance of the various Types of
Teaching — Outline of Course of Study — Features of New Testament
Writings : Occasional, comprehensive, practical and not theological,
disproportionate, early recognised — Order of Appearance : James ;
Paul ; i Peter, Hebrews, Apocalypse, and Synoptic Gospels and
Acts ; John's Gospel and Epistles — Meaning of the Order as a whole
— Meaning of the Order of Paul's Epistles — Are these Writings
reliable Sources for Christ's own Teaching? — Why so little reference
to Christ's earthly career in Paul's Epistles? — Is it so? — Reasons
for chief emphasis on Death and Resurrection — Christ's Teaching
includes more than His Words.
The subject of the present study is the relation of the
Apostolic Teaching to the Teaching of Christ — the relation,
that is, of the first Christian school to its Master. The
material for the study lies within the boards of the New
Testament. There a record is preserved of what Christ
taught, and of what was taught by those who either received
that teaching direct from His lips or from the lips of men

2 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
who had heard Him. In the title, Apostolic is used to
include all the teaching in the New Testament other than
that of Christ Himself. And our task is to determine the
relation of the teaching thus designated to Christ's own.
A satisfactory answer to the questions which this
involves should help to a correct estimate of the now
hackneyed, but once catching, cry, "Back to Christ." It
will take us over the proper way of return to Christ. That
cannot be successfully achieved by a blind leap over the inter
vening space. To ignore, as such a proceeding would do,
the impression produced by Christ and by the words which
He uttered upon the very first minds that received His
teaching, would be to forego a very valuable source of
evidence as to what Jesus actually did teach. Of course, it
might appear, on investigation, that those who first heard
Him, and who first committed His teaching to writing, were
so incapable of understanding Him, were so preoccupied
with their own prejudices and preconceived opinions, had
introduced so much of their own views into what purported
to be His teaching, and were so hopelessly at variance
among themselves, that no reliance could be placed upon
what they said until it had been subjected to very careful
sifting and editing. But, on the other hand, if it should
appear that Jesus Himself always anticipated that His
teaching should reach the vast mass of mankind through
other lips than His own, always anticipated that it would
only be perfectly understood in the light of His completed
life and work, and, in view of this, selected and trained a
special body of men, to whom He promised such spiritual
reinforcement as would enable them fully to discharge the
task, it is simply to ignore the guiding of the teacher, to
whom we are bidden return, if we treat the teachings of
these men as of comparatively little significance. We
possess the teaching of Jesus only at second hand. He
wrote nothing. He left it to His disciples to select what

to the Teaching of Christ 3
they would transmit, what suffer to lapse into oblivion.
We are dependent on one section of them, the Evangelists,
for a statement of what He said and did. Another section,
out of their own experience of the effects which He pro
duced by His life and teaching upon themselves, and
through them upon other men, give us a vivid picture of
the spiritual forces He set in operation. And it is the
barest truth to say that we can only get back to Christ by
way of the school which He gathered around Him and first
impressed. The present subject is thus a study in New Testament
Theology. It is treated more or less in all the standard
works that overtake the whole field in that department.
And almost every treatise dealing with the teaching of
individual writers or books of the New Testament contains
a collation of the particular view dealt with and the
cognate teaching of Christ. But what has thus been
treated incidentally or fragmentarily is here the subject of
independent and exclusive study.
The prevailing method in the study of New Testament
Theology, since that became a separate discipline, has been
that of analysis of the separate strands of New Testament
teaching. This method was partly a necessity, partly a
protest. There was a feeling that the scholastic theo
logians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had
shown a fatal indifference to the variety of the types of
teaching, had failed to discriminate what came from one
source and what from another, had supported their dog
matic structures with props, taken at will from any quarter,
without in the least considering the relation of these sources
to one another, or even recognising their separate existence.
All were treated as if they were unquestionably at one on
all points. Now there was, and there is, need to guard
against this excessive unification of the separate elements
in our New Testament. It is a mistake to overlook the

4 The Relation ofthe Apostolic Teaching
fact that we have our record of early Christian belief and
life from a number of men who have left in their writings
marked traces of their individuality, and whose variety of
nature and disposition is of great value for letting us see
the play of colour on Christian truth. The light comes to
us through a prism. And we can only feel thankful for the
results that have been secured for the enjoyment of the
wealth of Christian truth by the patient study of those who
have shown us how the thoughts vary of James and Peter
and John. Indiscriminate appeal, now to one and now to
another, reduced the authors to ciphers, and the charm of
personality was lost. Truth might be reached, but it stood
forth bald and gaunt. It lost the living influence imparted,
when it is seen as the throbbing heart-thought of eager
men, sharing each his best loved gift with his fellows.
But analysis may be overdone. It may become dis
section and anatomy, and leave us only a disintegrated
corpse. It may forget that the several rays depend on a
common pencil of light, and hence are not so much con
trasts as complements, which will never be properly under
stood or appreciated except as such. So much may be
made of the differences, that everything else lapses into
comparative neglect, and men are tempted to forget the far
more general and predominant agreement. Points strongly
insisted upon for particular reasons in certain portions of
an author's writings come to be treated as if they had a
preponderating and pervasive influence throughout his
views of truth, and are mistaken for the whole man, until
there is need, for instance, for Weizsacker's reminder, that
" that Christian theology, conditioned by the law, which we
know as Pauline doctrine, is not the whole Paul."1 The
emphasis laid on the differences is sometimes intentional,
with a view to demonstrate the existence of deep-seated
and fundamental antagonism between different types of
1 Apostolic Age, i. 373 f.

to the Teaching of Christ 5
Christian teaching. But the effect is produced even when
not intended, and the mere study of each type of teaching
— Synoptic, Johannine, Petrine, Pauline — by itself, though
careful attention is given to what is included as well as to
what is omitted in each, leaves the impression that the
differences are greater than the agreements ; that our New
Testament is made up of a mass of heterogeneous fragments,
which only fond weakness can harmonise into a whole.
It is important, therefore, that an attempt be made to group
the whole together again, to look at the different parts
quite as much in their agreements as in their divergences,
and, while avoiding anything like procrustean trimming of
refractory members, to see how far differences are only
variations on the same theme, or legitimate developments of
a common seed-thought.
What makes an attempt in this direction hopeful at
the present time is that some points of pretty general
agreement have been arrived at. Of course this statement
is to be taken with reservations in reference to each point.
But granting these, there is a fair consensus of opinion in
reference at once to the date and authorship of the New
Testament writings, and to the substance of the teaching
of Jesus and of His apostles. Of this we may take advan
tage for our purpose. It will save us the necessity of going
into minutiad of Introduction before appealing to an Epistle
as Pauline, or a Gospel as Lukan. And I shall content
myself with noting what is the general agreement on the
points mentioned.
As to date, apart from the extravagances of the recent
Dutch school in their attack on the four great Pauline
Epistles, which have been thoroughly studied, and success
fully exposed and answered in this country by Knowling in
his Witness of the Epistles, a book otherwise very valuable
for the study of our subject, there is a general disposition to
accept Harnack's recent deliverances on the dates of the

6 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
New Testament writings.1 Or rather, men are agreed in
recognising the significance of the limits within which he
insists the most of the books of the New Testament must
have originated. Practically, they must all have taken
shape within the first Christian century. Those to which,
according to Harnack, this remark does not apply, are either,
like Second Peter or Jude, of no vital importance to our
study, or else, like the Epistle of James, on strong grounds
ably argued by other men, are reasonably included within
it. There has been a steady withdrawal from the later
dates of the Tubingen school towards the traditional
positions. And we are free to regard the literature of the
New Testament as the literature of the first and second
generations after the death and resurrection of our Lord.
But, as Caspari has well shown,2 this admission warrants
a very much bolder attitude as to the authorship of these
books. It is very easy to deny the traditional authorship
of the Gospels, or of books hitherto regarded as Johannine
or Pauline, if you can show that they could not have been
written in the lifetime of the reputed authors. But when,
on other grounds, they are referred to dates at which these
men were probably alive, and when they possess features
which harmonise with the reputed authorship, what ground
is there for denying the authorship, especially if the writing
be the solitary work from the reputed author, or if it be a
group of writings all possessing marked, common character
istics, or only such divergent features as are quite consistent
with various sides of character, or with varying conditions of
issue, known to exist for the supposed author ? Why deny,
say, the authorship of the Gospel, known by his name, to
Matthew, when it quite corresponds with what is known of
him, and is the only work ascribed to him ? What criteria
can justify it ? There are none. Or why refuse even to
1 Altchristliche Litteratur, iii, x. xi.
2 American Journal op Theology, July 189S.

to the Teaching of Christ 7
accept the Apocalypse as from the author of the Gospel and
Epistles of John? The difference of style? That is due,
in any case, to the difference of subject. You cannot
imagine an Apocalypse written in the style of the First
Epistle of John. But, besides, under the calm surface of
the Epistle of the devout old man, in which he writes
lovingly and sublimely of his beloved, well-remembered
Master with whom he still lives in daily spiritual fellowship,
a rumble of the old spirit, that would have called clown fire
to destroy the inhospitable villagers, is heard in those hot
outbursts against the man who denies Christ come in the
flesh, or who professes to love God and hates, or is in
different to, his brother. " He's a liar," he cries, " he's a
liar ! " That vehement spirit could write the Apocalypse.
There must be strong reasons against the common tradition
to prove that he did not.1 And so we may say that there
is sufficient agreement as to the authorship of most of the
works of the New Testament to justify taking advantage of
what is known of their authors, in order to help in under
standing the works they have produced.
There is, in the main, agreement as to what constitutes
the substance of the various types of New Testament
teaching. New Testament theology has had the good
fortune to be worked over by a succession of men of very
marked individuality and of rare sympathetic instinct.
The result is a fair amount of common understanding as to
the salient features of each writer. Reuss with his graphic
genius, Weiss with his extraordinary diligence and minute
ness of detail, Beyschlag with his warmth and candour,
Weizsacker in whose hands the old events and move-
1 Weizsacker admits points of affinity strong enough to identify both
Apocalypse and Gospel with the same place, Ephesus. Apostolic Age, ii. 171.
As to the variety of style, the contrast is not greater than that between the con
troversial writings and the Letters of Samuel Rutherford, "the fiercest of Church
leaders and the most devout of saints," or between the utterances of the
impetuous antagonist of Abelard and fiery preacher of the second Crusade, and
those of the holy mystic of the commentary on Canticles, Bernard of Clairvaux.

8 The Relation ofthe Apostolic Teaching
ments of thought seem to pass anew before one's eyes,
Holtzmann with his delicate sense for outside influences,
Baur and Pfleiderer in their exhaustive study of Paul,
and Wendt in his great work on the Teaching of Jesus,
amid all their diversity bear out what I say. As one
reads their writings and the works of the host of scholars
whom they have inspired to follow into detail each phase
and feature of New Testament thought, probing to their
origins or tracing down their course, the conviction grows
that distinct aspects of truth have specially captivated
individual exponents and dominated their thought. And
while there may be great diversity of opinion as to how
these divergences of view have originated, or how they are
mutually related to each other, there is comparatively
little difference of opinion as to what each author thought
and taught. The ground is therefore so far prepared for a
consideration of the relation that exists between them,
and especially between the subordinate members of the
school and Him whom they agreed in regarding as their
common Master.
It will give clearness to the subsequent course of this
study, if at this point there is indicated in outline the order
to be followed. The remainder of this chapter will deal
with the literary sources, and the suggestions which the
probable order of their appearance gives of the trend of
thought in the Early Church as to the essence of the
teaching of Christ. The second will discuss the members
of Christ's school, and the opinion which Christ entertained
of their teaching, and they of His and of Him. The third
will set forth the features of Christ's teaching, and their
parallel in the teaching of His followers. These three
chapters are general and introductory, and prepare for
the treatment of the substance of the teaching. And
here, after a discussion of the commonly recognised object
of Christ's mission, salvation, and the common presup-

to the Teaching of Christ 9
positions which it involved, we shall take up, in turn,
the great topics of Christ's own teaching in the order in
which He stated them, which is also the order of progress
from more obvious general agreement to more or less
apparent divergence, viz. the kingdom of God, or the
religio-ethical society in which salvation is realised, the
Messiah, the Cross, and the Throne. Then comes a
subject which is collateral with these, the relation which
men are called on to assume towards them, namely,
faith. Finally, a closing chapter will gather up results.
This arrangement, which groups the teaching into a sort
of systematic whole under the leadership of the teaching
of Christ Himself, has been adopted, rather than a series
of isolated discussions of separate matters of dispute, in
order to emphasise the substantial unity and harmony of
the whole body of New Testament teaching, and to avoid
leaving the impression that it consists simply of fragmentary
ill-digested views on a few subjects with regard to which
there is comparatively little in common among the various
teachers. To come back, then, to the literary sources, it may
be well to notice some general features of all these New
Testament writings, which it is important to bear in mind
throughout our study. And first of all, they are occasional
writings. They are written by their authors without pre
concerted plan or premeditation. Each book appeared
just as occasion demanded, and as each writer in turn
felt called upon, by the circumstances of the day and by
his own responsibilities in reference to them, either from
special connection with a particular section of the com
munity or from special impulse from God's Holy Spirit in
his own heart, to utter his voice for holiness and truth.
They are not a set of treatises, projected by their writers
met in solemn conclave, and designed to provide a com
plete presentation of Christian truth, each department

io The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
being treated by a specialist. Still less are they mani
festoes of rival schools in a war of pamphlets. There
is nothing in them analogous to a set of Handbooks for
Bible Classes, or an International Theological Library.
They are simply writings to meet the spiritual needs of the
day in which they appeared.
And yet they succeed, in a very remarkable degree, in
covering the ground of the fundamental facts and truths of
the Christian faith. For, while they are occasional writings,
the occasions that called them forth were all more or less
significant, and involved appeal to fundamental principles.
In this way every document becomes the treatment of
some important subject. And a definite advance has
been made in an intelligent grasp of the nature of the
New Testament books, when this has been recognised.
It then becomes evident that it is a mistake to regard
any book, indiscriminately, as a legitimate source from
which to expect instruction on every aspect of Christian
truth. Each is seen to have its proper subject, with which
it is chiefly concerned. To other subjects its references
are incidental, or in so far as these may be affected by
the main subject in hand. Thus the Epistle to the
Galatians, dealing chiefly with the relationship of the
Gentiles to the Jewish law, is not a document in which
one will look for a detailed exposition of the last things ;
nor is it to be expected that a letter like that to the
Colossians, devoted to the wider and larger issues and
reaches of the mediatorial position and work of Christ,
will enter at length on the more primary and individual
aspects of it. Each book keeps to its own subject and
deals primarily with that, and our estimate of it as an
index of the measure of its author's acquaintance with, and
views on, other matters, must be largely determined by that
consideration. But even in the treatment of subjects, it is necessary to

to the Teaching of Christ 1 1
remember that in no case is a New Testament writing a
purely theological treatise. Not one is the work of a
theorist, writing from a merely scientific interest, or from
a scholar's desire to elucidate a subject. Every one is
written from a strong practical motive. The Gospels, for
instance, are not mere histories, written simply to chronicle
certain occurrences. And this has been made a cause
of complaint. Von Soden, whose proof1 of their practical
aim is most able, is a case in point. He shows the motives
that led to their compilation, but only to turn round
and complain that these motives militate against their
claim to absolute credence. But why ? Surely it is no
proof that a man is unworthy of credence, that he has
some practical object in view in writing a page of history.
If so, who is to be trusted ? Where is the pure historian,
ruled by such a purely historic interest ? The very
selection of a certain event for narration shows that the
recorder thinks that it rather than others should be
remembered. If a man to-day writes a history of the
Reformation, say, it shows that, for one reason or another,
he thinks the events of that time are worthy of the special
attention of the men of the present day. But the fact
that the writer has an object in view does not make
him unreliable. And when, as in our Gospels, men are
writing under the spell of Him who was the Truth, and
impelled by the desire to let others know of Him, is not
that of itself a guarantee of their good faith, a purifying
reagent embedded in the theme? These Gospels are
records of the life of Jesus. But still more are they
the record of the subtle influence which fell from Jesus
upon the mind of the author of each, and led him to
see in the subject of his sketch the Saviour of his soul.
1 Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet ; Das Jnteresse
des Apostolischen Zeitalters an der evan$elischen Geschichte, von H. von Soden,
p. 1 1 1 ff.

12 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
In what he has discovered in Christ for himself, from what
he has heard of Him, he feels he has the material for
a testimony that will tell on the lives of other men, and
secure a like result there. This impels him to write ; but it
also ensures his truthfulness, though his aim is practical,
and not simply historical. Or take the First Epistle of
John, and it is the same. There, under the two aspects
of " God is Light " and " God is Love," a wonderful
doctrine of God is presented, and of the relationship in
which men stand to Him. But the anxiety of the author
never is merely to elaborate his subject, or exhaust it in all
its bearings. If he does achieve this in any direction, he is
not content to stop short with his exposition. He wishes
above all else to bring men to personal appropriation of
the truths which he teaches, and thus to the enjoyment of
the blessings which they embody. Even the great Epistle
to the Romans, the most like a theological treatise of them
all, was written to serve a practical end. And to fail to re
cognise that, is to close the book at the end of the eleventh
chapter. What Reuss says of the discourses of Jesus is true
of the writings of all His followers : " They ought never to
be made the subject of a purely scientific and historic study.
They are designed for religious and earnest meditation . . .
to understand, we must begin by practising them." 1
On the other hand, in order to deal fairly with them
where their views appear divergent, it is imperative to
notice that we possess their work in very unequal pro
portions. For one Epistle of James and a single speech in
the Acts, we have thirteen Epistles of Paul and speech after
speech from his lips. Peter's writings are scarcely longer
than the shortest letter of Paul to a single Church. Matthew
and Mark give us only a Gospel each; Luke, a Gospel
and a stage of history ; while John appears in most varied
form with an Apocalypse, Epistles, and a Gospel. Still
1 Reuss, History op Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age, i, 132.

to the Teaching of Christ 1 3
more, the most voluminous of them is meagre and incom
plete. No one of them attempts to give a complete
statement of his views. As we have seen, their writings
are occasional. While what they do say, therefore, when
looked at in the light of the circumstances of the utter
ances, is of value, as telling what they did think and
teach, their silence on any point indicates scarcely any
thing. No argument is here more precarious. It is
simply absurd, as Wrede well insists,1 from the few
chapters which we possess of James and of Peter, to
construct Lehrbegrifife, systems of doctrine, with strongly
marked features, and presenting sharp contrasts to Paul
or John. If we possessed as many letters of Peter, or of
James, as we do of Paul, or such a variety of style of book
from Paul as from John, we might do so with more reason,
though very probably we should then find most of the
acutest divergences disappear. And this is no fond fancy
of a partisan, as if the result might presumably be just as
decidedly the other way. It could not. The existence,
side by side, of the various writings, which do present
some differences of view and statement, indicates clearly
that those who preserved them regarded them as from
men, not in antagonism with one another, but in sub
stantial agreement, whose writings are complementary to
one another. And so it will not do to ask us to believe
that Paul was a kind of rara avis, little understood by his
contemporaries, propounding opinions that were entertained
and grasped by practically nobody but himself.2 Had
that been so, his letters would never have survived. No
Church would have thought them worth preserving. His
opinions would have died with himself, and been buried
in oblivion. Their existence, and that in far prepon-
1 Wrede, Ueber Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten Neutestamentlichen
Theologie, § 2.
2 Harnack, History op Dogma, i. 89 {., 95 ; H. J. Holtzmann, Neutestamenl-
liche Theologie, i. 490, etc.

14 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
derating numbers, among the cherished treasures of the
Early Church, shows clearly that in him we have a generally
accepted exponent of common Christian truths, and sug
gests that to his main positions the men who are set side
by side with him, and utter their voices on other matters
but are silent where he has spoken, by their silence give
consent.1 This conviction will not prevent us recognising
to the full the particular aspects of truth which particular
circumstances have induced individual men to treat with
special emphasis. But it will bid us pause, before we
pronounce a common view absolutely incompatible as
between any two of these men.
It is further to be remembered that these writings very
early attained a position of general recognition, as present
ing a fairly complete statement of the essentials of Christ's
religion. This is of importance when we are considering
their significance and determinative value for fixing the
essentials of the faith. It is very easy for us to accept or
repel, say this is fundamental, that of no moment, this has
only the support of a quite subordinate Epistle, that of a
book that is scarcely entitled to a place in the Canon, and
therefore may be allowed to pass out of notice. But with
out claiming any divine authority for the Canon, or any
special guidance for the Council which fixed it, the fact
remains that these books, out of a large number, secured
the recognition of the Early Church. These, from a time
long before the Canon was thought of, as is proved, for
instance, in the case of the Gospels by the existence so soon
of such a work as Tatian's Diatessaron, were regarded as
the books from which to learn the truth of the Christian
religion. At a very early stage, when changes were begin
ning to appear, these were fixed on as reliable guides to a
proper knowledge of Jesus and His truth.
1 Cf. Mair, Expositor, 5th series, vi. 24 1 , " The Modern Overestimate of Paul's
Relation to Christianity."

to the Teaching of Christ 1 5
These writings appeared at intervals during a period
of about forty or fifty years (A.D. 45— A.D. 95), and in the
following order. The earliest is the Epistle of James. It
is either that, or else a very late production, and it is a
question of the explanation to be given to certain striking
features of the Epistle, on which the advocates of late and
early theory alike are agreed. There is, first, its strong
affinity with the attitude of an exalted and purified
Judaism ; there is, second, the absence of any strikingly
Christian theological positions ; there is, third, its reference
to a state of persecution as existent. -But what is the
bearing of all this ? Is it a proof that this is really a
Jewish work, with the name of Christ interpolated, and
therefore of late date? Is it a proof that this was
a polemic against the views of Paul from the strongly
Jewish standpoint within the Christian community? Is
it not rather evidence that this is a work belonging to a
stage when the Christian Church had scarcely realised the
extent of difference between itself and Judaism, caused by
the acceptance of Jesus as the Christ? Is not Ramsay
right in his explanation of the note of persecution, when he
points out that Jewish Christians were liable to persecution
at the hands of their Jewish kinsmen at a time when no
persecution had as yet reached the Gentiles ? And even
in the famous " faith " passage, to find only antagonism to
Paul, is to overlook the strong affinity there is between the
teaching there and the teaching in Paul's early Epistles.
In those to the Thessalonians the seeming contrast with
Romans is just as marked as in James's Epistle. Thessa
lonians and James alike have to attack a 'phase of thought
and life in which faith was made a plea for indolence and
sorning, and they attack it on the same lines. They
belong, therefore, to the same stage of Christian develop
ment. And the teaching of James on faith became so far
determinative for the Christian Church. His point once

16 The Relation ofthe Apostolic Teaching
settled, it becomes a well-understood element in the Chris
tian conception of faith ; and when new questions arise as
to its range and power, it is, for instance, by Paul taken
for granted. The Epistle is thus early, and the work of its
traditional author, the brother of our Lord.
Next in order comes the great group of Pauline
Epistles ; and, apart from a question which is not of vital
moment to us, and need not be more than mentioned, as to
the exact place of the Epistle to the Galatians, the order is,
the Epistles to the Thessalonians ; the four great Epistles,
those to the Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans ; the
Epistles of the Captivity ; and the Pastoral Epistles. The
Epistle to the Ephesians and the three Pastoral Epistles
are here included among the writings of Paul, because the
trend of evidence is increasingly in that direction. There
is no good reason for the rejection of Ephesians. It pos
sesses many of the characteristics of all the Pauline writings.
There is marked similarity between it and the Epistle to
the Colossians ; and, in place of that being an objection, as
some have regarded it, when account is taken of the per
fectly obvious difference of aim, it is a distinct argument in
its favour. It is enough to place it side by side with the
Epistle to the Laodiceans, to see the difference between a
mere imitation and a second original work on different
though cognate lines by one and the same author. The
case for the Pastoral Epistles is immensely strengthened by
Harnack's admission of the presence of genuine Pauline
elements in them. With that admission in hand, and the
growing favour for the view that Paul was released after
his first trial, and endured a second captivity which issued
in his martyrdom, there is sufficient ground for those who
are satisfied of the unity of each of the individual letters,
to maintain still their Pauline authorship.
Following on the Epistles of Paul, come two groups
that originated about the same time ; on the one hand, and

to the Teaching of Christ \ 7
with slight priority, 1 Peter, Hebrews, and the Apocalypse ;
and, on the other, the Synoptic Gospels and the Acts of
the Apostles. In the case of 1 Peter, Professor Ramsay 1
argues for dating it about the year A.D. 80. He combines
this with the view, for which he has a great deal to say,
that Peter was the author, and lived in Rome till long after
the Neronian persecution. Others date the Epistle earlier,
though from its similarity to the Epistle of James, Romans,
and Ephesians they place it later than these. Probably
all that can really be contended for is the personal acquaint
ance of its author with the authors of these letters, not
necessarily with the letters themselves, because the relation
is not so much verbal and literary as in the cast of thought ;
but that does not affect the relative date, and they
agree in ascribing it to Peter. No demand on the cre
dulity of the student, therefore, is made if this Epistle is
regarded as genuine. The Epistle to the Hebrews is an
anonymous work, which bears strong traces of Pauline
influence ; so strong, indeed, that at times one is constrained
to think of it as a kind of conciliatory appeal from the
Apostle of the Gentiles to his own countrymen, whom he
yearned after so passionately, and left anonymous just that
not even his name in it might offend them. But, on the
whole, the difference in style and attitude are too strongly
marked to justify this view, and we must be content to
accept its anonymity. Menegoz 2 contends, however, on
the basis of the internal references, for a date between
A.D. 64 and A.D. 6y ; and this is even more precise than
Harnack, who places it between A.D. 65 and A.D. 90. The
Apocalypse belongs to about the same period, written
probably when the events of the war, which issued in the
siege, capture, and sack of Jerusalem, quickened into new
vividness the memory of the Neronian persecution. No
1 Church in the Roman Empire, chap. xiii. 279 ff.
- La Theologie del ' Epitre aux Hebreux, Introd. p. 35 fl.

1 8 The Relation ofthe Apostolic Teaching
book of the New Testament has been subjected to such a
process of disintegration as this, after the manner applied
so impartially to the Old Testament throughout. And yet
the problem of the Apocalypse is not solved by referring
the palpably distinct sections to separate authors. That
does not explain the evident unity of aim and purpose of
the writer, who brought these sections together, whether he
composed them or not. And, on the other hand, there is
a subtle affinity of spirit and style among the different
parts, which points very decidedly towards a single author.
The type of man is just such as is implied in what we learn
from the Synoptics of the Apostle John, that intense,
passionate, far-seeing, imaginative soul, quick to resent a
wrong especially to one he devotedly loved, keen to serve
at all costs, and eager to secure the prize that glittered in
its magnificence before his unearthly vision.1 That is quite
the kind of man to leave us the dramatic tableaux vivants
of the Apocalypse, in which from the events of his own
time he illustrates the permanent principles by which
the Church of Christ, through recurring conflict and
trial, moves on to victory.
About the same time as these three works appeared
the Synoptic Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. It is
impossible to do more here than allude to the Synoptic
problem. But, in the face of Luke's own statements in his
introductions, where he definitely records his use of earlier
writings, it is quite impossible to dispute his indebtedness
to others. He states his strong interests in chronological
sequence ; and after Professor Ramsay's thorough vindica
tion of the capacity of this writer as a first-class historian,2
and his argument for his identification with the traditional
1 Weizsacker's opinion is striking : ' ' the most natural explanation of its
origin is . . . that it came from a primitive apostle who had lived into another
period" {Apostolic Age, ii. 200).
- See St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, and Was Christ born at
Bethlehem ?

to the Teaching of Christ 1 9
beloved physician, we need have little hesitation in placing
dependence, both in the Gospels and in the Acts, on the
accuracy of his record. We can afford to disregard the deter
mined effort of the late Professor Bruce, in his With Open
Face, to reduce the Gospel to what he calls an " idealised
portrait," very pretty, that is to say, but not quite true.1
What adds weight to Ramsay's testimony is, that his
results are quite the reverse of his preconceived impressions.
This really reduces the Synoptic problem to a question as
to the relation of the Gospels according to Matthew and
according to Mark, and there is no doubt that it is a grave
difficulty to understand the verbal coincidences, not in
quotations, nor in the words of Christ, which is what you
would expect, but in the narrative of events, actions, not
words. Of course there is this to be said, that the exact
correspondences in the record of events is found very largely
in a series of set phrases, such as " it came to pass," etc.,
which are not peculiar to Matthew and Mark, but seem to
be the stereotyped setting for Hebrew narrative. There are
sections of Old Testament story in which, at many points,
the phraseology forms an exact parallel to New Testament
story. Or, within the New Testament itself, compare the
three accounts of the raising of the daughter of Jairus and
that of the raising of Dorcas in the Acts, and it will be
seen that, allowing for the difference of the events, there is
not more variation in the terminology of the story in the
Acts from any one of the three Gospel narratives than
there is among themselves. The correspondence in the
narrative portions is by no means so exact as a mere cursory
recollection might suggest. A reference to the three stories
of the Transfiguration, or to the four narratives of the
cutting off of the ear of Malchus, will bear this out. Un
consciously stereotyped oral tradition, therefore, may go
much further towards the explanation than many are
1 Cf. pp. 37 f. , 5S f. , 70 f. , 126, 148 et passim.

20 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
willing to allow. The case is not so impossible as Mr.
Badham1 in his criticism of Mr. Arthur Wright makes it.
Yet it would be hasty to say that oral tradition will account
for it all. On the other hand, to assume a common,
original, written source, or the borrowing of one from
another, leaves the difficulty of accounting for inclusions
and omissions just as serious as ever. It is wisest still simply
to confess our ignorance and await further light. But what
must not be forgotten, in the effort to explain the struc
ture of these records, is that behind the events there was
a Life, and behind the words a Speaker, who did and said
these things so impressively that men never forgot them.
These records, too, arose at a date within the lifetime of
the men who knew Him, and may very well be the work
of the clerk in the Custom House whom He called to His
side, and of the cousin of one of His earliest adherents and
intimate acquaintance of His two leading followers.
There remain the Gospel and the Epistles of John.
These are evidently the works of one writer, and there is
no good reason for refusing them to the Apostle John.
Harnack has shown that they fall within the range of his
lifetime, though he prefers to attribute them to an other
wise unknown friend of the aged apostle, also called John
— the Presbyter John. Why, it is difficult to see.2 They
are quite in keeping with what is claimed for them. The
Gospel is evidently written in the light of the other three.
It assumes their existence, refers to incidents recorded
there, and not recorded within itself. And it bears all the
marks of being an old man's reminiscences of the never-to-
be-forgotten events of his youth, which recur, as such things
do to hale old age, with all the freshness of yesterday, and
are told with the comments and remarks that changed times
1 Critical Review, viii. 396 ff.
- Weizsacker (Apostolic Age, ii. 167), meets Harnack's arguments. His own
objections to Johannine authorship are purely a priori (ibid. ii. 235).

to the Teaching of Christ 2 1
naturally suggest. With this we reach the crown of the
teaching, or, if you will, of the record of it.
Now, on the face of it, there is something suggestive in
this sequence, apart altogether from the question of author
ship. It indicates a crave on the part of men to pass from
what Christ effected and what He taught to what He was.
The great body of the Pauline Epistles, which stands first,
is running over with the vital influences of the Exalted
Christ. The Crucified and Risen Saviour is so prominently
presented there, that men have treated Paul's energetic
assertion, " Yea, though we have known Christ after the
flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him so no more "
(2 Cor. v. 16), as if it were a deliberate relegating of the
fact of the earthly life of Jesus to the region of the
secondary and unimportant. While that, certainly, is not
the apostle's meaning, it is nevertheless true that, in the
writings of Paul, the facts mainly insisted on are the death
and the resurrection. The subject of constant thought and
regard is the Exalted Christ. The story of the life, the
subject of the great body of oral teaching, is assumed as
known. His writings are not samples of the staple of
Paul's oral teaching. They are applications of the great
facts already communicated by him by word of mouth
about the august Personality now exalted to the throne of
God, but who is absolutely identical with Him who once
lived and spoke in Palestine.
As the number of those who knew Jesus, however,
grew fewer as one after another dropped away into the
grave, and only records like these Epistles of Paul, which
embodied the effects produced by the great mission of
Jesus rather than described the motive forces themselves,
remained to keep the wondrous story alive, the craving
arose for a written narrative of the things Christ said and
did.1 This was met by the production of what we call the
1 Cf. Von Soden, op. cit. p. 165 ff.

22 The Relation ofthe Apostolic Teaching
Synoptic Gospels. These provided a most vivid picture of
the outstanding incidents of the life, together with a copious
selection of the most characteristic utterances. As they
have come to us, they give us a threefold view of that
marvellous Personality. But we must not forget that the
separate communities of the early Church were not so well
equipped. The possessors of Matthew's Gospel probably
knew nothing of Mark or Luke, and those who had Luke
probably had not Matthew. And yet it would be a
mistake to suppose that they knew no more about Jesus
than their one Gospel told them. They had the advantage
of what floating oral tradition was in circulation at the time,
and it served a purpose to them similar to that afforded to
us by our additional writings. These accounts of the life
of Jesus gave a background of reality and substance to
the thought which gathered around the Exalted Christ.
Without them, He would have tended to become what the
Hegelian would like to make of Him, simply the embodi
ment of an idea, a name, which each individual could
associate with any conceptions which his imagination might
suggest.1 The Gospels tell us what His character really
was, what His favourite thoughts and themes, what His
most weighty and forceful utterances, what the facts and
issue of His earthly career. By these we learn to know
Him, and the Exalted Christ becomes a very definite and
distinct personality to our minds and the authority for a
most sublime group of moral and religious teaching, a
transcendent conception of the world, and these in their
relation to God.
The Johannine group of teaching seems intended to
meet a crave deeper still. After men had heard all that
could be told them about the life of Jesus, there was sure
Cf. Somerville, St. Paul's Conception op Christ, p. 248, and the quotations
there from Weizsacker and Bruce. But Brace's view as it bears on Paul must
be qualified by the considerations mentioned on the previous page and in the
concluding part of this chapter.

to the Teaching of Christ 23
to come up this inquiry, who, what, in reality was He ?
His extraordinary mastery over the powers of nature as
shown in His miracles, His complete freedom from the taint
of sin, His perfect rapport with the Divine in all He said and
did, what accounted for it all ? What accounted for the
unparalleled elevation at which He lived, while otherwise,
in His station, bearing, appearance, and needs, He was in no
whit different from the humblest of His followers ? John's
writings come as the answer. Epistle and Gospel alike are
written to explain the nature of the wondrous Teacher.
The selection of the material in the Gospel is determined
by the consideration of how it will bear on this theme. It
was all written to make clear that Jesus of Nazareth was,
in the highest sense, the Son of God. The introduction of
it, in which he seeks and finds common ground with
philosophic thought, Jewish, Alexandrian, and Platonic,
states this in two words : " the Word was God," and " the
Word was made flesh." And after that, every paragraph
selected for inclusion — and it is well worth observing —
culminates in some such deliverance as " this is the Son of
God." Take these by way of illustration. There is, the
very first, the story of John the Baptist's testimony, i.
l9~ 34- What conclusion does he reach? "I saw, and
bare record that this is the Son of God." The whole
Samaritan episode culminates in a great confession of faith,
" We have heard for ourselves, and know that this is indeed
the Saviour of the world," iv. 42. The feeding of the five
thousand leads up to Peter's great confession, "We have
believed, and know that Thou art the Holy One of God,"
vi. 69. The blind man healed (ix. 35-38) is asked, " Dost
thou believe upon the Son of God ? " and is told, " Thou
hast both seen Him, and He it is that talketh with thee."
But all this only corroborates the express declaration in
xx. 31, " Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence
of His disciples which are not written in this book ; but these

24 The Relation ofthe Apostolic Teaching
are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God." The authority of such a Teacher is fully
guaranteed, wherever we can find His words. And we
understand why so much significance was at once attached
to Him as Exalted Lord. It was due to the surpassing im
pression, which, from the very first, had been made on the
minds of His disciples, which had sunk deeper and deeper
into the minds of the men who knew Him best, and which
became ever more definite the more they pondered and
considered, till the truth blazed upon them in all its
fulness. The meaning of the order of appearance may be seen
again in the group of Paul's letters. Among the very first
are the Epistles to the Thessalonians. What is there the
prevailing topic ? Eschatology, the perplexities it occasions,
or the errors which mistaken views of it beget, and the
apostle's efforts to meet these. Next come the Epistles to
the Corinthians, a series of deliverances on practical prob
lems, not selected by Paul for exposition and elucidation,
but submitted to him for his decision or opinion ; practical
questions which converts, living in the midst of the seething
population of a manufacturing and commercial city with all
its seductions and entangling engagements, were very soon
compelled to face. Next comes the Epistle to the Romans,
a message to a Church of already some years' standing, but
a letter in which the apostle seeks to win the confidence of
men to whom he was personally a stranger. In it, there
fore, he states what he regarded as the fundamental bearings
of the Gospel, what the prime significance of the most
notable facts of Christian faith. The three following
Epistles show the applicability of the Gospel to the wider
problems of life, go deeper and deeper into the secrets of
the spirituality, reveal the intensity and pervasiveness, of the
life that is in Christ. Following these are the Pastoral
Epistles, a group mainly ecclesiastical, true to what they

to the Teaching of Christ 25
purport to be — fatherly counsels from an experienced bishop
of souls to younger men, who are beginning to feel the
burden of responsibility, and are anxious for his advice in
view of new developments in the Christian communities
amid which they work. But is this sequence an accident ?
Is there not a striking parallel between the progressive
phases of truth which they respectively treat, and the natural
order of development of Christian inquiry ? If the course of
history is the life of the individual writ large, is not the
sequence just noticed the counterpart of what is constantly
found in the spiritual life of the individual ? There is, first,
that craving for knowledge of the future, the unknown,
which you find in children. Then your young man is either
demanding a categorical decision, as to whether he may, as
a Christian, go to the theatre, dance, play cards, and so on,
or else he wants a logical explanation of the Christian faith,
in effect either an Epistle to the Corinthians or an Epistle
to the Romans. As men grow older they are not so
anxious about these things, but they do crave light on the
deeper relations of the spiritual life. While towards the
end of life they sympathise with the shrewd old Baptist
minister,1 who said that latterly he came to the conclusion
that if, when admitting members to the Church, he got a
reliable answer to two questions, he generally found men
right on all the rest. The questions were, " Do you speak
the truth ? " and " Do you pay your debts ? "• — rather like
the atmosphere of the Pastoral Epistles (cf. 1 Tim. i. 5,
iii. , v. 8 et passim, vi. 3 ff '. ; 2 Tim. ii. 1 4 fT., iii. ; Tit. i.
5 ff., ii., iii. 8). Here, then, is a steady advance in the pre
sentation of Christian truth and its applications. It might
be hasty to say " development." At least it would be a
mistake to say that it shows development in the mind of
1 Cf. Richard Baxter's remark : " The older I grow, the smaller stress I lay
on . . . controversies. . . . The Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Com
mandments are now to me as my daily meat and drink."

26 The Relation ofthe Apostolic Teaching
the author. It only shows how, with changing needs, the
writer applied Christian truth to meet the needs. It may
be that the need quickened the latent truth into conscious
ness in the writer's mind. It may also be that he saw the
far-reaching possibilities and applications of the truth from
the first, and only gave expression to them as the need
arose. And the firmness and vigour with which the appli
cation is made in each case rather favour the latter idea.
But, on the other hand, the sequence of the Epistles clearly
shows that it was only gradually the Christian community
attained to an understanding of the resources of the
treasure which they had received in Christ. It came to
them as no cut and dry system, but a vital force adjusting
itself to the new conditions which it had successively to
meet. The same progressive character is observable, if not in
the order of their appearance,1 at anyrate in the internal
structure of the Gospels. There are three distinct lines
along which progress of thought is observable. There is
(i) first of all, what must be referred to much more in detail
later, the gradual development and expansion of the teach
ing of Jesus Himself, passing in succession from the
Kingdom to the Christ, and from the Christ to the Cross,
and from the Cross to the Throne. But (2) alongside of
that, there is the more slowly growing comprehension of
Christ's teaching by His apostles, often waiting for some
great significant act, like the dismissing of the crowds eager
to make Him king and His chilling reception of them on the
following day, or among the inner three an event like the
Transfiguration, or, finally, the Resurrection, to precipitate
1 The order of the Synoptics is an open question, but there is little doubt that
Luke is later than Matthew and Mark, and that all three are earlier than
John. If so, we have, first, specimens of Christ's sayings and a picture of
Himself, then a study of the sequence of His self-revelation in word and act,
and, finally, the reflections of mature experience on the fundamental facts, illus
tratively presented.

to the Teaching of Christ 27
and crystallise the vague ideas that had gathered in their
minds. And then (3) there is a third line of development
clearly implied by one explanatory remark after another,
namely, the growing insight, gained by review with the aid
of light from long subsequent events, which determined for
the evangelists the interpretation which they were to put
upon enigmatic, prophetic words, which they had failed to
understand at the time at which they were spoken.
These, then, are features of the literary sources, con
sidered as such, from which is derived the material for a
knowledge of the teaching, alike of our Lord and of His
apostles. And, of course, there is no difficulty in recognis
ing there the teaching of the apostles. On the other hand,
the question may fairly be asked, To what extent can they
be regarded as reliable sources for the teaching of Christ
Himself? Can the Epistles give this at all? In them
you have the record of the forces which produced in their
authors the most momentous experiences of their truest
life, — forces which in effect resolve themselves into the great
Personality, Jesus Christ, and what He was and said and
did. But is that answer enough to justify us in treating
the Epistles as authoritative for the substance of Christ's
teaching? Is what we have there virtually what Christ
taught by word and deed ; and if we understand them, have
we reached Christ's teaching ? So far, the result we shall
reach by our detailed study of these documents will supply
the answer to that question.
But even as regards the Gospels, are we at liberty,
without more ado, to accept the teaching there ascribed to
Christ as really His, and in the sense in which He meant it ?
And we need to answer this question, because, as has been
already said, we have no work from Christ's own hand. We
only learn what He said and what He did from the records
of attached disciples or of early converts, who themselves
first heard them by word of mouth, and treasured them in

28 The Relation ofthe Apostolic Teaching
their memories. However anxious they were to be faithful,
both in the selection of the material and in the form which
they have given to the record of the events and the report of
the words, the element of the human personality could not
be lost. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John have their distinctive
characteristics, which have coloured their work. And it is
one of the gains of the protest against a mechanical theory
of verbal inspiration, that the delicate touches that come
from the variety of personality have now been allowed their
due recognition and value as an aid to the better apprecia
tion of the many-sidedness of Jesus Christ. These Gospels
are not mere reports, nor yet are they autobiographies, or
literary expositions of His work, by Christ. They are the
work of others, the form in which they cast their confes
sion of faith. And this proviso forbids us setting them up
as higher authorities than the Epistles. Both stand on
common ground. And it is bearing this in mind that we
are entitled to accept them as direct evidence of what-
Christ actually taught, and to take the words they attribute
to Him as essentially His, in most cases His ipsissima verba.
But the fact that Jesus did not Himself commit His teach
ing to writing, but left it to the precarious fate — if you will
— of the capacity or incapacity of His personal followers to
retain it in their memories and reproduce it with more or
less accuracy, need not take us by surprise. It is only in
keeping with that whole attitude of His, which should long
ago have taught us that it is not the letter, even of His
words, but the spirit, which is of supreme importance, and
that we need not be greatly exercised about precision of
terms, when, with Paul, we can say with all the irony
of conviction, " I think that I have the Spirit of God "
(i Cor. vii. 40). Of that mind of Christ we are left in
no doubt. The evangelists have succeeded each in con
veying to us his own impression, and yet together they
leave but one impression, as to what Christ taught and

to the Teaching of Christ 29
what He regarded as of supreme importance in His message
and work.
When we have said this, we have so far recovered the
ground from which we may regard the Epistles as sources
of Christ's teaching. They record, as I have said, the
great impressive facts and truths, embodied and expressed
by Christ, which moulded their authors' lives. In that way
they are decisive as to what He taught. And thus we get
the clue to an answer to a common question, and an
answer which carries us further than the questioner se
demands, namely, Why does Paul take so little account in
his Epistles of the life and the verbal teaching of Jesus ?
Why does he emphasise only the death and resurrection of
Jesus, and the life of the Exalted Christ ? There is just
enough of prima facie verisimilitude about the contention
implied here as to the absence of direct reference to the
incidents of the life and the sayings of Jesus in Paul's
writings, to give it the air of plausibility. But one after
another has shown very satisfactorily that there is a far
larger amount of acquaintance implied than appears on the
surface. It is not necessary to do more than refer to the
work of Paret, Lumby, Matheson, and Knowling in support
of it. But there are other arguments that deserve considera
tion, (a) In view of what has been effected by Ramsay
and others in the way of restoring confidence in the Acts
of the Apostles, it will not do to ignore what is there stated
as to the subject of Paul's preaching. The sermon at
Antioch in Pisidia has references, not only to Jesus, but to
the forerunner John. The subject of the preaching at
Athens is " Jesus and the Resurrection." The themes on
which he discoursed in his own house at Rome are " the
kingdom of God and those things which concern the Lord
Jesus Christ." (b) Then again, we may proceed by analogy.
There is an Epistle by Christ's most prominent disciple, by
Peter What references of a direct kind are there to the

30 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
doings and words of Jesus there? Nothing more pro
nounced than in Paul. And are we to conclude, therefore,
that Peter knew nothing of the words or acts of Jesus ?
" Ah, but," the reply is, " that is just one reason for sus
pecting the Petrine authorship of the First Epistle." Very
good ; but in that case you can hardly use the very pointed
reference to the Transfiguration in the Second Epistle to
discredit it. The presence or absence of references to the
life of Christ cannot be made arguments for, or arguments
against, genuineness, as suits a theory. And I regard the
argument against First Peter as quite overborne by the
other evidence in its favour. Peter's reserve, therefore,
throws a suggestive light on Paul's, (c) But more, there is
another set of Epistles by an evangelist, the three from
John. What measure of detailed acquaintance with the
words and works of Jesus do these display ? No more
than writings of Paul. And yet John knew enough to
furnish a Gospel, ay, to supplement at least three Gospels
already existent, with which he was familiar. If these
things mean anything, they suggest that Paul was not
necessarily so ill informed as to the life of Jesus, or attached
so little importance to it ; but had he been so inclined or
impelled, Paul was just as well furnished with information
to write a Gospel as either Mark or Luke, (d) There is,
too, a curious and striking sidelight thrown on this in
Paul's reserve as to many of the facts of his own life. No
man ever wrote more of himself into his books, and
we are not surprised at constant incidental references to
himself in epistolary correspondence. But what are we to
make of Paul's extraordinary reserve there as to his con
version ? If the Exalted Christ, who then appeared to him,
was his supreme concern, why is there no. more than a
passing reference, in Galatians and Corinthians, of a very
indirect kind, to that most striking and unusual event ? lt
was not that he did not care to speak of it in detail. The

to the Teaching of Christ 3 1
pages of the Acts of the Apostles explode such a sugges
tion. It only shows that the argument from silence is far
too weak to apply to Paul, to a preacher, that is, who was
not limited to letters for the conveyance of his message to
his converts, and who, in his letters, seems only anxious to
adduce what is most pressingly applicable to the matter in
hand, (e) Still further, the early demand, already noticed,
for information as to particulars about Jesus, makes it plain
that no man could have fulfilled the role of Paul if he
had not been fully acquainted with the facts of His life.
For one thing, what could have induced him for himself to
attach any importance to the death and resurrection of an
unknown individual ? His conversion would then become
something not simply miraculous, but utterly magical and
unintelligible. For another, what could he have said to
induce other people to attach importance to the Exalted
Lord of whom he spoke, and who was supposed to have
secured His throne by a victory won in death and resurrec
tion, if he could tell them nothing about Him prior to these
events ? The first question he would be asked to face
would be, who was Jesus that I should believe in Him ? — the
very question of the blind man whose faith Jesus Himself
sought to enlist. To answer that question demands famili
arity with, and reference to, the events of the life of Christ.
And all this seems so obvious that it should not require to
be stated. On the other hand, this life and teaching are not
prominent in detail in Paul's Epistles, because there he was
anxious to bring the very strongest influence to bear on
the minds of men, in order to secure the spiritual results
for which he was striving. And he felt that no single
incident of the life of Christ, no single utterance of Christ,
was half so impressive as the great culminating act of His
life, namely, His death on the Cross ; no evidence of His
dignity and authority half so convincing as the resurrection

32 The Relation ofthe Apostolic Teaching
and ascension to God's right hand. For him, as for the
other apostles, these two facts superseded everything else,
because they included all. They were the epitome of His
marvellous career and personality. And with these to
appeal to, what call was there to go back on subordinate
events and utterances, especially in dealing with men who
were already familiar with them all ? It was not on any
single word of Christ that Paul or other apostles were
content to take their stand. Their appeal was to the
impress of Himself, His over-mastering personality. For
them, in reality, Jesus was far more than a teacher. The
crisis of His career was more eloquent than any word,
unparalleled in sublimity though it be. And they felt that
they had not really let the Master speak, until they had
placed Him in His supreme act and dignity before the
wondering eyes of men.
Thus we see that the question should not be, why does not
Paul, but why do none of the writers of the Epistles record
in detail the life and words of Jesus ? and the answer is as
we have seen. The reserve of the Epistles,1 therefore, in
reference to the words and deeds of Christ's earthly life, is
virtually a clue to what was the early conception of the
constituent factors in Christ's teaching. It was not simply
what He said, but it was what He did, to what He sub
mitted, and what He was. And in order to understand
Him, it was just as essential to be aware of His death, and
to be convinced of the truth as to His Person and position,
as it was to know what He actually said. It is therefore
1 An interesting parallel to this comparative silence of the Epistles is afforded
by the sermons of evangelicals of the eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth
century (the leaders of the Methodist Revival, the Marrow Men, etc.). These
men were as familiar with the Gospels as with the Epistles ; but their references
to the incidents of Christ's life and to His words are very rare, compared with
their references to the Cross. And the reason is, not that they attached little
significance to them, but they could assume these as familiar to their hearers ;
and it is their application of Christianity in its intensest expression, so as to
secure the most thorough and lasting spiritual results, that has concentrated their
utterances upon the Cross.

to the Teaching of Christ 3 3
impossible to exaggerate the importance of His doings and
sufferings for a proper understanding of His words. You
cannot catch His meaning without this. Indeed, all
through Christ's teaching, the personal factor is supreme.
His words are almost all incidental. There is scarcely
anything that can be called a set discourse throughout it.
The words are only understood in their setting. They
lose immensely when isolated. Nothing will convince
anyone of the truth of this like an experiment. A very
beautiful little book has been compiled by Mr. M'Kail,
called, The Sayings of the Lord Jesus Christ. It consists
of a sort of classified collection of Christ's words ; and
the thing could scarcely be better done. But let any
one peruse it, and unconsciously he will constantly be
reading the words into the familiar situation, in order to
find the setting in which to understand them. The words,
beautiful, arresting, profound as they are, hang deprived of
half their meaning, till they are associated with the life.
It follows, that Jesus the Teacher is no mere master of
words, but His life teaches as emphatically and plainly as
His words, and we must bear that in mind in comparing
His apostles' teaching with His own.

CHAPTER II
The School of Christ
School selected by Christ— All practically first-hand Witnesses— Of
one Race, as also their Master— Evidence of this in Teaching—
(i) Forces at Work in Jewry — How far exposed to them— No
Indebtedness for Substance of Gospel — Object Lesson by Contrast
with Philo and John the Baptist— (2) Popular Character of Christ's
Mission— (3) Influence of Old Testament— Importance of Personal
Factor in understanding Religious Teaching.
Two Groups— (1) James, Peter, John, Matthew— (2) Mark, Luke, and
Paul — Paul prior to Conversion — Conversion — What it meant for
his Work — What it meant for Himself— His Manner of Life as a
Christian Missionary — The Variety of Type of Christian Teacher.
Christ's view of His Apostles — Some selected, and Accessions antici
pated — Christ trained them, spiritually as well as mentally — He
commissioned them, and promised the Spirit to aid their Work —
How the Apostles regarded themselves — "We are Witnesses" —
Independent of others — Absolutely dependent on Christ as Master,
who teaches by Word, Spirit, and Life.
The Books that contain the teaching of the Master and of
His School are the work of the members of the School
and the authoritative sources for information as to what
that School taught. It is from them, also, that an account
is obtained of the lives of the Master and His disciples.
And it will be all the easier to understand the inter-relations
of that teaching, if regard is had to the men themselves
and their relations to one another, to the contemporary
influences to which they were exposed, to their training
and qualifications, and to what the Master thought of them
and their teaching, and they of His and of their own.
These teachers and writers all came more or less
directly under the personal teaching of Christ. Those of

The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching 3 5
them who were not His own immediate disciples, in the
days of His flesh, were the fruits of the work of those who
actually sat at His feet. In the one class, there are
Matthew, John, Peter, and James, three of the chosen
twelve, and the fourth, Christ's own brother. In the other,
there are Mark, Luke, Paul, and the writer of the Hebrews.
Of the latter, Mark was the youthful acquaintance of the
foremost men in the ranks of the Early Church, and
probably, as a youth, he knew Jesus. Paul was the subject
of a special intervention of the Risen Christ to secure his
services. Luke and, probably, the writer of the Hebrews
were reached through Paul. They are all thus practically
first-hand witnesses of what the Early Church believed
as to the teaching of Jesus, being themselves either the
direct vehicles of it or the very first to record it.
All of them, with the exception of Luke, belong to one
race, the race of the Jews. They were, therefore, all brought
up under very much the same set of influences and
traditions. Paul is no exception. Born in Tarsus, he
doubtless came more into contact with Greek life than
did the others. But to say nothing here of his later
training at the feet of Gamaliel at Jerusalem, or of the
strong protestations, which he again and again makes,
of the pureness of his Hebrew descent and upbringing, the
conditions of Jewish communities in most of the Greek
cities — Tarsus among the number — gave them a certain
independence and isolation, in which it was possible to
retain, almost intact, the national and religious atmosphere
of Judaism. In these cities, and in these times, his rights
did for the Jew what his wrongs did in later days. They
kept him distinct. Wherever he was born, he was brought
up a Jew.1 And that is Paul's case. And not only so,
1 Cf. what is said by M. Leroy Beaulieu, Israel among the Nations, p. 124 :
" The Jew has been made by the Synagogue. If the Ghetto (or its equivalent)
is the house in which he has been reared, the Bible is his mother, and the
Talmud his father."

36 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
but their Master also experienced these influences. He,
too, was a Jew. He spent His whole life among the
Jewish people. Brought up in a village home, mingling
with the peasantry, He was from the first subjected to the
influence of a nation's heritage of life and thought in the
pure, unsophisticated form which it assumes among the
humbler ranks of society.
This group of the world's teachers, then, started with a
common view of life and the world. They had learned the
same lessons from their parents and teachers. They had
heard the same views of truth and duty set forth by their
religious guides. They had joined in the same common
worship of the one God. Their mental and spiritual
heritage was one and the same. It will be important to
consider what this was. But, remembering that it was
common to them all, we must do so with the proviso,
that, if variety should afterwards appear in their individual
presentation of the new truth, we must look for the
explanation rather in individual temperament and personal
experience, than in old environment in which they origin
ally grew up. If remnants, due to that environment, are
carried over by any of them into the new faith, which appear
incongruous or inharmonious there, it will not be enough to
point in explanation to the conditions of youthful upbring
ing, for that belongs to all alike. It must be shown that, in
the particular case, there was something that rendered it
peculiarly difficult to drop the old in adopting the new.
What, then, were the predominant influences at work
throughout the Jewish world at the time when Christianity
arose, and to what extent are they in evidence in Christ's
teaching and in that of His disciples ?
The predominant influences were of two kinds, internal
or native, and external or foreign. In each of these there
are groups that show a certain connection of mutual
affinity or antagonism. So also, groups of the native

to the Teaching of Christ 37
influences necessarily involve common relations with
kindred influences from without. A certain common
element can be recognised between those internal forces
which are included in the names Pharisaism, Sadduceeism,
Rabbinical Tradition, the Apocryphal Books of Wisdom,
and those external influences which are suggested by the
terms Herodians, Greek Culture, Alexandrian Philosophy,
and the Septuagint ; and, on the other hand, a like inter
relation exists between Essenism, Messianic expectation,
Apocalyptic Literature, Zealotism, and the Publicans, the
Soldiery, and other institutions suggestive of the Roman
Supremacy. These influences were all at work, acting and
reacting on each other, and it is just as easy to underrate
as to overrate their effect on Christ and His followers.
We tell ourselves, for instance, that Jesus and His disciples,
were unlettered and ignorant men ; that they belonged to
quite humble ranks in society, where they were largely
beyond the reach of philosophic and intellectual culture,
and were unaffected by political movements except in a
quite subordinate way. We tell ourselves that they lived
in an out-of-the-way part of the country, where they were
left untouched by the great world-currents, far from the
Capital, the centre of the nation's life, and that in a nation
impervious at any time to outside influences. We picture
Galilee and its Sea as a kind of distant Highland strath and
loch, or a remote Swiss valley and lake, where a few hamlets
and homesteads lie, cut off from the rest of the world,
wrapt up in themselves, retaining their native simplicity
and ingenuousness, and almost oblivious to what is going
on in the busy world outside. But that is all imagination.
Galilee was called Galilee of the Gentiles, and it was the
part of Palestine which was always most accessible to
prevalent outside movements of life and thought. The
Plain of Esdraelon, overlooking which lay Nazareth, was the
world's highway between Egypt and Syria. Capernaum

38 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
was a busy trade emporium between these lands. And in
place of the peasantry and humbler classes there being
more out of reach than others, they were probably those
upon whom the various influences, of which we have spoken,
were most likely to play. And we cannot be too thankful
for the magnificent work which has been done in all these
fields, to show their affinity with the teaching of Christ and
His apostles. And yet the drift seems to be towards
a discounting of the actual effects. Not but what the
existence of such influences is admitted, but the evidence of
their exercise upon Christian teaching in its original phases
is regarded as after all very, very small.1 Efforts to
associate Jesus very closely with the Essenes, for instance,
must be regarded as ingenious failures. And the same
must be said of all the attempts to explain His Messiahship
as a mere product of His reflection on Apocalyptic Books.
Just as little can be made of the influence of Greek
religion or philosophy. In Christianity you are dealing
with a new creation, the subtle influence which has
gradually invaded and transcended the whole range of
classic life and thought. Browning marks the transition as
it reached Art, and what he says of Art is true of the whole
case — " I conclude that the early painters,
To cries of 'Greek Art and what more wish you?'
Replied, 'To become now self-acquainters,
And paint man, man, whatever the issue !
Make new hopes shine through the flesh they fray,
New fears aggrandise the rags and tatters :
To bring the Invisible full into play !
Let the Visible go to the dogs— what matters?'"2
So it had been in life, so in thought ; so first of all in
religion. As Beyschlag puts it : " Even though a contact
of Jesus with the Hellenic world had not already been
1 Cf. in support of this Harnack's note, History oj Dogma, i. 48.
2 Old Pictures in Florence.

to the Teaching of Christ 39
excluded by the outer facts of His life — how could He have
kindled His inner light and life at this hearth ?• The
religion of classical antiquity, even in its noblest manifesta
tions and its then foremost living mysteries, was the
worship of deified, nature, and therefore the direct opposite
of the religion of Jesus. And the philosophy of antiquity,
even where its highest presentiments of truth approach to
the gospel, • was just philosophy and not revelation, — a
wavering, doubting question, addressed to Heaven, not a
certified answer from Heaven, such as Jesus gives." 1 The
numbers are becoming fewer and fewer of whom Huxley
could " say that " they think it obvious that Christianity
inherited a good deal from Paganism and from Judaism,
and that if the Stoics and the Jews revoked their bequests,
the moral property of Christianity would realise very
little." 2 The evidence of daily accumulating facts is all
against him.
There is, moreover, a providential provision for compar
ing in each case the creation of these influences in a Jew of
these times, with Christ and His apostles. There is Philo,
and there is John the Baptist.
In Philo, the learned Jew of Alexandria, there is a
perfect example of what the .combination of reverence for
the old Jewish law and tradition, combined with an eager
•interest in Greek philosophic speculation, would produce.
And, while much has been made of the influence which he
is supposed to have exercised on Paul and John, none can
deny that the differences are simply out of all proportion to
the points of resemblance, so much so, indeed, that these
resemblances must be regarded as largely accidental and,
so to say, inevitable ; while, if you carry the comparison a
step further back, and place Philo and Jesus side by side,
there is simply no resemblance at all.
John the Baptist is commonly thought of as the fore-
1 New Testament Theolog}', i. 34. 2 Collected Essays, ix. 145.

40 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
runner of Christ. Jesus regarded him in that light Himself.
And this has led to a somewhat hasty reading back into
the thought and teaching of John the Baptist of a large
amount of the substance of Christ's teaching. That is to
mistake John's place. That is to mistake the attitude of
Jesus toward John. While our Saviour did regard him as
His own herald, He also emphasised the differences between
them. John was an ascetic : Jesus was not. And the
work he did was, while preparatory, often of the very
opposite spirit from that of Christ. The difference between
them is nowhere more pronounced than in their conceptions
of the office and work of the Messiah. John's Messiah is,
above all, the drastic iconoclast and reformer of the Book
of Malachi. Christ's own conception is got in His striking
reply to John's perplexity at this very discrepancy between
the Messiah he expected and the Messiah he found in Jesus
of Nazareth, or again in that wonderful word in Isaiah
which Matthew applies to Jesus, " He shall not strive nor
cry, nor lift up His voice in the street. The bruised reed
will He not break, nor quench the smoking flax." The fan
John placed in His hand to purge the threshing-floor was first
to play a very different part — fan feeble flames into life and
vigour — before it executed the office John expected. This
contrast, however, just brings out the difference between
Jesus and a child of the Esseno-Apocalyptic influence, look
ing for a Messiah who should lead on a purified Israel to
the expulsion of the Romans, and to a world-empire which
should be the Kingdom of God. This, John's hope, was
the purest form of the prevalent Messianic hope of the time ;
but, pure though it was, it had in large part to be dislodged
from the minds of men by Jesus, in order to make way for
the Christ and Kingdom He came to reveal and institute.
In view of these very marked contrasts between the real
products of the contemporary forces of the early days of
Christianity and Christ Himself and His apostles, we cannot

to the Teaching of Christ 41
regard the latter as influenced to any material extent by
these forces.
What is of importance in these influences is the part
they played in moulding the life and thought of those to
whom Christ's teaching was first addressed. These were
forces at work, and, while they did not contribute to the
essence of the gospel message, they did determine the form
in which it was stated, and variety in its statement is often
due to accommodation to the current thoughts of contem
poraries. They evoked efforts to put the new truth in
terms which would be understood, and which would place
it, so to say, on the common ground from which it could
proceed to assert its distinctive character. Christian teach
ing recognised a world-wide preparation for itself. The
Epistle to the Hebrews begins with an express reference
to the preparation in the Jewish religion ; and the attitude
of Christ Himself and His disciple Paul towards the law
expresses the same fact. Paul could find in the altar " To
the Unknown God " the starting-point for preaching the
revelation of Him after whom he saw that the old Hellenic
worship was feeling, if haply it might find Him. But,
for the rest, where Jesus and His gospel met Greek and
Jewish thought, He influenced them, and not they Him.
But account must be taken of another factor to which
attention was called by Locke long ago,1 and which recent
investigations in one particular field, and the application of
the results reached there, suggest as equally applicable all
round. Professor Ramsay,2 for instance, shows the part
played by the current religious phraseology of contemporary
Paganism in supplying words for the expression of Christian
truth. But these words were not, so to say, technical terms.
They were, in the main, the words in common everyday
use applied to these subjects. Blass, again, in the intro
duction to his Grammar, shows that the New Testament
1 Notes on the Epistles, Introd. xvii. 2 Expository Times, a. 9, 54, etc.

42 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
language is simply the colloquial language of the day, with
rules and phrases of its own, which are often quite inde
pendent of the restrictions of classic Greek. And he
supports his case by pointing out indications of a feeling
for purer style in parts of the New Testament, which are
presumably of a formal nature (Acts i. 1-5, xv. 23—29),
or which, like Paul's speech before Agrippa (Acts xxvi.) in
contrast with his speech from the stairs (xxii.), were ad
dressed to more cultured ears. And so in reference to
all these movements and influences of which we have been
speaking, it is not enough to study the affinity of the
erudite ' teachings of their literary exponents and leaders
with the teachings of Christ and His disciples. For,
though we may speak of a Christian school, it was no
group of students, select from the common herd, learning
from Christ's lips a set of esoteric doctrines. It was simply
the chosen band around the Leader in a great popular
movement. From the first it addressed itself to the com
mon people. It was not supremely concerned about the
Wise and prudent. It was anxious to reach even babes in
intelligence. And if it encountered various movements of
the day, it was not in their pure and unadulterated form,
but in those often grotesque forms in which they had filtered
down into the thoughts of the man in the street. In our
own time, the secularism, socialism, agnosticism, met with
in actual life, are very different from these matters as pre
sented in learned volumes, setting forth their nature and
aim. It may be, it is, necessary to understand the leaders,
in order to explain their camp-followers. But in a popular
movement to meet them, notice must chiefly be taken
of the popular form of presentation, and it is by that
popular form these movements chiefly influence the
thought and expression of their assailants. So Chris
tianity, in its Founder and His earliest coadjutors, was a
popular movement, addressed to men of the simplest

to the Teaching of Christ 43
characters, and accordingly it avoided what was recondite
and abstruse, and dealt with problems as they could be treated
in the concrete and in the current terms of everyday life.
There is one influence, however, from the past and from
contemporary feeling, whose effect is unmistakable upon
.the. whole early Christian school, from the Master Himself
to the humblest learner. That influence is the Old Testa
ment.1 The Old Testament was regarded by them with
the profoundest veneration. And this was no mere tribute
to popular feeling. It had in it something of a challenge
and an appeal. The attitude of the apostles and of Christ
Himself is not simply that of innovators. They were re
formers as well. They did their work among a people who
possessed a glorious inheritance, of which they were proud,
but which they had allowed to be buried under a mass of
inanity and triviality. And what Luther and the Reformers
of his time had to do, in their day, for the Bible as a whole,
and in a supreme sense for the New Testament, — namely,
rescue it from the gorgeous mausoleum of the extravagances
of Roman Catholic tradition and ritual, in which it was
buried and forgotten, — was the counterpart of what the
Saviour Himself had to do for the first instalment of the
Old Book. As Christ bids men notice again and again,
He claims to be the recoverer and vindicator of the old
truths which had been lost sight of. His evangelists are
most anxious to prove that their Master is in line with the
prophecies and forecasts of the Old Testament revelation.
And even when they insist that at points its teaching is
superseded or annulled, they always do so in the spirit of
profound respect. Their language, their thought, their
views of God and Man and the World are all based on
what they have learned from the Old Testament. When
1 See Bousset's Monograph, Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Juden-
thum, throughout. His closing sentence summarises the position : ' ' The gospel
develops the hidden trend of the Old Testament, but protests against the
dominating tendency of the Judaism of its day. "

44 The Relation ofthe Apostolic Teaching
Jesus was challenged for allowing disciples to eat with un
washed hands (Mark vii. 1-16), — an infringement, it was
said, of the tradition of the elders, i.e. the Rabbinical
tradition, — with quick severity came His retort, " Full well
ye reject the commandment of God that ye may keep your
own tradition. For Moses said . . . But ye say . . .
making the word of God of none effect by your tradition."
Matthew, in the very first chapter of his Gospel, relating the
birth of Christ, sums up the events with the words, " Now
all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was
spoken of the Lord through the prophet " ; and like phrases
are constantly recurring. Similar in spirit is the note in
John's Gospel, in reference to the death of Christ, " These
things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A
bone of Him shall not be broken. And again another
scripture saith, They shall look on Him whom they
pierced" (John xix. 36, 37). The whole tenor of the
speeches in the Acts is in the same line. The anxiety
of the speakers is to find proof from the Scriptures that
Jesus is the very Christ. The Berceans are regarded as
men of a nobler spirit, because they make the word of
God the standard, and try to verify the teaching of the
apostles by it. The Apocalypse throbs with Old Testa
ment words and spirit from beginning to end. The Epistle
to the Hebrews is built upon it. And with Paul it is the
court of constant appeal in verification of what he says.
But no amount of reference can adequately reproduce the
extent of the influence of the Old Testament on the teach
ing of the New. There is not a suggestion of breaking
away from it. It is a sacred inheritance, to be jealously
preserved, and the new religion that has sprung out of it is
indeed but the realisation of its truest aim, its anticipated
fulfilment and crown.
After this review of the predominant tendencies of the
day, and of their influence upon the School of Christ, it

to the Teaching of Christ 45
will now be desirable to have regard to the men themselves,
their individual natures and idiosyncrasies. To understand
them, will throw light on the form which the teaching took
in their hands. And this is especially important in the
case of a subject like Christianity. It is a religion, an
affair of the very life of man, not a mere intellectual move
ment, in which a man may theorise without any very marked
connection existing between his theorisings and his practice.
A man's view of Christ and of the truth He taught is very
largely determined by the spiritual experience through
which he is drawn to Christ, enters into fellowship with
Him, and grows in the knowledge of Him. We shall have
therefore a valuable aid to the understanding of the teaching
of the apostles, when, from other sources or from their own
testimony, we have a clue to the kind of men they were,
to the way in which they were led to identify themselves
with Christ's cause, and to the part which they played in
its spread and extension.
Of the most prominent writers of the New Testament,
it is significant that almost every one of them came into
touch with Christ on His own personal invitation. John,
Peter, and Matthew received their call from the Lord
while He sojourned on earth. We have Paul's authority
for saying that James was called by the Risen Lord.
And Paul himself was " apprehended," as he says, by the
Ascended Christ.
Of these, James was by nature most closely connected
with Jesus. He was a younger son of Mary, one of Christ's
own brothers. Up till the time of the Resurrection, how
ever, he did not believe in the claims of his elder brother.
Doubtless, his memory was full of Christ's early days, and
of the rare nobility and docility of that devoted son who
learnt His trade at His father's side. He remembered
when He relinquished this, and took up the role of a
preacher, striving to reawaken the spiritual life of His

46 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
people. He remembered — his Epistle shows it — the
strange fascination of that great sermon on the hillside,
when Jesus seemed to make the old law live again with all
the vividness and depth of its first announcement at Sinai.
But then perplexity crept over the home. They heard of
miracles, and men whispering the question, " was Jesus the
Messiah ? " It was like blasphemy. They must stop Him.
He was going mad. Not but what, if character could
make a man Messiah, He was fit for it; if devoutness
and spirituality of mind were enough, James had never
known one like Jesus. But Messiah ! Impossible. And
when men crucified Him, though it was near breaking his
heart, it only proved the terrible infatuation of which his
poor deluded brother had been the victim. But that was
not the whole story. Three days after, his crucified and
buried brother met him, alive and strong ; and that meeting
left James as convinced that his brother really was the
Messiah as he had previously been convinced that He was
not, and he became a most devoted adherent of His cause.
The very reverence for the old law, which had made him
long hesitate to believe, now but made him cherish with
the deeper affection the words of his brother which had all
along seemed such an illumination of it. These words
moulded all his afterthought and utterance, and no one
of the Epistles is so replete with reminiscences of words of
Christ as the Epistle of James. He immediately joined
the young community at Jerusalem, and was quickly re
cognised as its head. As yet, its members were in little
distinguished from their fellow - countrymen, except by
their acceptance and proclamation of Jesus of Nazareth,
their risen Lord, as Israel's promised Messiah, and by their
observance, in accordance with His command, of the rites
of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. They continued to
observe the ordinances of the Jewish law, just as Jesus
Himself had done, participating in the worship of the

to the Teaching of Christ 47
synagogue and of the temple, and retaining their char
acter as true Jews. And such was the habit of James
throughout his life. Neither he nor they perceived at
once the far-reaching effects of their new faith. But, while
some of them were eager to insist on the permanent neces
sity of this for all who accepted the faith in Christ, James
was content to practise it himself, or even to counsel it in
other Jews while in a predominatingly Jewish community
like Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 18 ff.) ; but he was willing to
recognise the new light which broke in, first through the
experience of Peter, then from the developments at Antioch,
and most conclusively from the wonderful spread of the
gospel in the Gentile world as a result of the preaching of
Paul. The primitive simplicity and routine of his own life
were never changed. By that he retained his authority
over even the extreme anti-Pauline party in Jerusalem, but
he never succumbed to their narrow-minded opinions. He
was largely instrumental in maintaining the unity of the
Church, when the ferment of the new wine was threatening
to burst the old bottles. And we recognise the enormous
value of a man of his character and so closely connected
with the Saviour, in such a prominent position amid the
delicate transitions and expansions of these early days.
Another prominent teacher is Peter. When he was
met by Jesus, he was a married man with a wife and family.
He was a fisherman, and with his cautious brother, Andrew,
worked in partnership with the sons of Zebedee. He was
of a warm-hearted, impulsive nature, hail-fellow-well-met
with everybody. In the high priest's house men spoke to
him, not to John. He had every confidence in his own
strength and opinions, and never hesitated to take word in
hand for any company he was in. His very sins were the
defects of his virtues. He was not very profound, but he
was a broad-minded, shrewd, practical man, and he was
first brought into touch with Jesus by his brother Andrew,

48 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
on the declaration, " We have found the Messias." On
their meeting he was at once recognised by Jesus as a
peculiarly capable, reliable man. " Thou art Simon, the
son of Jona ; thou shalt be called Cephas." But it took a
curious series of experiences to make the Rock of him.
There was that experience in the fishing-boat when, at
the sudden sense of the presence in Christ of a mysterious
superhuman power, conscience began to work. There was
the confession, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God," and the almost immediately needed rebuke, " Get
thee behind me, Satan ; thou art an offence unto Me."
There was the fatal boast of unfaltering fidelity, the
shameful collapse, the bitter repentance, and the tenderly
searching restoral. There was the scene in the Sanhedrin
with John, the vision at Joppa and the meeting with
Cornelius, the trimming at Antioch and the encounter with
Paul. These were all factors in the making of Peter. But
if his experience of Christ were put in a word, it would be
this, that Jesus made a man of him, saved him by the
charm of His personal character, the courage of His awful
death, the wonder of His resurrection, and its complete
reversal of the staggering effects of the Crucifixion. Thus
he was gradually led to the conviction that Jesus was the
Messiah, the Son oi God, able to save to the uttermost all
that come unto God by Him. To him was committed the
Apostleship of the Circumcision. And here we must
differentiate as between Peter and James. James seems
never to have left Jerusalem. But Peter, from the first, was
engaged in spreading the news of Jesus, the Messiah, among
his scattered fellow-countrymen. Doubtless, by the time of
the First Epistle, Gentiles were at least as numerous as
Jews in many of the communities addressed in it, and the
Jewish colouring which is found in James has largely dis
appeared. The old question, as to the position of Gentiles
in the Christian Church, was a thing settled, and we can

to the Teaching of Christ 49
scarcely trace signs of its existence in his writings. Even
from the first, his chief theme is the reiteration of the sin
of the Crucifixion of the Messiah, and His glorious vindi
cation by the Resurrection. And the keynote to all his
thoughts is that tremendous revulsion of feeling, when,
from blank despair, he was recalled to jubilant, triumphant
hope. Impressionable 1 as he was, genial, anxious to
conciliate, even compromising himself for the love of peace,
more anxious for brotherly love than logical consistency ;
designing men were sometimes guilty of practising on his
good nature to serve their own ends. But he only needed
the strong intervention of a champion of righteousness to
rally him from any lapse. He was not a man to carry
resentment, and even a hasty glance at his Epistle will
convince even the most superficial reader of the intimacy
that must have existed between him and Paul, the writer
of the Ephesians. His was valuable work, therefore, in
bridging the gulf between Jewish and Gentile Christianity,
when the conditions of life made the merely stationary
policy of James no longer possible.
The probability is that in John the apostle, another
relative of Jesus is to be found among the disciples.2 He
was evidently considerably younger than Jesus. In per
sonal character he was a man of pronounced individuality.
Sometimes amid a group of workmen, all good enough
men, but perfectly commonplace, is found a marked excep
tion, a young man with refined features, a dreamy absorbed
expression, a character that will brook no trifling with
morals or religion, and a manner which is a strange mix
ture of reserve and self-assertion. He is not exactly a
favourite. He is regarded as haughty, is given to petulant
1 Cf. Salmon, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 545.
2 A comparison of John xix. 25 with Matt, xxvii. 56 and Mark xv. 40 is
almost decisive as to the identity of Salome, the mother of Zebedee's children,
and the sister of our Lord's mother. Thus Salome would be the aunt of Jesus,
and her son His cousin.
4

50 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
outbursts, and indeed does not quite understand himself.
Yet he is generally respected, and any judge of character
would like to make his acquaintance. That is John. And
when he was introduced to Jesus by the Baptist, the man
who had first appealed to the deeper side of his nature,
with the hint that Jesus was God's provision for the sin-
malady of the race, and when Jesus invited him to follow
Him, he at once responded. Here he felt was one who
would thoroughly understand him, who would see the
depths of genuine passion and affection, earnestness and
capacity for service and sacrifice, that lay hid in his pent-
up nature, and would appreciate it. And he at once
devoted himself to Jesus with all the ardour of his chival
rous heart, and in John Jesus found the nearest approach
among men to a bosom friend and confidant. It still
needed days and months of discipline to transform the
character. The family failing of ill-judged intolerance,
vindictiveness, and ambition, those lowering clouds with
the menacing flashes that made Jesus familiarly call his
brother and him the Boanerges, required firm repression and
correction, in order to prevent them spreading misconcep
tions of the nature of His kingdom, and to allay the
jealousies which they provoked among its first disciples.
But under the purifying power of the life and love of God,
which streamed into him from Christ, he became a new
man, acquired a directness of vision and a quickness of
perception of things unseen, which are of the very essence
of faith. He became capable of the most sympathetic
presentation of the very heart of Christ, of the grandest
forecast of the triumphant progress of Christ's cause to
victory, of the profoundest insight into the nature of the
Godhead and the place of Christ there, and of the calmest
and most forceful assertion of the pure essentials of the
Christian faith and life. We have only glimpses of his
career subsequent to the resurrection of Christ — a stand

to the Teaching of Christ 5 1
before the Sanhedrin, a meeting with l^aul in Jerusalem,
exile in Patmos, extreme old age in Ephesus. But it is the
same man to the end, the apostle of love ; but love which
is no mere amiable sentimentality, but a fire of devotion,
an all-consuming flame that is seen as truly in the intensity
of its hatred of all that opposes, as in its enthusiasm for,
and absorption in, the object of its devotion and regard.
And it is as himself, in his own experience, an outstanding
specimen and product of the power of the purest love, the
love of God revealed in Christ and discovered there by
faith, that John is specially equipped for his work as New
Testament teacher. We know nothing of the circumstances
under which the writings from his pen appeared, except
what can be gathered from their own contents. But these
bear striking evidence of a spirit in constant communion
with Christ, trying to bring every movement which he
encountered, after mature deliberation, into subjection to
Christ, and accepting or rejecting everything, according as
it proved capable of this or not. Nothing can be truer
to the spirit, character, and development of John than the
striking picture of him given by Browning in " A Death in
the Desert," the old man anxious out of his lengthened
experience to meet the new problems steadily emerging to
claim the attention and solution of the Christian revelation,
and recalling from the still unexhausted treasures of his
memory life-giving words of Christ for the service of his
younger brethren and of the ages yet to come. With John
we have got far away from Galilee and Jerusalem and the
discussions about Jew and Gentile of the days of James,
but not one handbreadth away from Jesus, nay, but nearer,
closer to Him still.
Of Matthew the Publican we know little x but the twice-
1 Unless, as perhaps we should, we adopt the view implied in these words of
Weizsacker, ' ' Nathanael, whose name is a synonym for Matthew " (Apostolic Age,
ii. 170), when we would identify him with the "Israelite indeed, in whom was no
guile " (John i. 45, 51).

52 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
told story of his call, and the joyous feast he held in
honour of it, when Jesus first met on friendly, social terms
the outcasts of His race and time. A quiet, thoughtful
clerk in the Capernaum Custom House, a Jew by race, but
shut out by his occupation from all friendly intercourse
with his people, and yet a man deeply versed in their
sacred books, and given to meditation on their Messianic
hopes, he was probably greatly stirred by the exciting
events of the sojourn and ministry of Jesus in Capernaum.
He was strongly attracted toward Him, and only the fear
of rejection, on account of his cursed occupation, hindered
him from offering his adhesion. Imagine his surprise,
when one day Jesus, in passing his toll-booth, fixed His
penetrating gaze upon him, seemed to read his very soul,
and then, short and crisp, persuasively and authoritatively,
said, " Follow Me." It perfectly electrified the young man,
and from that day he was His attached follower ; and to
his retentive memory and ready pen, the product of his
clerking, we owe the fullest record of the sayings of Jesus.
These four apostolic writers all came directly under
the influence and instruction of Christ during His life on
earth. The other group was chiefly influenced by Christ
after His resurrection. I shall do little more than mention
the qualifications of Mark and Luke for their work, while,
of the writer to the Hebrews, all is conjecture.
Mark was brought up in a Christian atmosphere, his
mother's house being a favourite rendezvous of the leading
Christians in Jerusalem. Allured by its glamour, his early
ambition was to share in the romance of the pioneer Gentile
mission. This superficial interest issued in faint-hearted
desertion. But judicious handling by his kindly cousin
Barnabas confirmed a radical, well-attested change in his
life, and his graphic Gospel is the fruit of his familiarity
with Peter, and what he heard from that apostle of the
Saviour he had learned to love.

to the Teaching of Christ 5 3
Luke was the " beloved physician " of that name and,
as we may judge from the " we " sections of the Acts, was
the personal friend and companion of Paul, and Paul's
influence has told on the character of his Gospel. But
Luke was himself a Greek, probably a Macedonian, at
home in Greek habits and customs, rather vague as to the
niceties of Roman administration, unfamiliar with Palestine,
but eager to learn all he could from the most reliable
sources about the marvellous personality, so truly human,
whom he worshipped as the Son of God, and quick to avail
himself of the opportunity for this afforded by his visit to
that land along with Paul, and his sojourn there during
the time of Paul's imprisonment at Caesarea. He had a
fine feeling for the significant events of history, and dis
regard for mere details, no matter how interesting. He
had rare skill in reproducing in his history the spirit of the
sources from which he was selecting. Both in his Gospel
and in his Acts of the Apostles he is animated by the
desire to show the comprehensiveness of the religion of
Jesus, its true catholicity, its claim to be recognised as the
universal religion, and the way in which it reached out,
was welcomed, and embraced, throughout the civilised
world. Almost in a class by himself stands Paul. It is
impossible, within our limits, to do justice to the many-
sidedness of his nature, or to show how large a contribution
to his apprehension and presentation of the gospel of
Christ came from that very unique nature with which God
had furnished him. In a sense, and to an extent, which I
doubt if even Paul himself fully realised, though he was
mightily impressed by it and repeatedly referred to it, he
was truly separated by God from his mother's womb for
his special work. And it is necessary to note the facts
and features in general outline.
Paul was born of Jewish parents. Though, like every

54 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
Jewish boy, he learned a handicraft, in his case that of
tent-making, and was thankful to possess it for the earning
of his livelihood in after days, yet there are reasons, among
others, his possession, by right of birth, of the Roman
franchise, his being sent to Jerusalem for the completion of
his education, and in after-life , his ability to bear the
expense of an appeal to the Supreme Courts at Rome, for
thinking that his parents were in comfortable, if not
affluent, circumstances. His birthplace was Tarsus in
Cilicia, a centre of brilliant intellectual and mercantile
activity, a rival of Athens and Alexandria. There he
spent his boyhood. But we have no means of judging of
the influence which these Greek surroundings exercised
upon his imagination then, whether of attraction or
repulsion, for he returned to it later after his conversion,
and the loathing which he felt for the excesses of paganism,
and the antagonism to mere philosophising, which find
expression in his Epistles, may be later growths and not
early impressions. Yet the fact that the boy showed an
anxiety to proceed to Jerusalem and devote himself to the
absorbing study of the Hebrew faith and the Jewish law,
seems to suggest that at that early time the Greek influence
was small. At most, it will explain his fluency, if not
perspicuous accuracy and nicety, in the use of the Greek
language. That evident acquaintance with Greek sports
and contests too, which he so often turned to good account
in writing to Greeks, was doubtless due to boyish interest,
as it could scarcely with him be a growth of maturer years.
He was a freeborn Roman, a privilege of which he was
justly proud, of which he well knew the value, and which
prepared the way, through early touch with the cos
mopolitan character of the Roman Empire, for the universal
aspect of Christianity, which he was the first of Christ's
followers fully to recognise, affirm, and act upon. It was
at Jerusalem Paul came under the most strongly formative

to the Teaching of Christ 5 5
influences of his early life. He was brought up, as he says,
at the feet of Gamaliel the Pharisee, the most distinguished
Rabbi of the day (the first indeed to be called Rabban —
our Rabbi), the head of the school of Hillel. What the
effect of that training upon him was, he tells in so many
words, " After the straitest sect of our religion, I lived a
Pharisee ... as touching the righteousness which is in the
law, blameless." And there is unmistakable evidence of
his familiarity with Rabbinical modes of thought and
argument in very many of his utterances. He was no
hypocrite among the Pharisees. If none else was sincere,
at least Saul of Tarsus was, in his anxiety to follow what
he believed from them to be the way of righteousness.
Here you reach the very deepest sentiment of his heart,
a consuming anxiety to be right with God, and a passionate
attachment to the Jewish faith, because he believed im
plicitly that here was to be found the secret of its
attainment (Rom. x. 2).
In Jerusalem, however, he came also within the range
of a disconcerting influence. Jesus of Nazareth was then
producing a profound stir in the country. Whether Paul
saw Him in the flesh or not, it is simply impossible to
believe that a young student of the type of Paul should
have remained quite indifferent to a movement, about
which the leaders of his party were deeply moved and
anxiously observant. There is something alluring about
the idea that he was one of the young men who came to
Christ with the questions as to eternal life. At any rate, it
was quite in line with Paul's inmost thought. But the first
certain appearance of him is as an inveterate opponent of
the young Christian cause. A man that could do nothing
by halves, he was not long a mere consenting party ; he
became a determined leader in the crusade against the
disciples of Jesus. What maddened him was the bold,
aggressive attitude of Stephen. Stephen struck the note

56 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
of the supersession of Judaism by Christianity. Previous
to that, the apostles had been content to insist that Jesus
the Crucified was the Risen Messiah. But against Stephen
the charge, used before against Christ Himself, was revived,
of a design to destroy the temple. And his famous speech
was not a repudiation of this, but a masterly exposure of
the resistance, by the leaders of the Jewish people, of every
legitimate development of their faith. This was too much
for the young bigot Saul. He broke with the tolerant
attitude of his teacher, Gamaliel, and declared war on the
pestilent heresy. In this spirit he pushed the campaign
beyond the limits of Palestine, and set out for Damascus.
But on the way the crisis of his life occurred, and the
appearance to him in person of the Risen Christ changed
his whole career. We are familiar with the story from
three separate accounts (two of them from his own lips) in
the Acts of the Apostles, and from a few incidental
references in his Epistles. In view of the credit which we
are prepared to accord to Luke's writings, these are to be
regarded as of equal value for understanding that event.
And one thing that is perfectly certain is the objective
reality, to Paul's mind and to the mind of the Early
Church, of what took place there. Every suspicion cast on
this has been raised in order to use the results to discredit
the objective reality of the appearances to the other
disciples, which Paul associates as the same in kind with
his own experience (i Cor. xv. 4-8). But it is enough to
refer to Lightfoot and Lipsius in their respective com
mentaries on Gal. i. 1 6, to show that the phrase used there,
of which so much is made (atroicaXvyfrai tov vlov avrov iv
e'/uoff), does not necessarily nor naturally suggest " in the
chambers of my mind," as indicating the sphere of revela
tion, but rather " in my case," " in reference to me, so as to
produce a very remarkable effect on me, and through, or
by means of, me to reach and affect other people," or

to the Teaching of Christ 57
simpler still, as Lipsius says, '' an nicht in." Blass 1 indeed
takes it as simply equivalent to a dative, " to me," and says
" in me, i.e. in my spirit, would be an unnatural phrase."
By that appearance of the Risen Christ Paul, in the first
instance, was utterly amazed. He did not know whether
it was the appearance of friend or foe, to encourage him in
his persecution or to stay his hand, and he asked, " Who art
Thou, Lord ? " "I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest." It
was the confirmation of the truth of the familiar assertion
of the Christians, that Jesus had risen from the dead.
It proved the truth of all Stephen had urged of the
deluded bigotry of Christ's opponents ; and of these he
was one of the worst. It was a staggering fact, but he
had none to advise with save the arresting Christ Him
self, and he humbly surrendered, " Lord, what wilt Thou
have me to do ? "
That was his conversion, but what his conversion
meant it took time for him to realise. I am not satisfied
that we can say with Weizsacker,2 that from Paul's own
retrospect we learn, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that at
his conversion he was at once certain of his destination
to be the Apostle of the Gentiles. What Paul says in
Gal. i. 12-18 rather suggests that during that solitary
sojourn in Arabia he first realised that Jesus, the Risen
Messiah, had work for him to do in spreading the Good
News. But if we compare the condensed account in Acts
xxvi. with the more detailed record in Acts xxii., we are
forced to it, that by all the motives of patriotic love and
personal preference — and there never was a more patriotic
soul than Paul — the supreme ambition of his life was to work
for the salvation of his own countrymen. It was the vision
in the temple that put the veto upon that, and he was
only reconciled to his true mission by the hope, that he
1 Grammar of New Testament Greek, p. 131.
2 Apostolic Age, i., Book 11. chap. i. "The Apostolic Vocation," p. 79 ff.

58 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
might provoke his own people to jealousy by that which
was not a people, and so save some of them.
What did Paul's conversion mean for his own spiritual
life ? And we must answer this ; for Paul's theology, Paul's
presentation of Christian truth, was not the product of
theoretic speculation, but is the record of his own spiritual
experience. Was there anything in Paul's past life that
will at all help us to understand this miraculous change, by
which the most bitter persecutor became the most zealous
propagandist of the cause of Christ? The attempt has
been made to prove that Paul was agitated by profound
perplexities as to the Messianic claims of Jesus even prior
to his conversion, and that his persecuting zeal was due to
a fiery determination to put down by force the noisy doubts
within his own breast. But there is nothing to bear this
out. On the other hand, the violence of his fury is
evidence of interest, and not of indifference. He was alive
to the momentousness of the proclamation of a Risen
Messiah. Still more, with all his devotion to Judaism,
Paul's best efforts after righteousness by way of the law
had proved spiritually unsatisfying, did not rid him of the
sense of alienation from God. He was crying, " What lack
I yet ? " When he came in contact with the Christians,
he cannot but have been impressed with what they said
about the forgiveness of sin through Christ, and with the
calmness and peace they enjoyed through accepting it.
And when Jesus met him on the way to Damascus, and
proved to him thereby that He was the Risen Lord, at once
he also accepted, in Christ, the deliverance from sin, for which
he so long had yearned. This led him to understand the
Cross. There Jesus had fulfilled the part described in
Isa. liii., a passage evidently familiar to him. But this
personal experience of the Messiah as no national deliverer,
but a spiritual redeemer, one dealing not with outward con
ditions, but with the soul-needs of convicted sinners, when

to the Teaching of Christ 59
reflected on, led to the thought of a wider range for the
Messiah's work than the borders of Israel, namely, all man
kind. And so he was prepared for the wider vocation for
himself, although, as I have said, it was not his own
private preference. Thus, Paul's conversion led up to his
vocation, and is the clue to his theology.
All through his after-life he ransacks his own spiritual
experience in order to meet the needs of his fellow-men.
In that, as in every other feature of his life, he shows
himself peculiarly the man for his task. He is a man of
one idea : " to me to live is Christ," " this one thing I do,"
are characteristic utterances. And he is indomitable in
the pursuit of his idea. His constitution was none of the
most robust, but he would not allow it to hinder his
restless energy and activity. He was of a sensitive,
nervous temperament, a man of strong affections, who
excited in others either intense antagonism or attachment.
He showed extraordinary capacity to utilise everything he
possessed or knew, for the cause with which he had
identified himself. He would use the arguments of his
opponents against themselves, quote scraps of Greek
classics and current catchwords to gain the ear of the
Greeks, adopt the gracious style of the philosopher to gain
the Athenians, and debate with all the skill of a Jewish
Rabbi with his own countrymen. Laying hold of funda
mental principles, he found in them the answer to all
questions of faith and practice ; but he had a fine sense of
the distinction between essentials that cannot be tampered
with, and matters on which modifications are permissible
to meet existing conditions, even although not in line with
strict logical consistency. He was never the mere doctrin
aire theologian, only anxious to preserve the unity of his
system ; was never afraid, in the interests of truth and right,
to run the risk of seeming to contradict himself. He was
eminently sane and conscientious to a degree, brave as a

60 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
lion, with the love of a father for his child towards all his
converts. Indeed, his versatility is simply amazing; but
the possession of it, by one of such sterling character as
he, removes all wonder at the gracious divine intervention
to secure such a man for the work of carrying the gospel
beyond the limits of Judaism, and presenting it in its
full magnificence as a world-wide way of salvation for
men. It is impossible to recall, even thus briefly, the charac
ter and life history of the men whom Jesus associated
with Himself for the statement and circulation of the truth
He came to announce, without being impressed with their
variety and marked individuality. While almost all be
longed to the one race of the Jews, yet through one or
other of them a point of contact was secured with each
of the predominant nationalities of the world of the day.
James dominated the Mother Church. Peter developed
rare capacity for enlisting the interest of the Jews of the
Dispersion. Luke's -Greek eyes noticed many a point that
would have passed unnoted, through its very familiarity,
by a Jew. Paul's civil privileges were his passport to many
a Roman audience, which he could never otherwise have
reached. Their occupations in life were qualifications.
Peter and John, trained for working in the unseen, in that
rare school of patience and faith, the thwarts of a fishing-
boat, were prepared to manoeuvre with line or net, as fishers
of men. Paul's trade threw him into touch with the crafts
men in Corinth, and gave him the escape from every
insinuation of time-serving and avarice in his preaching of
the gospel. Matthew's work as clerk made him an accurate
reporter. And the sympathy of Luke's nature, which
made him a physician, gave him that intense sense for the
more than human tenderness of Christ's gospel of cure for
human heart-ills. Social position helped Mark and Paul,
so that they were no outre" louts in the court of a Roman

to the Teaching of Christ 6 1
Governor at Crete, amid a group of Athenian philosophers,
or in the pomp of an Eastern palace. Family affinity
played its part in the making of James and of John. Jesus
knew the hallowed influences of the home and family circle
in which He Plimself grew up, and that among its other
members, the family type would be preserved. In personal
characteristics, their temperament and disposition passed
through all the scale of the broad geniality of Peter, the
tender humanity of Luke, the youthful brilliance of Mark,
the staid caution of James, the unslumbering, all-embracing
energy and versatility of mind and heart of Paul, and the
intense, rapt contemplation of John. Their spiritual ex
periences were just as varied, and the lines by which they
came into touch with Jesus Christ. And if, for conveni
ence, we call the radical change, which each passed through,
by the one name conversion, yet the lesson of the variety
here is that that process is as various in its method as the
men who undergo it. One very marked difference, which
distinguished Paul from most of the others, must be more
than simply referred to. They mostly only arrived at the
full knowledge of what Christ and His gospel were by
gradually deepening personal acquaintance with Him and
instruction from Him, only reaching full understanding of
the profoundest secret after the painful shock and suspense
of the death and burial and the joyful surprise and rally
of the Resurrection, in the light of which the full signifi
cance of the Cross gradually emerged. They passed from
the personal impression of the Son of man to adoring
regard for the Son of God. In Paul, in large measure,
this process was reversed. So far, his experience was
more like that of James, but at second hand. He had
heard of the life of Jesus, but it was nothing to him. All
he may have heard of His amiability and grace was simply
reduced to less than nothing by what he regarded as the
blasphemy of His pretensions. His first personal touch

62 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
was with the Risen, Living Lord, and it was from the com
plete satisfaction of the needs of his soul by Him, that he
was awakened to interest in the events of His life in the
flesh. In both cases, what was of supreme importance was
the Resurrection and Ascension. But, with the original
disciples that was a climax and culmination ; with Paul
it was the starting-point of a new development, and of the
operation of a set of interests which immediately became
paramount in his life and experience. But this is only
the most marked of the many distinctions among this
beautifully varied group, among whom and for His own
great purposes, according to His constant plan, God
grants "Each new man, by some as new a mode,
Inter-communication with Himself,
Wreaking on finiteness infinitude ;
By such a series of effects, gives each
Last His own imprint ; old yet ever new
The process : 'tis the way of Deity." 1
Such a varied group was well suited to be recipients of
the new revelation Jesus came to communicate, and in
their turn to present it, in an immense variety of lights
and to widely diversified natures. Among so many differ
ent minds it could not possibly subside into a set of
stereotyped formulae. The teaching of Jesus, whatever it
was, which could captivate and enthral such a variety of
natures, must have been living, many-sided truth, capable
of Protean transformations ; but this, not in order to evade,
but in order to court, attention and compel adhesion.
But the question may fairly be raised, Is there any
justification for regarding these writers as more than
interested adherents of the cause of Christ, who have
of their own accord left us a record of a movement, with
which they were themselves closely identified ? Can we
regard their presentation of the teaching of Christ as in
drowning, Prince Hobeustiel Schwangan, 132.

to the Teaching of Christ 63
any sense authoritative? Have we any indication as to
this of the mind of Him, of whom they speak ? Does He
give them any commission ? Do they write with any
consciousness of responsibility ? A reply to these ques
tions will be reached by observing Christ's attitude toward
them, and theirs toward Him and His teaching.
As regards Christ's attitude towards them, in the very
forefront stands this fact : they were almost all personally
selected and invited by Christ to enter His service. That
has already come out in our notice of their individual lives,
and need not be further elaborated. But what is still
more significant, those of them who met with Christ in
the days of His flesh underwent a special course of train
ing at His hands.1 And not only so, but they were led
by Him to expect accessions to their privileged ranks.
Nothing else than this is implied in that striking cor
rection to the exclusiveness of John (Mark ix. 33—42 ;
Luke ix. 46—50). John had found a man casting out
devils in Christ's name, and forbade him, because he did
not follow Jesus along with the rest. But shortly after
he heard Jesus speaking in the most liberal terms of
the right to recognition of the humblest child that acted
or spoke in His name ; and misgivings awoke as to what
he had done, and he reported the case to Jesus. And
the reply of Jesus confirmed his misgiving, " Forbid him
not : for he that is not against us is for us." Note that
this follows immediately Christ's solemn statement, as to
the respect and attention to which He would regard His
humblest disciple as entitled — '¦ He that receiveth a child
in My name, receiveth Me " ; and you feel how significant
an utterance it is. It means that the same must be true
for men like this, and that leaves a place open for Paul, and
1 Weizsacker's treatment of this section of the subject is painfully hesitating,
unwilling to let go the fact, but equally unwilling to admit the historical relia
bility of the record. Apostolic Age, i. 28 ff.

64 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
Mark, and Luke. The mission of the Seventy must have
suggested the same thought (Luke x. I ff.). And doubtless
the apostles felt that they were acting in the spirit of
Christ, when they selected one to fill up the first vacancy
among the Twelve (Acts i. 15-26). This becomes still
more abundantly clear, when Paul appears on the scene.
At that memorable conference at Jerusalem, he met and
compared notes with James, Cephas, and John, the recog
nised heads of the Church. But these men, who had
enjoyed the privilege of the training of Christ while on
earth, recognised that Paul had arrived at substantially
the same fundamental truths as themselves by an inde
pendent course of training by the Spirit of Christ, and that
therefore he was entitled to regard himself — as he did — as
occupying exactly their own position, that of Christ-trained
men (Gal. ii. 1 — 10).
The lines of the training, pursued by Christ, are very
clearly indicated in the Gospels, and they make plain the
purpose He had in view, and the position He intended His
accredited disciples ultimately to occupy. The passage
in Mark, which records their selection, states the case
thus : " He goeth up into the mountain, and calleth unto
Him whom He Himself would," or, better, " whom He
wished Himself (the pronoun is emphatic : it is the
counterpart of what is said in John xv. 16, 'Ye did not
choose Me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that ye
should go and bear fruit ' ) ; and they went unto Him.
And He appointed twelve, in order that they might be
with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach,
and to have authority to cast out devils" (Mark iii. 13-15).
This brings out that the Saviour's purpose was to associate
those men closely and constantly with Himself, train them
to an intelligent apprehension of His message to mankind,
and leave to them its dissemination among those whom
He could not overtake in person. The training did not

to the Teaching of Christ 65
consist simply in securing that they should hear, constantly
and continuously, what the multitude only heard in frag
ments. But as any one, who turns to Bruce's Training
of the Twelve, can see at a glance, it was a progressive initia
tion into the deepest truths of the gospel. To them He
explained the principles of His parables (Matt. xiii. 10-23,
and parallels). He met, with the greatest readiness, their
requests for explanations (Matt. xiii. 36ff. etc.). He with
drew with them into sequestered parts of Galilee, where
He was unknown, that He might carry out this teaching
undisturbed. As His mission drew to a close, it seems
to have absorbed most of His time and attention. He
was not content to inform. He despatched them more
than once on preaching tours, giving them as their theme
of preaching, " the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand," a
fraction of His own first message. A whole chapter,
Matt, x., is nothing but a record of instructions, minute
and detailed, for the prosecution of such a mission. When
they returned, He heard their report and checked incipient
mistakes. He examined them again and again on their
progress. He sometimes followed up a round of instruc
tion with the inquiry, " Have ye understood all these
things?" (Matt. xiii. 51). And as the preliminary test
of their capacity for a great new announcement, He asked,
" Whom say ye that I am?"1
It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that the
training was directed exclusively, or even chiefly, to the
minds of the disciples. Quite as pronounced was the effort
to engender in them a kindred spirit to His own. That
was the meaning of His wish, that they should be with Him.
That is why, when He recalls it, He speaks of it, not as a
time of drill between a master and his servants, but as a
time of exchange of confidences among friends : " I call you
1 See J. Weiss (Nachfolge Christi, 1 6 pp. ), who is instructive, in spite of hair
splitting distinctions.
5

66 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
not servants ; for the servant knoweth not what his lord
doeth : but I have called you friends ; for all things I heard
from My Father, I made known unto you" (John xv. 15).
It was this anxiety that called out the stern rebuke to
Peter : " Thou savourest not — hast no taste for — the things
that be of God, but those that be of men " (Matt. xvi. 23),
and that other word, whenever it was spoken : " Ye know
not what manner of spirit ye are of" (Luke ix. 55). This
spiritual susceptibility, responsiveness to the presence and
importance of the things that are unseen, was His fervent
desire for His disciples. Failure in them to grip the deeper
meanings of things always disappointed Him. " How
is it that ye do not understand?" (Mark viii. 21) — He
asked it when they treated His warning against the leaven
of the Pharisees, as if it were a kind of veto on bakers who
belonged to that sect. And many a time the same feeling
arose in His mind. On the other hand, every glimmer
of growing perception called out deep joy and glowing
encomium. Look at the delight with which He hailed
Peter's penetration of the disguise of His humility : " Flesh
and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father
which is in heaven " (Matt. xvi. 1 7 ff.). Peter's spiritual
sense had grown. He had begun to share with Christ
Himself the guidance from above. And so, when the
disciples told with pride of their victories over the unclean
spirits, He checks that : " In this rejoice not ; but rather
rejoice, because your names are written in heaven " (Luke x.
20). Their spiritual privileges were the choicest gift He
had secured for them. It was their best equipment for the
work for which He designed them. The reason He attached
such importance to the spirit was this. The truth He had
taught them, the news they were to spread, was not in the
first instance very abstruse. More could be done to com
mend it by the strange magnetic attractiveness of lives
pulsating with spiritual faith than by mere erudition. Jesus

to the Teaching of Christ 67
knew how it would be. And His anticipations were amply
verified. It was not their learning that overwhelmed the
Sanhedrin, when Peter and John appeared before its bar.
Their inquisitors could still " perceive that they were un
learned and ignorant men." But they could not deny
their power, nor resist the wisdom or the spirit with which
they spoke. And what was the admitted secret of it ?
" They had been with Jesus " (Acts iv. 1 3). They had
learned in His school, and had acquired that irappijcria with
which He spoke, with its marvellous mastery over the souls
of men, begotten of that profound consciousness of the
constant presence to faith of the Unseen, the Divine.
Jesus had always contemplated that His disciples should
be apostles, messengers for Him to a larger audience. All
the training had this in view. And so He tells them,
as He sends them away, the use they are to make of His
teaching : " What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye
in light ; and what ye hear in the ear, that proclaim ye
upon the housetops" (Matt. x. 27). He teaches them
reserve, till the opportune time arrives, as in the case of the
Transfiguration : " Tell the vision to no man, till the Son of
man be risen again from the dead " (Matt. xvii. 9) ; while
His comment on Mary's anointing of Him shows how He
expected His gospel to spread : " Wheresoever this gospel
shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this,
that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her "
(Matt. xxvi. 1 3). The same thought they overheard in the
Intercessory Prayer : " As thou didst send me into the world,
even so sent I them into the world. ... I pray not for
these alone, but for them also that believe on Me through
their word " (John xvii. 1 8, 20). And all through the fare
well discourses in John, the teaching as to the gift of the
Spirit is in line with earlier and repeated promises of His
presence in the hour of emergency (Matt. x. 20 ; cf. Luke
xxi. 14, 15; Mark xiii. 11). It simply extends, for aid

68 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
through the whole range of spiritual understanding, the
promise given for the hour of distress. They are not able,
as He speaks to them, to take in or appropriate all He has
to say to them. There are many things to say, but they
cannot yet bear them. But the Holy Spirit of truth will
come and guide them into all the truth, bring all things
to their remembrance, show them things to come, take of
Christ's and show them unto them. Just because His
departure was essential to this marvellous spiritual equip
ment, Christ was the more ready to go. " It is expedient
for you that I go away ; for if I go not away, the Paraclete
will not come to you ; but if I go away, I shall send Him
unto you." And then, what follows? 'E\0cov, "having
come," i.e. to the disciples and, therefore, now through them,
" He will convict the world in respect of sin, of righteous
ness, and of judgment." The passage in John xvi. 8 is the
explanation of the earlier statement at the close of chap.
xv. 26, 27: "When the Comforter is come, whom I shall
send to you from the Father . . . He shall bear witness
of Me ; and ye also bear witness, because ye have been
with Me from the beginning." The intervening verses
(xvi. 1—7) simply come in to break the staggering force
of the now clearly indicated fact, that the disciples will
have to stand without the visible company of Christ,
encounter opposition, and spread the news of Christ in the
face of it. But for this work they will be fully equipped,
mentally and spiritually, by the fortifying indwelling of the
Holy Spirit. And this is no peculiarly Johannine view,
an aspect of the apostolic mission attributed to Christ by
John alone. It is just as emphatic in the writings of Luke.
There it is the grand subject of intercourse between the
Risen Christ and His apostles. His conversation on the
way to Emmaus is a grand exposition from prophecy of
the Messianic pathway, by suffering, to glory (Luke xxiv.
26, 27). When the same evening He meets with the whole

to the Teaching of Christ 69
band, it is to repeat the lesson, assert its world-wide signifi
cance, and conclude, " Ye are witnesses of these things. And,
behold, I send the promise of My Father upon you : but
tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued with
power from on high " (Luke xxiv. 46—49). When you turn
to the first chapter of the Acts, it is to find this repeated,
and to have the promise explained by Christ as a baptism
in the Holy Spirit ; and again, " ye shall be My witnesses "
(ver. 8). John gives the same account of the parting
commissions of the Risen Lord : " As the Father hath sent
Me, even so send I you. And when He had said this, He
breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the
Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are re
mitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they
are retained" (John xx. 21—23). What exactly that
" Power of the Keys," here, as in Matt, xviii. 1 8, extended
from Peter to all the apostles, includes I do not stay to
inquire. But at least it covers this, that to them was
committed, for the use of men, the knowledge of the way of
salvation. It would lie with them, who possessed this know
ledge, whether and where that way would be opened, and
thus they stand before us, equipped and commissioned by
Christ to take His place and carry on His work after His
return to His Father, just as we see them at the close of
Matthew receiving the fateful order : " All power is given
unto Me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and make
disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I commanded you : and, lo, I am with
you alway, even unto the end of the world " (Matt, xxviii.
18-20). Christ regarded His chosen apostles as fully
qualified and authoritative exponents of His mission to a
world audience.
But this is the answer to only half of the question which
was raised. For how did the apostles, Paul included, regard
themselves ? Did they recognise the dignity and responsi-

70 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
bility which Christ designed for them as the accredited ex
ponents of His teaching and mission ? They did absolutely.
Their actions and their words alike attest it. Having
received such a promise of the Holy Spirit, they waited for
its fulfilment with childlike faith and expectation. And
when Pentecost came, they hailed its gift with eager delight.
From that moment, whenever they speak, they assert their
right and duty to do so. Christ had said, " Ye shall be
witnesses after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you."
Filled with the Spirit, they say, " we are witnesses " ; " we
cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard " ;
" we must obey God rather than man" (Acts iv. 20, v. 32).
In the very same spirit, John commences his first Epistle :
" That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you,
that ye also may have fellowship with us." He felt that
what it was his privilege to have enjoyed by fellowship
with Christ was no private favour, but a public trust, in
which every believer had a right to share ; and hence it was
his duty to pass on the truth, which he had learned in and
with Christ. Paul, when he is writing to the Corinthians,
and seeking in the most forceful way to impress them with
the seriousness of the issues, in their dealing with what he
has to say to them, elaborates the significance of the position
which the apostles hold. He takes his own case and tells
them the nature and source of his acquaintance with Christ
and His truth. He reveals the moving impulses of his
apostolic activity. And he fixes the exact position of an
apostle, when he says, " God was in Christ reconciling the
world unto Himself. . . . God gave unto us the ministry
of reconciliation. . . . We are ambassadors therefore for
Christ, as though God did beseech you by us" (2 Cor.
v. 19, 20). J
1 Cf. Rom. x. 14, oB oi)/c iJKovo-av, How can they believe on Him whom
they have not heard preaching? " It must be so translated, and what follows
must be interpreted by assuming that the preaching of Christ's messengers is

to the Teaching of Christ 7 1
The position, however, in which they felt that Christ
had placed them, produced on them a twofold effect. It
begot in them a strong assertion of their own, and the
recognition of each other's, independence of all other
teachers, and the repudiation of all authority but Christ's ;
and it also inspired the feeling of absolute dependence
upon Him. " Be not ye called Rabbi : for one is your
Teacher. Call no man your father on the earth : for one is
your Father. Neither be ye called masters : for one is your
Master, even the Christ" (Matt, xxiii. 8-10). To this they
responded exactly. The first clause, in each case, expressed
the one side of their attitude ; the second clause the other.
None has expressed the first side of it more em
phatically than Paul. Not that he held it more strongly
than the others ; but his authority was repeatedly chal
lenged, and he had to vindicate his rights, both in Galatia
and in Corinth. When he tells the Galatians about that
memorable conference at Jerusalem (Gal. ii. 1 — 10), it is
not because he felt he needed to invoke the authority of
James, Peter, and John in order to strengthen his own.
It is only to show the perfect understanding that existed
between them, and the way in which they recognised each
other's rights and authority. Again and again he rings
out the declaration that he is an apostle, not of man, nor
through man. His gospel was not after man. He did
not receive it from man, nor was he taught it ; but it came
to him through revelation of Jesus Christ. And what
Paul claimed, the leaders of the Church had been the first
to acknowledge. As they claimed an independent position
for themselves, they were quick to accord it to him, and he
to accord it to them.1 In the Epistles to the Corinthians
identical with the preaching of Christ Himself" (Sanday and Headlam's
Commentary, in loco).
1 The sarcasm in Paul's reference to James, Peter, and John as those " who
seemed to be pillars," is directed not against them but against his opponents.
These opponents impugned his authority on the ground that it was without the

72 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
he writes in the same strain, sweeping aside Paul, Apollos,
Cephas, as all of no importance — God all in all ; Christ
the only foundation. But the parable of the conflagration,
which follows, teaches the terrible responsibility of each
builder for the work he reared on the foundation (i Cor.
iii. 5-15). On another page, in equally graphic terms,
he acknowledges the rights of others, but claims the same
for himself, and with biting irony exposes the pretensions
of any who would dispute it (1 Cor. ix. iff.). But in this
attitude of Paul you have simply the definite expression
of the tone, that runs through the utterances of every one
of the New Testament teachers. And it is expressly en
dorsed by the emphatic sentences, with which John closes
his Revelation. As a man inspired and commissioned by
Christ, he pronounces a solemn curse upon anyone who
dared to add to, or take from, his book; and why? It is
not his own authority that would thus be impugned. It is
the authority of his Master. " He which testifieth these
things saith, Yea : I come quickly." It is the Lord Himself.
"Amen: come, Lord Jesus" (Rev. xxii. 20).
That brings us to the other side of it. This self-
assertiveness is simply the counterpart of a most absolute
dependence upon the common Master. " One is your
Master," says Christ ; " ye call Me, Master, and Lord : and
ye say well ; for so I am" (John xiii. 13). There Jesus
describes the position to which His disciples responded,
and which they took up towards Him. Led on by that
strange, subtle instinct of the human heart, by which it is
ever drawn to the one to whom it can yield unfaltering
allegiance, the hearts of these men turned to Christ; and
countenance of the pillars of the Church at Jerusalem. Paul proves that he is in
complete accord and thorough mutual understanding with James, Peter, and
John, the men whom he always took to be the pillar apostles ; but seemingly,
according to his adversaries, he must have been mistaken in thinking them so.
It must be some others who were properly so styled, and to whom his adversaries
were appealing. But who were they ? It was for the adversaries to say. Not
James, Peter, and John, for they were at one with Paul.

to the Teaching of Christ 73
impressed by His transcendent embodiment of truth and
right, they felt that they need, they could, go no farther.
He spoke as one having authority. " Lord, to whom shall
we go ? Thou hast the words of eternal life " (John vi. 68).
He was to them embodied conscience, living truth, living
law. His matchless character and profound insight into
divine truth bent their souls to His service without chal
lenge or demur. " Theirs not to make reply, theirs not
to reason why." They had simply to carry out His com
mission. And so, when James sits down to write, it is
as "servant, bond-slave, of God and of the Lord Jesus
Christ"; John's Revelation has come to "the slave of
Jesus Christ " ; and Paul calls himself now Christ's " apostle,"
and now His " slave." Their only authority for speaking
is His commission.
Again, it is Paul who strikes the keynote. " That
which I have received of the Lord — by revelation — have I
delivered unto you" (1 Cor. xi. 23). What He has taught
is the gospel, and there is no other. " Though we, or an
angel from heaven, preach any other ... let him be ac
cursed " (Gal. i. 8, 9). But what makes this note of absolute
dependence on Christ all the more emphatic, is the way
in which, in reply to the questions addressed to him from
Corinth, Paul discriminates (1 Cor. vii. 10, 12, 23, 40).
There are things which he can settle by direct appeal to
the words of Christ. " I command ; yet not I, but the
Lord." And he then quotes an express judgment of
Christ. For other things he had no such express word,
but gave his own judgment. Yet here he still spoke with
the same firmness ; and why ? Because, with just a tone
of ironical hesitation, he can say, " I think I have the
Spirit of God." " He that is spiritual judgeth all things
... we have the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. ii. 15). "If
any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let
him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you,

74 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
that they are the commandment of the Lord" (i Cor. xiv.
37). Windows these into the workings of Paul's mind.
They let us see the way in which he understood loyalty to
Christ's teaching. In His gospel he had received the truth
of the deep things of God, the key to all true living and
thinking. Under the guidance of God's Spirit he had
simply to follow out these fundamental truths to their
legitimate issues, and he was still only the exponent of
the mind of Christ, teaching not another gospel, only
tracing the ramifications of the truth as it is in Jesus.
And if, as all this suggests, Professor Bruce is right in
regarding Paul as a sample of the ideal disciple for whom
Jesus craved, a man who, out of a weary experience of the
unsatisfactoriness of all earthly systems of philosophy and
religion, was ready to welcome the invitation, " Come unto
Me," " Learn of Me," 1 then we may take it that in Paul's
view of his own relation to Christ is bound up a profound
conviction, that he can say nothing worth listening to but
what he has learnt in the school of Christ, and therefore
says nothing else. In all his teaching he only repeats his
own lesson. " We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus
as Lord ; and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. It
is the God, who said, ' Let light shine out of darkness,' who
shone in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of
the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ " (2 Cor. iv.
5, 6). Paul is but a lamp or a mirror to diffuse the light
of Christ. He dare not vary from the truth even in trivial
matters (2 Cor. i. 17-23). Christ's yea was yea, and His
nay, nay ; and from the day Paul took Him as Master,
or rather He engaged Paul as His servant, Paul must speak
as He spoke, nothing but what was gospel certainty, Christ's
truth.2 1 See his wonderfully suggestive discussion of Matt. xi. 25 ff., With Open
pace, 140.
2 For a very frank acknowledgment of this attitude of Paul, see Weizsacker,
Apostolic Age, i. 135 f.

to the Teaching of Christ 75
It is in the same spirit John records the solemn protest,
which he evoked by an ill-directed act of homage, addressed
to the Angel from whom he had received the revelation of
the victory of Christ's cause. " He saith unto me, These
are true words of God. And I fell down before his feet
to worship him. And he saith unto me, See thou do it
not ; I am a fellow-servant with thee and with thy brethren
that hold the testimony of Jesus ; worship God : for the
testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Rev. xix. 10).
What the Synoptists record, brings them exactly into
line with the other writers, notably the very remarkable
words given by all three in the Transfiguration story.
" This is my beloved Son . . . hear ye Him " (Matt. xvii.
5; Mark ix. 7; Luke ix. 35). What fastened in their
memories the words, Hear ye Him ? These words were
spoken by God, when side by side with Jesus stood Moses
and Elijah, the premier representatives of the old economy,
the most carefully accredited mouthpieces by whom God had
hitherto spoken to men ; and by this divine pronouncement
the attention of Christ's disciples was deliberately diverted
from the older messengers, and riveted upon their beloved
Master as now the authoritative spokesman for God upon
earth. But that is not all. Jesus was talking there with
these old messengers about the new truth He had just begun
to communicate to His disciples, the fact that He must die.
That had proved too much for the disciples' credence or
intelligence. They would not believe it : they could not
understand it. But just at this juncture God comes in with
His imprimatur upon the utterances of Jesus. " This is My
beloved Son ; hear ye Him." In effect He says, no matter
what previous writers or speakers have said, no matter how
incomprehensible the deliverance may seem, believe above all
others, and on this subject as on every other, just what Jesus
says : " This is My beloved Son ; hear ye Him!' The writer
of the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to have caught the

76 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
spirit of the situation. His whole Epistle is an elaborate
proof of the superiority of the sacrificial work of Christ over
the Mosaic ritual of sacrifice ; and how does he introduce his
theme ? He writes like one who had been on the Trans
figuration Mount, who certainly had heard of the event.
He describes the Saviour in terms that suggest it at every
turn. He brings us face to face with Him in His glory.
And he says, " God, having of old time spoken unto the
Fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers
manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us by
His Son . . . therefore we ought to give the more earnest
heed to the things that were heard, lest haply we drift away
from them . . . how shall we escape, if we neglect so great
salvation ? which, having at the first been spoken through
the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard, God
bearing witness with them " (Heb. i. i ff.). That is the
uniform attitude of these New Testament writers. They
turn with one consent to Jesus as their authority. They
regard His teaching as supreme. They regard themselves
simply as transmitters, each in his own way, of what they
have learned by revelation and spiritual experience from
Christ through His Spirit. They are ruled by the Trans
figuration word, which they cannot forget : Hear ye Him.
But we only fully appreciate the conception which all
these men had of the authority of the teaching of Christ,
when we lay to heart another utterance that has been pre
served by John : " This is life eternal, that they might know
Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast
sent " (John xvii. 3). For Jesus, and so for John, to live is
to know rightly. Living and knowing are convertible terms.
Truth is life, and so for man the perfect lesson in truth is
the perfect life. Understand that, and we understand
John's dictum, " The Life was the Light of men " (John i.
4). Truth, he means, does not consist in abstract dicta,
soulless formula;, products of the intellect alone, to be

to the Teaching of Christ jj
learnt by efforts of the mind. It is rather something that
demands the play of our whole being with all its faculties
to apprehend it. It is to be reached, not in fragments, nor
by careful piecing together of parts, but as it stands out
in all its rare attractiveness, the beautiful harmony and con
sistency of all things, in one stupendous living whole ; and
there love sees deeper, faith makes more daring discoveries,
than the deliberations of the mind. Hence, a revealer is
better fitted to communicate truth, than the most perfect
of messages. He becomes the message. His person, his
personality, his life-work, his execution of it, give mean
ing and authority to his words, and ply their combined
influence upon a man's whole mental and spiritual man
hood. They inspire confidence and respect, enlist devotion
and attachment, which in turn secure attention to weighty
and even to unwelcome aspects of truth, which, otherwise,
men would willingly ignore. And it was in this way the
apostles regarded Jesus of Nazareth. He was the Truth and
the Life (John xiv. 6). That Life was the Light of men.
His personality was as eloquent to them as His most
striking sayings in life and character.1 They are as keen
to record a significant deed as to minute a weighty saying.
His death taught them more of its own meaning than did
His most patient and persistent exposition of the law
of service and ransom, by which He sought to prepare
them for it. Christ is their Teacher. He is also their
Lesson — not His words only, but His life, His whole life,
from eternity to eternity, in which the sojourn on earth
is only the episode most significant for earth's inhabitants.
They were so impressed with this, that it produced
no surprise in them, no shock of astonishment, to hear
Him in nal've and artless fashion make the most astound
ing announcements, and take the greatest liberties with
1 "Die Predigt Jesu ist nur ein Reflex seiner Person," Chapuis, Zeitschript
piir Theologie mid Kirchc, % . 278.

y8 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
their most sacred traditions. He would revise a divine
law with a " Ye have heard that it has been said . . . but
I say unto you." He would claim an intimacy with the
Father, and a directness of instructions from Him, that
scandalised other men. But to those who knew Him, there
was ever with it such manifest candour, such absence of
ostentation, such gravity, earnestness, sincerity, that they
felt that it was like His miracles, the natural and right thing
for Him to say or do, only the self-revelation of a truthful
spirit, that could not suppress such important facts without
being untrue to itself. It confirmed their confidence that
He was the Master.

CHAPTER III
The Features of Christ's Teaching
I. The Substance of Christ's Teaching — Summary attempted —
Tested by Effects actually produced by the Teaching, viz.
Popularity, Antagonism, Wane of Popularity.
II. Chief Characteristics of the Teaching — Originality — Authority —
Both explained by Christ's Personality — By Jesus Himself
directly — and indirectly through Manner of Teaching.
III. Methods of Christ's Teaching — (i) Repetition, illustrated by
Sermon on the Mount, and by Vindication of His miraculous
Powers —Adopted by His Apostles — (2) Accommodation — This
in line with Incarnation — Affected His general Attitude to
current Ideas — Determined His Adoption of Parable — Illustrated
by His Treatment of the Pharisees — This Method pursued by
Apostles — (3) Progressive unfolding of the Truth — Evidences of
it — Was it a Method or due to Modification of His Teaching ? —
Evidence of the Sources, especially Luke and the Sermon on the
Mount — It is a Method — Followed by Apostles — Its Order to
be followed here.
To the writers of the New Testament Christ was the
supreme authority. He had trained them for the reception
of a message, and commissioned them to bear it to their
fellow-men. And they responded by regarding themselves
as men deputed by Him, and responsible to Him, for carry
ing on His work. Some did the work in one way, some in
another, each following the bent of his own genius. The
evangelists reduced to writing the story of the Life, with
wealth of characteristic incident and striking phrase. The
writers of the Epistles brought their spiritual experience
at the hands of the Spirit as their contribution to the en
lightenment and quickening of their fellow-Christians in the
knowledge of Christ. And historian and seer in turn traced,
79

80 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
the one the operation of His revelation as the days went by,
the other the prospect of the play of His great principles in
conflict with and triumph over the forces of the world.
But it is necessary to go back on the mass of incident and
speech, which constitutes our knowledge of the historic
Jesus, and conveys to us the content of His teaching, — His
" doctrine," as He calls it, — and see what the substance of
it actually was. How did Jesus regard it, and what were
His methods in communicating it to others ? What were
the features of Christ's mode of teaching, and how are these
reflected in the teachings of His school ? The treatment of
this does not involve an attempt at a nice analysis of
Christ's style and manner, interesting and important as that
may be. It is the substance of the teaching with which we
are dealing. For the rest, it may be enough to say that
Jesus was, what every preacher, teacher, should be — He was
Himself. That gave His teaching the magnetic force. He
was the Truth and the Life. He was perfectly natural, and
His nature explains the Way.
I. What was, then, the substance of Christ's teaching?
It is a little difficult to summarise the great basal
truths which Christ taught without seeming to ignore many
matters on which He shed such a flood of light that they
all seem to demand mention. But meantime something
like this may suffice. He spoke with steady enthusiasm of
the Kingdom of God, as He calls it. And what He ulti
mately meant by that was a great spiritual association, in
which God's will is supreme, and in which men are banded
together as brethren in common allegiance to God as their
sole rightful Lord. A place within this association is open
to any man who desires it. None have prescriptive rights
to it ; none are disqualified or proscribed admission.
Within it equal spiritual privileges are open to all. The
only thing that counts is character, holy character. That
is the supreme test of membership in this association, which

to the Teaching of Christ 8 1
indeed is much like a family, with God at its head as
Father. And when " holy " is used to describe the
character, it connotes nothing merely formal, external,
ritual, but moral excellence, fused with the religious spirit.
This holy character can only be attained by a spiritual
reformation, which is just as necessary in the cultured
and respectable as in the ignorant and debased, and is
brought about by an overpowering appeal to the hearts and
consciences of men, which wakes into life that spiritual
vision and grip which Christ calls faith. The substance
and strength of the appeal lies in Christ Himself, in the
mysterious fact of His death on the Cross for men. Here
is the core and key to all Christ's teaching. It is the justi
fication of His demand of loyal obedience and service,
which is flawless only when it bears the marks of the Cross,
and which, faithfully rendered, reduces all mere ritual to
the secondary, and puts it quite into the shade.
To convey this teaching to the minds of men, Christ
made use of the current ideas, hopes, and aspirations of
His countrymen. He fitted it into the framework of their
religious and national conceptions. He illustrated it in the
homeliest ways, drawing unexpected parallels between the
familiar incidents of everyday life or patent facts of nature
and the world of spirit, with which he lived in constant
touch, and which He came to reveal. For, as is apparent
from the brief re'sume of the teaching just given, the
supreme concern of Jesus is with the world of spirit, the
unseen, the eternal, the divine. It is God, and the relation
of God to man and man to God, and that as the controlling
factor in every other relation in life. That is what He
deals with. That is the dominant theme. Anything else
is there only as contributory or explanatory.
We can test the correctness of this, as a sketch of the
teaching of Jesus, by considering the reception it met with
and the effects it produced. These were very pronounced.
6

82 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
On the one hand and in the first instance, the teaching
of Jesus evoked an extraordinary outburst of enthusiasm
among the general public, the common people. It swept
everything before it. Adverse critics were ignored, and had
to confess "we prevail nothing; the world is gone after
Him " (John xii. 1 9). Just as pronounced was the hos
tility He aroused among a very powerful and determined
section of the community, so bitter, indeed, that it hatched
a plot to put Him to death. And there is a third factor,
not less noteworthy ; namely, the subsequent waning of the
popularity, and that not on account of the efforts of His
adversaries, but owing to features of prime importance in
the teaching, which at first were ignored or misunderstood
by early admirers and adherents. Will what we have
sketched tally with and explain these results ?
First, as to the popularity. " The common people
heard Him gladly" (Mark xii. 37). And the reason they
gave for it was that He spoke with authority and not as
the scribes (Matt. vii. 29 ; Mark i. 22). But what do
common people hear gladly from one who can speak with
authority ? It is things that are said plainly, simply, and
in homely, intelligible phrase, on those matters about
which they are most profoundly concerned. And these,
if we only know how to elicit the fact, are the great
interests of heart and life. Men want to know about their
origin and their destiny. They like to hear about their
relations to their fellow-men. They gladly listen to any
body who can speak to them with some authority and
knowledge about God. As Arthur Clough says, in a
quaint poem, exposing the sophistries by which, from
interested motives, men try to argue themselves out of the
belief that there is a God —
" But country folks who live beneath
The shadow of the steeple ;
The parson and the parson's wife,
And mostly married people ;

to the Teaching of Christ 83
Youths green and happy in first love,
So thankful for illusion ;
And men caught out in what the world
Calls guilt, in first confusion ;
And almost everyone when age,
Disease, or sorrows strike him,
Inclines to think there is a God,
Or something very like Him."
Thinking this, they are intensely anxious to know the
truth about Him, and Jesus fully met that craving. He
could tell them about God at first hand. God was His
Father. He could tell them about His Kingdom, and the
ways of it, as if He had been in it. He seemed to weave
it all into their family and national life, so that the burden
vanished from their domestic cares and civil wrongs, and
they were flooded with rays of hope. The teaching does
explain the popularity.
But it equally explains the antagonism. There may
be something in a speaker's manner that rouses hostility
and resentment. There are men who have such an
offensive way of saying even things with which we heartily
agree, that they almost lead us to abandon them. But even
at its worst, mere manner will never explain antagonism so
deadly, that nothing but death will satisfy it. It is the
substance of teaching which does that. Now Christ's
teaching struck at privilege on every hand. He swept it
aside in terms of man's relation to God. There He was
the great Leveller, and from that the process spreads in
every direction. This the privileged classes were quick to
see, and they were immediately in league against Him.
What were the privileges of the priestly class worth, when
Jesus taught men that they could go straight to God for
themselves, and Gerizim or Jerusalem was really of no
importance, since God is a Spirit, and they that worship
Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth, for the
Father seeketh such to worship Him ? (John iv. 24).

84 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
What ground did He leave for the scribes' pride of learn
ing? He made the mysteries of religion common property,
reduced the law to a single principle, difficult to practise
indeed, but easily understood, even by the youngest child.
They must drop their sneer — " this people that knoweth not
the law is accursed " — when Jesus says, " Blessed are the
poor in spirit : for theirs is the kingdom of God." Just as
disastrous for the Pharisees' fastness of righteousness was
the rude shock with which He brought down, like a house
of cards, the whole building of toilsome formalism and
worrying minute detail. The Pharisee and the publican
pray side by side in the temple, and the man who, standing
afar off, with downcast eyes and beating heart, cries, " God
be merciful to me, the sinner," goes down to his house
justified rather than the other. And political parties,
though they might affect an airy indifference, — a Herod
and his men of war set Him at nought, — yet knew
instinctively that a deadly blow was struck at tyranny and
aggression, when Jesus made it plain that religion was in
reality no mere public function, but a solemn personal
relationship between a man and his God alone ; or, if it
meant more, a regulative influence in his relations with all
his fellow-men, no matter what their nationality. Everyone
of these classes, therefore, with all their army of sycophants,
the lovers of money and the slaves of fashion, at once con
ceived a deadly hostility to Christ, dogged His steps,
vilified His miracles, laid traps for His speech, plotted and
ultimately perpetrated His murder. And it was the teach
ing that caused it, as it opened wide and wider still the
arms of God's love, proclaiming " there is no respect of
persons with God."
But still further, the teaching, as summarised, explains
the wane of the popularity. What all the malignant efforts
of His enemies could not do, Jesus did Himself. He turned
the tide of popularity, till it ebbed completely away. It

to the Teaching of Christ 85
was soon apparent to Jesus that many of His adherents
had a very mistaken notion of what the essence of His
teaching was. Hence, although He was intensely anxious
to secure disciples, He deliberately set Himself to destroy
their illusions. Bluntly and baldly, so that there might be
no after-reflections, disappointments, or recriminations, He
gave the greatest publicity to the demands of self-denial
and suffering, which His service entails. True, He preached
a Kingdom, but He was the King, and He had not where
to lay His head ; and He would make no promises without
suffering for this world. He would not let them give Him
an earthly crown. He flouted their cupboard love. And
with more and more precision emphasised the spiritual and
its supremacy (John vi.). To Him they must come, follow
Him, and follow Him along the way of the Cross, or they
could not be His disciples. Their Kingdom and His were
in complete antagonism ; the one essentially worldly, — a
condition of unbroken health, ease, affluence, enjoyment ;
the other pre-eminently spiritual, with holiness and self-
sacrifice for its watchwords. All this He plainly announced.
Though it might, must, mean desertion by hundreds, He
would not allow men to follow Him to what must otherwise
be a rude awakening to disappointment and chagrin. In
spite of all His efforts, one man persisted, and what was
the issue? Disillusionment, resolve on revenge, betrayal,
and self-destruction, — Judas Iscariot. To prevent tragedies
like that, Christ plainly told the worst, as the world thinks
it, of His Kingdom ; and waning popularity was the inevit
able result.
Our summary stands the test. It embodies the sub
stance of His teaching.
II. But, now, two features of it press for attention, and
they are these : the originality of the teaching, and the
authoritativeness with which Jesus propounded it. Nobody
that ever met with Jesus could fail to be struck by these

86 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
features. Ordinary folks said, " He spake with authority,
and not as the scribes." The servants of His enemies,
even at the risk of incurring their masters' displeasure, left
Him undisturbed, and excused their inaction on the plea,
" Never man spake like this man " (John vii. 46). And
their masters might try to explain it away, with an air of
superior wisdom, to perplexed inquirers, but they are left
themselves with these two questions, that are significant
admissions of Christ's power, " How knoweth this man
letters (learning, scholarly accomplishments, ypa.fifj.aTa),1
having never learned " (studied, been through the schools)
(John vii. 15), and "by what authority doest Thou these
things, and who gave Thee this authority ? " (Matt. xxi.
23; Mark xi. 28). They are the two questions that men
are asking still. The facts are indubitable. Where are
the answers to be got?
You do not answer the first question, and maintain the
originality of Jesus, by submitting a triumphant array of
novel ideas in ethics, religion, and philosophy, all first
uttered by Him. There are striking characteristic phrases,
pregnant with new truth, that fell from His lips, about " the
Gospel," " the Kingdom of God," " My Father," " your
Father" (I put it with the personal pronoun, for that is
even more original than " the Father "), " the Son of man,"
" Eternal Life," " the Cross." But it is not in single pro
positions the originality of Jesus is to be found. Neither
is it impaired, though painstaking collectors have discovered,
throughout the world's previous records, parallels to sayings
supposed to be peculiarly His own. Just as little does it
lie in the marvellous freshness with which, in parable,
aphorism, and paradox, with uniform grace and simplicity,
He clothes the expression of His thoughts. Dr. John
Watson cannot intend us to take him seriously, when he
1 Field (Notes, p. 92) says it means elementary learning ; but Plato (Apol.
26 D) uses it as equivalent to /Mad-ti/iara, i.e. scholarship.

to the Teaching of Christ 87
contrasts Jesus and His disciple Paul as stylists, and vindi
cates the superiority of Jesus because of Paul's supposed
literary defects, "... overwrought by feeling . . . illus
trations forced . . . treatment of certain subjects — say
marriage and asceticism — somewhat wanting in sweet
ness."1 It is not a question of style. If one may attempt
to put it in words at all, the originality lies in the vitalising
power which He infused into every word he uttered, and
which gave at last operative force to ideas that had already
floated before the minds of men, been fixed for a moment
in words, and then been forgotten. To use Bruce's phrase,
it was " His ability to convert conceivable possibilities into
indubitable realities."2 "Grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ." And what account can you give of authority but its
existence ? When Christ was questioned about it, He
replied with a question which was intended to test the
willingness of His interrogators to admit the logic of facts,
and when it showed them unwilling, He declined to say by
what authority He acted. The only real gauge of authority
is capacity to exercise it. Men are never in reality kings,
lawgivers, priests, or teachers " by the law of a carnal com
mandment." They only become so in virtue/ of inherent
capacity, " after the power of intense, indissoluble life "
(Heb. vii. 16). In one word, originality and novelty,
authority and imperiousness, are not identical or convertible
terms. These facts tell us that we must look for the explanation
of these features of Christ's teaching in nothing else than
the personality of Jesus Himself. Jesus was, in a profound
sense, an original, and the originality of His teaching was
due to its origin. Its authority was due to its author.
Henley says with great truth, in his sketch of Burns, after
1 Mind of the Master, p. 38.
2 Apologetics, p. 501 ; cf. Horton, Proverbs, p. 318.

88 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
showing the extent to which he drew upon the store of the
past, just as Shakespeare did, for his material, " he cannot
fairly be said to have contributed anything to it except
himself."1 But that was everything. Still more so of
Christ. In the highest plane of human life, to the cravings
of the human heart after God, after the truth about Him,
what Jesus contributed, His most original gift, that which
imparted a new vitality to all that had ever been said
before, was Himself. But then it follows that His teaching,
" the indispensable commentary on His life," as Holtzmann
calls it,2 could not but be original. The personality gave
it character and power.
And this is how Jesus accounts for His own teaching.
It comes out both directly and indirectly ; directly, in the
statements He has made with regard to it ; indirectly, in
the way in which He sought to make it tell on others.
Looking at these in turn, one is struck with the contrast
between Paul and His Master. Both speak to other men
in accents of command ; but with the one the message and
the authority alike are derived, with the other they are
primary and direct. Both speak by revelation ; but the
revelation to the one is from without, to the other from
within. Dr. Caird, the Master of Balliol, puts it in this
way, " It was no doubt the weakness of St. Paul, as con
trasted with his Master, that he needed to see the spiritual
law of life outwardly illustrated in a supernatural vision,
ere he could believe in it as a truth of inward experience."8
But remembering how Paul outstrips every other mental
1 Burns, p. 270.
2 Neutestamentliche Theologie, i. 121 ; cf. ibid. p. 341 f., and the very striking
quotations there on the originality of Jesus from Baldensperger, Harnack, and
Wellhausen. Professor Corson (Browning Studies, p. 57) has the striking saying,
" Were it not for this transmission of the quickening power of personality, the
New Testament would be to a great extent a dead letter." He is thinking of
its place in the lives of the followers of Jesus, but the truth is supremely applic
able to the part played by Jesus Himself.
3 Evolution op Religion, ii. 202,

to the Teaching of Christ 89
and spiritual genius, and yet stops short, leaving Jesus
towering above him, does not this contrast, so well stated,
amount to this : that Jesus Himself is what He claims to
be, " the Truth " ? What others acquire, He is. And that
is why we can never rest satisfied with any estimate of
Jesus that treats Him simply as a teacher. He is that,
because He is so much more, more than thinker, or even
seer, Ruskin's premier rank of master-minds.1 He is Him
self a Revelation. Look at His calm assumption of
superiority and power : " Verily, verily, I say unto you " ;
" Learn of Me " ; " The words that I speak unto you, they
are spirit and they are life." The explanation of this which
He offers is His filial relationship to God. He attributes
all His knowledge of God and power to reveal Him to the
fact, that He knew God as His own Father : " All things
are delivered unto Me of My Father . . . and no man
knoweth the Father save the Son, and He to whom the
Son will reveal Him." If there is anything beyond His
ken, it is because the Father has kept it in His own hand.
These short but significant references to the subject of the
source of His knowledge and power in the Synoptics prepare
us for the full explanation of the points in John. Three
times over, with more or less fulness, this subject was dis
cussed. First of all, it was with Nicodemus (chap. iii.).
There He asserts His capacity to teach heavenly things
on the ground of His heavenly origin and His constant
communion with heaven. And John's review of the situa
tion — or is it John the Baptist's? — at the close of the
chapter confirms this as the meaning which it carried to
His disciples, for it explains His ability to speak the word
of God by His unstinted endowment with the Spirit by
God the Father Himself. The second occasion was on
one day at the last Feast of Tabernacles, and the third
on the day following. First it was in reply to the question,
1 Moaern Painters, iii. pt. iv. chap. xvi. §§ 28, 29.

90 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
" How knoweth this man letters, having never learned ? "
The question reached His ears, and His answer was per
fectly straightforward and explicit : " My teaching is not
Mine, but His that sent Me" (vii. 15, 16). The next
day the same subject cropped up again, and what is then
said, is His justification for claiming to be the Light of the
World. His plea is, that His Father is His witness. The
Father sent Him, and what He speaks to the world is
what He heard from Him, what He was taught by Him,
and what He had seen with Him. It was all due to His
divine origin and training, due to the immediate response
of His heart to the inner testimony of the Spirit of God
there (viii. 1 2 ff.). No wonder men felt that this was a
new doctrine. No wonder they could not deny its power,
even when they resented its impression. The centurion
did not exaggerate the power of Christ's word, when he
said, " Speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed "
(Matt. viii. 8). He felt its authority, and could not believe
that anything in nature could resist its force.
Christ suggests the very same thing indirectly by the
way in which He presented His truth to men. In the
main, He did not argue. Neither did He seek to win
men by flights of rhetoric. He could indeed speak
with impassioned eloquence. Nothing can exceed the
genuine eloquence of the Parable of the Rich Man and
Lazarus, the Vision of Judgment, the denunciation of
Pharisaic hypocrisy, and the pathos of the closing appeal
to callous, unrelenting Jerusalem. He could argue with
resistless logic, when need was, parry question with ques
tion, use with telling effect the argumentum ad hominem,
or leave His opponent helplessly transfixed on the horns
of a hopeless dilemma. But that was not the method He
spontaneously adopted.1 He sowed the seeds of truth in
1 For an interesting note in this connection, see Dr. John Ker's Thoughts por
Heart ana Life, p. 212 ff.

to the Teaching of Christ 9 1
suggestive story and proverb. He presented it in its
native beauty, fresh from the hand of God, needing no
backing with quotation of great names. His appeals
were personal. He sought to convince His hearers, never
to compel them ; to make them feel the responsibility of
dealing with the truth, and the duty of testing all He said
by the one supreme test of honest experiment. " If any
man is willing to do God's will, he shall know of My
teaching, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of
Myself" (John vii. 17). His supreme anxiety was to reach
men's consciences. He knew how truth worked there.
He knew that men revealed themselves by their response
to the light, which, like a magnet, draws all scattered rays
to itself, and if anything is repelled, it is because of its
alien nature. When men refused His message, He knew
the secret was in their own wicked hearts. " Because I
tell you the truth, therefore ye believe Me not " (John viii.
45). He was never content with men whose faith rested
only on externals. Miracles were arresting. He knew
their value. They had an instructive, demonstrative force
which He fully appreciated. And in certain circumstances,
it was as natural for Him, possessing the power, to work a
miracle, as for any other man to speak a word of comfort,
offer a prayer, or give an alms. But for evidence, it was of
secondary value even for Him. He makes that plain, from
His words to Philip, '' Believe Me that I am in the Father,
and the Father in Me: or else believe Me for the very
works' sake" (John xiv. 11). What is all this but most
striking testimony to His own conviction as to the absolute
truth of all He was teaching? It had only to be stated
in order to prove itself. Let Him leave it in the world,
uttered by His lips, and it was bound to assert itself.
Nothing could quench it. It was spirit, life, life-giving.
III. This brings us to the question of the method
Jesus adopted to present this truth. Without attempting

92 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
to record all the features of Christ's method, there are three
which are of fundamental importance to our subject, and
which may be stated somewhat fully. They are these —
Repetition, Accommodation, and Progress.
i. Repetition. The repetition to which I refer is not
simply that perfectly obvious type of it, which is found in
the pairs of illustrative parables, like the Leaven and the
Mustard Seed, the Pearl of Great Price and the Treasure
hid in the Field. I refer to the type that is to be found in
great blocks, those presentations in similar terms of similar
truths and didactic events, given by different evangelists as
occurring at different times. These have been the despair
of harmonists and the happy hunting ground of critics.
It is the fashion to decry harmonists. It is the habit of
critics to regard all seeming repetition of similar events and
sayings as inventions, due not to wilful perversion, but to
mistake and ignorance. Where the harmonists have given
themselves away is in their excessive readiness to assent to
the improbability of repetitions. They thus are often
reduced to grotesque shifts to overcome discrepancies
between competing accounts of what they must regard as
one occurrence. How easy it is to exaggerate the improb
ability of repetition, say, of the delivery of large portions of
the Sermon on the Mount, or of the feeding of thousands
with a few loaves, has been very strikingly illustrated by a
parallel, to which attention has been called in this connec
tion, in the present day. In the recent Spanish-American
war, two Spanish fleets were destroyed by two American
fleets, the one at Santiago in the West Indies, the other, at
the other side of the world, in Manila Bay, in the Philip
pines, under these extraordinary conditions that, in the one
case, no life was lost on the American side, and in the
other, only one. Were that as ancient history as our New
Testament, we should be told that it was so improbable,
that one of these, if not both, must be a myth, a meaning-

to the Teaching of Christ 93
less repetition for the glory of the Americans. And yet it
is sober fact. And a careful study of the chronology and
spheres of activity of the life and teaching of Jesus suggests
that similarly repetition is to be looked for, exists, and is
the explanation of varying accounts.
The course of the life of Christ, as given in the four
Gospels, includes (1) public ministry in Judaea and Jeru
salem (John), (2) a similar ministry in Galilee, both west
and east of the Sea of Gennesaret (all the Synoptics), and
(3) still another, east and west of Jordan, south of the Sea
of Galilee (Luke) ; that is to say, three distinct spheres of
activity. That lies on the face of things. Examine more
closely, and this comes out. Each of these is worked by
Jesus on the plan of extended and repeated itinerancies,
partly travelling over again ground already broken, water
ing seed sown or gathering a harvest, and partly breaking
up new ground, just as Paul, His apostle, did in his
missionary journeys, taking his cue from his Master. If
this is so, what can be more probable in itself than that
we should find Jesus called upon, by the recurrence of the
great common ills of humanity, to repeat cures of blindness,
palsy, and leprosy? Who would be surprised to find two
very similar cases in a physician's diary ? Is it incredible
that, to new audiences, in new districts, He should repeat
the fundamental truths which He had come into the world
to declare, and that even in very similar terms ? The
improbability is that He should do anything else. Does a
teacher never repeat himself to a new class of students ?
Does a preacher never redeliver former discourses when in
a new charge, nor an evangelist, when he visits a fresh
district, give again a whole set of telling addresses on the
essentials of salvation, with just such slight variations as a
new centre of work demands ? And Jesus was an evan
gelist, come to tell the Good News. Is it to be said, then,
that there must be some mistake somewhere, when Luke

94 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
makes Him say in Peraea what Matthew tells us He has
already said in Galilee ? Is not the true explanation that
He said the same thing twice over, and probably many
another time, of which there is no separate record ? What
proves it is the case of the Sermon on the Mount.1 What
Matthew gives as a whole, delivered on a single occasion,
Luke reproduces in two sections. The one of these is a
summary of the whole, beginning where Matthew begins,
ending where he ends, and referred to the same period of
Galilean ministry as that in which Matthew locates it
(Luke vi. 20-49). The other embodies much that is
omitted from the earlier summary, and which Luke re
presents as now given in new combination and order, not
in Galilee, but in Judsea, in Jerusalem,2 and less as a pro-
1 The patchwork theory of the Sermon on the Mount has really nothing to
say for itself except inveterate prejudice against the possibility of the retention in
the memory of a discourse of such length. But there have been discourses of
ordinary men so vivid and arresting that they have lived for a lifetime in the
minds of some of their hearers. Is it impossible that a discourse like this from
Christ, that went to the shaping of Matthew's whole after-life, should have made
an indelible impression on his mind, or at least have lived there till it was
reduced to writing?
2 Attention to marks of place and time and to association of ideas makes it
evident that much of the teaching recorded in Luke ix. 51-xviii. 34 was
delivered in Jerusalem (Luke x. 38-xiii. 9) at the same time as what is recorded
in John ix. and x. Thus Luke x. 38-xiii. 9 apparently all belonged to a time
when Jesus was in the vicinity of the home of Martha and Mary, which was
Bethany (John xi. 1), a common habitat of Jesus when visiting Jerusalem.
At the close of the day's discussion given in Luke xiii. 1-6, the subject under
discussion is the connection between tragic events and the character of the
victims. The reply given then still left room for further inquiry as to the
relation between suffering and sin, and if John ix. describes the events of the
following day, we have the key to the inquiry as to the cause of the affliction of
the man blind from his birth narrated there. This man was sent to the Pool of
Siloam to complete his cure. What suggested that pool rather than, say,
Bethesda, at this juncture ? Jesus was anxious to call attention to this cure.
He wished it completed where many would witness it. Siloam, for the time,
enjoyed special notoriety owing to the accident recorded in Luke xiii. 1-6,
evidently recent and fresh in men's memories, and vastly increasing the throng
that ordinarily frequented it. How natural to send the man there ! But this
again brings John ix. and x. into close touch with Luke x. 38-xiii. 9, and the
inference is all the more justifiable as these are the only two occasions on which
this pool is mentioned.

to the Teaching of Christ 95
gramme to novices than as an encouragement to disciples.
For observe, as a single indication of this, the characteristic
novelty in this repetition within sight of His end and after
the prediction of His death, " Fear not, little flock ; for it
is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom "
(Luke xii. 22— 40).1
Another striking repetition is to be found in Christ's
disposal of those who attributed His miraculous powers to
Beelzebub. It was a piece of self-vindication, and it had
to be done twice. Very early in His ministry, as Mark
tells us, the Pharisees, with the formalist's suspicion of new
religious movements that have the appearance of earnest
ness, had sent a deputation to Galilee to watch His work
and give their verdict on it. On its return, it spread the
report that Jesus cast out demons, but it was by Beelzebub ;
and that when He was asked for a sign from heaven, He
had declined the test. Nothing was said of His effectual
exposure of the absurdity of this explanation of His cures,
or of the very trenchant reason He had given for refusing
to submit to their test (Mark iii. 22—30; cf. Matt. xii.
2 3—45). So their explanation gained currency in Jeru
salem. Every savant felt primed with a crushing exposure,
if Jesus ever dared show His face in Jerusalem again
and attempt a cure there. In process of time He did
come to Jerusalem, and cast out a dumb devil. Luke
mentions the cure in a sentence just to introduce the out
burst of Pharisaic spleen, for which it was the signal
(Luke xi. 14—36). The old canard is revived, " He casteth
out demons by Beelzebub, the Prince of the demons."
What is Christ's reply ? The old reply. He had used it
with shattering effect in Galilee, and with it had sent His
assailants, like jackals, packing from His track. And it
is not difficult to imagine the crestfallen look of His
detractors, especially those of them who may have been
1 Cf. Gore, Sermon on the Mount, p. 9 ff.

96 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
among the deputation to Galilee, when they see Him draw
and wield the old sword, repeat the old argument, which
before had compelled them to retreat amid the contempt of
the multitude. Jesus leaves them again transfixed, first,
on the one pale, and then on the other, of a double dilemma.
" If Satan is divided against himself, how shall his kingdom
stand ? ... If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do
your sons cast them out ? . . . But if I, by the finger of
God, cast out devils, then is the kingdom of God come
upon you." Then He goes on to the demand for a sign,
and as before, dragging to the light the spirit of the age
that demanded it, shows how unworthy it was of any
response, how incapable they were of understanding any
sign. Instances of repetition with slight variation could easily
be multiplied, such as the parable of the Pounds (Luke xix.
12-27) and the parable of the Talents (Matt. xxv. 14-30),
variations on each other, to teach different aspects of the
same truth ; 1 the parable of the Lost Sheep in Luke (xv.
3-7), and the parable of the Good Shepherd in John
(x. 1 1-1 5); the lament over Jerusalem in Matthew (xxiii.
37—39), and the similar lament at an earlier hour as given
in Luke (xix. 41-44). But it is not necessary. Enough
has been said to show that Christ saw the value, and
recognised the necessity of repeating and restating, in
similar terms, fundamental truths as to His Work and
Person. He taught men in His own time, as God taught
by Isaiah in stubborn Jerusalem, " line upon line, line upon
line, precept upon precept, precept upon precept, here a
little and there a little " (Isa. xxviii. 1 3).
And the apostles followed their Master. How the
earlier chapters of the Acts reiterate the facts, and their
significance, of the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus
Christ ! How Luke repeats there the story of Paul's con-
1 See Bruce's Parabolic Teaching op Christ, in loco.

to the Teaching of Christ 97
version ! And his repetition of it is due to the fact that he
has two speeches of Paul to report, and these show how
ready Paul himself was to repeat the story. A glance at
Paul's Epistles makes evident how constantly he came over
again to each new Church the familiar story of the saving
facts of Christ's life and death. The Galatians had Jesus
Christ, as it were, placarded l before their eyes, crucified (Gal.
iii. 1). 1 Cor. xv. 1—5 tells of the same things displayed to
the Corinthians. How he repeats the facts of the return of
Christ ! And Romans repeats the argument of Galatians,
for a different purpose, against the power of the law to
save, while Ephesians and Colossians give Christ the same
place, but only that in the one there may be deduced from
it the unity of the Church, and in the other the all-
sufficiency of Christ alone. John sits down to write a new
commandment, but it is just the old " love one another."
Paul, with an old man's confidentialness, tells his dear
Philippians why he dares thus to repeat himself: "To
write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous,
and for you it is safe " (iii. 2). And the Church of Christ
has been graciously guided to the same conclusion when
she has preserved four records of the Saviour's life, that tell
over and over again the same story of the life and death
and rising again of the Son of God. Repetition is of the
essence of New Testament method. " Every scribe, which is
instructed unto the kingdom of God, . . . bringeth forth out
of his treasure things new and old " (Matt. xiii. 5 2). But
the repetition is with that strain of variety, begotten of new
surroundings, which shows that neither Christ nor His
apostles were mere phrase-makers, or bound to a single
set of terms.
ii. This leads up to the second feature to be noted of
Christ's method of teaching, namely, Accommodation.
That Christ should have deliberately set Himself to
1 TJpoeypii(pTi.
7

98 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
accommodate the presentation of His teaching to the
mental capacity and the conditions of time, place, and
circumstance of His hearers, is only what was to be
expected in one who claimed that in Him the prophecy
of Isa. lxi. 1 was fulfilled. It was a definite principle
with Him. Indeed, it might be said to be the very
principle which lay at the root of the form of His reve
lation of "God. His incarnation was a divine provision
for presenting God to men in terms of their own human
nature ; in the terms, that is to say, in which alone they
could really know Him. Anthropomorphism, when the
true fj-opcprj of avOpairo';, namely, man's spiritual, and not
his physical, side is kept in view, is neither derogatory to
God, nor misleading as to His nature, but is a necessary
contributory to a conception of God, which will be intelligible
to men. Dr. William Robertson puts the principle quaintly
in his charming lecture on "German Student Life."1 "Ex
plain to me Hegelianism, Hermann." " You could not
understand it, Louisa." " Nay, say rather that you are
not able to explain it ; for it seems to me that what one
understands himself, he ought to be able to explain to
another." " Yes, to one who can also understand ; I
could not explain it, for instance, to a crow ! " " No, but
one crow could explain it to another crow, if he understood
it himself. They seem to understand each other's cawing,
when their college meets in the ploughed fields." And the
Incarnation of Christ was God's marvellous accommodation
of His revelation of Himself to the petty conditions of our
powers of comprehension. Christ embodies it. He became
Man, to'explain God to man. " The Word was God . . . and
the Word was made flesh," and then men understood it. It
does not surprise us, therefore, to find Christ taking pains to
get into touch with His audience, and to put things in the
way that will arrest their attention and gain their assent,
1 Martin Luther, German Student Life, Poetry, p. 129.

to the Teaching of Christ 99
Accommodation was a settled principle of His life. It
explained His conformity to many of the rites and customs
of the Jewish faith and of the religious world of the day,
His payment, for instance, of the Temple-tax, and His sub
mitting to John's baptism. It explains, just as effectively,
His setting aside of many conventionalities, and ignoring
of many contemporary prejudices and distinctions. It
explains His acceptance of current beliefs without criti
cism, which were not strictly accurate, but which could
not have been corrected without leading Him far from the
main purpose of His mission, and whose acceptance in no
way prejudiced its truth. It was this principle that made
Him practically limit His own mission to Israel, and, at
the same time, clearly contemplate, and prepare His dis
ciples for, the world mission of His good news. It is what
lies at the heart of His explanation to His disciples of His
substitution of parable for direct address. Direct address
had served its purpose. His audiences were prone to read
their worldly ideas into the terms He used, to cling to the
old notions they were wont to associate with the words, in
which He was perforce compelled to embody the grander
spiritual facts He had come to reveal. And yet Jesus had
not said all He wished to say. Some understood the inner
meaning of His teaching, and He must carry it farther still.
And to meet the situation He betook Himself to the
parable, fascinating in its form, carrying a meaning on its
sleeve, but clothing a living truth yet more significant for
those who could understand. This principle has something
to do with the gradual transition in point of prominence in
the teaching from " the kingdom " to " the Christ," from
" the kingdom of God " to " My kingdom." No stronger
corrective could be found for the mistaken views men were
cherishing of the character of the kingdom, than the laying
of emphasis on the fact, that He, the lowly poor man, was,
even as such, its proper representative on earth. Pilate

100 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
speedily understood that at least, when he interrogated
Jesus as to His kingship and kingdom. And the same
is true of other transitions. The same principle of accom
modation explains the differing treatment of a Nicodemus
and a Samaritan woman, or of the three candidates for
discipleship. It accounts for His marvellous accessibility
to the outcast classes, is impressively displayed in His
ability to conciliate and elevate them, while He is perfectly
outspoken in condemnation of their sins.
But perhaps the most striking illustration of it is in
the variety of His treatment of His most bitter opponents,
the Pharisees. Victims as they were, in so many cases,
of the fatal canker in their system of religion, — namely,
formalism, issuing in self-righteousness and hypocrisy, —
and quick as He was to denounce this most pernicious of
all vices, yet Jesus indulged in no indiscriminate condemna.-
tion, and only broke out in terms of severity when kindlier
methods failed. The contrast of two occasions, when He
was invited to dine at the house of a Pharisee, illustrates
this. The first occasion followed immediately on that
humiliating defeat He had inflicted on them in their
attempt to discredit His miraculous power and His right
to teach, to which we have just referred (Luke xi. 37-54).
At first sight it seems almost incredible that one of that
very class should at once have invited Him to lunch. Does
it not seem like a generous returning of good for evil or
overture for peace, indicative of a better spirit in them
than Jesus gave them credit for ? Is it not a little sur
prising to find Jesus accept the invitation, after the way
in which He had just spoken ? But no sooner is the house
reached than this impression is dissipated, and the true
spirit of the invitation is revealed. There was nothing gener
ous or hospitable about it. It was a device, partly to cut
short the scathing exposure, partly to surround Him with
hostile critics ; and scarcely has He entered the door when,

to the Teaching of Christ i o i
first by looks and then by words, this becomes evident, and
Jesus rises in indignation and leaves the house, apparently
without ever breaking bread in it. And the intensity of
His feeling is unmistakably shown in the terrible terms
in which He immediately resumes His warnings to the
people against the soul-destructive influence of Pharisaic
teaching. All He could utter in that Pharisee's house
were words of direct reproof of their hypocrisy and de
ception. After such an experience at their hands — and
it was not solitary — what are we to think when not long
after that, we find Him again at dinner in another Pharisee's
house? (Luke xiv. I— 24). There is a plot against Him
here too. But Jesus this time will not take offence. With
a kindly humour He disarms every element of opposition.
He heals the palsied man in front of Him, Sabbath day
though it was ; but He puts it to His fellow-guests that,
apart from the odium theologicum, there was not one of
them but would do as much, if they could, for a fellow-man,
and actually did it every Sabbath for his ox or for his ass.
How did He manage, without intrusiveness, and without
provoking resentment or retort, to give next a lesson in
humility to fellow-guests choosing the best seats for them
selves, or to advise His host as to the guests he should
invite ? By playful reference to His own experience, and
a happy allusion to their Scriptures (Prov. xxv. 27). For
who of that company but Jesus would of His own accord
take the lowest seat at that table? Who be asked by His
host to come up higher ? His reproof is an apology to the
man, whom at the host's bidding he had perforce to dis
place. What had His host done but invite the poor, when
he invited Him? His advice is a delicate compliment.
What but an ironic reproof to the pious cant of a retailer
of religious commonplaces, " Blessed are they that shall
eat bread in the kingdom of God," is His story of invita
tions declined ? The whole conversation is a masterpiece of

102 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
genial, conciliatory humour, by which Jesus, for the sake
of His host, in whom, Pharisee though he was, He had
discerned some good thing, disarmed the prejudices of
a table of guests, and succeeded in gaining a hearing for
some wholesome lessons to men, who usually would brook no
word from Him. It shows Jesus a past master in the art —
" Happily to steer
From grave to gay, from lively to severe,
Correct with spirit eloquent with ease,
Intent to reason, or polite to please." 1
This illustration of His capacity to throw Himself into
the spirit of the situation, and say just the right thing at
the right time, finds scores of parallels. Indeed, the words
of Jesus are never fully understood, unless read in their
setting. It is forgetfulness of this principle that allows a
writer like Tolstoy, to run into extreme positions as to the
teaching of Jesus on the ground of a single utterance, taken
out of its context, and unmodified by other statements on
the same subject. It is this that explains why the rule for
the rich young ruler, " Sell all that thou hast," is not to be
interpreted, with Francis of Assisi, as a law of universal
poverty. He had to give up riches, because riches was
the one thing that came between him and eternal life.
Nothing else save facing proverty with God alone to depend
on was a test of faith for him. But the ties of home or
the delights of study mean far more to another man, and
that is what he may have to sacrifice for Christ. Accom
modation explains the statement in each case. It was
part of Christ's method of teaching.
This was well understood by His apostles, and followed
by them. Paul puts it forward at length as being a ruling
principle with him. " Though I was free from all men, I
brought myself under bondage to all, that I might gain
the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I
1 Pope, Essay on Man, iv, 379.

to the Teaching of Christ 1 03
might gain Jews ; to them that are under the law, as
under the law, not being myself under the law, that I
might gain them that are under the law; to them that
are without law, as without law, not being without law to
God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that
are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I
might gain the weak. Lam become all things to all men,
that I may by all means save some" (1 Cor. ix. 19—22).
In the face of this elaborate statement, what excuse has
any writer for finding incompatible discrepancies between
the Paul of the Acts who circumcises Timothy, and the
Paul of Galatians who will not circumcise Titus ; the Paul
of the Acts who conforms to a Jewish vow at Cenchrese
and Jerusalem, and the Paul of the Epistles who through
the law is dead to the law ? The Epistles themselves
bristle with examples of Paul's suiting of his teaching to
the audience he addressed, and contain many a specimen
of how the rule acts in the application of great principles.
Again we may appeal to the four stories of the life of
Christ, as evidence of the sense of the early teachers that
they must so set the story as to make it intelligible to
various classes of readers. And what is the enigmatic
terminology of the Apocalypse adopted for, but just to veil
the meaning from unfriendly eyes, and convey it to those
who could quite understand ? The use of accommodation
by the Master and His followers shows how truly they
were possessed of common sense ; explains why they are
generally so intelligible to men of ordinary common sense,
who often cannot understand the difficulties discovered by
doctrinaire exponents and library students ; tells how well
they appreciated Christ's counsel, " Be ye wise as serpents,
and harmless as doves."
iii. There remains to notice the third and most im
portant principle of all, namely, Progressive Unfolding of
the Truth.

104 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
This method, of course, was so far inevitable. Christ
could not expect intelligent appreciation and acceptance
for the profoundest parts of His teaching, unless and until
He gradually prepared men for them, by carrying them
on by easy stages, commencing with what was simple,
obvious, and familiar. But more is meant than that, when
we speak of this method of Christ. There are points in
the teaching of Christ at which it undergoes far-reaching
transformations. Patient study of His life, comparing
Gospel with Gospel, enables us to reach a fairly accurate
idea of its course. Doubt may remain — though there is
but little — as to the duration of the public ministry, but
practically none as to the main sequence of events and
utterances. And when this is observed, it is seen that
in the earlier part of Christ's teaching the keyword is the
Kingdom of God. He speaks, first of all, of its impending
advent and its true character in perfectly plain terms.
Then comes a series of dissolving views in the parables of
the Kingdom, intended to suggest its pre-eminently spiritual
character, and dispel the materialistic view men were prone
to attribute to it. Then kingdom becomes a comparatively
rare term, except in private intercourse with His disciples,
or where He is breaking new ground, or as used with refer
ence to a kingdom in which He is the King and Judge.
In its place is found teaching about Himself. With an
elevated self-assertion which is begotten of the truest
modesty, Jesus, not so much in direct words as by acts
and manner, so presents Himself to the minds of His
disciples, that they are convinced that He is none other
than the Christ, and even outsiders are induced to ask,
" Can it be that the rulers indeed know that this is the
Christ?" (John vii. 26). When once His disciples have
realised that fact, He initiates them into the inevitable
issue of His career — the Crucifixion. That proves a lesson
beyond their capacity, not so much, however, because of

to the Teaching of Christ 105
its utter impossibility, as because He had to follow the
announcement with the prediction of His certain Resur
rection, the assertion of its value for the establishment of
His kingdom, and the dazzling prospect of the kingdom
coming in all its splendour with Him upon the throne as
King and Judge. The apocalyptic pictures crowd the
closing pages of Matthew's Gospel, just as the parables
do its middle, and the sermon on the kingdom its open
ing. There is general agreement about these main features
of the order of the teaching of Christ. It is most clearly
seen in the training of the Twelve, the private teaching ;
but its counterpart is also plain in the public ministry.
This progressive presentation is attributed in some
quarters, however, not to deliberate method, but to de
velopment in Christ's own thought as to His mission.
Only gradually, it is said, did He realise that He was to
be King of the kingdom He preached. Only in the
knowledge of deepening deadly hostility was He forced
to the conclusion that death must be His end, and only
then did He set Himself to weave it into the scheme of
His mission and see how it could be made to serve His
ends. His prediction of glory, on the other hand, was a
bold attempt to discount by anticipation the damaging
effect which He foresaw His death would otherwise pro
duce, and so to carry His disciples unshaken through the
shock of the crisis. There are many, to be sure, who
discern a development in Christ's own ideas, but at the
same time hold far too exalted views of His Person to
suspect Him of the knavery implied in the last sentence.
They regard our Saviour as indeed God's Son, come to
proclaim and accomplish salvation for man ; but they think
that He only gradually, after the commencement of His
public ministry, became aware of His own dignity, and
that then He was mainly guided by circumstances as to
the way in which His mission was to be accomplished and

106 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
completed. At the outset He had no definite plan. It
was an evolution in His own experience, and hence the
progressive element in the teaching.1
We are only concerned with this question here in so far
as the evidence of the course of the teaching bears upon it.
It is most probable — indeed, if Jesus as an infant and child
really grew in wisdom, as the Gospels say, it is inconceiv
able how it could have been otherwise — that during His
youth and early manhood Jesus did only gradually arrive
at the knowledge of His own Person and mission. But
was that completed, or still only in progress, when He
undertook His mission, and His ministry began? Was
it only at the Baptism He realised that He was Messiah ;
only after Caesarea Philippi He knew He must be cruci
fied ? There are several things to help us to learn Christ's
own mind upon the question. We are dependent, of course,
on our evangelists ; but when we look at their writings, we
do not get a hint of any uncertainty at so late a date.
They certainly show us the progress we have noted in His
teaching. But (a) they present Him to us as a master,
who knew from the first what He had to teach, its con
stituents, its sum, its beginning, middle, and end. They
are not supremely anxious about the order of presentation.
That is only made out by observant study of their records.
It seems to them a matter of comparatively small account.
They are anxious about the combined impression, the idea
as a whole, which Jesus made and left upon their minds.
(b) They record sayings, some of them very early, which
they did not understand at the time, about which, perhaps,
1 Dr. Horton ( The Teaching op Jesus, chap. "The Means of Salvation")
is a most reverent representative of the latter class. But here is a striking
admission, p. in : "Jesus never had to retract or even to modify what He
said. . . . What lie employed at the beginning as the means of salvation re
mains permanently valid, though if it had remained alone, it would have been
ineffectual." Surely this fact of itself implies a well-considered scheme of
teaching, and also bids us look for Christ's original view on any subject, not
in His initial statement of it, but in its complete form.

to the Teaching to Christ 107
they took up false impressions. And it is suggestive of
their honesty of heart, that they append notes to them of
their first misunderstandings and later intelligent grip. Is
it not simply to throw away a valuable key to Christ's
mind and thought when we refuse to accept these explana
tions, prefer as the true meaning the early mistake to the
later view in the light of the whole ? Is it not the very
intention of the notes to suggest, that much that was
perfectly understood by Christ Himself at the first was
only gradually explained to, and understood by, His dis
ciples ? (c) Luke's Gospel furnishes striking evidences of
this in another way. In the course of the teaching of the
first nine chapters, Jesus has gradually brought His dis
ciples to the recognition of Him as the Messiah, reached
a point with them far beyond the initial preaching of the
kingdom of God. But here begins Luke's section, peculiar
to himself, of the great journey to Jerusalem, largely through
lands where Jesus had not appeared before. And what does
Jesus teach here? In public He goes back to the earlier
Galilaean teaching, recommencing at the simpler kingdom
stage, and once more bringing His hearers, by degrees, to
Himself as King. But in private, with His disciples alone,
He proceeds without a break to the secret of the Cross.
Does not this bear out the view, that progressive statement
was a method selected because of the limited, but gradually
improving, capacity of hearers, and was not due to want
of knowledge at the outset on the part of the teacher?
It will not do to say, for instance, as one writer does,1
" Jesus had to discover . . . that a pitiless foe was in
possession of this world . . . whom He would have to
overcome in the stern grapple of death," and quote in
proof Mark iii. 27, Matt. xii. 29, and Luke xi. 29 (the
reference to overpowering the strong man before seizing
his goods), as if these all referred to one stage, and that at
1 Horton, The Teaching of Jesus, p. 116.

108 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
a date subsequent to the parable of the Sower, and as if
that parable marked a point prior to which Jesus regarded
Himself as little more than a teacher, and His words the
means of salvation apart from any personal operations of
His own. That is to forget that Mark iii. 27, Matt. xii. 29
refer to a period long prior to Luke xi. 29, and also prior
to the parable of the Sower itself. There is here one of
Christ's repetitions, and therefore the passages appealed to,
when viewed thus apart, discredit the idea of the advance
in Christ's own thought, which they are quoted to support.
id) But not only so ; take the great Sermon on the Mount
itself, which both Matthew and Luke place very early in the
teaching. What is it, on the one hand, but a sermon on the
text — an illustration of the way in which Jesus preached
on it — " The kingdom of God is at hand ; repent and believe
the Good News." On the other hand, you find there in
germ the great body of Christ's gradually unfolded message,
and that, too, progressively presented. It begins with the
blessings of the kingdom of heaven. It explains its
righteousness. But before the sermon has gone far, Jesus
is seen exercising an authority within it that is supreme.
If God is presented as the heavenly Father, and He as
their pattern, their confidence, and their reward, the sermon
does not close in either Matthew or Luke without the most
urgent appeal to the consciences of men in view of the day,
when they must appear before a judgment - seat, where
their eternal fate will be declared. But who sits to judge?
It is the Speaker Himself. " Many will say to Me in that
day, Lord, Lord . . . and then will I profess unto them,
I never knew you ; depart from Me, ye that work
iniquity." It is the anticipatory note for the judgment-
scene of the closing speech of the last great day of the
public teaching, that solemn summons of the world He
came to save, to appear before His bar ; but it is struck
at an early day of the ministry. A gradual unfolding

to the Teaching of Christ 109
there undoubtedly is ; but it is not due to a process which
took place in the mind of Christ after the commencement
of His ministry. It is only in the presentation of the
truth by Him, who knew it all from the first, to the
gradually opening minds of His disciples. It is a method
of teaching deliberately adopted, not a necessity imposed
by original limitation of view.
This method of their Master was well understood by
His followers, and pursued by them in their presentation of
the truth. Paul expressly says so, and so does the writer
of the Epistle to the Hebrews. In his First Epistle to the
Corinthians, after telling them (chap, ii.) of the wonderful
wealth of spiritual knowledge within the reach of the
spiritual man, Paul (chap, iii.) rallies the members of that
Church because of their lack of spiritual capacity. Because
of it he had been compelled to treat them as babes, feed
them with milk and not with meat, for they were not able
to follow him, if he sought to carry them farther into the
depth of divine truth in Christ. In Hebrews the same
complaint is met with (v. 1 1— vi. 3). Those, who by
reason of the time should have themselves been teachers,
still had need of someone to teach them the rudiments of
the first principles of the oracles of God. And with this
remonstrance the writer summons them to follow him in
an advance. " Let us cease to speak of the first principles
of Christ, and press on unto perfection (full growth) ; not
laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works
and of faith toward God, of the teaching of baptisms and
of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead
and of eternal judgment." Both of these explicit state
ments make it perfectly plain, that it was the habit of the
Christian teachers to start with a very simple presentation
of the truth, and carry their adherents forward to a fuller
and fuller understanding of its wealth and range. With
most of these teachers there is not material enough left for

i io The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
us to show from their writings or sayings the process
actually at work. But something of it has already been
indicated in what was said in the first chapter on the
significance of the order in which the books of the New
Testament appeared. And, indeed, it is scarcely necessary
to elaborate this point, as the real necessity for an inquiry,
such as is undertaken in this volume, into the relation of the
apostolic teaching to the teaching of Jesus is just to deter
mine, whether the advance of thought with regard to the
nature and essence of the Person and Work of Christ, which
is generally recognised in the apostolic teaching, is a legiti
mate development of the teaching laid down in germ and
outline by Jesus Himself. My contention is, that it is
legitimate. With orderly progress in the presentation of
His message on the part of Christ Himself, it is only
natural to find, that what He had begun should be carried
still further, if that were possible, by His qualified and
accredited followers. Indeed, as a guide to the vital points
on which it is right to invite and prosecute comparison, and
to the order in which they should be approached, I shall
follow what I have already indicated was the line of pro
gress within Christ's own teaching — Kingdom, Christ,
Cross, Throne. And one is the more readily induced to
do this, because along this line those subjects come first
on which there is most obvious agreement, and then those
upon which there is apparently more or less variation or
deviation from the original type.

CHAPTER IV
The Common Assumption
Christ's Mission — The Need for Incarnation apart from Redemption
a purely speculative Question — Sinners, not the Cosmos, Christ's
primary Object — Salvation the widest common Conception — Seen
in prevailing joyous Spirit — It is Gospel — Illustrated in Narratives
of Christ's Birth, in His own Manifesto at Nazareth, and in His
Apologies for His Methods — It is preserved in His Followers, Peter,
Paul, John.
Man's Need of Salvation — (i) Man, thought of as the Old Testament
thought — Paul's Analysis in i Cor. ii. 11-15 ethical — Constitution
of Man, personality, purpose, the perfect Specimen — Spiritual
Life supreme — Solidarity of the Race — Individual Responsibility —
Immortality — Likeness to God, Life's ideal Perfection ; to be attained
through Discipline — Value of this Life to God — (2) Sin — Old Testa
ment — Difference between Qualfications of Master and of School
for treating this Subject — Common Vocabulary — Both chiefly in
terested in cure of Sin — Regard Sin as a single Root of Evil in Man's
Heart — Nature of Sin, Disobedience to God's Will, Refusal to believe
in Christ — Combination of Factors — Origin of Sin — The Devil,
other Tempters, Lust of human Heart — Is Flesh inherently sin
ful? — Christ — Paul — Adam's Sin — Sin's Results — Irretrievable
Stage — Is Escape possible? — Is Christ's Teaching auto - soteric,
Paul's hetero-soteric ?
God — Christ is God-sent — Christ, the supreme Christian Argument for
God — Relation of Christian Conception to Jewish and Gentile —
What is new in it?— The Wrath of God — Is Christ at one with
Paul and John ? — Christ's Real Attitude — God is the Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ— Meaning of Phrase— What "Father"
implies on Christ's Lips — Figurative Element in Term — Equi
valent to Love, Grace — What fatherly Love is.
The intended Range of Salvation— Do James and Peter differ from Paul ?
—Do Acts and Galatians disagree ?— Does Paul differ from Jesus ?
—What Christ's Words imply— What they declare— Vagary of
Criticism— Is John at Issue with Christ and Paul ?— Conclusion.
It was the merit of the Reformation that it recalled Chris
tendom to the real object of the Mission of Christ. If its
111

1 1 2 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
view of that mission was still too individualistic, and modern
teachers strike a true note when they insist that Jesus
aimed at a redeemed community, yet that is only an
extension of the terms, and salvation by grace remains the
focal point of the various types of New Testament teaching.
In virtue of His appearance in the world, Jesus and His
apostles felt themselves entitled to proclaim Good News,
¦ the Good News, and the substance of the Good News was —
Salvation. This was expressed in a great variety of ways,
emphasising different aspects of the glorious result. In the
endeavour of exponents to do justice to the individuality of
each of the teachers there is a risk that the common centre
be forgotten. But, if this be done, it is to conduct the
chorus without striking the keynote, and to imperil the har
mony. At the very outset, therefore, it is imperative to
observe that amid diversity of presentation there is this
common assumption, that in Christ there has appeared a
Saviour. He came on a mission to save men, a mission
necessitated by the ravages of sin, undertaken at the
instance of God Himself, and intended to embrace all
mankind. There are, indeed, those who hold that the Incarnation
would have taken place, even if there had been no call
for a mission of redemption.1 But a question is raised
there which lies quite outside the range of the teaching of
Christ and His apostles, and within the domain of specula
tive theology, and therefore outside the range of our studies.
As far as Christ's own words and those of His apostles go,
His appearance in human flesh was due to the task He
had undertaken. And His accomplishment of it was the
substance of the Good News they had to proclaim.
It is true, too, that the work of Christ is also represented
1 For a recent able advocacy of this view and comparison along this line of
the Christological positions of Paul, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and John, see
Edwards' The God-Man, Lects. II. and III.

to the Teaching of Christ 1 1 3
by Paul as having a cosmic significance. And this is no late
growth, peculiar to Epistles like Colossians and Ephesians.
It is found in 1 Corinthians. And the key to all his thought
about it is in Romans. In chap. viii. of that Epistle we
get the proper point from which to understand the apostle's
mind. The temptation in the present day is to regard
this cosmic range as the sublimest aspect of Christ's work.
Since the helio-centric system of the planets displaced the
geo-centric, we have been more and more frequently reminded
that man must learn his own insignificance. He is a mere
speck on a tiny fragment of the universe. And it is absurd
to attribute to him the importance attached to him by the
Christian religion. In a scare at this verdict appeal has
sometimes been made, by apologists, to Paul's presentation
of the place and work of Christ, and the plea urged, that
there the saving work of Christ is regarded simply as an
adjunct of a far larger world-embracing function, which
Christ had to fulfil. Now Paul did regard Christ as the
active agent of the Deity in all His relations with created
things, and so did John. And it was as such that Paul
attributed to Him the work of rescuing man, if rescue there
was to be. But with that instinct of the Jew, which is true
to the native dignity of man as equipped with mind and
heart and will, which no helio-centric theory can affect, so
long as men retain their common sense and do not allow
themselves to be gulled into believing that bulk and density
count for more than intelligence and love, Paul, having laid
hold on Christ, keeps things in their true relation. His
system of the world is neither geo- nor helio-centric, but
Christo-centric, not material but spiritual. Starting from
this he sees all other results of Christ's work as subsidiary
to that which He effects for those made in His own image,
whom, as Hebrews tells us, " He is not ashamed to call
His brethren." And if the whole creation does benefit by
the work of Christ, it is still only as a sequel and corollary

1 14 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
to the benefit obtained by mankind. " The earnest expecta
tion of the creation waiteth for the revealing of the sons of
God" (Rom. viii. 19, cf. 20-24), just as "the new heavens
and the new earth " of the Apocalypse are for redeemed
humanity. And unless we note this, and the need which
it was intended by Christ and understood by His apostles
to meet, we shall be launched on the field of study without
taking account of the common postulates as to the nature
and need of man and the character of God, which are
essential to an understanding of the relation of separate
views. The legitimacy of this view of the widest common
conception of the New Testament rests not simply on an
appeal to language. It is supported by the spirit of the
whole. The terms in which the whole body of teachers,
Master and subordinates alike, prefer to speak of their
teaching, are those of joyfulness. It was no shallow
optimism that begat this spirit. It was accompanied by
appalling knowledge of the depths of human depravity.
But the issue was not despair. And neither the most
poignant anxiety over the perils of the unregenerate nor
youthful dismay at the prevalence of evil must be allowed
so to dominate the minds of the followers of Christ in later
days, as to make them lose the hopeful tone of Christ and
His first disciples, relapse to the stage of John the Baptist,
and take him for their model rather than Jesus. " He that
is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he." The
Christian message is Gospel, Good News, Glad Tidings.
Here, as in so many other cases,1 words were appropriated,
and virtually acquired a new meaning, from the day Christ
began to preach and to use them. EvayyeXiov had its
meaning changed to serve the purposes of Christianity,
and evayyeki^eaQat ( = to evangelise, to tell good news) was
restricted to the telling of the news brought by Christ and
1 Hastings, Dictionaiy of the Bible, art. "Glory,'' vol. ii. p. iS64.

to the Teaching of Christ 115
repeated by His apostles, as if there were in comparison no
other good news worth the name. This note of joyfulness,
this term Good News, of which the substance is variously
"the gospel of the kingdom of God" (Mark i. 14), "the
gospel of Jesus Christ" (Mark i. 1), " the gospel of the glory
of Christ " (2 Cor. iv. 4), " the gospel of the grace of God "
(Acts xx. 24), " the gospel of your salvation " (Eph. i. 1 3),
" the gospel of God " (Rom. xv. 1 6), " the gospel of peace "
(Eph. vi. 15), which is so characteristic of the message and
so cognate to the idea of salvation that " gospel " becomes
a sort of general term for the sum of Christian truth and
teaching, bears out what I say, that salvation is of its very
essence and inseparable from any true presentation of it.
It is as a message of salvation that the teaching of Christ
fits most widely into the needs of mankind, and justifies
that world-wide range which He contemplated, and His
followers sought to secure, for it. It is the point at
which it strikes deepest root into the prophecies of Israel,
reaches their profoundest truth, and explains their world-
embracing terms, which otherwise seem so pretentious
and vain, but with which Christ and His followers are so
anxious to associate themselves.
Why does Matthew tell us, for instance, that His
parents, by divine instruction, gave their child the name
hitherto common enough, but which henceforward became
sacred to Him alone, Jesus ? It is because of the meaning
which, in His case, it was to carry with it. "Thou shalt call
His name Jesus ; for He shall save His people from their
sins " (Matt. i. 2 1 ff ).x Why does Luke, again, give at
length the angelic announcement to the shepherds, and old
Simeon's soliloquy when he saw the child ? Because they
so accurately characterise the mission. " Behold, I bring
you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people :
1 'l-n<rods = "salvation" ; cf. Ecclus. xlvi. I ; Philo, Norn. Mutat. § 21, and
explanations there of the name Joshua.

1 1 6 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
for there is born to you this day, in the city of David, a
Saviour, who is Christ the Lord" (Luke ii. io, ii); and
Simeon, " Mine eyes have seen Thy salvation, which Thou
hast prepared before the face of all peoples ; a light for
revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people
Israel" (Luke ii. 30-32). To the mind of these evan
gelists, the mission of Jesus was evidently the fulfilment of
the hope, that had been generated by the promises of God
in the hearts of the most devout and spiritually-minded in
Israel. The passage with which Jesus Himself prefaced His
sermon at Nazareth, a sort of manifesto of His mission
quoted from old prophecy (Isa. lxi. 1 ff.), shows that this
was precisely His own view (Luke iv. 1 6 ff.). It is the
announcement of the advent of a great deliverance, in the
face of which the woes of humanity are put to flight ; and
this not only among the affluent and noble, but down to
the humblest ranks of society. The terms in which the
deliverance is described, the context of the passage from
which it is taken, the actual state of Israel in the time of
Christ, and His refusal to make the slightest move in the
direction of a political revolution, show plainly that the
deliverance which He was to effect was spiritual in its
kind. The later reply to John confirms this : " Go your
way, and tell John the things which ye do hear and see :
the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers
are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised
up, and the poor have good tidings preached to them "; and
Luke notes that at that time Jesus purposely cured many
afflicted with various diseases or possessed with evil spirits,
in order to provide John's disciples with samples of His
work then actually in progress (Matt. xi. 4-6 ; Luke vii.
2 1 ff.). This explains one purpose of the miracles. They
were signs. The diseases cured were recognised types of
spiritual evil. Deafness and blindness were the figures of

to the Teaching of Christ 117
fatal indifference to spiritual truth. Leprosy was the type
of sin. Demoniac possession pointed to the imperious
author of all human ill. And death was the tragic issue.
All these are routed by Jesus. The good news that it can
be done, is made known even to the poorest. They too
may share the blessings as freely as nobleman's child, or
centurion's servant, or daughter of a ruler of the syna
gogue. Rescue, rescue of men from ills in every form, its
proclamation by word and act, which alike inspire a great
confidence that no human ill can ultimately resist Him —
that is Christ's mission. For the cure of disease, He
delighted to use the Greek word aco^eiv, just because of its
double significance ; it hinted so much more. For Jesus,
Christianity was strictly what Erskine of Linlathen calls it,
" a divinely-revealed system of medical treatment for diseased
spirits." 1 How the sight of a multitude appealed to Him !
(Matt. ix. 36). How He discerned their inward unrest —
hunger of mind and soul, distraction through the conflict
within — and invited them to His side : " Come, . . . and I
will give you rest unto your souls " (Matt. xi. 28). " If any
man thirst, let him come unto Me, and drink ! " (John vii.
37). Or listen to His great apology for His methods in
Luke xv., or His claim to have the power to forgive sins
(Mark ii. 1 o). Or observe His wonderful treatment of the
woman taken in adultery (John viii. 1 ff.). Or hear the
explanation of His mission in the three great related
sayings : " I came not to call the righteous, but sinners
to repentance " (Mark ii. 17; Matt. ix. 13; Luke v. 32);
" The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which
was lost " (Luke xix. 10); " The Son of man came not to
be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a
ransom for many" (Matt. xx. 28). These three words go
deeper and deeper into the purpose of Christ's mission. It
began with a call. It passed into a search. It culminated
1 The Freeness ofthe Gospel, p. 4.

1 1 8 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
in a sacrifice of Himself to save the men of whom He
was in search, and whom, on reaching, He could save
in no other way. The advance from the search to the
sacrifice in these Synoptic utterances is like the advance
from Luke's parable of the shepherd, seeking the lost sheep
and rescuing it (Luke xv. 3-7), to the Good Shepherd of
John, who, to save His sheep, lays down His life for
them (John x. 11-15). And all these words together are
simply expansions of the single sentence in John, " God
sent not His Son into the world to judge the world, but
that the world should be saved through Him " (John iii. 17).
Christ presented His mission as a mission of salvation.
It is impossible to recall the words of the earliest
followers of Christ without at once recognising that,
however variously they may have stated other points, about
this they are agreed with one another and with their
Master. Recall a set of characteristic sayings. We meet
Peter early in his apostleship at three critical junctures.
He takes word in hand to explain to the multitude the
significance of Pentecost, and he does it by an appeal to
prophecy, which connects the gift of the Spirit with the
advent of salvation, and that he associates with Jesus of
Nazareth (Acts ii. 21, 22, 36, 38). Again, on his defence
before the Sanhedrin with John he boldly refused to be
browbeaten into silence. And why cannot he cease to
speak of Jesus ? " In none other is there salvation : for
neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given
among men, wherein we must be saved " (Acts iv. 1 2).
And once more, at the great conference at Jerusalem a
very serious issue was raised, vital to the existence of the
Christian Church. Jews, jealous of the law of Moses, were
insisting that Gentiles must conform to that. But Peter
insisted that the matter of supreme moment was not the
survival of the law of Moses, but the salvation of these
men. For that he urees — and Tames endorses it — thev

to the Teaching of Christ 1 1 9
only needed a living faith in Jesus Christ. But is there
not a turn as effective as it is humble, in the way Peter
puts it, almost making the Gentile type the pattern and
the Jew only his follower ? " We believe that we shall be
saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as
they" (Acts xv. 11). These words, spoken each at a critical
juncture, are weighty, and reveal his mind. And when
you take them along with the whole tenor of his Epistle,
which, like that of James, is full of anxious solicitude for
the steadfastness of those who have declared their attach
ment to Christ, lest they imperil their welfare, we feel at
once how germane to his thought of Christ is the idea of
salvation. A similar resume of words of Paul shows the same
thought predominant in his mind. In the Epistles of his
closing days, the Pastoral Epistles, the favourite epithet
by which he describes alike the invisible God and Jesus, in
whom the grace of God is made manifest, and whom He
also calls God, is our Saviour. Of the five declarations
which there He stamps with the seal, " This is a faithful
saying," four but vary on the theme of one of them,
" worthy of all acceptation," " Jesus Christ came into the
world to save sinners, of whom I am chief" (1 Tim. i. 15).
His own experience of Christ was supremely that of a
Saviour. Long before, when another man appealed to
him, amid all the distraction of nervous excitement, risk
of dismissal, temptation to suicide, spiritual concern,
" What must I do to be saved ? " his prompt reply was,
" Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be
saved" (Acts xvi. 30, 31). And when he sits down
deliberately to introduce himself by letter to the Church at
Rome, in the very forefront of his Epistle he puts this
statement, " I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ ; for
it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that
believeth" (Rom. i. 16).

1 20 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
In John's writings the hymns of the Apocalypse
simply throb with the theme, Salvation. The " Hosannas "
( = " Save now, we beseech Thee ") of the triumphal entry
have turned from prayer to praise, thanks for salvation
accomplished. And there is something significant in the
way in which in his Gospel he records the striking saying
of Caiaphas. It stuck in his memory. Twice over he
repeats it. " Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that
it is expedient for us that one man should die for the
people, and that the whole nation perish not." Like the
derisive sneer of the priests, " He saved others, Himself
He cannot save," it was so cynically meant, but so pro
foundly true. Caiaphas said so much more than he knew.
"This he said not of himself; but being high priest that
year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation,
and not for the nation only, but that He might also gather
together into one the children of God that are scattered
abroad." It was the underlying truth of the words of
Christ's unscrupulous judge as to the very meaning of
Christ's mission, that fixed the words so indelibly in
John's mind. Sixty years after their utterance, they are
as fresh as the day they were said. John could not
forget them. Jesus was such a Saviour (John xi. 49—52;
cf. xviii. 14).
These passages from outstanding leaders give explicit
utterance to what was commonly believed as to the nature
and purpose of the mission of Christ. But what is con
clusive is the position they accorded Him. They were
never content to repeat His doctrine. They were supremely
anxious to tell about Him. And the very silence of the
Epistles on single points, as we have seen, is due to anxiety
ever to bring Christ before men in the supreme crisis,
dying on the Cross and raised to God's right hand. What
is to account for this solicitude always so to present Christ
as to produce the most vivid impression and awaken the

to the Teaching of Christ 1 2 1
deepest conviction ? What is to account for their anxiety,
no matter at what cost of hardship or toil, to bring the
news of Jesus the Crucified within reach of all mankind ?
What, but the conviction that thereby Jesus was fitted to
meet the most pressing need of men, and that, in their
view, was deliverance from sin — salvation.
Granted then that Jesus came to the world on a mission
of salvation, it is necessary to inquire next as to the need
for such a mission. What is there in the nature or condi
tion of men that calls for it ?
A. On the nature and constitution of man the New
Testament throughout is substantially in agreement with
the teaching of the Old Testament and of the Rabbinical
Schools.1 It would be quite a mistake, however, to look
in any one of these sets of teaching for an elaborate anthro
pology. The whole of the definite statements are essentially
popular in form, and make no pretence to scientific pre
cision. All through they are dealing with man as he
recognises himself without the aid of biological or meta
physical research. There is, indeed, ample evidence that
in the course of centuries man came to understand better
the significance of his own nature. There is evidence of an
advance from a more or less national consciousness to the
recognition of individual responsibility, and in Christ's
teaching that is confirmed and completed by the enforce
ment of the concomitant social obligations. There is
marked progress in the hope of immortality, which grows
in distinctness down the course of Old Testament times,
and is carried even farther in the Rabbinical Schools. And
this, too, is consummated by Christ. Expressly dissociating
Himself from the Sadducees and their denial of a resur
rection, and taking His stand with the Pharisees, the party
which on many other matters He has so much reason to
1 See Dillmann, Alttest. Theologie, §§ 39, 40 ; Weber, Altsyn. Pal. Theologie,
§§ 46, 47.

122

The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching

reprove, He " brought life and immortality to light through
the gospel."The nearest approach to a piece of psychological
analysis is i Cor. ii. 11-15, iii. 3. where Paul distinguishes
between the carnal, the natural or psychical, and the
spiritual man. But, on reflection, it is evident that the
terms used really describe different types of men by the
habitual bent of their nature, according as one side of it or
another is allowed to assert itself and dominate the rest.
The carnal man is simply the man who allows his own
personal predilections to predominate, and the mention of
jealousy and strife, as features of this fleshly type, are
significant as to the real meaning of adp'g to the apostle's
mind. The natural or psychical man is the man who uses
his higher faculties, but looks no farther than the earthly,
who leaves God out of account in his reckoning of the
world. The spiritual man is the man who includes God in
his thought of the universe, and reaches out towards Him
as the controlling factor in it. It does not point, therefore,
to a trichotomy, does not take us beyond the single, well-
recognised distinction of body and soul. It is an ethical
classification, intended to bring out, not the various elements
in man's nature, but the character of man according to the
factor which he allows to control his conduct and mould
his character. The common conception of man was the popular one,
of a being possessing, to begin with, a body of flesh, awfia,
practically equivalent to our organism, and <rap%, the
material of which it is composed. He has powers of
movement, generally accompanied and influenced by feel
ings, which again can also be produced in other ways ;
and thoughts interpret them. There is, too, power of
control and selection in action, with the knowledge of
right and wrong, and the sense of responsibility for the
selection made and the control exercised. There is the

to the Teaching of Christ 123
knowledge of other bodies, recognised as similarly equipped,
which all are interdependent, but of which each recognises
its own individuality, its Self. But when Self is said, we
have reached the independent element, which lies at the
core of every human bodily existence, which we call per
sonal, the I or Ego, with its faculties for intercourse with
the world around, with others of its own kind, and with
the God above, and which differentiates its possessors from
other animate beings, and constitutes them man. It follows
then that soul is not something a man has, a piece of
property like a hat or coat or a bank-book, nor one member
among several, like lungs or legs or liver. It is not an
impalpable something lurking in some out-of-the-way corner
of heart or brain, as slippery as mercury, and as difficult
to grip. The soul is the radical part of the man, his true
self, the basis of his true life. The design of human life is
the service of, and fellowship with, God, and in these it
attains its perfection, and will last for ever. That is the
New Testament view of man as he ought to be, and so
equipped as to be what he ought to be.
If proof were asked, the most probable answer would
be a finger pointing to Jesus of Nazareth ; and He would
have admitted the validity of the argument. All would
have approved Pilate's evptj/ca and invitation, Ecce homo !
iSe 0 avdpwiros, " behold the Man ! " (John xix. 4, 5). All
would have endorsed Paul's phraseology, " a perfect man,
the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ " (Eph.
iv. 1 3). Whatever more these words imply, — and they
do involve much more, — they certainly suggest that the
perfection of humanity was once attained, and that was
in Christ. As a claim on Christ's own part we must con
sider this further, when we study the teaching as to His
Person. But one thing we may accept just now, and that
is, that for Jesus and for His disciples, His life was the
embodiment of human perfection.

1 24 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
When we recall the whole circumstances of that life,
its extraordinary lowliness, simplicity, and unobtrusiveness,
in such marked contrast with the careers which fired the
ambitions and won the laurels of the ancient world, and
which do the same still, we are forced to notice that with
Jesus and His followers the matter of supreme importance
is the soul, and the proper development of its spiritual
capacities. Not that He or they were ascetics, treating
the flesh as if it were essentially the seat of sin. " The
Son of man came eating and drinking" (Matt. xi. 19).
And if Paul calls for abstinence, it is to be in a spirit of
self-denial, not for its own sake but for the sake of others
(Rom. xiv. 1 3 ff.). Mere outward conditions are of little
importance. The poor are as dear to Christ as the rich
(1 Cor. vii. 18 ff.). Paul can only admire the divine impar
tiality, upsetting pride of intellect or birth (1 Cor. i. 26 ff.).
James repels indignantly the respect of persons — so unlike
God — which he sees springing up in the communities
to which he writes (Jas. ii. 1). The soul, the spiritual
nature of man, is supreme. It is capable of knowing God,
and of entering into fellowship with Him, and so a chorus
arises from Christ and His apostles, in which these are the
themes : " Is not the life more than meat, and the body than
raiment ? " " Seek first the kingdom of God and His right
eousness " ; " God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him
must worship in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh
such to worship Him " ; " The kingdom of God is not meat
and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy
Ghost " ; " Go, sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor,
and come, follow Me, and thou shalt have treasure in
heaven " ; " Bodily exercise profiteth a little, godliness is
profitable unto all things " ; " Thou hast much goods laid
up for many years ! Thou fool ! this night thy soul shall be
required of thee, and then whose shall these things be?"
" What shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world

to the Teaching of Christ 125
and lose his own soul, or what will a man give in exchange
for his soul ? " Everywhere and always it is the supremacy
of the soul and its interests that Christ and His disciples
inculcate. His treatment of the moral law in the Sermon
on the Mount is all regulated by this principle, and it
guides Paul, when he tears mere ritualism to tatters in the
Epistle to the Colossians. The spiritual life is the supreme
concern. Having laid this strong foundation, Christ emphasised
also the intimate relation of all human lives. His favourite
phrase, " the Kingdom of God," in so far as it suggests the
subjects of which it is made up, implies this. So does His
own life, lived out, not in seclusion but in a family, under
the discipline and drudgery of a trade to supply common
human needs, and amid throngs of men. So, too, does
the law which He illustrates in the parable of the Good
Samaritan, and by which He would have all men regulate
their conduct to their fellows, " love your neighbour as
yourself." But probe deeper still, and you find that this
is due to His intense perception of what we now call the
solidarity of the race. You meet this in its most fully
developed expression in many passages in Paul. It is all
there in a phrase like, " we are members one of another "
(Eph. iv. 25). It is the basal thought of all those figures in
which he describes the community of believers as a vital
organism. It is the principle underlying the argument
in Rom. v. 1 2-2 1 . It was evidently vaguely present to the
mind of the author of Hebrews, when he speaks of Levi
paying tithes in Abraham (vii. 9, 10). It underlies Paul's
sense of personal debt to the Greek and the barbarian
as well as to the Jew, and his conviction of the unity of
the human race. But he owed the thought to Christ, his
Master. It was suggested in His figure of the vine and
the branches (John xv. 1 ff.). It explains His parables of
the kingdom, the leaven and the mustard seed (Matt. xiii.

126 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
31-33). It is the clue to His so frequent treatment of the
men of His nation as a composite whole, a " generation "
exercising common influences upon one another, and de
veloping a particular character, in which they show the
continuity of type from father to son, and so incur a
national responsibility and judgment (Matt, xxiii. 34-36).
But this solidarity is not emphasised at the expense
of the idea of individual accountability and moral responsi
bility. If the one is enforced, so is the other. Race
privileges are, by Christ and His apostles alike, ruthlessly
set aside, if anyone seeks to make capital out of them so as
to condone the neglect of personal obligations. Just as
little will Christ listen to a suggestion, that the proverb
censured by Ezekiel is legitimate in His day, " The fathers
have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on
edge " (Ezek. xviii. 1, 2 ; cf. John ix. 3). And the individual
must bear the brunt of judgment for the way he has
managed his own life. But this is so obvious that there
is no need to do more than mention it.
Christ also, as I have said, spoke out with unequivocal
distinctness the immortality of the soul, or rather, the per
sistence of the life of man. The latter phrase is preferable,
because it is questionable if either Jesus or His apostles
ever did think of the existence of a human soul apart from
a body. Paul's argument, both in 1 Cor. xv. and 2 Cor.
iv. and v., seems to imply very distinctly that the soul, to
his mind, was always associated with a body of some kind,
the kind being determined by the condition, natural or
spiritual, earthly or heavenly, under which the soul was
existent at the time. The terms of the parable of the
Rich Man and Lazarus suggest the same thing. And the
conditions of the resurrection body of the Lord seem also
to involve it. The conviction grows stronger, when we
remember that to Christ's mind man, as he ought to be,
is not naturally subject to death. Death is an intrusion

to tlie Teaching oj Christ 127
and penalty, as we know it. Man really is immortal.
His life is eternal. Death is an anomaly, an enemy, with
no place of inherent right in his constitution.
Equally important is the prominence Christ gives to
the grand ideal of human life, namely, likeness to God, our
Father in heaven. This likeness consists in the attainment
of a perfectly holy life, which is the reproduction in us of the
benign character of God Himself, and which is at once the
condition and result of perfect fellowship with Him. It is
therefore the harmonious fulfilment of all moral and religious
obligations, and both alike as duties to God. Passage
after passage must occur to the reader from every New
Testament writer to bear this out. And it is exemplified
to the full in the case of Jesus Himself. But what is of
great moment, though not quite so obvious, both from the
experience of Jesus and the testimony of His apostles, the
perfection of the ideal is to be attained through a process
of training and the successful endurance of testing (Matt.
x. 22; John xv. 2, xvi. 33; I Pet. iii. 13-16; Jas. i. 1 2 ;
Heb. xiii. 3 ff.). That is the meaning of Christ's own
temptation, for the facts of which He alone can have been
the authority ; of the transfiguration, when perfection in
action was complete and its legitimate reward made plain ;
and of the agony in the Garden and the sufferings on the
tree, where, as the Epistle to the Hebrews expresses it,
'' He was made perfect through suffering " (Heb. ii. 1 o).
What was seen in the experience of Christ is said of other
men. In the first chapter of his Epistle, James treats trial
as no hardship but a blessed privilege, that goes to the
making of men and the fitting of them for all that God
intended with them and is willing to bestow. Such, too, is
the meaning of all Paul's glorying in tribulation (Rom. v.
3 ff.) and Peter's call to patience under it (1 Pet. ii. 20),
while John sees men already sons of God, moving along
a pathway of self-purification under the stimulus of hope

128 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
of perfect likeness to Christ, when He appears (i John
iii. 1-4). With such views as to man's nature, giving prominence
to these elements in his constitution, regarding him as
fitted for communion with God, and as capable, by the
proper use of his powers, of affording God the noblest
service which it is possible for Him to obtain and which
He desires, namely, the voluntary devotion of the whole
being to the accomplishment of His will, it is only what was
to be expected that Jesus should insist on the infinite value
which God attaches to man. " Is not the life more than
meat, and the body than raiment ? Behold the fowls of the
air : for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into
barns ; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye
not much better than they? . . . Consider the lilies of the
field, how they grow ; they toil not, neither do they spin :
and yet I say unto you, That Solomon, in all his glory, was
not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe
the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast
into the oven, shall He not much more clothe you, O ye
of little faith?" (Matt. vi. 25-30). Listen to that beauti
ful lyric, hear it from Christ's lips, and look at it in the
light of His presence in our world, and His work while
here; and, if we are not prepared to say with Mr. A. J.
Balfour, " If men need to have brought home to them that,
in the sight of God, the stability of the heavens is of less
importance than the moral growth of a human spirit, I
know not how this end could be more completely attained
than by the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation," l it is
only because still more forcible seems the proof offered in
the sequel to the Incarnation, for which indeed, as far as we
are told, that paved the way, namely, the saving death on
the Cross. That is Christ's answer to His own question,
What will a man give in exchange for his soul ? (Matt. xvi.
1 Founaations of Belief , p. 347 f.

to the Teaching of Christ 129
26). God gave His own Son to death for us all. His
mission, as undertaken and carried on by Himself, and as
understood and explained by all His exponents, declares
emphatically the priceless value of the human soul.
Such is man's nature, then, as Christ conceived it.
These are the elements of supreme importance, and which
give him his value in the sight of God. And man using
all these powers, as Jesus did, for the glory of God, is man
as he can be, man as he ought to be, man fulfilling the
design which God always had in view< — " whom He . .
foreordained to be conformed to the image of His Son "
(Rom. viii. 29), — man able to enjoy fellowship with God, to
provide the worshippers for whom the Father seeks (John
iv. 22—24). In other words, though it is only true of one
of the race, that is man righteous ( = man as he ought to
be), " the Just One," as Christ is repeatedly and significantly
called (Acts iii. 14, xxii. 14; 1 John ii. 1).
B. But man as he ought to be and man as he is are
two very different creatures. Neither Jesus among the
people of Palestine, nor the apostles among the wider
circle of nations to whom they went, ever met with a
single individual who at all corresponded, or even imagined
that he corresponded, with God's ideal, as they presented it
in its recognised perfection. Everywhere there was the
most painful contrast. Human nature was a total wreck.
Disease had invaded the bodily frame. The mental powers
were distorted. And these defects were the counterpart
of the moral and spiritual collapse. The social organism
was as disastrously affected as the individual. Conflict,
not harmony, was the prevailing condition between man
and man. Mankind was unfit, and had no appetite, for
fellowship with a holy God. The true ideal of manhood did
not exist even in idea. Christ describes the state in which
He found men by the figure of a lost sheep, a lost coin, a
lost child. He is a physician come to those who are sick.
9

130 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
They are blind leading the blind. The lost child is as one
dead. And "slaves," "perishing," "lost," "dead," are
common terms to describe the state which they have
reached. As for the cause of it, that is sin.1 And to
understand Christ's mission, it is imperative to know what
Christ Himself thought, and what He taught others to
think, of this dark fact which necessitated it, the fact
of sin. In treating of sin, Christ and the apostles revert to
the fundamental positions of the Old Testament. They
re-emphasise the points to which an Isaiah, a Jeremiah, and
an Ezekiel had to recall or to direct the thoughts of their
fellow - Israelites, setting aside mere ritual and external
righteousness as worthless while heart - faithfulness there
was none, and sending home to each individual the solemn
fact of his own responsibility. There are points, however,
which it is important to notice in their several views of the
nature, the origin, and the effects of sin.
To begin with, these preliminaries should be noted.
(a) The treatment of the subject of sin involves one not
able distinction between the Master and His School, and
that is, the point from which they approach it. To Christ,
it was a matter which He knew only from without by
observation. He had no personal experience of it. He
knew no sin. The apostles, on the other hand, were
themselves sinful men, men who knew what sin was by
the sad lessons learnt through committing it. They had
been sinners. But they were also saved sinners, whose
vision of sin had been purified and intensified by their
contact with Christ. And for the flash of God's resent
ment, which kindles in the eye of Christ, as He sees sin's
1 Cf. E. B. Browning, Aurora Leigh, p. 32 —
" Man
Is born in ignorance of his element,
And feels out blind at first, disorganised
By sin i' the blood."

to the Teaching of Christ i 3 1
basest manifestations, you have with the apostles the
poignant agony of a sinner's regret, that he had ever so
contemned divine wisdom and love.
(b) A second noteworthy point is, the vocabulary used
in the School of Christ to describe sin. The apostles use
few words to describe it that are not in use by Christ
Himself. 'Afiaprla (sin, in the generic sense), aSt/cia (sin,
in the face of the truth), dvo/aia (lawlessness), trapdinwfia
(violation of right, involving guilt), aicdvhaXov (sin, as it
becomes a snare to others) — all these are terms used by
Christ ; and any other terms used by the apostles are
practically synonymous with one or other of them. What
they all involve, as used by Christ and His followers, is a
reference beyond the legal and the ethical. They point out
to God. (p) A third point of importance in getting at their view
of the nature of sin is, that Jesus and His disciples are far
more interested in the cure than in the disease. Their
moral and spiritual pathology has in it nothing of the
morbidity of a modern novelist, who drags the depths of
the human cesspool, and boasts of his loyalty to truth alone,
as he exposes hideous details, but seemingly with no higher
aim than this vile delineation. Paul takes us into the sink
of Roman degeneracy. Jesus lays open the whited sepulchre
of Pharisaic hypocrisy. But what is their intent? It is
avowedly to show the need and the might of the salvation
they declare. Sin is not their subject, but sin's cure.
(d) Hence also it is characteristic of them, and shows
their strong ethical bent, that they are more concerned
with sinners than with sin, and speak more frequently of
sin in the concrete than of sin in the abstract. But yet,
while recognising degrees of wickedness, they regard all
gradations of it as various expressions of one radical evil.
They are symptoms of one disease which affects one man
in one way, another in another. But the cure is a panacea.

1 3 2 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
There is not a separate specific for each set of symptoms.
Hence we say the disease is one — sin. Any apparent variety
in the method of treatment is due to the variety of patients.
All are afflicted with the same soul-trouble, but their various
dispositions and temperaments have to be kept in view in
applying the cure. They are each and all sinners. The
figure of a disease, so commonly used in speaking of sin,
occurs all the more naturally, because it seems like a
malignant bacillus chronically present in greater or less
activity in the constitution of man. At other times, it is
so vividly personified as to appear almost as a second
personality struggling against the true self for the mastery
of the man (Rom. vii. 7 ff.). But this is no more to be
taken literally than the language of Tennyson's Two Voices,
or of Clough's Dipsychos, or of Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and
Mr. Hyde. It only brings into strong relief the fact that
sin has its seat in the very core of man's being, commences
in a state of divided affections, and issues in a fatal, vicious
choice.1 This tracing of sin to its seat in the very heart of man
at once disposes of the idea, common enough in Christ's
time and since, and which He and His apostles, among Jew
and Gentile alike, had to explode, that sin is a mere matter
of neglect of ritual (Matt. xv. 11-20), or of deviation in
outward act from a prescribed rule of conduct (Matt. v.
19-48). " He that offendeth in one point," says James, " is
guilty of all" (ii. 10). His one act shows the state of his
heart, and who is master there : " And ye cannot serve God
and mammon " (Matt. vi. 24 — where mammon stands for
all that competes with God for the heart's allegiance).
The reason why that cannot be is twofold : men cannot do
it ; and God will not have it. Christ asserts the first
(Matt. vi. 24) without fear of contradiction. Paul endorses
1 For a wonderfully vivid statement on the subject of sin, see Amiel's Journal,
new edition, 1S89, p. 164.

to the Teaching of Christ 1 3 3
it out of his own bitter experience (Rom. vii. 7 ff.). James
states how intolerable it is to God (Jas. i. 6, 7). And
Christ the Master and Paul His servant tell us why : " His
servants ye are to whom ye obey" (John viii. 34 ; Rom. vi.
16-20). Sin, then, for one thing, is disobedience to God's
will, and that as a state of the heart, of which the individual
acts of sin are only the outward expression.
But there is another way of stating the nature of sin
observable in Christ's teaching, especially as recorded in
John, and more prominently still in the teaching of the
apostles, and that is, that it consists in unbelief, and
especially refusal to believe in Jesus as the Christ. This
view is brought into line with the other by the saying of
Christ : " This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him
whom He hath sent" (John vi. 29). After that, it is no
surprise to hear Christ say of the coming of the Spirit : " He
shall convict the world of sin, because they believe not on
Me " (John xvi. 8). But this marks the change that has
passed over the form of Christ's statements as to the nature
of sin. In the Sermon on the Mount it appears as an
tagonism to God and want of trust in Him. Later, His
constant reproach, and the matter on which He makes
man's fate depend, is lack of faith in Himself as the Sent of
God. This becomes the touchstone by which is brought
to light the true state of men's hearts toward God. And
His apostles, when once they have preached Christ to men,
find the root-evil in man in rejection of their message about
Him. Sin is Antichrist. The reason of the change is not
far to seek. It is not, as I have just shown from Christ's
own words, due to a different idea as to the essence of sin.
It is in harmony with the deeper view of sin as a state of
man's inmost being, and of faith as essentially the proper
attitude of mankind toward God. And that Christ Himself
should become the critical object of sin's antagonism was
only what was to be expected as His claims were revealed,

134 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
understood, and acknowledged. It is due to a new under
standing of the dignity of the person sinned against in
Jesus. In Him sin really reaches its invariable, ultimate
object — God. Sin, therefore, is an ellipse of antagonism to
God revealed in Christ, of which the poles are distrust and
disobedience to His will.
What is sin's natural history ? What is its origin ?
According to Dr. Watson, this is a question on which, if the
School of Christ has expressed any opinion, it has done so
without guidance from the Master. In one of many pas
sages in the Mind of the Master, in which he has sacrificed
accuracy for epigram, he tells us " that the conventional
history of sin has three chapters — Origin, Nature, Treatment.
It is characteristic of Jesus that He has only two; He
omits genesis and proceeds to diagnosis." 1 Does He omit
" Genesis " ? His whole attitude towards the Old Testa
ment suggests that He does not. And He certainly
traced the antagonism of some of His opponents to a very
definite origin : " Ye are of your father the devil " (John
viii. 44). But the truth is, that both Christ and His
apostles are chiefly concerned with the origin of sin in the
individual, not in the race. They see men lost in the
crowd, lost through neglecting the best side of their nature,
gaining the world and losing their own souls, — lost by
selfishly seeking to save themselves to the neglect of their
fellow-men. But to what do they attribute these fatal
results ? What is their origin ? Three separate answers
come from three apostles. James gives the natural history
of sin. " Lust, when it hath conceived, bringeth forth sin ;
and sin, when it is full-grown, bringeth forth death " (Jas.
i. 15). Sin, that is to say, is the daughter of lust, and the
mother of death. Its origin lies within the man himself.
Paul says, " Through one man sin entered into the world,
and death through sin" (Rom. v. 12). He traces sin to
1 Mind of the Master, p. 91 f.

to the Teaching of Christ 1 3 5
Adam. John goes a step farther back still and says, " He
that doeth sin is of the devil" (1 John iii. 8). Does this
variety mean fundamental difference of view ? Or is there
a common point, where they all converge ? The truth is
that each one in his own way is stating a common fact, and
offering an explanation of it. The fact is the fact of
temptation and of man's collapse before it. The explana
tion they find in either a malignant foe or a vitiated
human nature.
(a) The true secret of man's sin, to the minds of Christ
and His apostles, lies in the unfortunate issue of the opera
tion of one of the conditions of the attainment of human
perfection. We saw that Christ and His apostles regarded
man as destined to realise his ideal through the discipline
of trial. But trial has been taken advantage of by hostile
forces without man in order to find a favourable point of
assault upon him. These hostile forces are found concen
trated where John finds them, in the devil. The tempta
tion of our Lord shows Christ's view of the matter. His
other references to a personal spirit of evil are far too
numerous and explicit to be resolved into accommodations
to popular forms of thought or into figurative expressions
for an evil principle. He is come, as John says, to destroy
the works of the devil (1 John iii. 8). And not alone in
John's Gospel, but throughout the Synoptics, He acts as in
conflict with a personal adversary, whom He regards as
the cause of man's woes and sins. Nothing can be more
significant of the strength of His conviction as to the ex
tent of the havoc wrought by His opponent, and the reality
of his existence, than the parable of the Tares. His own
key to the parable is final for its meaning (Matt. xiii.
24-30, 36-42). It is arbitrary to resolve one of the actors
into a personification, while his direct antagonist is a
genuine personality. The secret of sin in man, therefore,
is found originally, in harmony with Christ's teaching, out-

136 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
side of man in a tempter, the devil. (Cf. Rom. xvi. 20 ;
Eph. iv. 27, vi. 1 1 ; 1 Pet. v. 8 ; Jas. iv. 7.)
if) When once, as the result of yielding to temptation,
sin has obtained foothold within human nature, it finds in
each life, which has succumbed to it, a more or less efficient
agent in the propagation of its pernicious work, and every
writer in one way or another bids his readers " beware of
men." This I take to be the meaning of Christ's striking
warning in Luke xii. 5, "Fear him which, after he hath
killed, hath power to cast into hell." This cannot refer to
God, for in the very next line the preserving, protecting care
of God is offered as the safeguard against this foe. There
is nothing in the context to suggest that it is the devil.
The passage is full of the dangers, more serious even than
those of cruel persecution, which arise from the subtle,
seductive influence of the hypocrisy of the Pharisee, and
the temptation that the fear of him begets. The really
dangerous one, therefore, is not the man who simply,
in rude brutality, does another to death, but he who
undermines his brother's loyalty to God, shatters his
faith, and so ruins his soul. This source of temptation
is intensely subtle, and is the factor in sin which makes it
(JKavhaXov. (c) But what of James and his tracing of sin to lust,
desire ? It is a fair question, whether James in speaking of
eTTi&vfila — desire — as exercising this influence on men, is
not in line with the Rabbinical idea of inn ii"1, or the
element naturally in the flesh, which made it peculiarly
susceptible to temptation. This element was not regarded
as in itself evil or incompatible with sinlessness, and its
presence was explained as a divine provision for enabling
man to become entitled to divine rewards for resisting it.1
If so, it might be that here we have also the clue to Paul's
verdict on the flesh : " In my flesh dwelleth no good thing "
1 See Weber, op. cit. supra, sub voce.

to the Teaching of Christ 137
(Rom. vii. 1 8), and so a point of common ground be estab
lished between Paul and James.1 But James is not pro
pounding a theory of the origin of sin. He is simply dealing
with man just as he found him. He is holding the mirror
up to him for the practical purpose of letting him see the
working of his own nature in every sin, and hence his per
sonal responsibility for it. If he sin, he must take the con
sequence, and there is none to blame but himself. The
exhortation, " Let no man say when he is tempted, I am
tempted of God " (v. 1 3), is the correlative of the prayer
taught by Christ, " Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our
debtors. Lead us not into temptation ; but deliver us from
evil" (Matt. vi. I 2, 1 3). James is not propounding a theory.
He is appealing to the common workings of the human heart.
But what of the contention that Paul, differing from
the others, regards sin as inherent in one factor in human
nature, namely, the flesh? As a preliminary, it is neces
sary to recall that, to the mind of Jesus, the flesh was
the side of human nature most susceptible to the assaults
of temptation. Out of the terrible impression of His
own agony of conflict in the Garden, when all the horror
of the approaching passion wrung from His shrinking
human nature the cry, " O My Father, if it be possible,
let this cup pass from Me," — a feeling which was only
overcome by the strong mastery of the filial spirit, —
" nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt," He comes
to find His disciples asleep. With concern, He arouses
them : " Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.
The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." It was
1 What militates against the idea that Paul is here influenced by the Rabbin
ical view is that according to it alongside of JH? 1& there was always found
aton -b; ; and Paul says, " In my flesh dwelleth no good thing." But it is unfair
to press a sentence like this, uttered evidently under the pressure of strong
personal emotion, into evidence for a strict theological judgment. And the
context in Rom. vii. 14 ff., and the parallel in Gal. v. I7ff, make it plain that
<r<£p£ here refers not to the material flesh, but is used as in popular parlance for
human nature.

138 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
through the flesh the assault had just been attempted on
Himself. In these words experience speaks (Matt. xxvi.
36-46). For the rest, in the vocabulary of Christ and the
others, flesh is used almost as a synonym for human nature.
But, withal, the word is rare, compared with its use in
Paul. With him it is a favourite word. The question is,
Does he think of it as inherently sinful ? Those who say
so lay great stress in favour of their contention on Rom.
viii. 3. There Paul speaks of God's Son being sent "in the
likeness of sinful flesh," using this periphrasis, it is said, to
avoid the simple phrase " in the flesh," which, it is assumed,
would have involved that Christ thereby incurred sin. But
quite as natural an explanation is, that in the context Paul
is using the term " flesh " repeatedly to describe human
nature as he actually found it, with its sinful tendencies in
overmastering force. Hence a fine sense for what was
seemly led him to modify the phrase when he came to
describe the contact of God's Son with this element in
human nature, commonly, but not necessarily, under the
power of sin. His language is dictated by literary taste, not
by a theory as to the nature of flesh. And what confirms
this is that he immediately goes on to argue, that the
presence and work of Christ in the flesh is the condemnation
of sin there. That proves that sin in the flesh is where it
has no right to be. The very addition of the adjective
" sinful " to flesh suggests that flesh by itself does not
necessarily imply sin. Sin is an intruder and a usurper
there, frustrating the realisation of the purpose which God
had in view in creating man and in laying down the laws
of his being. It is impossible, therefore, to argue from this
passage that Paul regards flesh as essentially sinful; and
the passage is crucial. It would be as fair to argue that
for Paul the law was sin, from the disastrous effects which,
he saw, flowed from the operation of the law. But any
such plausible deduction he anticipated and repelled (Rom.

to the Teaching of Christ 139
vii. 7 ff.). Had it occurred to him that the same use might
be made of his language about the flesh, he would have
entered a like caveat here. " Is the flesh sin ? God forbid.
But I am a sinner, and have yielded my flesh as a slave to
sin." He felt, however, that the common use of the term
was too familiar to incur any such risk among his contem
poraries. And as modern scholarship has taught us to
remember, Paul wrote for the popular ear of his own time,
and not for pedantic scholars of the nineteenth century.
When account is taken of passages in which Paul enumer
ates works of the flesh, and among them includes such sins
as pride, envy, malice, covetousness (Gal. v. 20), it is
impossible to regard " flesh " as used in any merely
physical sense. It has acquired an ethical connotation.
And when, further, he again and again anticipates, and calls
for, the use of the bodily, fleshly, members, when freed from
sin, for their original purpose, the service of holiness (Rom.
vi. 16—21), and speaks of the life of Jesus becoming mani
fest in our mortal flesh (2 Cor. iv. 11), — an extraordinary
phrase, if flesh is essentially sinful, — the conviction is
confirmed, that Paul's use of flesh is not technical and
exact, but fluid and popular, and as generally understood
by the popular mind. He is in agreement with his Master,
Jesus Christ, his old-fashioned colleague James, and his
serene survivor John, in using flesh without implying sin as
an essential element in it, but simply as an equivalent for
human nature as it is commonly met with, and especially
that side of human nature most susceptible to the assaults
of sin, and in which sin longest retains its sway.1
There remains to consider Paul's tracing of sin to
Adam. But the proper setting in which to look at this, as
will be immediately evident, is in the wider connection of
1 Cf. Erich Haupt, Commentary on i John iv. 2, p. 21 1 f. : " Das Fleisch ist
nicht Siinde . . . wohl aber ist es durch und durch von der Folgen der Sunde
betroffen."

140 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
another aspect of sin, common to Christ and His apostles,
and that is its range and its results, both in the individual
and in the race. All agree that it has affected every man,
and every man in every part. Christ's verdict is that
'' there is none good but one, that is, God " (Matt. xix.
1 7) ; and the result of Paul's searching scrutiny is that
" there is none righteous, none that understandeth, none
that seeketh after God" (Rom. iii. 10). This does not
mean that either Jesus or His followers gave way to
indiscriminate judgment of their kind (Luke xii. 47 f.).
Jesus, even when treating men as sinners, felt that He could
appeal to latent better feelings within them (" Ye, being evil,
know how to give good gifts unto your children," Matt. vii.
11), and awaken conscience in very bad men (" He that
is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at
her," John viii. 7). Paul can think of Gentiles " doing by
nature — i.e. not by express command — things written in the
law," at the very time when he is stating his great arraign
ment to show the whole world guilty before God (Rom. ii.
iii.). Amid the common alienation from God, they re
cognise degree in its extent ; stages in the degradation of
the race (Matt. xii. 43—45, Rom. i. 19 ff.) ; some not far
from the kingdom of God (Mark xii. 34) ; publicans and
harlots more accessible to grace than hypocrites (Matt. xxi.
31); more tolerable for one city than for another (Matt.
xi. 20—24) ; good for a man if he had never been born
(Matt. xxvi. 24). But this does not prevent them from
recognising the widespead havoc, what we call man's total
depravity, i.e. not the utter destruction of all good in man,
but the contamination by sin of every part (totus) of his
nature (Eph. iv. 17-19). This only becomes the more
obvious when account is taken of those passages which
emphasise sin's hold on all the members of the human race.
The commencement of the Epistle to the Romans contains
Paul's terrible indictment of the whole race, Jew and

to the Teaching of Christ 141
Gentile alike. And there is nothing so complete anywhere
else. But Paul only expresses in his way what is other
wise stated in John's first Epistle (i. 6-10), and what is
implied repeatedly in the irony of Christ's reserve : " I
came not to call the righteous, but sinners " (Matt. ix. 1 3) ;
" They that are whole have no need of the physician " (Mark
ii. 17); " he that is without sin among you," etc. (John
viii. 7). What is the impression left in every instance where
Christ speaks in such a way ? Is it not that the righteous
in reality do not exist, and those who imagine themselves
righteous are more deeply sunk in sin than the men they
condemn ? Look at Paul's statement as to Adam's relation
to the sin of the race in the light of all this, and in the
light of the context in which it occurs (Rom. v. 12—21),
and it becomes plain that it is his way of explaining the
same feature, the widespread prevalence of sin.1 That is
due to a principle in human nature, recognised in common
by Christ and His apostles, which we have already noted,
namely, its organic structure, its solidarity. This works
laterally. It also works vertically, when we call it heredity.
It has so worked in the case of sin, and death is the proof
of it. But in the passage where Paul states this, it is not
the origin of sin that is uppermost in his mind. He
is not anxious to trace sin to Adam. He is thinking of
the accessibility of salvation to all, and he simply accepts
the commonly current view of the origin and spread of
sin and its entail as an instructive counterpart to the
method adopted for the operation of salvation in con
formity with the constitution of the human race. Both
sin and salvation work on the same principle by which
all can be reached through a single individual. By this
sin affected all ; but what is of far more importance, so
may salvation.
In looking at the results of sin, there is no need to
1 Cf. Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, i. 149 f.

142 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
repeat the statement of the disastrous effects upon man,
which we have been compelled to notice in the considera
tion of the subject so far. It is not necessary to show the
evident agreement between the Master and His School as
to the connection between life's miseries, or even death, and
sin. True, He will not countenance any inference as to
the immediate relation, or the extent of it, in any individual
case (John ix. 3 ; Luke xiii. 1—6). But the terms in
which a cure is sometimes granted show the thought of His
heart : " Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon thee,"
etc. (John v. 14, viii. 2). The more terrible aspect of it is
that sin becomes its own punishment ; sin is itself an effect
of sin.1 The alienation from God may become determined
and confirmed, and reach a stage which is irretrievable.
Jesus, John, and the author of the Hebrews all deal with
this state. John does so with such reserve that it is
impossible to gather more than his solemn conviction, that
there is a sin past praying for — "unto death" (1 John v.
16). Heb. vi. 4— io2 is much more explicit, for there
it is evident that this is the result of deliberate repudiation
of the way of salvation in the face of a thorough under
standing of it, and a certain participation in the benefits of
it. And Christ Himself is the most explicit of all. He
warns the Pharisees of their danger of reaching this state
(Matt. xi. 23). He foretells the fate of Capernaum as a
result of it. He states explicitly that it is blaspheming
the Holy Ghost (Matt. xii. 3 1 f . ; Mark iii. 28-30; Luke
xii. 1 o). From the context, where this is contrasted with
blaspheming the Son of man, which may be forgiven, it is
clear that it represents the attitude of a man who, with his
eyes open, against his better judgment, from selfish motives,
stifles conscience, calls good evil and evil good, even when
1 Luke xv. 1 1 ff. ; cf. Rom. i. 24-26 ; and see Godet, Commentary on Luke,
in loco. - Godet (Commentary on Luke xiv. 23-25) finds in Christ's words recorded
there the basis of this passage in Hebrews.

to the Teaching of Christ 143
good stands incarnate before him in all its perfection
(John ix. 39-41, xv. 22-25). What that incurs of divine
wrath we know on Christ's authority. He lets us into the
secret by depicting the feelings and action of the king
scorned and flouted by his invited guests (Matt. xxii. 1-14) ;
of the defrauded and bereaved owner of the vineyard
(Matt. xxi. 3 3-44) ; of the forgiving master mocked by
the graceless, unforgiving servant (Matt, xviii. 23-35).
He describes in tragic terms the fate of the city from which
He has to withdraw, rejected (Matt, xxiii. 37-xxiv. 1 ff.).
How terrible is His description of the doom of the impeni
tent — " weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth"! (Matt.
viii. 12, xiii. 42, 50, xxii. 13, xxiv. 5i,xxv. 30; Luke xiii.
28). In what a terrific climax does His invective against
hypocrisy culminate : " Ye hypocrites, ye generation of
vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell ! " (Matt.
xxiii. 33). And when He anticipates His speech at the
judgment, how final is the verdict and full of woe : " Depart
from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the
devil and his angels " ! (Matt. xxv. 46). Nothing said by
Paul or John, in Epistle or Apocalypse, in anyway
modifies these terms. There is only a studied reserve in
their fateful words ; for all feel, with the author of
Hebrews, " it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of
the living God " (Heb. x. 31).
That fate is impending over all men. Jesus treats the
world as under condemnation already (John iii. 1 8). Paul
declares they are without excuse (Rom. i. 20). And all
alike throw the responsibility for this position upon man
himself. The confession of the prodigal states it all — " I
have sinned." It is a personal affair — intensely so. But
the question that remains is, is escape possible ; and if so,
can man save himself, or does he absolutely require
deliverance by a friendly hand ? Christ's mission answers
the first. He has come to save. But we are told that

144 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
here there is a radical difference between Christ and His
followers, especially between Christ and Paul. Christ, it is
said, made a man's escape from sin depend on his own
efforts ; Paul treated him as helpless, requiring the inter
vention of Christ ; Christ's method of salvation was auto-
soteric, Paul's hetero-soteric.1 As to Paul's position, there
is no dispute. But has he transformed so audaciously his
Master's message? The way to a reply is to be found in
an appeal to Christ Himself. Is it true that all that
Christ did was by the force of His religious and spiritual
genius, to reach, for the first time, the thought of the
Fatherhood of God, and to realise, as had never been done
before, the forgiveness of sins to any penitent heart, and
proclaim these truths to the world, leaving each man to
secure salvation for himself by the application of them to
his own case ? Is it not indicative of the instability of
that position that, in consequence, large portions of Christ's
teaching have to be set aside as not genuine, for no other
reason than that they do not harmonise with it ? It
involves, too, a view of divine forgiveness which is little
better than a caricature, namely, man's conviction that God
has forgiven him, when he has forgiven himself. It reduces
Jesus simply to a teacher, and even then assumes for fact
that for which there is not even the shadow of proof,
namely, that Jesus discovered the nature and value of
forgiveness from His own experience of being forgiven.2
Will that theory explain Christianity and its colossal
effects ? Indeed, to feel how defective such a view is, we
1 This contention, though not peculiar to Mackintosh, is put by him in its
most uncompromising and aggressive form in his Natural History of the
Christian Religion, 62 ff. et passim. The main purpose of the book, indeed, to
which the author constantly recurs, is to prove this transformation of Christ's
doctrine at the hands of Paul.
2 See Mackintosh, op. cil. pp. 189-214. Bruce ( With Open Face, p. 146) might
be supposed to supply the needed proof, for there he characterises Christ's
words, "lam meek and lowly," in common with those of prophet and psalmist,
as "devout breathings of a broken and contrite heart." But did Bruce really
think what it meant, when he said "contrite " ?

to the Teaching of Christ 145
have simply to recall some of the utterances of Jesus
referred to at the beginning of this chapter, say, the
description of the helpless condition to which He regards
man as reduced by sin, or the terms in which He describes
His own efforts to rescue man, which, figurative though
they are, suggest something far different from even the
most indefatigable teaching, and would be quite inappro
priate as a description of, say, Paul's efforts, which are
purely of this character. Take His statement as to the
absolute necessity of the Spirit's intervention before the
evil tendencies that have asserted themselves in human
nature can be overcome, and the new life begun (John iii. 6).
Jesus did call for effort on the part of men themselves,
but it was to be in response to an effort of God to reach
them. He did magnify the Fatherly love of God, but it
was as the secret of His own mission. He did proclaim
the forgiveness of sins, but He made it abundantly plain
how intimately and necessarily His own death and resurrec
tion were associated with the bestowal of it. Paul has not
transformed his Master's teaching in that feature of it.
He has only cast upon it the light of his own experience of
the Master's work in himself. With one voice Christ and
His disciples say man is lost, condemned, helpless, but he
is savable. His sin is disappointment to God and disaster
to himself. It has left a case of which it may well be
asked, " Who then can be saved?" but the answer is explicit :
" With men it is impossible, but not with God : for with
God all things are possible" (Mark x. 26, 27; Matt. xix.
25, 26).
It is at this point the Christian conception of God
comes into prominence. For turn where you will among
the New Testament teachers, all alike agree not simply
that Jesus came into the world on a mission of salvation,
but also that He came at the instance of God, was sent by
God. In the Synoptics Jesus speaks again and again with

146 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
the restless manner of a man under the constraint of an
urgent commission. In the Gospel of John He explains
words and actions by the will of Him who sent Him.
And John and Paul alike speak of His presence among
men as a mission from God and a gift from God, with the
express purpose in view of saving men. The famous
evangelistic text of John is no unique utterance, but the
Christian commonplace, " God so loved the world, that He
gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in
Him should not perish, but have everlasting life " (John
iii. 16). It is in the light of the mission of salvation,
originated and commissioned by God, and executed by the
Son of God, that we discover what exactly God is to the
thought of Jesus and His followers.
It is true enough to say that for the Christian, Jesus
supersedes every other argument both for the Being and
the Character of God. The man who has found God in
Christ could find no stronger evidence than this at once
that God is, and of what God is. But this position does not
mean that Christ and His disciples set aside all previously
existing ideas about God, began a revelation of Deity de
novo. They accepted the popular convictions of both Jew
and Gentile as to the existence of God. Particularly do
they attach themselves to the unbroken testimony of
Jewish monotheism. But when they come face to face
with polytheistic superstition, it is not with rude, un
sympathetic hand to shatter the whole fabric, but, with a
genial breath, which welcomes all that is true, to hail in it
a witness to a true human instinct, the feeling after God
inherent in human nature. Of course there was much
there that needed correction ; much even in the conceptions
of the Jew. But nobody can read James's words, " Every
good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh
down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness,
neither shadow of turning " (Jas. i. 17); or Paul's speeches in

to the Teaching of Christ 147
his first encounter with unrelieved paganism at Lystra (Acts
xiv. 8-18), or with its cultured phrases and philosophic
settings at Athens (Acts xvii. 22-31), — without thinking
of the exquisite lesson of their Master in the Sermon on
the Mount (Matt. v. 45), or hearing the echo of His words
to Samaria's daughter by Jacob's well (John iv. 19-24Y
Christ and His followers endorse all those instincts which
carry men outside of themselves to reverence a great power
above them, to whom with all the world they owe their
existence, under whose law they live, and to whom they
are responsible. They concur in all that speaks of His
infinite transcendence of His creation. But they will not
countenance for a moment the suggestion that He is in
different to men or beyond their reach. A proneness to
find divergences between Paul and His Master places side
by side 1 Cor. ix. 9, 1 o, " Doth God take care for oxen ? "
and Matt. x. 29-31 (cf. Luke xii. 6, 7), "Are not two
sparrows sold for a farthing ? and not one of them shall
fall on the ground without your Father," as if there were
some glaring contrast there. Are they not both, in their
actual contexts, like Christ's own question, " How much
then is a man of more value than a sheep ! " (Matt. xii. 1 2),
simply strong ways of bringing out the comparative worth
of man and the lower animals, and drawing from God's
care for the latter an argument for His vast interest in us ?
And every word on prayer suggests the same truth. Equally
do they teach "God's immanence. The Incarnation story of
Matthew and Luke tells us how close they thought it
possible for God to come to man. Their very views of
demoniac possession, the devil's parody of divine indwell
ing, show how natural to them was the thought of intimate
association between the unseen world and the life of men.
Divine indwelling is a common theme with Jesus and John
and Paul. But with it all there is no suspicion of pantheism.
It is God seeking men to worship Him.

148 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
What is new and distinctive in the Christ - taught
thought of God is, God's interest in, and relation to, man
the sinner. Man, as a sinner, has no doubt about one
thing in that relationship. He is quite sure of God's wrath
against sin. And Christ and His apostles tell him that he
is quite right. This conviction is not merely a sinner's
craven fear, begotten of the superstitious forebodings of the
natural heathen mind. It has been confirmed with terrible
emphasis in page after page of the Jewish revelation, and
by tragedy after tragedy of Israel's history. And Paul,
with strategic skill, in Rom. ii., shows the fatal signifi
cance of Jewish condemnation of Gentile corruption, and
the perilous position in which they left themselves, if they
ignored the forbearance with themselves of a justly offended
God. They simply challenged the onslaught of His wrath.1
But we are told that, admitting the references of Paul and
the Apocalypse to the wrath of God, in the New Testament
the idea has become almost entirely eschatological, and is
scarcely traceable at all in Christ's own teaching. As to
the first point, when account is taken of the impressive
sense which the New Testament exhibits throughout — I
will not say of the immediacy, but — of the impendingness
of the divine judgment, in which the wrath will find ex
pression against the ungodly, and of the fact that, in any
case, the judgment will be the most terrible manifestation
of it, the reality of the wrath of God is in no way reduced in
awful significance by saying it belongs to the eschatological.
The impression of the future has its moral and religious
value, and cannot be discounted in this off-hand way. As
to our Saviour's teaching, it is necessary to remember that
He offers Himself as a revelation of the character of God;
and what but indignation is the meaning of that forcible
expulsion of the profaners of the temple (John ii. 13—17 ;
Matt. xxi. 12, 13, and parallels), of that flashing eye turned
1 Note in ii. 9 the use of both 6v/j.6s and dpyrj, the feeling and its expression.

to the Teaching of Christ 1 49
on the hard-hearted critics of His kindly cure in the syna
gogue ? (Mark iii. 5). What other meaning can you
attach to the startling events depicted in one parable after
another? (Matt. xiii. 24-49, xxii. 1 1-1 3). If these do not
imply God's hatred of sin and terrible displeasure with the
sinner, words have no meaning. Christ will not allow,
indeed, the legitimacy of the inference that the suddenness
or severity of the impact of misfortune inevitably proves
the enormity of the sufferer's sin (Luke xiii. 1-5 ; cf. John
ix. 1-3). But the refusal is not with a view to dispel all
idea of connection between calamity and sin. It is to
enforce it. " Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise
perish " (Luke xiii. 5). He turns on self-satisfied gossip
there in a way that is reproduced in Paul's startling im
peachment of the Jew in Rom. ii. 1 — 17. True, the ques
tion is raised as to what exactly the divine wrath is, and is
it compatible with love ? Was it possible for the teacher
who pictured the character of God in the father, in the
parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke xv.), to attribute to Him
this awful feature of wrath ? The author, who has pre
served that picture, has supplied the answer to the ques
tion. On the previous page he has also preserved another
picture of God in the master of the house indignant
at the slight on his invitations (Luke xiv.), and on that
which follows still another in the inflexible condemner
of Dives (Luke xvi.). If the one picture is true to
God's character, why not the other ? In the New Testa
ment, too, we are moving among men who can give and
understand such sterling advice as " Be ye angry, and sin
not" (Eph. iv. 26). These things show us moral sensi
bilities sufficiently keen to recognise a place for righteous
anger even in a heart dominated by love, and the impres
sion grows that Christ fully accepted what the Old Testa
ment says about the wrath of God. It is too conspicuously
present there for Him to have rejected its presentation, as

150 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
conveying a false impression about God, without explicitly
saying so. Silence here would give consent ; and Christ,
as we have seen, was not silent, but assenting. But
Christ's real attitude is this. He found men had allowed
the thought of the wrath of God to dominate their view
of Him, leading them, if Jews, to regard all men but
themselves as objects of His wrath, and themselves as the
favourites (Matt. iii. 9; John viii. 39), who had the secret
of how to avert that wrath from themselves by punctilious
attention to certain prescribed rules and forms. And,
mutatis mutandis, the same was true of those of the nations
to whom His apostles went. In place of this, Christ had
come to teach men that there is no respect of persons with
God, and that as a holy God He cannot but hate sin, and
be angry with the sinner. But that is neither the first nor
the last word about Him. That side of His character had
been fully stated, and had produced such an effect that
little more needed to be said about it. Only the false
inferences from it required to be corrected. And that
Christ did above all by persistent reiteration of the supreme
truth, which accounts for the very anger and wrath, namely,
that God is a Father, a holy Father : " God is Love."
If we were asked for a single phrase in which to
describe the God of the apostles, none would come more
naturally to our lips than this : He is " the God and Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ " (Rom. xv. 6 ; 2 Cor. i. 3 ; Eph.
i. 3 ; 1 Pet. i. 3 ; Col. i. 3, etc.). The combination "God
and Father " is of very frequent occurrence, and a care
ful study of it suggests that the second term " Father "
is epexegetical.1 In the larger phrase, " the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," there is not so much a
statement of the relationship between the Father and the
Son, as a reference to the source of the knowledge that God
is a Father, namely, our Lord Jesus Christ. The phrase
1 Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Theologie, i. 170L

to the Teaching of Christ 1 5 1
means not " the God who has as His Son Jesus Christ our
Lord," but " the God who is revealed as a Father by our
Lord Jesus Christ" (cf. Matt. xi. 25 ; John i. 18); God, as
we have learned to know Him from our Lord Jesus Christ,
" the Father." The justification for this statement is that
there is no call to refer to the relationship of Christ to
the Father in most of the cases where it occurs, while in
several of them the context emphasises such features of
the character of God as entitle Him to such a beautiful
name. The power to appreciate it, and to use it with
spiritual intelligence, is attributed to divine operations in
the heart. But the source of the knowledge is Jesus Christ
Himself. Jesus, then, is the revealer of the Father. It is the
term in His vocabulary which competes in frequency with
the Kingdom of God. And it is a disputed point among
theologians whether the Fatherhood of God or the Kingdom
of God is to be taken as the determinative idea in grouping
the teaching of Christ. We need not at present inquire as
to the nature of the source of Christ's own knowledge of
this name for God. He ascribed it undoubtedly to the
unique relationship to God which He claimed for Himself.
And that supersedes any necessity for inquiry into the
references to the Fatherhood of God as spoken of in the
Old Testament, and still more among heathen nations.
Among the latter it meant no more than Creator. Among
the Jews it never rose above the national or functional
stage {sc. the King). On Christ's lips it expresses an indi
vidual relationship, and states a truth revealed both by
and in Him. It is revealed by Him in such wonderful
lessons as the Lord's Prayer and the parable of the Pro
digal Son, which vibrate with the delighted reverence,
obedience, confidence, which a thorough knowledge of God
as Father will inspire. It is revealed in the form into
which He throws other lessons on these very topics.

1 5 2 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
Obedience to God's will is seen in the contrast of the
conduct, not of two subjects of a king, or two servants
of a master, but of two sons (Matt. xxi. 28 ff.). A true
worshipper is one whose spirit meets the craving of a Father
(John iv. 24 ; cf. Jas. i. 26). A share in the joys ofthe king
dom of God is for those who reproduce the character of the
Father, who is its king (Matt. v. 4 8). But even more strikingly
than in His words Christ reveals the true character of God
by His own habitual attitude towards Him. He lived with -
a heart so constantly and trustfully directed towards God,
that its only fitting parallel on earth is that of a child to a
loving parent with whom he has a perfect understanding.
The filial affection of Jesus for His God reveals the father-
liness of His God. In John's writings especially we pass
beyond the position of a revelation by Jesus to a revelation
in Jesus. We learn to recognise what God is, from the
attitude of Jesus, not simply towards God, but towards men.
His attitude, He claims, is God's attitude. " He that hath seen
Me, hath seen the Father " (John xiv. 9). God's thoughts,
feelings, acts towards men are the glorious counterpart of
what is seen of grace and truth in Jesus Himself.
But what does Jesus mean by using the term Father ?
Recall what has just been said, and it is seen at once that
the use of the word is figurative. In the light of John viii.
39-56, where Jesus repels the claim of the Jews to regard
God as their Father, treats as of very little moment their
natural descent from Abraham, and in view of their dis
positions and characters tells them " ye are of your father
the devil," it is plain that creational relationship is quite
secondary in His thought as compared with moral and
spiritual affinity.1 And while in some passages He cer
tainly speaks to men indiscriminately of God as their
1 Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, ii. 116 : "The mere possession of an earthly
life created by God, and the mere physical kinship with the people of the Divine
revelation and promises, did not make a man a true child of God."

to the Teaching of Christ 1 5 3
Father, it is always in a call to them to become like Him,
for He never speaks to them indiscriminately of themselves
as sons.1 All that is implied in Father only becomes a
reality of possession to those who respond to Him. And
hence, while it is quite true that God is pre-eminently the
Father, the type of what fatherhood should be — as Paul
says, " of whom every fatherhood in heaven and on earth is
named " (Eph. iii. 1 5) — the human relationship only sup
plies a figure in which to find the most suggestive parallel
to God's relationship to man. It is true, supremely true,
but only so far as it goes. It goes farther than Shepherd,
or Judge, or King, or Husband. It adds much these never
could suggest. It is the grandest name for God. But it does
not say all, not Elder Brother, for instance, which becomes so
significant in view of Christ's own relation to men. It is a
figure. It is a figure used by Christ, because it gathers so
much into itself. It suggests love, — love which is not simply
broad and general, a wide philanthropy, but love personal
and individual, love not only responsive but spontaneous,
love which has its source and origin in itself, " is its own
inspiration." In other words, it suggests what the apostles
call " grace." Dr. Dale once quoted with admiration an
opinion of Dr. Forsyth, of Leicester, that grace is a word
which we have lost, and which we require to recover in
our preaching.2 That is a striking admission from a man
who was not a Calvinist, and in an age that prides itself on
having rediscovered the teaching of Jesus about the Father
hood of God, which it was said had been buried under His
sovereignty by Calvinists. Perhaps ; but true Calvinists
did not forget grace. It lay in the heart of their system.
And grace is what Dr. Moorhouse calls the essence of
Deity, the will not to live but to love.3 When Jesus says
1 Dale (Life, pp. 605, 654) gives a very fine statement of this point.
2 Dale's Life, p. 636.
3 The Teaching of Christ, p. 113 ; cf. Bruce, Parabolic Teaching of Christ, p.
28S : " In the teaching both of Christ and of Paul the supreme category is grace."

154 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
Father, and makes the prodigal, come to himself, say with
confidence, " I will arise, and go to my father," and when
He shows the father receiving the penitent back to the
place — not that asked, of a servant, but — of a son, He
reveals the persistent love of God, and His eagerness for
the opportunity to let it have free play, and He appeals for
confirmation of the truth of it to the buried consciousness
of the sinner's heart. When Jesus says Father, He says
God is Love. He finds in this feeling (which is the secret
of man's salvation, for it is the secret of His own mission)
the fundamental trait of God's character, the dominating
principle of His nature.
But Jesus does not for a moment encourage the idea
that this love is mere easy-going affection. Such no true
fatherly love is. It involves constant care for all those
towards whom it is directed, — a care which culminates in
anxiety about their moral and spiritual well-being, and
which is willing to endure the pain of inflicting chastise
ment, if need be, to cure any evil trend. Its highest aim
is not the indulgence of every whim and fancy of the child,
but his attainment of the noblest virtues and graces within
his reach. And all this lies in Jesus' thought of God
when He calls Him Father. Nothing else should ever
occur to any mind that remembers the character for which
Christ calls in every man, and which has its ideal in God's
own (Matt. v. 48 ; Luke vi. 36), or that remembers the peti
tions of the Lord's Prayer (Matt. vi. 9—13), or the epithets
that qualify Father in the Intercessory Prayer — holy, right
eous (John xvii. 11, 25). Nothing else corresponds to the
delightful certainty of His impartiality, to the extraordinary
anxiety for righteousness, and to the overpowering sense
of the burning majesty of God, that are found in the writings
of James and Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews, or
to the resistless inferences John draws from his lightning
phrase, " God is Light," in which we read holiness and

to the Teaching of Christ 155
truth. The love of a righteous God is loyal to integrity
and truth. When Christ says Father, He says that. It
suggests no relaxation of these claims. If from our
lowered sense of parental authority and dignity we are
tempted to think so, we must correct these unworthy
conceptions of fatherhood by recalling the very high ideals
of it cherished by the Jews and emphasised by Christ and
His apostles.1 Recall the indignation with which He
exposed the artifice of scribal tradition, by which a son
was enabled to evade the fifth commandment (Mark vii.
9—13). Recall how His apostles bid their readers honour
father and mother (Eph. vi. 1—3 ; Col. iii. 20), or, in
Hebrews, even make the experience of parental discipline
a proof of sonship (Heb. xii. 5—8). These bring the spirit
of the age back to us. And on the lips of Jesus, and in
the ears of His hearers, we learn that if Father meant love,
it meant also the firmness and discipline dictated by love.
The penalty that follows on sin is explained, as well as the
forgiveness that awaits the penitent. Still the dominance
of the fatherly note, the note of gracious love, receives
no more convincing proof than in the fact that two of
those who had learnt of Jesus to call God Father, and
both of whom saw in Christ's advent the coming of grace
and truth, zealous alike as they are for the holy consistency
of God, yet find in God's righteousness itself one great
encouragement to penitence ; for to them, " if we confess
our sins, He is — not simply gracious, but — faithful and just
to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity "
(1 John i. 9); and He has provided "the propitiation that
He might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in
Jesus"2 (Rom. iii. 26).
It remains to ask what was the intended range of the
1 Cf. Martineau, Types of Ethical Theory, ii. 204 f.
2 Principal Shairp, Studies in Poetry and Philosophy, p. 380 f.; Godet, Com
mentary on John 'ill. 15, 16.

156 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
salvation Christ came to proclaim. In one sense this was
a matter in dispute in the Early Church ; in another it was
not. There was no dispute that all men might share in
it. But it was the contention of one section, that they
could do so only under condition of conforming to the
Jewish law. Now that was equivalent to' limiting salva
tion to the Jews. It reduced the Good News from a
universal to a national platform. There is no real ques
tion as to the position of Paul, John, the Epistle to the
Hebrews, the Acts of the Apostles, on this matter. There
is a question as to the attitude of Peter and James. And
yet, if we are to accept the high claims for the historic
accuracy of Luke, — and we have seen that we should, —
there ought to be no question, but a recognition of the fact,
that whatever were their first impressions, they too came
speedily to see clearly that the salvation proclaimed in and
by Christ was accessible to all men without any conforming
to the Jewish law as such. It is a question of impression ;
but surely that is implied in those very passages in
Galatians which are supposed to militate against it, and to
contradict the situation represented in Acts (Acts xv. ;
Gal. ii.). Would Paul, when this very matter was in
dispute, have appealed, in vindication of his independence
and authority, to a stand which he took upon it against a
leader like Peter, to whose attitude his impugners appealed,
had the issue of that stand been anything but a triumph?
True, he does not say so. It may be insinuated that could
he have said so, he would certainly have done it. But to
my mind the inference was so clear and necessary, that
a man of Paul's quick apprehensions, and who would con
descend to no disingenuousness, felt no call to put it in
words. The more serious question is, Was this universalism,
successfully urged by Paul, the position of Jesus Himself, or
even a legitimate inference from His position? That it

to the Teaching of Christ 1 5 7
was the latter ceases to be a question, as soon as we
remember what we have seen was His attitude as to the
nature of man and sin and God. In the case of not one
of these does Jesus speak from the merely Jewish stand
point. Man, as Pie describes him, is man in the widest
range of his nature, no mere son of the circumcision. Sin
is something that goes far beyond infringement of the
terms of the Mosaic law. And one is simply surprised
to find so little reference in the language of Jesus to God
as the God of the fathers of Israel. Such few allusions
as there are, are always the result of discussions raised
by Jews involving such a reference. And it is questionable
if a single utterance can be found, where Jesus spon
taneously speaks of God by the equivalent of the day for
the Jewish sacred name Jehovah, namely, Kvpios, Lord.
All that makes it impossible to regard the universalist
position as other than a legitimate inference at least from
the position of Jesus.
But it is legitimate to go farther. Christ's own position
is not obscure. We decline to be robbed of the right of
appeal to the words of the Risen Christ.1 And the com
mission in the closing verses of Matthew (xxviii. 1 8—20) are
far too explicit to leave any room for doubt. It is universal,
and carries not a hint of Jewish conditions. It is, too, only
what we would expect, in view . of those parables of the
spread of the kingdom, such as the Tares, where " the field
is the world " ; or the Supper, refused by the originally
intended guests and enjoyed by the waifs and strays
gathered from the streets and lanes, highways and hedges,
1 Schwartzkopf (Prophecies of Jesus Christ, p. 309) rejects Matt, xxviii. 18-20,
because, he says, " we cannot conceive how it was possible for the entire Early
Church not only to ignore it in the way it did, but to resist the untheocratic
mission of Paul to the Gentiles." But the subsequent history of the Christian
Church, with its great desert stretches, when this text was regarded as the
command of Christ,— and yet not a foreign mission was undertaken, and, if
suggested, at once opposed (cf. Raymond Lulli, Carey, etc.),— is the best
exposure of the weakness of this argument.

158 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
compelled to come in. The comment which follows the
similar parable in Matt. xxii. 1 ff., and its more striking
context and application in Matt. viii. 5-13, stating the
exclusion of sons of the kingdom, while aliens grate
fully enter, might be, and indeed has been,1 pressed to
suggest a divergence between Paul and Christ at the
opposite extreme, as if Christ contemplated an issue in
which there would be a more or less complete rejection
of Israel, while Paul (Rom. ix— xi.) contemplated their
ultimate restoral and inclusion in the scheme of salvation.
But the only conclusion one can draw from these lines of
criticism is the futility of attempts to construct hard-and-
fast theories, unsupported by explicit statements, out of the
plastic utterances, so apt for their immediate purpose, of
our Saviour's parables. At the same time, the possibility
of such a construction makes clear how one-sided it is to
try to give to Christ's idea of His message a range no wider
than the Jewish race. It is true He restricted His own
operations to " the lost sheep of the house of Israel," and
in their preliminary journeys during His earthly life He
placed the same restriction upon His apostles. But that
was only in accordance with His uniformly sober view of
the extent of the work possible for Him to overtake under
earthly conditions. It is no indication of His idea of the
full scope of His message. And there are sufficient indica
tions of its wider reach, in Plis attitude towards others
than Israelites, whom He chanced to meet, and above
all, in the delight with which He welcomes their simple,
childlike faith (Matt. viii. 10, xv. 28 ; John xii. 20 ff.).2
An objection has been raised, however, by Oscar
Holtzmann,3 that while Jesus, followed by Paul, gave a
1 I have lost track of the writer who is responsible for this precocious
suggestion. 2 Bruce, Parabolic Teaching of Christ, p. 338 ff; Forrest, Christ of History
and of Experience, 416 ff.
3 Zeitschrift fur Theologie nnd Kirche, i. 414 ff.

to the Teaching of Christ 159
world-wide range to the love of God and the work of
salvation, John presents a different attitude, restricting
these to the limited circle of those who are by nature fitted
to respond to the love of God for sinners. Now it is not
difficult to think of passages of which use may be made to
justify such a theory, — passages in which, for instance,
John distinguishes between those who welcomed the light
and those who did not (John i. 9-13). But what is the
explanation of this whole attitude of John, in virtue of
which he habitually views mankind as divided into two
great classes ? 1 It is not due to an inherent dualism, as
Orello Cone maintains.2 It is due to his looking at the
work of Christ in the light of the results actually observed.
As a matter of fact, in certain directions, the Gospel
awakened no response. But John never attributes that
to any limitation in the range of the divine grace.
The passage in the Gospel (vi. 37, 44, 45) that looks
most like doing so loses this complexion, when it is
observed that there Jesus is explaining to men the
defectiveness of their adhesion to Him. That adhesion
was begotten of a purely material crave. It was not a
response to the revelation of the Father in Him, or to the
teaching of their hearts by the Father as to His ability to
satisfy spiritual needs. Hence they do not really believe.3
The passage is thus but an illustration of John's method,
just mentioned, of explaining the course of events from
the standpoint of the results. The method was sometimes
adopted by Paul (Rom. viii. 28—30, ix— xi. ; Eph. i. 3 ff.).
And in the Synoptics Jesus seems to have adopted the
same standpoint when He explains His use of parable
(Matt. xiii. 11-17; Mark iv. 1 1 ff. ; Luke viii. 9 ff.), and
1 It is equally prominent in Gospel, Epistle, and Apocalypse, and is skilfully
utilised by Milligan as an argument in favour of unity of authorship (Baird
Lecture, p. 286, and App. II.; Expositor's Bible, "Revelation," p. 380).
2 The Gospel and its Earliest Interpretations, p. 272 ff.
3 Godet and Westcott's Commentaries on John, in loco.

1 60 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
speaks of the hopelessness of the case of the Pharisees
(Matt, xxiii. 29 ff.). It is arbitrary, therefore, from pas
sages in which this is done in John, to restrict the
significance of explicit utterances in the same Gospel, that
ring with the full note of the world-wide reach of divine
salvation, and to which the Christian mind would in
stinctively turn to prove the universality of the Gospel
offer. Look at John's favourite pronoun, grandly in
definite but as grandly comprehensive — " whosoever," —
and texts that do not require to be quoted, but only
reference given — John iii. 16, xi. 52; 1 John ii. 2, — and
the case against John entirely breaks down.
The attitude of Christ and His apostles, then, was
always this : Men were savable, all men, no matter how
beset by cares, vanities, engrossments of this life, if only
they could be reached. He showed it in His whole plan of
operations, putting Himself alongside of men of every type,
even the most degraded and vicious, and only seeming to
hesitate in the presence of one class — the hypocrites. He
used every weapon of spiritual attack in order to overcome
prejudice, dispel illusion, awaken reflection, stir conscience,
so as to bring men to see their need of His message and
its surpassing value for them. He was inspired by the
most extraordinary hopefulness, in which, however, there
was no blinking the tragic realities and tremendous difficul
ties. And His disciples reflect His spirit, as they go
everywhere with the same message, " preaching the word,"
i.e. proclaiming the word of Good News (evayyeXi^ofievoi
top Xoyov, Acts viii. 4).

CHAPTER V
The Kingdom of God and its Variants
Christ's Religio-Ethical Ideal — The intense ethical Interest common to
Christ and His Apostles — The Substance of their Ethic identical, as
seen in Language and in Conception — Righteousness the Subject
of the Sermon on the Mount — Righteousness equivalent to Religion
— Inseparable Relation of Ethics and Religion, seen in Motive of
Epistles — Its Bearing on the Genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles
— Difference in Topics dealt with between Christ and Apostles.
The Substance of Christian Ethics — Endorsement of Law as a Standard
of Conduct — The Distinction of Moral and Ceremonial — Trans
formation of the Law — Law reduced to a single Principle, Love —
Does John agree with Jesus and Paul as to its Range? — The Law
as Love is a Life — The Dynamic of Christian Ethics — The place of
Faith in Christian Ethics — and of Prayer — Christian Ethics social.
The various Terms to describe the Religio-Ethical Ideal — (l) "The
Kingdom of God" — The two Forms, Kingdom of God, or of Heaven
—The Source of the Phrase, and why Christ used it— Its gradual
Disappearance, in Christ's own Teaching, and among the Apostles
— Substitutes — Need of a Name for Christian Community — Gradual
Selection of (2) " Church "—Its Suitability— Why not at once adopted
—How Paul grasped it— Its Relation to Kingdom— (3) "Eternal
Life"— Its Relation to Kingdom, seen in two Ways ; vital Processes
used as illustrative of Christian Community, and the set of cognate
Terms— Christian as Child born of God, according to Teaching
of Christ in John, and of John, James, Peter, and Paul— Use of
vlodeo-ia— Eternal Life as Inheritance— Light shed on the Work
required of Christ.
The Realisation of the Ideal— Necessary Precautions — Light from
previous Discussions— Christ's double View— How accounted for—
The Parousia— Significance of Documents preserved — Christ's
Eschatology — The locus classiats— Four Certainties; His im
mediate Manifestation in Power, the Fate of Jerusalem, the
spread of the Gospel, His final Return— Perplexity as to when—
Impression of Imminence— Light from Destruction of Jerusalem-
Paul and growth of Predominance ofthe spiritual Outlook— Ethical
Interest supreme in Forecasts— Question of Reward— Final Destiny
—Need of Christ for Realisation of this Ideal— The Union in Him.
1 1

1 62 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
JESUS looked for the realisation of the object of His mission
— a saved humanity — in the complete re-establishment of
human society, in perfect ethical relations, and on a religious
basis. For a time, at least, He found it convenient to
appropriate the phrase, the Kingdom of God, to describe
this reconstituted humanity. The phrase, however, was an
accommodation, suited to the conditions under which He
worked ; the conception it denoted is common to the
thought of Master and School. All alike agree that the
consummation of Christ's mission is reached, when a society
has been established in which men fulfil, perfectly and
spontaneously, the great original design of their being in
reference to God and to their fellow-men. The first com
mandment and its companion like unto it, " Thou shalt love
the Lord thy God with all thy soul, and with all thy
strength, and with all thy might ; and thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself," stand unrevoked. Christ's mission is
attained when these are fulfilled throughout mankind.
This indicates that here we have to consider the dis
tinctive features of Christian ethics. They include such
points as these : the essential connection between morals
and religion, the fundamental law of Christian life, the
thoroughly social conception of the range of Christian
activity. And, first of all, we shall discuss these subjects
in their general features, and then compare the various
terms by which the community of those who have unitedly
embraced these principles is described.
Nobody reading the teaching of Jesus and of the
apostles ought ever to miss their common and crowning
interest in character. The reconstruction of humanity
aimed at by them is in line with their conception of
humanity. In that man appears as above all a moral and
religious being, or better still, a being bound by the closest
ties to his fellow-men, ties which impose obligations that
have their deepest springs in the man's religion or relation

to the Teaching of Christ 163
to his God. Nothing is more obvious than their profound
conviction of the fundamental connection between morality
and religion. The fact is so patent that it should not be
necessary even to state it. But it is not uncommon to
find Jesus and His followers contrasted as if, while this
interest in character is supreme in Him, with His disciples
it was quite secondary. On that showing, it would seem
that Jesus attached no importance to anything He said
except what is found in the Sermon on the Mount, and
even of that the only important parts would be the Beati
tudes, the Revised Law, the Lord's Prayer, the dissuasive
from mammon worship, and the "judge not"; while, on
the other hand, Paul has written nothing but Galatians and
Romans to the end of the fifth chapter, James nothing but
an attack on Paul's theory of justification, Peter an obscure
saying about the spirits in prison, while John stands aloof
saying, in a dreamy, theosophical way, " God is Love."
On the one side you have a genial philanthropist, on the
other a group of dusty theologians.1 Now that, or any
thing the least like that, ignores some of the most obvious
facts of the New Testament. Too much cannot be made
of the ethical teaching of Jesus Christ. The Church of
Christ can never forget what it owes to the author of Ecce
Homo. But is it, on that account, to forget the burden of
the Epistles to the Corinthians ? Is no credit to be given
to the conclusion Paul draws from his wondrous premises
in Romans, " I exhort you therefore, brethren, by the
mercies of God " — the comprehensive terms in which he
sums up the content of all that goes before — "that ye
present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto
God, which is your reasonable service" (Rom. xii. 1, 2)?
Does what follows in the Epistle go for nothing? Are we
to ignore the practical inculcation of moral duties to which
every other Epistle of his leads up, if it be not permeated
1 E.g. Matthew Arnold, Literature and Dogma, popular edit. p. 14S, et alii.

164 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
with that line of thought throughout? Is the Church to
forget that wonderful souvenir of the Sermon on the Mount,
the Epistle of James, or the strong hortatory beat of every
line of Peter or of John ? What, again, are the tangible
conditions of entrance into the circle of Christian fellowship
in Acts, and the earliest proof demanded of loyalty to
Christ, or what the conditions of enjoying heaven's bliss
in the Apocalypse ? Are they not all ethical, a call for a
holiness in intention and attainment, and a practice of a
brotherly love which is not formal or nominal only, but
real ? The place that morality holds in the esteem of
Christ's apostles is not one whit behind its place in His own.
When we come to look into the substance of the
ethical teaching, the content of it, the agreement is again
as evident as in the interest. The very words of the
Master are reproduced in a way that strikingly contrasts
with the supposed indifference of the apostles to the terms
of His utterances. James, even before he believed in Him,
had eagerly drunk in and pondered long the words of his
wonderful Brother, for there is scarcely a paragraph of his
Epistle in which the very turn of expression is not remin
iscent of Jesus. This, in an Epistle which is simply a
strong, pithy exhortation to practical religion from begin
ning to end, speaks for itself. And it is not difficult from
the Epistles of Paul, who probably only became familiar
with the utterances of Jesus from the lips of earlier disciples,
to draw up a set of most striking parallels, and another of
direct appeals, to the words of Christ on the conduct of
life. Nowhere is more of this to be found in narrow com
pass than in the hortatory part of that very Epistle to the
Romans which, we are asked to believe, transforms Christ's
simple religion into a mere metaphysical theory. That,
again, speaks for itself.1
But more significant than the identity of language is
1 Sanday and Headlam, International Commentary on Romans, p. 381.

to the Teaching of Christ 165
the identity of conception. And here the correspondence
comes into strongest relief. What is the subject of Christ's
Sermon on the Mount ? Without pressing, that Sermon
may be said to be constructed on the time-honoured prin
ciple of an introduction, three heads, and an application ;
and the heads are all on righteousness — (i*) the essence of
righteousness, " Except your righteousness shall exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no
case enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. v. 17—48);
(2) the inwardness of righteousness, " Take heed that ye do
not your righteousness before men, to be seen of them "
(vi. 1 — 18); (3) the supreme importance of righteousness,
" seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness "
(vi. 19—34). And if you ask what is meant by righteous
ness, it is not enough to say with Plato, that it is har
monious, orderly action among the different elements of
our nature,1 nor, as the Ritschlian view implies, conformity
to, and consistency with, the dictates of our own con
scientious convictions, but conscious conformity to what is
objectively right, that is, to the law of God's kingdom. It
is something not simply moral, but also religious. And
the connection between this righteousness and religion is so
intimate that Dr. Horton feels himself at liberty to say,
"The word righteousness is (here) equivalent to our own
word religion."2 Now this strong emphasis on attention
to the fulfilment of our duties to our fellow-men in the right
spirit and as a service of God, this postponing of the possi
bility of acceptable worship to the performance of simple
duty to a brother man, is fundamental in Christ's thinking'
(Matt. v. 23 f, vi. 12, 14 f. ; Luke x. 25-37, xi- 4. xiil- 16 ff.).
It gives ethics their place in Christian thought and esteem.
His disciples all follow suit. James describes religious
practice in the " pure religion and undefiled before God
1 Cf. Shairp's Studies in Poetry and Philosophy, p. 339.
- The Commandments of Jesus, p. 109.

1 66 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
and the Father, which is this, to visit the fatherless and
the widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted
from the world " (Jas. i. 27). Paul tells his readers that
faith, knowledge, martyrdom, are worth nothing without
charity (1 Cor. xiii. 1-4). And John, with withering
scorn, exposes" the sanctimonious imposture of the man
who says he loves God, and lets his brother go starve
of cold and hunger (1 John iii. 16—18). The disciples
have the same keen regard for the fulfilment of the duties
of man to man as had Christ Himself, and they look at
them in exactly the same light.
If, further, the motive of their writings is considered, the
link between ethics and religion is seen still more clearly
to be as close with them as with Christ. What are these
Epistles written for ? x Why in some are abuses attacked, in
others false doctrines checked and exposed, in still others
plain, practical points of creed and conduct so insisted on,
that the writer, who dares to do it in the Pastoral Epistles,
is told that he cannot be the Paul who wrote Galatians and
Romans ? It is all due to a supreme ethical interest. To
say nothing of Corinthians and Thessalonians, it is a funda
mental thought in the great doctrinal Epistles of Paul. The
doctrines on which he insists are those on which he feels
that the characters of men depend. Take Romans. The
subject there is the subject of the Sermon on the Mount,
righteousness. And righteousness does not mean one thing
to Paul, and another to his Master. It is easy enough to run
into a mistake of this sort by calling a halt at the end of the
fifth chapter. But read on. And why has Paul been at
such pains to establish a doctrine of justification ? 2 He tells
1 Shairp, Studies in Poetry and Philosophy, pp. 378 ff, 384 ff.
2 ' ' The doctrine of Justification by Faith belongs to the Ethics of the Christian
Religion," J. J. Murphy, Scientific Basis of Belief, p. 183. Cf. what Dr. Edward
Caird (Evolution of Religion, ii. 202) says of the genesis of Paul's views : " It
would be truer to say that the ethical principle in St. Paul begat the theological,
than that the theological begat the ethical."

to the Teaching of Christ 167
us in chaps, vi.— viii., It is in order to make men feel that
it is worth their while and within their power to practise
righteousness, to do the good they would and resist the evil
they would not. What is the secret of his concern about
his own countrymen ? It is distress at their infatuation in
pursuing their own futile efforts to attain this result and
rejecting the method put within their reach by God in
Christ (chaps, ix.-xi.). And the logic of the position he
sums up in a call to those who have the God-given power,
to use it in the practice of holy conduct, the lines of which
are plain and simple (chaps, xii.-xvi.). The content of
righteousness with Paul is just what it was with Jesus.
Paul simply from his own experience explained the way
he found to it in Christ. If this is so, there is nothing
to wonder at in the strong insistence on form and routine
in the Epistles to Timothy and to Titus. It is no departure
from the earlier reliance on faith alone. It is simply the
man getting older. Writing to men who understood him,
he could naturally enough refer to the whole Christian
teaching as " the doctrine," or " the faith," including in both
terms the substance of Christian life and truth. And he
was too shrewd a man, of too practical a nature, to allow
himself to ignore the value of discipline and routine on
character, and of character and conduct as the supreme test
of profession. That is where you find him in the Pastoral
Epistles. And what can be proved of Paul's Epistles is
patent in all the others. Holy character is of supreme
importance, and its existence is inseparable from religion.
There is a difference noticeable between Christ and His
followers in the sides of duty enforced. There is an ele
mentary character about many of the duties detailed to the
Gentiles, that is not found among the counsels to the Jews.
Jesus deals more with the under-currents of the moral life,
going behind the open, flagrant vices, calling for heart-
obedience aback of the outward act, whereas the apostles have

1 68 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
to insist on even such homely commonplaces, as " Husbands,
love your wives"; " Children, obey your parents"; " Servants,
be obedient unto your own masters." They meet, of course,
at many points. Paul, for instance, just as his Master, carries
marriage behind the Mosaic Law to the original institution of
God in the creation of man. But the reason for what diversity
in detail exists, is the fact that Jesus worked among a moral
people, the Jews. Outwardly, not one, but many could say
ofthe commandments, "All these have I kept from my youth
up." With the Gentiles it was very different. They re
garded open neglect of many of these laws as no sin, and
had to be told what was right and what wrong. The con
ditions of life, too, amid the social customs of heathenism
and the stress of fanatical hostility, give certain counsels in
James, Paul, and John, dictated by the present distress, an
air of incipient asceticism, which seems in strong contrast
with the genial humanity of the Son of man who came
eating and drinking. Yet nothing really goes beyond what
Jesus Himself says about men who made themselves eunuchs1
for the kingdom of God's sake (Matt. xix. i 2 f.), or His woe
on the rich, who have received their consolation (Luke vi. 24,
xvi. 19-31, xviii. 22-25). Weizsacker, indeed, puts the
case for all, when he says of Paul's teachings as to moral
duties, " He did not thereby create anything new within
Christianity itself. He only as it were translated the teach
ing of Jesus into the language necessary for promoting the
work in this sphere {i.e. the Gentile world). By this very
means the object of the Founder was fulfilled." 2
In effect, Jesus and His disciples reaffirm the law. To
justify this statement it is necessary to examine the relation
of Jesus and His followers to the Jewish law, — a question
which has called into existence a whole literature of its own,
and which is involved in a good deal of confusion from
1 That is, refrained from marriage. I do not think it means more.
2 Apostolic Age, ii. 373.

to the Teaching of Christ 169
failure to observe the different points of view from which it
was regarded at different times. A distinction, which is
obvious, is that between the law as a means of salvation,
and the law as an expression of the divine will and standard
of human conduct. Now, whatever room there may be for
discussion as to the relative attitude of Christ and His
several followers on the former point, there should be no
difference of opinion as to the latter. Over and over again
Christ reaffirms the law. Paul, even when repudiating it,
at times even sarcastically,1 as a means of salvation, is
eager to vindicate its high ethical value and its true character
as "holy, and just, and good"2 (Rom. vii. 14 ff.). In its
great moral pronouncements, all endorse it. If they have
any occasion to criticise, it is not its fundamental principles,
but modifications, introduced to meet passing phases of
moral development (cf. Matt. xix. 8 ; Mark x. 5). It may
be said that such endorsement goes very much farther,
and includes approval of the ritual and ceremonial parts as
well as of the moral sections, for the distinction of moral
and ritual was not present to the Jewish mind. And it is
perfectly true that the distinction is never made in so many
words. Yet Jesus draws a very sharp line between the
tithing of mint and anise and cummin, and the weightier
matters of the law, judgment, mercy, faith (Matt, xxiii.
23). Though it is going too far, with Dr. Lyman Abbott,
to say, " so far as we know, Jesus never offered a sacrifice
Himself," for by His appearance at Jerusalem at the stated
feasts and His share in the Passover supper, He was act and
part in the offering of Jewish sacrifices, still, what he adds
is, in the main, true : " He disregarded . . . the Levitical
system."3 Any deference He showed to rites and cere
monies was only in keeping with the spirit of His parable
1 Denney, 2 Corinthians iii. 1 2-end.
2 Harper (Deuteronomy, p. 251) brings out Paul's attitude towards the law
well by a comparison of Galatians and Romans.
3 Lyman Abbott, Life and Letters of Paul the Apostle, p. 321.

170 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
of the New Wine and the Old Bottles (Matt. ix. 1 7 ; Mark
ii. 2 if.; Luke v. 36, 37), and with His whole conception of
the fulfilment of the law. Not one jot or tittle of the law
was to fail, till it was fulfilled, — fulfilled in its own appropri
ate way (Matt. v. 1 7 ff.). When He speaks to that effect,
Jesus shows His fine sense of the difference between the
impatience of a revolutionary and the faith that can bear
with decaying forms, awaiting the day when they shall of
themselves fall away, and the good they enfolded be carried
over, intact, into a new re"gime. How little what we call
ceremonial counted with Christ's disciples is seen in the
silence of such a conservative as James, who must have seen
cherished rites falling into abeyance, and yet passes it with
out a hint of protest ; in the whole tenor of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, which but aims at dispelling the concern of
whilom Jews, living when Jewish ritual was on the point of
becoming a thing of the past ; and, perhaps above all, in
the polemic of Paul against the law as a means of salvation.
It would not have surprised us if, in his assault on the law,
Paul had attacked the ceremonies, and, like the writer in
Hebrews, shown their inadequacy. But, except the rite of
circumcision, he practically never mentions them, unless in
a mere allusion to apply their symbolism to Christ; while
what he does specify as ineffective, futile, are the moral
injunctions, the law as a standard of life, and as such lack
ing vital force and energy. Why this silence about so
vulnerable a side of it as the ceremonial ? Why, but
because of its essential insignificance as a factor in the law,
effete, gone without saying, in very marked contrast with
the persistent importance, challenging a verdict, of the
moral code. With this body of evidence before us, it is
reasonable to regard our distinction of moral and ceremonial
as in effect recognised by the apostles and Christ, and with
it the tacit setting aside of the ceremonial, and only a call
left for adjusting relations with the moral law.

to the Teaching of Christ 1 7 1
As has been said, the relation to the moral law, which
persists, is the recognition of it as a standard of righteousness.
And yet that is not all. The law has to be carried deeper.
It is the old law, but it is the old law read, not simply
according to the letter and as a canon of outward observ
ance, but as the rule of inward affection ; not simply as a
strong, restraining rein on all refractoriness and excess, but
an imperious " thou shalt not," imposed to find place for a
still more masterful and unhesitating " thou shalt." And
the result is a great transformation, in virtue of which
morality, in the thought of Christ and of all who think with
Him, passes from an affair of the letter to an affair of the
spirit ; from precept to principle or motive power ; from a
routine to a life. What Christ taught by His word, He
effected by His life and death, and in their own experience
of these effects His followers find material for enforcing its
profoundest lesson.
There remains, then, a law or canon as to what is the
life proper to men living as members of society, recon
stituted in Christ ; and this canon has its authority in the
will of God, indeed is identical with it. It is restated in
the living example of Jesus Christ. But one of the most
striking notes of distinctively Christian teaching in Ethics
is the resolution of all law into a single principle, " Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." So Christ stated, and
so Paul argues in the very spirit of his Master. " Owe no
man anything, but to love one another. . . It (the law) is
briefly comprehended in this saying, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour:
therefore love is the fulfilling of the law" (Rom. xiii. S-io).
If we turn to 1 Cor. xiii. 4-7, the activities of love described
there show that all the virtues, natural and Christian, are but
various expressions of the single principle, love. All the
forgotten virtues, which Christ brought into the foreground,
have the same common trait. When apostles enforce them,

172 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
they appeal to the pattern of Christ, who embodied them,
and who sums up the commandments in His own example,
" This is My commandment, That ye love one another, as I
have loved you " (John xv. 1 2). This is the new old com
mand, which John repeats (1 John ii. 7ff.). Sometimes when
we hear them speaking thus, resolving laws into love, we are
tempted to think them therefore less imperative. But no.
Love is law, an imperious law, a law which has its seat in the
nature and will of God (1 John iii. 17, iv. 8, 20, 21, v. 1).
Christ is quick to challenge a mere lip profession : " Why
call ye Me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I
say?" (Luke vi. 46; cf. Matt. vii. 22 f.). He speaks for
His Father and as the coming Judge, and He asserts His
authority. Men must answer for their treatment of His
will and law. Paul, even when insisting on his liberty,
never for a moment hints at anything but being under law
to Christ (1 Cor. ix. 21). But seen as love, the will, the
law, of God for man is known for no arbitrary enactment of
divine caprice. It is the statement of the essential condi
tion, as understood by the all-wise heavenly Father, under
which man's nature can attain its full stature, and has its
counterpart in the ruling features of His own nature, to
which His children should correspond (Matt. v. 43-48).
The question has been raised as to whether there is com
plete agreement here between Jesus and Paul and John. Do
they agree as to the range of this love? And, curiously
enough, the one on whom suspicion has fallen is John, the
so-called Apostle of Love. It has been argued, as a corol
lary from his supposed limited conception of the range
of God's love (see previous chapter), that love with him,
between man and man, is limited to the brethren ; that he
has not grasped, as Paul did, the significance of Christ's
command, " Love your enemies," or the prayer on the Cross,
" Father, forgive them ; for they know not what they do."
Now we have seen that there is no good ground for accept-

to the Teaching of Christ 173
ing the main contention. And with its rejection goes the
superstructure. It is true that John emphasises the duty of
love with marked reference to the brethren. But it is in
antithesis to a professed love to God which has no counter
part or issue in love to man, not even to a Christian brother.
And yet it is questionable if, where John uses " brother " in
the singular in his Epistle, iii. 17, iv. 20, v. 16, and especially
in the two latter passages, we have any right to take it as
meaning Christian brother, and not brother by birth, be he
Christian or no. The illustrative instance quoted is Cain
and Abel; and that leaves the impression that ties of
nature, and not of grace, are intended, and with that all
suggestion of limit on the range of the law of love in John
disappears. This law of love is the law for action towards
all mankind. " Do unto others," without distinction, " as
you would that they should do unto you (Matt. vii. 1 2 ;
Luke vi. 31). Anticipate, that is, and so conciliate the
great natural instinct of retaliation. By love everywhere
win love in return, and so establish the reign of love.
But love is still more than law in Christian ethics.
With such a law it is not difficult to understand what is
meant, when we say that with Christ morality is transformed
from a routine to a life. It means that righteousness is not
attained in unfailing conformity to prescribed details, the
letter of a law, even if that law be love, but by a spontaneous
and constant application of an inner, vital principle. Dr.
John Brown's quaint conceit that " love is the inflected perfect
tense of life (I have given = I gave ; I have lived = I love),"
suggests the extent of the change, when love becomes the
law of life. As Bovon says, " La vie, c'est l'amour." That is
true of the moral life of the Christian. It ceases to be a
thing of prescriptions, refuses to crystallise into definitions,
is more easily suggested in a parable, like that of the Good
Samaritan, or in an invitation, " Go, sell all that thou hast ;
and come, take up thy cross, and follow Me," than in an

174 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
abstract statement. It is a thing of the spirit, not of the
letter. That does not imply that its demands are less
stringent than those of the letter. It means they are more
so, apply in a thousand cases where the letter is dumb.
But it means that the heart of the Christian becomes so
full of " the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus " that it
habitually obeys its dictates, and shows its fruits in actions
" against which there is no law." And it is when the life
and the law have become one in love that the liberty of
the sons of God is reached, in which they can walk unham
pered, either by what John calls the " fear " that " hath
torment" (i John iv. 1 8), or by the uneasy conscience
which calls out Paul's warning, " Whatsoever is not of faith
is sin " (Rom. xiv. 23).
When the secret of this life of love is explored, its
vital energy, its " dynamic," as Principal Shairp calls it,1 —
and in its power to supply this he finds the crowning excel
lence of Christian ethics, — is found in the love of God to us.
And here, just as strongly as in the matter of the authority
of the law of love as God's law, perhaps even more strongly,
does the inseparable connection between ethics and religion
in the thought of Christ and His disciples appear. God's
forgiveness, God's mercy, — the forms which love takes
towards sinners, — are not simply the measure, they are the
motive, of love. Christ expects this response (Matt. vi. 14 f),
and He has no toleration for a merciless servant, who has
no appreciation of the remission of his own debt (Matt, xviii.
2 1 ff.). It is against nature to be otherwise. " To whom
much is forgiven, the same loveth much" (Luke vii. 37, 50).
Paul responded to that, " The love of Christ constraineth us,
because we thus judge," etc. (2 Cor. v. 14, 15). There he is
describing the secret of his life's activity. It has the same
root as his fortitude amid trials. " We glory in tribulation,
. . . because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts "
1 Studies in Poetry and Philosophy, iv.

to the Teaching of Christ 175
(Rom. v. 3 ff.), and what that love is, the next sentence tells :
" God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we
were yet sinners, Christ died for us." John goes deeper
still. A careful study of what he means by love, the love
that is the prevailing feature of a Christian character, gives
this result. It is not so much the love of the man himself,
as God's love streaming into his heart and overflowing
towards other men. What else is the meaning of the argu
ment in 1 John iv. 12-19; °f- ii- IO", iv. 10? How else
would our love for others prove the indwelling of God ?
Why otherwise should the result be inevitable ? " We love
(not him, but fellow-men, for that is the matter in discussion)
because He first loved us." It all tells that the springs of
Christian character are in its religion, in the heart of its God.
This explains the place that faith has in the Chris
tian life. A discussion of faith in its saving aspects must
be reserved meanwhile. But its place as a ruling principle
in shaping the conduct of Christian lives is due to the
essentially religious conception of life with Christ and His
apostles. If the exhibition of love is the manifestation of
life, faith in God is its inspiration. Faith in God is our
truest response to His love for us. There is in the New
Testament a stronger demand for faith in Him than for
love to Him, both with Christ and His apostles. As Ritschl
says, " There is a measure of reserve in the call for love to
God ; there is no reserve in the call to faith." x Why that
should be is plain from John's criticism of professed lovers
of God. It is so easy to profess love to God, so difficult
to test it directly (1 John iv. 20, 21). With faith it is the
reverse. The test can be applied at once. It is seen in a
man's life, whether he trusts God or not. And it is partly
the strong practical sense of Christ and His apostles that
puts faith in the foreground. But that is not all. Where
it exists, a man can do anything. He can remove moun-
1 Rcchtfertigung und Versohnung, ii. too.

176 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
tains (Matt. xvii. 20, 21), not necessarily as by some magic
touch, but by tackling in God's name with dogged deter
mination the most stupendous tasks. He can even forgive
a penitent brother seven times a day, for the sense of the
spiritual strain here involved immediately suggested to the
disciples the prayer, Lord, increase our faith ; or if the events
narrated together were not in immediate sequence, yet
Luke's placing of them side by side shows that he felt that
after a call to such forgiveness, it was well to remind his
readers of what Jesus had said of the power of faith, by
recording here this word about it (Luke xvii. 1-6). Faith
in God, the living spring of Christ's own marvellous life, —
Hebrews calls Him " the Author and Finisher, or Captain
and Perfecter, of Faith" (xii. 2), — of His miracles, spiritual
endurance, passion, and triumph, needs no other testimony
from Him to His conception of its ethical value. Paul
learnt the secret from Jesus, and he brings the matter to
an issue in his great dictum as to its exclusive worth. It
is all that matters — faith, " faith that worketh by love "
(Gal. v. 6). Were it not for the reference, one might think
that these were words of James, so cognate are they to his
views. " I will show thee my faith by my works " (Jas.
ii. 1 8). Hebrews gives the roll of spiritual heroes in a pro
cession of past masters in the school of faith (Heb. xi.) ; and
John, when once he has established the place of love, imme
diately turns to find the secret of the success and power in
its roots in faith. " This is the victory that overcometh the
world, even your faith" (1 John v. 1-5).
What follows this in John's Epistle shows the close
connection of faith and prayer, which is the habitual and
powerful exercise of the Christian life, and the connection
brings the last of the apostolic teachers into close touch
with its pioneers, James and Peter (1 John v. 16, 17; Jas.
v. 14-20; 1 Pet. iv. 7, 8). Each indicates its prevailing
power with God for the pardon of sin. That again accords

to the Teaching of Christ 177
with the whole teaching of Christ on the subject, which is
as forcibly given by His example as in His precepts.
There is not a situation in life in which He does not betake
Himself to it. It is His constant resource for refreshing
and strength, for spiritual calm and intrepidity in encounter
with man or devil. And He is at pains to instruct His
disciples in the whole subject. What to pray for, how to
pray, and why, He tells it all. And there is not a shade
of difference between Master and scholar as to the priceless
value of this privilege of prayer. If love and faith are there,
love to man and faith in God, prayer is inevitable.
Love as the commonly recognised fundamental law of
the Christian life makes it perfectly plain, that the result
contemplated by Christ in His redemptive work is essenti
ally social.1 What He is aiming at is not realised in the
restoral of a multitude of isolated individuals to moral
health, who, like patients healed, leave a physician without
any tie to bind them to others who have passed through His
hands. His aim is the re-establishment of them in a society in
which not only are all alive to their duties to Him, but also
for His sake to one another, and are conscious of an abiding
defect in themselves, so long as any of their fellows are not
also alive to, and in active discharge of, their respective obli
gations to their God and to their fellow-men. True, the
shepherd leaves the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and
goes after the one which was lost. But does that mean
that the one is the all-important factor, not the many ? No.
It means that the flock, which is all-important, is incom
plete so long as that one is away. And sympathy like
His own with the multitude, scattered like sheep that had
no shepherd, Christ eagerly sought, and with success, to
awaken in the hearts of His disciples (Matt. ix. 36-x. 6).2
1 H. J. Holtzmann, Neutesta?nentliche Theologie, i. 390 f.
2 Cf. Luke x. 2, 3 : the men He has first asked to pray are those whom
immediately He sends. "Pray ye. . . Go your ways ; I send you. "

178 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
When we say that the Christian view of life is distinctly
social, we do not mean simply that it recognises the social
relations of men, the ties of family, commerce, state, that its
principles are to permeate all of these, and that no man is
living the Christian life, if the principle of holy love is not
dominant in each of these spheres. That is true. Such
social aspects of Christianity are obvious. Why else have
we Jesus so interested in the integrity of the marriage tie,
prepared to uphold the authority of the state, even of an
alien state, emphatic in His verdicts on commercial dis
honesty and the abuse of the sacred trust of riches ?
Why else do James and Paul follow so closely in His foot
steps ? And if, amid the outbreak of persecution by the
government, though Peter indeed can still say, " Honour
the king," the Apocalypse throbs with scarce suppressed
holy ire against the abuses of power, it is not in any
anarchic spirit it finds relief, as if the states of earth were
all inherently evil. It is in the prospect of the consumma
tion, when " the kingdoms of this world shall become the
kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall
reign for ever and ever." But this brings out what is
primarily meant, when we say the Christian ideal is social.
It means that, in virtue of Christ's work, a new tie links
man to man in an intimacy of relationship which super
sedes every other. As soon as Christ appeared, in His
person the magnetic force was introduced into the midst of
the human race. And as soon as men began to gather
around Him, imbibe His ideas, cherish His feelings towards
their fellows, live on those terms of disinterested affection
for which He called, the result He sought could be
described as in some measure attained. It might still be
but a little flock around their shepherd, but it is the
Father's good pleasure to give them the kingdom.1
1 "Salvation brings to the City of God, to a fellowship of saints, to a social
life of mutual intercourse and help. To find our happiness in the welfare of

to the Teaching of Christ 179
What is involved in this will become plain, as we now
proceed to consider the variety of terms employed to
describe this religio-ethical ideal, in which the salvation for
which Christ worked is realised. Thus it is called the
Kingdom of God (of heaven), the Church, Eternal Life, an
Inheritance ; its possessors are Covenant people, Holy
Brethren, Sons of God, and so on. These are various
terms for the same glorious conception. But it is necessary
to show that this is so, and why the variety exists ; for many
hold that these different terms represent radically different
conceptions of the Christian ideal and speak, not only of
divergence of view among the followers of Christ, but
serious deviation on their part from the Master's funda
mental idea.
To commence with what is admittedly one of Christ's
favourite phrases, the Kingdom of God. This phrase
was constantly on the lips of Christ, particularly during
the early section of His ministry, and in public utter
ance even to the end, though not in private colloquy with
His disciples. It was used by Him as a summary for
what He taught Himself, and what He commissioned His
messengers to preach. The Synoptic writers use it in
exactly the same way. And Luke employs it in the Acts
to express the substance of even Paul's preaching, and
curiously enough he does not use it in the same way of the
preaching of the other apostles. On the other hand, the
phrase is seldom used by the other writers, and again
curiously those who heard it so often on the lips of Christ
use it with less frequency than does Paul. But wherever
it is used, the use raises the same questions as it does when
on the lips of Christ.
The phrase has a variety of forms, most prominent of
others, for the sake of Jesus Christ, is of the essence of religion, is a condition
of the dwelling in Mount Sion." Andrew Murray, The Holiest of All, p. 512, in
summary of comment on Heb. xii. 22-24.

1 80 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
which are the two, ' Kingdom of Heaven,' peculiar to
Matthew, and ' Kingdom of God.' The latter is some
times put into Christ's lips by Matthew, as well as kingdom
of heaven, so that in his Gospel both are found. Which,
then, is Christ's own usage ? Probably the double use in
Matthew represents the fact ; Christ used both. Why,
then, have Mark and Luke preserved only the one ?
Because to all intents and purposes they both mean the
same thing ; but among the Greeks, in whose midst their
Gospels were intended to circulate, heaven or the heavens
suggested Olympus, a court of gods and goddesses ; and to
avoid such misleading associations they confined themselves
to the simple phrase, kingdom of God. What supports
this view is that there does not seem to be any important
principle underlying the use of the one or the other in
Matthew. Literary taste settles the use. In the vagueness
of an introduction to a parable, we constantly find ' the
kingdom of heaven.' So also the ' gates of hell ' is followed
by the ' kingdom of heaven.' But where the personality of
the king has already been emphasised, there, as might have
been expected, kingdom of God occurs. After the con
trast between God and mammon, and the dissuasive from
care for merely earthly concerns we read, " seek ye first the
kingdom of God and His righteousness " ; and a sense of
aphoristic force approves the form. So again in xii. 28,
where the contrast between Satan and the Spirit of God is
pronounced, we expect and we find the form, the kingdom
of God ; and in the parables in xxi. 2 8 ff., where the
will of God is in marked evidence, we read ' God ' and not
' heaven.' If any emphasis is to be laid on the distinction
of terms — and while I have said that they are practically
identical, I do not accept Schiirer's explanation, that
heaven was simply a Jewish periphrasis for God ; it is the
total phrases, kingdom of heaven, and kingdom of God,
which I regard as identical in signification — the idea in

to the Teaching of Christ 1 8 1
kingdom of heaven is this. Heaven is the sphere in which
the kingdom of God exists in perfection. There God's
will is done. And if the exegesis is correct which regards
the phrase, " as in heaven, so on earth," in the Lord's
Prayer, as referring to all the three preceding petitions,
then what is implied by the kingdom of heaven becomes
quite clear. " Thy kingdom come ... as in heaven, so on
earth." That is, let the perfect relationship which exists
between the Lord, the Father, who hath His throne in the
heavens, and His subjects there, have its counterpart on
earth in the relations between God, the Father, and His
children here. In a reign of God, acknowledged among
men, there is a kingdom of heaven upon earth.
When Christ commenced to use this phrase, He never
thought it necessary to give a definition of it. The reason
for that is obvious. It was a current popular phrase,
which, in a broad, general way, expressed the great hope
of Israel, the condition of things in which Israel was to
attain and enjoy its highest good. The phrase, as such, is
not found, though it is implied, in the Old Testament. It
is not common in either the Rabbinical or Apocalyptic
writings. But there are many passages in the Psalms, in
the Prophets, and especially in Daniel, which naturally
account for its existence in the popular speech. Indeed,
prevalent opinion in our Lord's day was that Israel's
earliest constitution was that of a holy nation in covenant
with God as His people, and He alone their King. The
first demand for a human king had appeared to its
saintliest leader as almost an apostasy. This had only
been escaped by the gracious condescension of God and the
restriction of the office to a divinely-approved person, who
should hold his office in trust for God. The effort of the
exiles, returned from Babylon, had been meantime to revert
to the original type, and according to their lights establish
a theocracy, and await the fulfilment of the Messianic hope

1 82 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
of the people, which was for the re-establishment of the
kingdom under a second God-given David, a son of David.1
With much of the idea which resulted from this Jesus had
no fault to find, and He was content to accept it. It was
not necessary for Him to emphasise in it the idea of com
munity, the social element. That was there already. He
had simply to indicate its scope, show whom it embraced,
who belonged to it, and to whom it belonged. It was
not necessary to insist that it should have a place on
earth. That was expected, indeed too exclusively contem
plated, by His contemporaries, and required a corrective.
It was not necessary to emphasise the glory of the kingdom.
Every Israelite who expected to share in it was quite
sufficiently engrossed in that, was persuaded that its
outward magnificence and the distinction that would
accrue to its hereditary subjects would utterly eclipse all
rivals. What did require emphasis was that it was God's
kingdom, different in kind from all earthly kingdoms, a
kingdom of the Spirit, a kingdom of truth, existing,
spreading, and manifesting itself in spiritual facts and by
spiritual forces, never challenging comparison with earthly
realms. These are " the mysteries of the kingdom " — the
elements, i.e. only to be learnt under instruction by the
Revealer — which, in one parable after another, were
revealed to the chosen disciples who were educated enough
in the kingdom to understand all the parables in the light
of the key supplied to two of them (Matt. xiii. 10-23,
36-43). And the result of these explanations is that the
kingdom of God, in its spirituality and universality, is
discovered to be far more unlike than like any earthly
kingdom, and we are not surprised that the phrase gradu
ally dropped out of use to give place to others, better
suited to express the reality as it actually appeared. In
other words, the kingdom of God was a current phrase for
1 Cf. the cry of the throng at Christ's entry into Jerusalem (Mark xi. 9).

to the Teaching of Christ 183
the vague desires which Christ came to satisfy in so far as
they were worthy. It was a very suggestive figure of
speech, conserving the important points of a community of
subjects, living under mutual obligations, in view of their
common obligation to their ruler, who is their God. And
Christ adopted it all the more readily because it was in
current use. But it is not the master thought in Christ's
mind. As Dr. Kidd shows in his very thorough discussion
of the point, it is only by using " kingdom of God " in a
very lax way, and by fitting into it numerous ideas that
have no cognate affinity with the idea of king or kingdom,
that it can be made to appear as a chief category in Christ's
thought. If it is otherwise, it is strange that Christ never
calls the ruler of the kingdom, king, nor its members,
subjects or citizens. Even in the parables used to illustrate
the kingdom, He only rarely employs the figure of earthly
kings and their subjects. Where he does, it is just as often
as not in other than strictly kingly functions He places
them. Kingdom of God is only one phrase among many
in the vocabulary which He used to convey His great ideas
to His fellow-men.1
It need not surprise us that it disappeared so largely
from the vocabulary of the Early Church, when it is noted,
{a) that even in Christ's use of it there is a gradual
recession, and (Ji) that Christ supplies its place with other
terms of a totally different complexion. As to the gradual
passage of the phrase into the background, that is most
strikingly suggested by its almost total absence from the
Gospel of John, which is admittedly more occupied with
the later than with the earlier teaching of Jesus. This
shows, too, that it disappeared more quickly from His
words to His disciples, which also preponderate in John,
than from His public utterances. In Luke, it is true, it
1 For a very thorough discussion of the point, see Dr. Kidd's Kerr Lecture,
Morality and Religion, Lect. VIII. The Kingdom of God.

184 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
reappears with its early frequency towards the end, in the
Jerusalem journey (ix. 5 1 -xviii. 1 9). But there, as we
have seen, Jesus was toward the end of His ministry
opening up new ground, and hence, as was to be expected,
reverting to much of His preliminary teaching. But where
Jesus had already expressly attached all that was essentially
true in the phrase, it was passing away in parabolic, dis
solving views. The reason is not far to seek.1 There was
not the same necessity to present the kingdom, when He
had begun to bring into the foreground the person of the
King, Himself, the Christ. What Weizsacker says of the
course of Paul's teaching, occurs in the course of the teach
ing of Christ Himself: " The kingdom of God is, as it were,
merged into the doctrine of the Christ." 2 As the Christ
therefore came into prominence, the need to enlarge on the
kingdom vanished. And what Jesus felt, the writers of the
New Testament felt still more, and especially when urged
by prudential motives on coming into contact with the
civil authorities throughout the Roman Empire. Having no
wish to provoke unnecessary hostility, and being anxious
to gain adherents, they dropped a compromising word,
fiacnXela, regnum, a term, like rex, hateful and suspicious
to a Roman ear,3 which, in itself, had served its purpose
and was non-essential, and from which, in other terms, they
preserved all that was important. In this they simply
followed the example of Christ. When questioned by
1 It is important to note that the kingdom of God is the Messianic kingdom,
according to Christ's teaching. In the explanation of the parable of the Tares,
Jesus passes quite naturally from speaking of the kingdom of the Son of man
to speak of it as the kingdom of the heavenly Father. And generally the
kingdom of God is the kingdom which Jesus introduces, which He claims as His
kingdom, and teaches His disciples to pray about as the kingdom of the Father
in heaven. 2 Apostolic Age, i. 141.
3 Horton (The Teaching of Jesus, p. 220) remarks : " Kingdom of God was
not a suitable term for the world at large." Xpiords, which was adopted
untranslated into Latin speech, apparently had no kingly associations in ordinary
Greek, and suggested none per se to an uninitiated Roman.

to the Teaching of Christ 185
Pilate, Christ admits He is a king, but explains that
His kingdom is not of this world ; and then as He con
tinues, when you expect Him to say something further
about His kingdom, He substitutes " the truth " (John
xviii. 33-38). Similarly, in Matt, xviii. Jesus passes with
perfect naturalness, in speaking of the blessings He has
come to bestow and the relations under which they are
to be enjoyed, from the idea of the kingdom to that of
life, and then to the family relationship. On the other
hand, in the following chapters, xix. 1 6— xx. 1 6, commencing
with the inquirer's term, "eternal life," Jesus uses, in turn,
in converse with him and with His disciples, kingdom and
salvation as its equivalents ; and, apparently, no feeling of
incongruity is excited in the minds of any of them by these
transitions. They are accepted as terms germane to the
one grand subject, well understood by all, suggestive of
various aspects of it, and each appropriate in its turn, yet
none of them comprehensive enough to say all. Jesus was
not anxious about a name. He was only anxious about
the living reality. And He left the society He founded to
discover what phrase would, from time to time, best explain
the institution to its contemporaries.
When the ministry of Christ was over, and the little
community which He had gathered began to acquire an
independent existence with a certain sense of corporate
unity and with a set of men entrusted with the manage
ment of its affairs, it became conscious that it did require
a name for itself. It was not enough for the members to
call themselves the disciples, the brethren, the believers.
There was nothing definite about that, nothing sufficiently
comprehensive or characteristic. The community was still
too modest to call itself the kingdom of God. Not that it
did not regard itself as in some measure a realisation of
Christ's ideal. But, apart from other considerations already
adduced, it felt that it would misrepresent to the world the

1 86 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
magnificence of that conception, if it assumed that as a
name. Still it was not easy to pitch on an appropriate
term. There was so much that they were anxious to
conserve and to express. And nothing is quite so sug
gestive of their perplexity as a paragraph in First Peter
(ii. 1—9), where he throws out in rapid succession one term
after another in an attempt by the combined effect to
suggest what he felt ought to be said in a proper descrip
tion of the Christian community. He says they are " new
born babes " ; " living stones, built up a spiritual house, to
be a holy priesthood " ; " an elect race, a royal priesthood,
a holy nation, a peculiar people for God's own possession."
These terms are all culled from the Old Testament.1 They
all have expressions closely resembling them in the various
New Testament books. And there are still others such as,
" the flock of God," " the Holy City, the New Jerusalem," a
favourite in Revelations, while in Hebrews the old Covenant
idea presses for expression. Any name, therefore, to be
adequate must suggest as many as possible of the points
indicated. It must express the claim of the Christian
community to preserve the true continuity of the Covenant
people of God. It must express its own conviction, that
its members are no heterogeneous amalgamation of units,
but a corporation with a constitution, and with solemn
mutual obligations and privileges. And it must bring all
this into unique touch with Christ.
In the vocabulary of Christ the word to express this
was lying ready to their hand, the word eKtcXtfaia, Church.
This was a term in current use, without religious associa
tions, among the Greeks, to describe a convoked assembly
of a community (cf. Acts xix. 32, 39, 41). It passed into
the Greek version of the Old Testament (cf. Acts vii. 38)
as one of the terms used to describe the community of the
1 For the O.T. parallels and sources see Deut. x. 15 ; Ex. xix. 5, 6; Deut,
vii. 6 ; Isa. xxviii. 16 ; Ps. cxviii. 22 ; Hos. i. 6, 9, 10, ii. 23.

to the Teaching of Christ 187
people of God. The other term was avvaymyrj. In the
latter the idea of community predominates over assembly,
but it had already been identified with the Jewish nation
and their religious pretensions. When Christ, therefore,
was selecting a word to describe the community which He
had founded, and for which He claimed the legitimate
succession as God's people, He appropriated the other term,
iKKXrfcrLa, and so prepared it for the use of His people to
describe the community, collectively regarded, of those who
adhered to Him and in Him to the God of faithful Israel.
The word, it is true, is used by Him on but two occasions.
There are no grounds, however, other than the exigencies of
theory, for doubting the genuineness of the passages which
report them. They occur only in Matthew. They are
omitted in parallel passages in Mark and Luke, but in Luke
there are further omissions in this connection of what occurs
in Mark as well as in Matthew. And so one hesitates to
attach to their common silence any significance hostile to
the genuineness of the passages in Matthew. In the words
themselves there is nothing inherently suspicious. In pro
fane Greek eKKXtjcria was sometimes used of the place of
assembly. The Old Testament community, the ecclesia of
Israel, was the house of Israel. Why should it surprise us,
then, that Jesus, having elicited from His disciples the con
fession which differentiated men who adhered to Him as
Messiah from the rest of Israel and supplied Him with the
nucleus for the formation of the new true house of Israel,
should play on Peter's name and say, " On this rock will I
build My ecclesia (Church)," a that is to say, the community,
which is to be My house, which gathers, in response to My
summons, to form the new covenant people with God, and to
1 As 'EKKXrio-la means both community and the building where a community
meets (see Cremer, Lexicon of New Testament Greek, sub voce, though he sets
aside the inference which I am drawing), this passage would afford the natural
source for all those expressions for the Christian community, borrowed from the
figure of a building.

1 88 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
which shall be transferred all the stability and privileges of
Israel ? The gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It
shall have charge of the keys that unlock the gate of the
kingdom of heaven, with which it thus is seen to stand in
closest conjunction (Matt. xvi. 13-20). Dr. Hort, in his
monograph on the Christian Ecclesia, to which I confess deep
obligations, takes eicicXrfala. in the other passage, " tell it to
the Church" (Matt, xviii. 17), as equivalent to "the Jewish
local community to which the injured person and the offender
both belonged," 1 though he admits, of course, that the prin
ciple stated holds good for all time, i.e. for Christian com
munities also. With this I cannot agree. His reason is
that otherwise it would hardly be intelligible to his hearers.
But Jesus had already spoken of His Church. This inci
dent is the later of the two. In the immediate sequel to
this second utterance He repeats the commission of autho
rity which He had first given on the previous reference to
the Church, and He follows it up by declaring that He
would Himself be spiritually present in the midst of gather
ings of His people, as if to explain the tremendous pre
rogative which He had now assigned to them. All of this
surely suggests that by the Church something else is meant
than Jewish gatherings, where Jesus was by this time a
person suspect. Rather He took it for granted that His
disciples would at once understand His meaning from His
previous statement. Or, what is even more likely, as He
uses " Church " in each case without explanation, He felt
no explanation necessary, but regarded the application of
the word to the community He was already gathering
round Himself as perfectly obvious.
Why, then, was not this word at once adopted to
describe the Christian community ? A study of the phrase,
as used in the Acts of the Apostles, suggests that at first
it was. No doubt was felt as to its appropriateness, so
1 Cf. Bruder, Concordance, sub voce.

to the Teaching of Christ 1 89
long as the Christian community was practically confined
to a single locality, Jerusalem, where it could actually form
a single assembly. But when the members were scattered,
and little companies gathered in different places, a certain
perplexity arose as to what was entitled to be called the
Church, and it was tacitly settled by retaining the name
for the main parent community which continued at Jeru
salem and met there. The reading of the best manuscripts
in Acts ix. 31, f] eKKXTfala, suggests a glimmer of under
standing of the possibility of the use of the term for a com
prehensive inclusion of all communities under one name,
the Church. But it disappeared. And amid the friction
of party that soon ensued there was danger of the more
serious loss of the consciousness of the fact of unity, as
well as of the word to express it. After this, in Paul's earlier
Epistles, and in the Apocalypse, " Church" is used, not for
a unity, but to describe the separate assemblies in different
localities, of which there might be more than one in the
same town. Indeed, to judge by 2 Cor. i. 1, for a time
its sense seems to have become so limited that isolated
saints, living beyond the reach of the meetings of the
central community, were scarcely regarded as parts of the
Church, and therefore are mentioned separately. In the
Apocalypse, too, which represents a type of feeling which
survived in Jewish quarters after it was left behind in Gen
tile circles, John, anxious for a term by which to describe
the whole Christian community, has to content himself with
the symbolic method of selecting seven Churches, i.e. the
perfect number, and use this to express the Church as a
whole.1 But that is not the last word about " Church" in New
Testament. The word was wanted for something grander,
and at last there flashed upon Paul's mind the full signifi
cance of what Jesus had said. Paul had often tried to
1 Milligan, Expositor's Bible, "Revelation," p. 27 ff.

190 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
impress upon the separate communities the intensely close
bond of unity that linked them together.1 He rang the
changes on the fact that they were a building of God, built
by God on the foundation-stone of Christ, and on Him of
the apostles, every heart a shrine, every community a
temple for the indwelling of God. Still more elaborately,
under the figure of the body, he pressed home upon the
Corinthians their unity and the duty of mutual ministry,
and he repeated the figure when he was writing to Rome
(i Cor. xii. 12-14; Rom. xii. 4, 5). But when he reached
Rome, the figure assumed a new significance for him. He
fell under the spell of the city. He was impressed by the
imposing grandeur of the world-embracing unity of the
Roman polity. He had always prized its citizenship. It
had stood him in good stead at many a critical juncture.
At last he was there within its walls, to stand his trial at
Caesar's judgment bar, because he was " free-born." And
if he does not, with John in the Revelation, see the Christian
community as a nobler city still, yet in his letter to the
Philippians, colonists and therefore citizens themselves, men
among whom he had successfully asserted his own citizen
rights (Acts xvi. 35—39), the thought flashes out that all
Christians are members of one mighty state : " Our citizen
ship is in heaven " (Phil. iii. 20). And turning to write to the
Ephesians, with the strife between Jew and Gentile a thing
of the past, and the two reconciled in Christ, the unity of
the members of this spiritual community, more marvellous
in its rights and privileges than Rome, overpowers him.
The old figure of the body returns with a new vividness.
It is used with a daring on which he had not hitherto ven
tured. It is not simply the members of whom he now
speaks. Christ is included. All in union with Him are
with Him but one body, of which He is the Head, from
1 Among other methods, his great collection for the saints was a practical
effort in this direction.

to the Teaching of Christ 191
whom all the body is fitly framed and knit together by that
which every joint supplies. If Christ is indispensable to
their life and existence, they are indispensable to Him.1 It
is thus the measure of the stature of a perfect man in Christ
is reached (Eph. iv. 1 — 16). It is this body which is the
fulness (or the fulfilment, or complement, i.e. completement)
of Him who filleth all in all (Eph. i. 23). And as this
magnificent conception of the organic unity, that embraces
all the communities of those who believe in Christ, strikes
him, he sees that nothing less than this was what Christ
had long ago spoken of, when He foretold a glorious struc
ture which He should build, and which He called His
Church. So he recovers Christ's own conception of the
Church, viz. the Christian community as one great living
unity in closest contact with Christ Himself (Eph. i. 22).
It is necessary to remember, however, what were re
garded as the functions of the Church, and that what is
stated as true of the separate Churches is not less but more
true of the comprehensive whole. It is no merely devotional
organisation to maintain the observance of certain rites and
ceremonies of worship. These have a place, and an im
portant place, in the life of the Church. But, in truth,
there is no domain of human interest or duty, no human
relationship which does not come directly within the sweep
of the Church's influence. Membership in the Church
becomes regulative of all relationships. A place in this
community determines action in every sphere. The in
timacy of the membership, the duties of its officers, the
motive and actions of its Founder and Head, alike attest
this. And with this in our mind, there is little difficulty
in recognising how close is the connection between the
Church and the kingdom of God. On their ideal side, and
in so far as they express the thought of the community,
1 Cf. E. B. Browning, Aurora Leigh, p. 217 : " This head has all the people
for a heart."

192 The Relation of the Apostolic Teach

in

o

they are identical. Where they diverge is in the fact that
on Christ's lips in kingdom the emphasis is thrown on
King and Constitution, in Church it is on the community
in which the King's writ runs. In the Church the kingdom
finds an embodiment of itself ever more complete as the
community grows, and at the same time an instrument for
its own extension. The perfection of each depends on the
perfect realisation of the other. That the one should have
largely given place to the other in the speech of the com
munity, is not surprising, when what has been already
mentioned, as to the politically compromising element in
the term kingdom, is borne in mind. In Church, e/acXrjcrla,
on the other hand, there was a term, free from these
elements, and as suggestive to the man familiar with the
Old Testament of the relation of the Christian community
to God as the word kingdom.1 Church for such a man
placed the Christian community in the position of Israel as
the covenant people of God. To the Greek, as well as to
the man initiated in Jewish literature, it suggested a com
munity with a constitution and times of public meeting
for its proper business. And to both alike, when they
heard that Christ had used it to describe the society He
had founded among men, it would take on a sacred com
plexion, which would give it the same exclusive significance,
as was similarly acquired by the name Jesus, or the title
Christ. If, in our da)r, there has been an enthusiastic
turning from Church to kingdom, and that as the counter
part of a supposed rediscovery, that Christianity is a social
institution, and not a pathway for solitaries, that is not due
to any defect in the significance of the name originally
selected by Christ and generally adopted by His followers.
It is due to the abuse and restriction of its meaning. And
the true significance of the reassertion of the kingdom is
1 The perusal of the first three verses of Deut. xxiii. in the Septuagint will
make this immediately apparent, and there are scores of parallels.

to the Teaching of Christ 193
that it is a great recall of the Church to its own true
Christ-given dignity, when He called it His Ecclesia, God's
one great society. It is the repetition in another form of
the achievement of Paul in the Epistle to the Ephesians.
A third outstanding term which is used to describe
the ideal for which Christ worked, and which, in John's
Gospel, appears as constantly on the lips of Christ as does
kingdom in the Synoptics, is Life, Eternal Life. When we
have noted that John's Gospel deals more with individuals
than do the Synoptics, — eg. personal interviews have a place
in it, with which there is little to compare in the others, —
we can understand why this term Life should come specially
to the front here. Its use, however, is not confined to the
Gospel of John, nor there to Christ. It is as common with
John himself, not less so with Paul ; and James and Peter
also use it. And they all use it in the same sense.
It is well to observe how closely it is related to the
conception which Christ expressed by kingdom. This is
seen in the easy transition from the one to the other,
which we have already noticed in the Synoptics. Then,
again, the conditions of inheriting life are identical with
those of entering the kingdom, as a comparison of the
interview with Nicodemus with that with the rich young
ruler shows (John iii. 1 — 1 5 ; Luke xviii. 18—30). The life,
too, has the same double aspect which the kingdom pre
sents. It is lived in this world, but it is in sharp contrast
with a life devoted to this world (John xi. 25 ; cf. Luke
xviii. 30). It is eternal life. It has that other-worldly
character which belongs to the kingdom of God, as Jesus
describes it in John's Gospel, " not of this world " (John
xviii. 36). It is life nourished by a perennial "spring of
living water," and by " the bread of life of which a man
shall eat and not die" (John iv. 13, 14, vi. 50). Its char
acteristic feature is fellowship with God and with those
who love Him. Further, like kingdom of God, the phrase
J3

194 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
life, eternal life, is not entirely new. The grander views
of life in fellowship with God were already familiar to the
Jew, and the idea of resurrection was accepted by the
majority of Christ's contemporaries. Our Saviour, there
fore, does not find it necessary to define eternal life, any
more than to define Kingdom or Christ, unless we take the
words as a definition, " This is life eternal, to know Thee, the
only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent"
(John xvii. 3). Jesus simply accepts the current ideas,
derived largely from the Old Testament, in so far as they
were correct.1 But He makes one significant addition to
them. He joins the life inseparably with Himself as an
outflow from the springs of His own Being (John vi. 35,
x. 10, xi. 25, xiv. 6). What, then, is the life ? It is the pos
session in growing perfection of all the faculties and powers,
especially those that are moral and spiritual, with which
God endows men, their consecration to God's service, and
their delighted use for this end in the way in which He
designed men to use them. It is life as Christ lived it and
gave it, life within the limits and under the conditions of
the kingdom of God. For, as Christian says to Pliable,
" There is an endless kingdom to be inhabited, and ever
lasting life to be given us, that we may inhabit that
kingdom for ever."
The completeness of its connection with the kingdom,
however, its rich ethical import, and its full suggestiveness,
are only reached, when we recall (1) the number of vital
processes which are used to illustrate the mysteries of the
kingdom, and (2) the set of cognate terms that run parallel
to it, and describe those who possess it, or the blessings it
embodies. (1) On the former point, it is instructive to recall the
number of parables of the kingdom drawn from the seed
1 H. J. Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Theologie, i. 203 f., 222 ; Moorhouse,
Teaching of Christ, p. 141 f.

to the Teaching of Christ 195
and its growth. There are the parables of the Sower, of
the Tares, of the Seed growing secretly, of the Grain of
Mustard Seed. Similarly, there are the parables of the
Leaven, the New Wine fermenting in the Old Bottles, and
the Barren Fig Tree. All of these suggest how essentially
a thing of life is the constitution of the kingdom. And
not only so, but some of them show that what is thus alive
and growing is not something isolated and solitary, but
something in constant touch with neighbours, and only in
company with them attaining full perfection. In John's
Gospel there correspond to these parables from the Synop
tics, the Corn of Wheat, and the Vine and its Branches,
explaining, the one the origin, and the other the continu
ance of the life, of those in union with Jesus Christ. But
the very figures employed suggest that the healthy product
is no set of isolated units, but a corporate whole with a
common life. Life, therefore, corporate as well as individual,
is distinctive of the result in which Christ contemplated the
accomplishment of His design. Life and kingdom are
correlative ideas.
(2) But still more significant is what might be called the
natural history of a member of Christ's society. As given
by Christ Himself, it commences with a birth, i.e. with
the origination of a new life by the life-giving spirit (John
iii. 3 ff.). The result of this is a child x of God. He with
whom the child enters into this relationship is the Father,
and it is through His well-beloved Son. And the effort,
ambition, and achievement of Christ was to link these
children together into one whole on the model of the closest
family tie that exists, that of Himself to His Father (John
xvii. 20—23). In John's Gospel He does not use the word
" family," and He uses " brethren " on only two occasions,
both after the resurrection. But what else is implied
1 Vinvov = child, a. word which emphasises the vital relationship, not vl6s =
son, which points to the privileges of the position.

196 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
in the obedience for which He calls, and the mutual love
which He enjoins, among those for whom He goes to
prepare a place among the many mansions of His Father's
house? (John xiv.). These are the terms which gather
round life, when Christ speaks in John's Gospel.
In the Synoptics the family relationship is also em
ployed by Christ, although the allusions are chiefly in the
form of figures, and deal more with the fulfilment of its
functions than with its constitution and vital ties. Enter
ing the kingdom is, by being converted and becoming like
little children (Matt, xviii. 3). In virtue of spiritual affinity,
men and women, bound to Him by no physical relation
ship, are regarded as most truly His brothers, sisters,
mother (Matt. xii. 48 ff.). Disciples, willing for His sake
to give up father, mother, child, etc., receive instead a place
in a vast spiritual family circle (Mark x. 30). But figure
disappears when He calls God Father, calls them brethren,
bids them be like their Father, and play, man to man, a
brother's part.
In other parts of the New Testament this vital bond
constantly reappears. John's Gospel, when he speaks in it
himself, is full of it, and so are his Epistles. He dwells
on Christ as the Life. In men, life commences by a new
birth from God, Christ giving them the power, or right, to
become children of God (John i. 1-14). It is the blessed
relation in which every believer stands : " Now are we chil
dren of God," and under the inspiration of the thought, all
purify themselves, as Christ is pure (1 John iii. 1-4). This
also constitutes them brethren to one another, and as such
determines the life they are to lead, the life worthy of its
eternal essence. Closely akin to John's thought is James's
conception of the origin of spiritual life : " Of His own will
He {i.e. the Father of Lights) brought us forth by the word
of truth" (Jas. i. 17, 18). Peter, too, has this thought of
a divine begetting, of newborn babes desiring to be fed

to the Teaching of Christ 197
with the sincere milk of the word. Indeed the whole
passage, 1 Pet. i. 3-10, is a striking parallel to 1 John
iii. 1 ff.
But the idea is appropriated and developed most
originally by Paul. He has the common thought of eternal
life. " Christ is our life : " " Our life is hid with Christ in
God " (Col. iii. 3, 4). It stands out, as it does also in John,
both when he gives Christ' s-words and his own, in contrast
with death (Rom. vi. 23; Eph. ii. 1-10). Of its origin
he follows hints that suggest resurrection rather than birth
(Gal. ii. 19, 20; Rom. vi. 3— 1 1, etc.; cf. John v. 24 ff.)-
Yet for him, the believer is a new creation, God's " poem,"
created unto good works (Eph. ii. 10). And when once he
has got the idea of child of God, re/cvov, he claims the
privileges : " If children, then heirs ; heirs of God, and joint
heirs with Christ" (Rom. viii. 12—17). He claims the
name uio? = one who occupies the position and possesses
the dignity and privilege of a son of God. As I take
it, that explains Paul's use of the word vlodeaia, translated
" adoption " (Rom. viii. 15; Gal. iv. 5; Eph. i. 5). It is
not a mere accommodation to Roman ideas to help them to
understand how a man, who was not a child of God by
nature, could become a child of God. Such an idea is too
formal and external for the fulness of Paul's thought.
Divine sonship is a reality, and vloOeaia is the endowment
of one who is already reicvov with the dignity and privileges
which are implied in vw?, as soon as he is fit to use them.
The context in Gal. iii. 23-iv. 5, and Rom. viii. 12 ff., bears
this out. In the former passage Paul is using the passing
of the heir from the stage of tutelage to majority to illus
trate the passage of a man from under the law to the liberty
of Christ, and in proof of its accomplishment he mentions
one inevitable result, endowment with the Spirit, which gives
him boldness to call God Abba, Father. In Romans the
course of thought is practically the same. Those led by

198 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
the Spirit of God are the sons of God (viol). They have
the spirit which corresponds to the dignity and privilege of
the position they hold in view of their vloOecrla. Hence
they must be tkicva, persons in filial relation to God, and
fit to receive its privileges. These children constitute God's
family, and live in the tenderest brotherly relation to one
another. And, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the
Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, which dwells in them, they live
lives in conformity to the law of holy liberty (Rom. viii. 3 ff. ;
Gal. v. 1 ff.). In ordinary unaffected address they are called
indiscriminately brethren, or saints, or, in felicitous con
junction, holy brethren.
Paul pushes the idea of the right of sons a stage farther.
This gift of the Holy Spirit is an earnest of something
grander still. And here we find a term awaiting, which in
Paul, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and 1 Peter, describes
again the ideal to which salvation tends. It is the word
"inheritance." It suggests nothing that is not already
implied in words already considered. But it places the
prospect in the attractive light which it assumed to the eyes
of the men for whom it was in store. If it was God's king
dom, it was their inheritance, the grand opportunity for the
full enjoyment of the eternal life they already possessed
(Rom. viii. 17 ; Gal. iii. 18 ; Col. iii. 24 ; Eph. i. 14 ; Heb.
ix. 1 5 ; 1 Pet. i. 4).
Thus, by taking the idea of eternal life, not simply by
itself, but in connection with the whole scheme of spiritual
biology, we arrive at a conception which is seen to be
closely allied with what is implied in kingdom of God, and
not less in keeping with what Paul describes as the Church.
We see that it is not so exclusively Johannine as to cause
any doubt as to its genuine use by Christ. And it is a
germ which has borne fruit in the thoughts of all who
received their most cherished conceptions from Christ's
own fertilising discourse.

to the Teaching of Christ 1 99
Having regard to this vocabulary, we recognise the two
fold effect which Jesus had to achieve in order to realise
His ideal. He had to create and foster new life, and pre
pare the environment congenial to it. The environment
consists in a circle of kindred souls all imbued with the
same desires, aspirations, and principles. In the first
instance, all He can give is Himself. But each new life,
called into existence, helps the general good. , As the
community gathers round Himself, each helps the faith and
life of all. Of first importance is union with Him : " I am
the vine, ye are the branches ; without Me, ye can do
nothing" (John xv. 5). A bundle of branches has no life
apart from the stem. But united with Him, the strength
of every stalwart bough helps the growth of all the spring
ing shoots. We have now to ask what was the thought of Christ
and His apostles as to the realisation of this society.
But there are several points that must not be forgotten in
approaching this subject. It is necessary, for one thing, to
anticipate a little, because the question of the realisation of
the Kingdom is very closely connected with the fortunes of
the King. Then, again, the interests of the society involve
the interests of the individual members. And in general
this question involves the whole Christian view of the future.
It is also very helpful to correct results, to keep in mind
the lesson of the known fulfilment of Old Testament pro
phecy. In prophecy, favoured men have been permitted to
gaze along the vistas of the future, but from different
windows. It is not possible, therefore, either to gauge the
perspective of each, or to adjust the exact position of each
development, depicted by separate individuals, in the scene.
And the outlook was never given with any such intention.
Invariably the subject is introduced to exercise an immedi
ate influence upon conduct ; to stimulate, sustain, or warn,
never to satisfy curiosity, or encourage speculation. Since

200 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
this is so, it is indispensable, in order to understand the
prophecies, to put ourselves in the position of the predicters,
their hearers and their times, and not to interpret the pre
dictions merely in the light of our reading of subsequent
events. If we can discover their reading of any events
in which they see any of their own prophecies fulfilled,
we shall be much nearer understanding the others. This
will prevent an insistive literalism which is fatal to truth.
Was the kingdom, then, a thing of the present, or a
hope of the future? Or is this alternative misleading?
Was it really both ? What we have already established as
to the nature of this society involves the answer, involves
the interpretation which we are to put on the terms used.
This does not amount to forestalling inquiry. It simply
means that here is the clue to what is essential and what is
accommodational in the utterances. These must be inter
preted in harmony with the original conception to which
they refer. We are sometimes confronted with another
supposed antinomy of a spiritual, as against a Jewish,
apocalyptical, and therefore non-spiritual eschatology.1 But,
again, is that an irreconcilable alternative ? The question
is, which is determinative, the spiritual or the apocalyptical ?
If the whole trend of the teaching of Jesus in presenting
the nature of the kingdom itself has been to bring into
prominence the spiritual kernel in the heart of Jewish em
bellishments, and to do it by emphasis of the true rather
than by contradiction of the false, so that husk and shell
simply fall away in time by neglect and disuse, it is legitim
ate to recognise the same method at work in the description
of the future of the kingdom, and to read what is spectacular
and material in the light of what is spiritual.
Thus, by way of illustration, take a saying of Christ's,
uttered on two occasions, which has all the appearance of
1 H. J. Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Theologie, i. 221, ii. 187; Expository
Times, viii. 320, ix. 531.

to the Teaching of Christ 201
being a genuine utterance in each of the settings, a case of
repetition. It is the promise to the Twelve that " in the
regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit upon the throne
of His glory, they shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the
twelve tribes of Israel" (Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 30).
To say nothing of the purely figurative description of the
bliss of the kingdom connected with this saying in Luke,1
it is evident that what Christ means is something like
this. The Twelve had served Him in circumstances of
special strain. If others were to reach a place in the king
dom, they were entitled to special favour ; if others were
to obtain citizenship, they were entitled to peerage, entitled
to form, so to say, its aristocracy or its cabinet council, to
hold a premier place even among its oldest heritors, " sit on
twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." But
there is nothing more strictly Jewish in the reality, nothing
less figurative in the language employed there, than in the
ordinary use of the term Messiah, as applied to Jesus
Himself. It is impossible to evade the fact that, on the face of it,
Christ presented the kingdom, which He came to found, in
a double light, as already existent and as still to come.
Many writers contend that only the one view or the other
was really held by Jesus. But their works only demon
strate that on the surface, at anyrate, both appear ; for the
strength of their books is always devoted to ingenious efforts
to get rid of the force of the statements on one side or the
other. As Wendt shows, this double aspect was due to no
modifying of earlier views by later reflection in the light of
experience. It was a constant factor in Christ's teaching.
It is just as true of it, when the consummation is presented
in terms of eternal life in John, as when it is in terms of
1 It is compared to a banquet, and it is worse than absurd to ask men to
believe that any Jew was ever so foolish as to think that the bliss of the heaven
he was taught by God to expect was to consist in perpetual eating and drink
ing.

202 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
the kingdom in the Synoptics. And this has a striking
parallel in varying aspects of the saving operations by
which it is brought about, for these are sometimes spoken
of as completed, sometimes as in process, and sometimes as
awaiting execution at the last. From the very circum
stances of the case, this is exactly what was to be expected.
And it is to ignore the supreme concern of Jesus for moral
interests and His respect for the conditions of moral life, to
cavil at this varying presentation, as if it were incoherent
or self-contradictory. In the gradual formation around
Himself, as the Messiah, of a little company of men,
animated by an eager desire to live in right relations to
God and their fellow-men, and devoted to the task of
permeating society with their views, there was the justi
fication of all Jesus said of the actual present existence
of the kingdom, and of the possession by its members of
eternal life. Its humble condition and its silent unobtrusive
methods easily explain what He meant when He said, " It
cometh not with observation," and is already " among you "
(Luke xvii. 20, 21). But this was. the initial stage. It
was nothing to what would be, when its principles should
have fully asserted themselves in the whole range of the life
of each adherent, and all susceptible of its spell had come to
own allegiance to its King. Then, in a far grander sense,
the kingdom would come, " as in heaven, so on earth."
Was this, however, to be immediately, or only after
long delay? There is little doubt that in the primitive
Church there was intense expectancy of the coming of
Christ, the tvapovaia, with which was often associated,
and especially at first, the idea of the completed king
dom, and the judgment in which its victorious completion
should be gloriously manifested. There is very much in
the teaching of the apostles and in the utterances of
Christ that explains the origin of this belief, even in its
crudest form. But what is the significance of the fact

to the Teaching of Christ 203
that the Early Church has retained the documents in which
the sayings occur on which were founded the views which
the course of events proved mistaken, and that one of the
books, about which they seem to have hesitated, was the
Book of Revelation,1 on the surface of which this speedy
return seemed to be most prominently written ? Is it
not this ? They perceived that the hasty interpretation,
which was most congenial to heated imaginations, was not
the only one, nor the right one, and another more deliber
ate, more comprehensive, came nearer the mark.
For what is Christ's teaching? In His forecast of
the future He insists on four certainties: (1) His own
immediate manifestation in power, (2) a speedy and
tragic reckoning with the Jewish people, (3) thereupon
a rapid and universal dissemination of the news of the
gospel, and (4) His final glorious return as Judge. But
Jesus was far too much alive to facts to allow His in
sistence on these four certainties to obscure His vision
to the incidence of death in the lives of thousands around
Him every day, or to suggest that His disciples would be
impervious to its assault. He tells them explicitly that
death may be the price of their loyalty to Him. But over
against that He sets the resurrection, in which the tragedy
of death is eclipsed in life.
The locus classicus for the eschatology of Christ is
Matt. xxiv. and xxv. But it is a mistake to limit the
section thus. These two chapters are only a part of
the great group of teaching on the last day of Christ's
public ministry. It is all instinct with the impending
catastrophe. From xxi. 1 8 onwards, He is speaking in
view of the end. And the full import of the two chapters
is only felt, when they are read in close touch with what
precedes, and in view of the tragic events which began
1 Salmon (Introduction to the Neiv Testament) has a very suggestive para
graph in this connection, p. 273.

204 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
with His seizure on the very next day.1 Now as to His
own death, Jesus never contemplated it apart from His
immediate resurrection. When He sealed His own death
warrant by His reply to Caiaphas, it was in terms that
indicate that He regarded the sentence He knew they
would pass in view of His words as virtually His own
investiture with power. " Henceforth," He says {i.e. from
now onwards, air dp-rl = dtrb tov vvv. So Liddle and
Scott), " ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the
right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven ''
(Matt. xxvi. 64).2 In Christ's mind, therefore, His own
resurrection is the decisive transition for Himself and for
the fortunes of His kingdom from humiliation to glory.
In the light of that all His sayings about men of His
own day living to see the Son of man coming in His
kingdom are easily understood, and stand fulfilled. And
this view of the significance of the resurrection of Christ
is predominant throughout the preaching of the Acts of
the Apostles, the letters of Paul, and the vision of the
Apocalypse. In Matt. xxiv. Christ is answering the ques
tion of His disciples as to the time at which the fate, which
He says is impending over Jerusalem, will fall. With
wealth of circumstantial detail He sketches the course of
events which are to fall out within that generation, and
in which God's rejection of the Jewish people and His
visitation on them of all their sins would be conspicuously
accomplished (xxiv. 34; cf. vv. 23, 36). And the effect,
He says, of this drastic measure would be the clearing
of the ground for a proclamation of the gospel more
1 Many say the next but one. It is the one or the other. It is a question
whether or not room should be found for a blank day in the middle of Passion
Week. 2 Cf. the repeated reference in John to the anticipated effect of " His being
lifted up" with its double implication (John iii. 14 f., viii. 28, xii. 32, 34); and
also note what Weizsacker (Apostolic Age, i. 65) says of the prediction of the
destruction of the temple, though I cannot concur with his view of it as against
John ii. 19.

to the Teaching of Christ 205
glorious than ever (ver. 31), just because its most deter
mined opponent was laid low. Now this whole stage of
the experience of the kingdom is thought of, by those
passing through it and in harmony with Christ's sketch
of it, as peculiarly a time of trial and conflict. In Acts
the converts are reminded that they must expect tribula
tion (Acts xiv. 22). James and Peter write to encourage
those who are in the midst of trials. Paul speaks in the
same spirit in Corinthians, Romans, and Philippians. And
the visions of Revelation, while they depict principles that
are constantly operating in the development of Christianity,
up to the end of chap. xiii. refer to this same period of
conflict, the interval, that is to say, between the resurrection
and the fate of the " city which spiritually is called Sodom
and Egypt, where the Lord was crucified " (xi. 8). At
that point the centre of opposition to the followers of
Christ undergoes a change. The fate of apostate Jeru
salem is decided. The new seat of hostility is Babylon =
Rome. But coincidently with this transition appears an
Angel in Heaven, having the Eternal Gospel to proclaim
(xiv. 6; cf. Matt. xxiv. 31). It is in this line, too, that
2 Thess. ii. is to be understood. There Paul is forecasting
the very same course of events, and in striking agreement
with Matt. xxiv. 10—13, XS- Everywhere there is the
keenest sense of the enormous significance for Christ's
cause of the fate of the Jewish State and Temple, when
once that people has taken up a position of fixed hostility
to Christ, and has met its doom at the hands of Rome
(especially Rom. ix.-xi.).1 These are the things which
Christ said would all take place within a lifetime, a genera
tion. And they did.
But it was here that His followers failed in their reckon
ing of the foreshortening in the rest of the picture. In what
1 Godet (Commentary on Luke, ii. 126) brings out, with effect, the parallel
with Rom. ix.-xi. in Christ's own teaching.

206 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
follows, Christ looks away into the distance. He sketches a
day of final coming and reckoning. Its exact date even He
does not know. But as Matt. xxi. 43, xxii. 7, 9, 12, xxiv.
48, xxv. 5,19, all indicate, it was not to be immediately. It
is to be a coming for judgment, final judgment, and He is to
be judge. In this judgment all mankind is to appear before
Him. How far off it was, the followers of Christ at first did not
in the least realise.1 They thought that it was to take place
immediately after its fate overtook Jerusalem. They were
so impressed with what Jesus chiefly insisted on with regard
to this day, — matters that are just as true to-day as they
were for them, — namely, its certainty, its constantly impend
ing imminence, its finality, and therefore the urgency for
preparedness and constant watchfulness for it, that they
interpreted it all as meaning that the day must be very near
indeed. But as years went on, they understood better what
Christ had meant. They learned that, alive or in their
graves when He came, they must still appear at His bar.
They realised that in this way He is indeed always very near,
" at hand." As death carried off ever another and another,
their assurance grew that the company of the redeemed was
gathering to Christ's side. Perplexing questions might
arise as to the " how " and the " what " of the risen life
(1 Cor. xv. 35), but the essential points for a believer were,
that to be absent from the body was to be present with the
Lord, and that a personal, individual resurrection was a
certainty (John xi. 24 ff. ; 1 Thess. iv. 1 3 ff. ; 1 Cor. xv. 5 off.).
When at last the destruction of Jerusalem was a thing of the
past, John's Gospel brought to light a wealth of sayings of
Christ which had never got full value attached to them pend
ing that event, which gave new weight to others which had
been known indeed, but only imperfectly appreciated, and
which fully attested the correctness of the growing convic
tions. Paul had already been approximating to the full truth
1 Erich Haupt, Commentary on i John ii. 18 (p. 94 f., German edition).

to the Teaching of Christ 207
more rapidly than any other, and trying to make others under
stand also. As he had come to recognise what the Church
really was, he was able to see the Christian community as
already in a way enjoying every blessing that there is in
the heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Eph. i. 3). Similarly
years before (Rom. viii.), he felt that in the gift of the Spirit
he had the earnest of the bliss of heaven, fellowship with
God in Christ, from which nothing earthly could separate
him. And if conflict still continued, it was conflict for
which the armour of the early day (1 Thess. v. 8) was still
the equipment (Eph. vi. 14-16), and victory was certain.
And so the Church was quite prepared to hear John recall
that Jesus had said that the man who believed in Him was
really passed from death into life, and would not come into
condemnation (John v. 24; cf. xi. 25 ff). It understood
now the two resurrections of which Jesus had spoken, and
at which the disciples once had marvelled (John v. 25—29),
and this, in turn, made simple many an enigmatic
word of John's own Apocalypse, e.g. xx. 6. It understood,
what once had seemed so inconsequential, but now so per
fectly inevitable, that of the man who had life Jesus should
immediately add, " and I will raise him up at the last day "
(John vi. 39, 40, 44, 54). Judgment the apostles saw to
be in process, and the last day of final reckoning only its
sublime conclusion. They saw that the city John depicted
in the Revelation was not simply a vision of the grand here
after, but in process of construction after its own magnificent
plan, " coming down out of heaven from God," even here
and now (Rev. xxi. 2, 9, 1 o ; cf. Eph. v. 25-27).1 More than
ever they understood in the light of the eagerly-recalled fare
well addresses of the now absent Lord (John xiv.— xvi.), that,
while He was away, preparing a place for them, to which He
would yet come to take them, all power was already His,
1 Bernard, Bampton Lecture, On the Progress of Doctrine in the New
Testament, p. 197 f.

208 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
and He was with them alway, unto the end of the world.
What the grand issue would be they did not exactly know;
but this they could say, " When He shall appear, we shall
be like Him ; for we shall " (and this is said not to account
for the likeness, but to justify the expectation) " see Him as
He is" (i John iii. i ff.). It was thus the Church gradu
ally came to understand the forecast of the future given by
Christ, and to learn its mission and equipment in view of it.
But its outlook left it with one conviction more deeply
stamped than any other. In view of this future one call
was supreme, the call to preparedness in holiness of character.
Only the holy of heart and mind could enjoy the bliss of
heaven, which is uninterrupted fellowship with the holy God.
And it is by the- holiness of their lives that men are to be
tried at the bar of God. All this teaching as to the future
has been introduced to emphasise the need for holiness.
Constant response to the call of holy love alone will stand
the test by which men and women can appear approved
before Christ's throne. And this is not at variance with the
call for faith, for it is only the inevitable issue of any faith
worth the name. Christ's vision of judgment (Matt. xxv.
31 ff.), and Paul's (Rom. viii. 31), are not antagonistic, but
complementary. Just as little does it clash with the gracious-
ness of the gift of salvation to find its final blessings spoken
of as rewards, rewards as the results of a scrutiny of char
acter. By various lines of illustration Jesus makes plain
that so far as claim is concerned there is none. There is no
room for Hegel's unworthy sneer, " So you want a tip because
you have supported your sick mother, and not poisoned your
brother ! " 1 Christ says explicitly, " When ye have done all,
say, We are unprofitable servants : we have done that which
is our duty to do " (Luke xvii. 1 o). On that side, merit and
reward are quite inappropriate terms. On the other hand, as
expressive of God's appreciation of the work of His servants,
1 Heine's Confessions, Prose Works, p. 203 (Camelot Classics).

to the Teaching of Christ 209
the words are perfectly admissible and intelligible. It is the
clue to the hyperbolical description of divine delight in the
parable of the returning master (Luke xii. 35-38). And
as there are degrees of excellence, so there are gradations of
glory — ten cities for the man who gains ten pounds, five
for him who earns five (Luke xix. 11-27), or as Paul ex
presses it, " If any man's work abide which he hath built, he
shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned,
he shall suffer loss : but he himself shall be saved ; yet so
as by fire" (1 Cor. iii. 14L). In the eschatology of Christ
and of His apostles the judgment is on the things done in
the body, is final, and is universal (Matt. xxv. 25 ff. ; 2 Cor.
v. 10). There is no suggestion of an intermediate state of
probation after death. There is not a hint of a purgatory
in the case of the saints. To pass away trusting in Christ,
will be to be with the Lord in Paradise (Luke xxiii. 43).
To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord
(2 Cor. v. 6-9; Phil. i. 23). Just as little is there a hint
of a possibility of retrieving a hostile verdict on the life here
by a changed life under a new set of conditions hereafter.
The very opposite, indeed, is implied in the parable of Dives
and Lazarus (Luke xvi. 1 9 ff.). The judgment includes all
mankind in its sweep. If, after the analogy of the parable
of the Tares (Matt. xiii. 24-30), in the majority of Christ's
references to it He deals with its place in determining the
fate of those who have been in more or less connection with
the kingdom, the explanation of the parable of the Drag
net (Matt. xiii. 47-50) takes a wider sweep, and, with other
utterances, justifies the attitude of the apostles, as they
press the urgency of their message on all men in view of a
coming judgment for all. Degrees of guilt are indeed
recognised, and fate will correspond to measure of guilt
(Luke xii. 47, 48 ; Matt. xi. 20-24). Capernaum takes
a bad pre-eminence, in the one as in the other, over
abandoned Sodom. But when on a phrase like "more

210 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
tolerable for Sodom than for thee," words intended to
convey, not so much the unutterable woe, as the unutter
able wickedness and the utter hopelessness of a case worse
than all that was regarded as hopeless before, Beyschlag1
attempts to build a hope of final escape for even the worst,
it is but a specimen of the straits to which the upholders of
a theory are forced, in order to extract any such thought
from sayings of Christ or His apostles. Much, most indeed,
is left in mystery. Christ will not discuss the number of
the saved. His teaching is for practical ends. His only
answer when questioned about it is, " Strive to enter in at
the strait gate ; for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter
in, and shall not be able " (Luke xiii. 23 ff.). But of the
bliss of the glorified He speaks with no faltering voice.
They inherit the kingdom prepared for them (Matt. xxv. 34 ;
Luke xii. 32; Rom. viii. 17; 1 Pet. i. 4). They receive
and wear the crown of life (1 Cor. ix. 25 ; 2 Tim. iv. 8;
Jas. i. 12; 1 Pet. v. 4; Rev. ii. 10). Paul contemplates
the future with a blissful sense of security. The righteous
shine as the sun in the kingdom of the Father (Matt.
xiii. 43).
It will elucidate what follows, if, before closing this
chapter, account is taken in a word of the grand condition
which Christ and His disciples regarded as essential to the
realisation of the kingdom. It has been suggested in every
form in which the nature of redeemed humanity has been
presented to us. It is a union between God and man,
achieved in Christ. Kingdom, Church, Eternal Life, as we
have studied them, have each involved the closest possible
inter-relation of all who have a share in them. But what
we have not especially emphasised is the place which Christ
claimed for Himself as the Ruler of the kingdom, the Head
of this Body the Church, and the vital source of all true life.
If there is union with one another among the members,
1 New Testament Theology, i. 208.

to the Teaching of Christ 2 1 1
there is still closer union with Him, and this union is the
basis of the other. He is the most conspicuous and essen
tial element in the constitution of the society, and on Him
its existence and fate depend. And the sequel of His
teaching of the kingdom is not simply Himself, but also the
attitude which men assume toward Him. The revelation
of Himself which follows, and which, as we shall see, is the
revelation of the union in Him of divinity with humanity,
has, as its correlative, a call to men to unite themselves by
faith with God revealed in Him. The incarnation, with the
tragic and glorious incidents in which it eventuated, was the
union of God, not with any single individual, but with the
human race. But in a sense it is repeated in the spiritual
life of every individual believer. By faith " God dwelleth
in him and he in God." The justification of this statement
will be evident on every page of what follows, and it will
come more and more distinctly to the front when looked at
from the manward side. Meantime it is sufficient to say
that the initiative in it is taken by Christ, and it is its
reality in His sight that gives His personality and what He
did its primal importance for men. These, therefore, next
demand attention. But there is no doctrine of the Christian
faith that has so failed, as this of union with Christ, to re
ceive that prominence in the thought of the Church or that
distinctive treatment which it deserves and demands. It
is not going too far to say that this is the fundamental truth
of Christianity, is the principle which explains every step in
the plan of salvation, and which dispels the mystery that to
many hangs around doctrines of atonement and justification
by faith. It still awaits the advent of some great theologian
to do justice to the glorious truth, lift it out of the region
of mere mysticism, and show its dominant influence on
every side of Christian truth and life. For all who grasp
the truth itself, it is like a breath of life through the whole
domain of their religious thought and experience.

CHAPTER VI
Son of Man and Son of God
The Person of Christ — Christ's Restraint in speaking of Himself, and the
Reason for it — Can the Sense of His Utterances be limited to His
Vocation ?
His Person a Problem to the Apostles — They, the best Witnesses to
their own Meaning — Humanity conceded — Question is as to
Divinity — What do Synoptics mean by Son of God ? — They are
sole Authorities for earthly Life — Significance of the Time of their
Appearance, midway between Paul and John — The View given in
Acts — The View of the Contemporaries of the Synoptics, Reve
lation and Hebrews — What is required by the Aim of Hebrews —
Relation to Alexandrian Thought — These represent prevalent
Thought in Jewish-Christian Circles — James and Peter, no Objec
tion — Chief Significance of Relation of Paul and John.
Paul — Two Peculiarities of His View : Its Origin and its Sacredness —
Paul's Conception included Belief in the Pre-incarnate Existence
of Christ, but not as Archetypal Man, or as identical with the
Spirit — Essentially Divine — Subordinate to, but equal with, the
Father — Philippians ii. 5-1 1 — Colossians and Ephesians — Contrast
with Philo — The Meaning of John's Prologue — Summary.
Christ's own Teaching — Speculation as to Origin of this View useless —
Yet striking Analogy — (1) Son of God — Temptation proceeds on
footing that He is Son of God — He does not claim this till near the'
end of Ministry — Repudiations of Blasphemy show He entertained
this View all along — (2) Son of Man — Reserve detected in use of
this Title — What does Son of Man mean? — Why used — Need for
Reserve seen from case of Disciples — Matthew xi. 25-30 — Teaches
essential Deity — Christ's teaching in John's Gospel — Purpose of
Gospel — Same Personality — Progressive Statement of Divinity-
Chapters vii.-x. devoted to a Discussion of the Subject — Identi
fication with the Father — As in Synoptics, increasing Directness of
Utterance as the Gospel proceeds — Comparison of Christ and
Apostles — Result.
In Christ's own teaching the kingdom gradually gives
place to the King. Jesus gives ever greater prominence
212

The ^Relation of the Apostolic Teaching 213
to Himself. He asserts for Himself a role in the re-
constitution of humanity which is quite exceptional, and
on which its very existence is made to depend. It is
to be His kingdom. Only by union with Him are men
to find a place in it. And at length in explicit terms to
the Twelve, to Caiaphas, and, in a form suited to his mode
of thought, to Pilate, that is, to the responsible representa
tives of both His friends and His foes, He definitely admits
that He is the Messiah, the Christ, the King.
That is not disputed. It is pointed out, indeed, that
there is a considerable amount of restraint in Christ's way
of speaking of Himself. It is done by allusion and sugges
tion more than by direct statement. But, as Johannes
Weiss so strikingly urges,1 that proceeds in part from the
unwillingness of Jesus to discuss in public what was one of
the most sacred convictions of His own inner life, the result
of the unhesitating response of His faith to the revelation
of His Father to Himself. It was due, too, to His wish
that the recognition of His Messiahship should come to
others as it did to Himself, that is, as the result of faith.
He presented it in forms fitted to provoke inquiry. Soon
they asked, " How long dost Thou make us to doubt ? If
Thou be the Christ, tell us plainly ? " (John x. 24) : " Art
Thou He that should come, or do we look for another ? "
(Matt. xi. 3): "Who is this Son of man?" (John xii. 34).
When in their address to Him they relapsed into mere
conventionalities, He quickly caught them up, " Why callest
thou me good ?" (Mark x. 18; Luke xviii. 19):2 "Foxes
have holes, and birds of the air have nests ; but the Son
of man hath not where to lay His head " (Matt. viii. 20 ;
Luke ix. 5 8). When Pilate first asked Him, " Art Thou the
King of the Jews ? " He did not reply directly, but inquired
if this question was spontaneous or prompted ; and when
1 Nachfolge Christi, p. 29 ff.
" Lidgett, Spiritual Principle of the Atonement, p. 345 f.

2 1 4 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
He found that it was the latter, He answered in such a way
as led to the repetition of it in a new form, the product now
of awakened personal interest, " Art thou a King then ? "
(John xviii. 33-38). He preferred to speak of Himself
under a term, " Son of man," which left great room for
discussion. But all this was not due to any perplexity in
His own mind. It was intended to rivet men's attention to
Himself, and leave their verdict on Him in their own
hands, determined, not by authority or by external proof,
but by moral insight and spiritual affinity. As to the
result, He was intensely anxious. Witness His own
inquiries of His disciples as to what men were saying
about Him, and His delight at the flash of spiritual pene
tration — a very gift from His Father — which surprised
into definiteness Peter's previous surmisings, and furnished
his famous reply. Christ undoubtedly presented Himself
as, and desired that men should find in Him, the Messiah,
the Christ. It will be seen," of course, that this in itself does not
raise any question as to His Person. It only raises the
question of His vocation. And it is a common contention
that all that was said by Jesus about Himself can be
brought within the scope of descriptions of that vocation.
Words of His that seem to involve more, such as His use
of the name " Son of God," are rigorously restricted to
their most meagre sense. If the language of any of His
followers obviously will not conform to this, but asserts
for Him a dignity and nature far above anything merely
human, this is set aside as an idiosyncrasy of the indi
vidual, out of keeping with Jewish conceptions of Messiah-
ship, or beyond the intelligence or thought of primitive
Christians. But why is there such a very marked dis
crepancy between the treatment accorded to the idea of
the Kingdom, and that to His presentation of Himself
as the King? The one has been recognised as embodying

to the Teaching of Christ 2 1 5
an ideal far surpassing all Jewish conceptions. The other,
the idea of the Christ, has been restricted to the narrowest
limits.1 And some later efforts to reduce again to Jewish
limits Christ's conception of the kingdom seem as if
dictated by an undefined sense of this incongruity. In
view, however, of what we have already seen of Christ's
true conception of the kingdom, we are led to think that
the logic of the incongruous situation points in the opposite
direction, and calls for a revision of limited views of the
Messiah in order to bring them into harmony with the
kingdom, as He understood it. Then again, what though
certain views of Christ's person are pronounced at variance
with contemporary Jewish anticipations of the Messiah ?
These anticipations were far astray here on almost every
point, and required constant correction at the hands of
Christ. And how little the men of His time were dis
posed to acquiesce in this correction and accept His
reading of the truth, is tragically proved by the fact that
they crucified Him on this very score. Contemporary
Jewish thought and parlance may help us to the sources
of some of Christ's words. They can never be regarded
as determinative of their ultimate sense on His lips. Still
further, it is not to the point to tell us what words must
have meant to primitive Christian thought. Are we to
believe that the crude ideas of the general public of early
Christianity afford a more exact index of its essence than
the mature views of its noblest spirits ? Christ Himself
distinguishes. " Whom do men say that I am ? . . . But
whom say ye that I am ? " And it is the answer of those
best qualified to judge and to speak that is really worth
attending to. Christian truth cannot be treated like a
sum in vulgar fractions, where the all-essential is to find
the least common multiple, as if the irreducible minimum
1 As a recent representative of this, see Orello Cone, The Gospel and its Earliest
Interpretations. Cf. pp. 46-62 with 90-108.

2 1 6 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
were sure to be the whole truth. In a matter like this, the
sum of the thought of the finest minds is far more likely
to express it.1
Now it is quite evident that the apostles felt that the
life, character, and experience of Jesus raised a problem as
to His nature. They found it very hard to make Jesus fit
into the common terms of human existence. And this
conviction grew in intensity the longer they knew Him.
The more they observed and reflected, the more singular
He appeared. The conclusion to which they came was,
that " the Son of God " was the only name which ade
quately described Him. The question, of course, is, what
did they mean by Son of God, and does it correspond
with what Christ thought and said of Himself?
The first authority for their meaning must be their
own statements. The force of these cannot be evaded by
appeal to passages in the Old Testament, as if the use
of Son of God there must be determinative. There mere
men, in view of their official positions, are sometimes called
sons of God. And the fact that the vocation of Jesus
is that of the Messiah, might give plausibility to a con
tention for a similar use in His case. But, unless " divinely
sanctioned official " is all that Son of God can ever mean,
we are not shut up to this explanation. Just as little are
we limited to a view of the phrase as used of Jesus, drawn
from its use in the New Testament of men who enter into
the filial relation to God, become sons of God through
Christ, unless it is shown that they and He enjoy this
position on the same terms. Wre must look at the facts
which are adduced to prove that Jesus is the Son of God
to learn from them what is meant by the phrase. If it
appears that it involves something quite unique, a person-
1 This is not at variance with the argument previously urged for the popular
character of early Christian teaching, because the matter here in dispute is one
involving for its apprehension powers, not of intellectual capacity, but of spiritual
insight and affinity.

to the Teaching of Christ 2 1 7
ality sui generis, no a priori contentions, as to what a union
of human and divine in one person would demand, are to
influence our consideration of the facts, or to be allowed to
say what must be and what must not be, if this be true.
We must simply accept the facts, and construct our theory
upon them. As Bishop Moorhouse says, we must not
¦' make the man a God in order to deny that God became
a man." x But no more may we make God man in order
to avoid making man God. Accepting the well-attested
humanity of Christ, we must not extend the terms of
humanity till all distinction between human and divine
vanishes, in order to avoid admitting the essential and
unique divinity of Jesus among the sons of men ; just
as we must not, admitting His divinity, argue from that
to the practical elimination of His humanity. It is well
to bear in mind here also the inevitable insufficiency of
language that will accrue, if Jesus is this unique Personality.
All words used will only be approximations, — attempts
to express what was previously unknown and unimagined,
gropings to find suitable terms for this new and glorious
reality, of which men wonderingly realise more and more
of the magnificence by the failure of all words in previous
use adequately to describe it.
In our day it is not necessary to argue for the true
humanity of Jesus Christ. Whatever else, whatever more,
has been discovered in His life, that is now joyfully and
gladly acknowledged on every hand. But was that all
His disciples recognised in Him ? Did they mean no
more than this, even when they called Him " Son of
God " ? On turning for answer to the Gospels, their full
significance only becomes clear, when two things are
remembered. First, they are the authority for the details
of the intensely human life of Jesus of Nazareth. Second,
the Synoptics appeared in point of time contemporaneously
1 The Teaching of Christ, p. 66.

2 1 8 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
with the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Revelation, and
about midway between the writings of Paul and the Gospel
and Epistles of John. Without repeating what was said in
the first chapter, the former fact means this, that these
authors are quite convinced of the thoroughly human
element in Jesus. They say nothing to minimise or
obscure that. All the familiar features, so often collated
to bring out the genuineness of the humanity, are to be
found there. So little are they the victims of stereotyped
theory that they record with perfect naturalness the story
of His Temptation, the limitation He set on His own
knowledge, the call for an explanation from the man who
gave Him a title " good," fit only for God, and above
all the tragedy of His death. They have preserved for us
that striking phrase which Jesus used to describe Him
self, and which is used by practically no other, the Son
of man. And so if their words ever imply more than
humanity, if events they narrate involve more than the
human for their explanation, they do so with the full con
sciousness of the writers. In this light, what must we
think of the narrative of the birth, as given by Matthew
and Luke? Whether the incidents actually occurred as
narrated or not, the narration of them clearly shows that
to these writers the life of Jesus had no ordinary origin.1
As Stopford Brooke virtually admits,2 they express the
profound conviction that only divine parentage was com-
1 It has been asserted that the ideas of supernatural conception aud pre-exist-
ence are mutually exclusive (Menegoz, La Theologie de PEpitre aux Htbreux,
90 ff. ), and a contrast between the Synoptics, and John and Paul, has been insti
tuted upon the contention. The ground is that in the case of supernatural con
ception (sc. birth by the Holy Spirit from the Virgin) the Christ would not have
existed prior to the conception. In a sense that is true. The Incarnate Christ
did not exist prior to the conception. But the same is true in the case of natural
conception, in spite of the aid of the Platonic premises of the Judteo-Alex-
andrine School. So this is not decisive in establishing a contrast between the
thoughts ofthe Synoptics and of John and Paul on the question of the pre-incarnate
existence of Christ.
- God and Christ, chap. xiii.

to the Teaching of Christ 2 1 9
patible with the life of Jesus Christ, as they knew it. In
His origin He, as no other, was divine. Why do they
narrate the story of the Baptism, or of the Transfigura
tion, or of the Resurrection, or of Thomas's accepted
adoration, " My Lord and my God," if they believe in no
more than striking moral affinity between Jesus and God ?
Why especially the Baptism when, to judge from their
silence, nothing had as yet occurred in His life to indicate
special moral attainment ? It is because striking moral
affinity is not the limit of their belief. They believe
more, and these things indicate what that belief is, and
what throbs beneath the words, when they call Him Son
of God. They regard this man as more than man,
Divine. But, secondly, in point of time, the Gospels appear
about midway between Paul and John. Had the order
been Synoptics, Paul, John, it might have been argued,
with considerable speciousness, that there was a distinct
and gradual development in the view of the Person of
Christ, from distinguished -man to incarnate God. But that
is not the order. The last of Paul's Epistles is written as
soon as the earliest Gospel, and yet in Dr. Somerville's St.
Paul's Conception of Christ, page after page of the exposi
tion, while most apposite to the subject in hand, reads like
a statement of the views set forth in John. The reason is
not far to seek. Paul's view, the earliest recorded view, of
the Person of Christ, is very little different from the latest,
that of John.1 And the conclusion one arrives at is that
it is not the fundamental conception that varies, but the
types of mind that present it. In the midst of this lofty
flight of contemplation appear the Gospels. There is
not a hint in them of protest or objection. On the con
trary, they rather suggest an attempt in homelier phrase to
1 Cf. Harnack, History of Dogma, i. 97 : " Here (i.e. in John's Gospel) we have
pourtrayed ... a speaking, acting, Pauline Christ," etc.

220 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
help the simple and uninitiated to understand the peerless
position ascribed to Jesus by Paul, and which is restated
by John. But it may be asked, Do not the Acts of the Apostles
place Jesus in another light ? They never call Him Son of
God. There He is but irals tov ©eov,sc. Kvplov (Acts. iii. 13,
iv. 27, 30), God's, Jehovah's servant.1 Does this not point
to development, and show that only in course of time men
came to think Jesus divine ? For the fact, that is probably
true ; but that the Acts of the Apostles proves it, is quite
another matter. As we know from the Synoptics, Jesus
did not begin His own ministry by any announcement about
Himself. Only by His character, complete at once in its
freedom from defect or sin and in its embodiment of every
grace and virtue, by His authoritative teaching, by His
other-worldliness of bearing, and by His masterful control
over physical health and powers, natural or Satanic, He
arrested men's attention. Their curiosity awoke. They
were attracted to Him. Inquiry was provoked as to who
He was. And some at last ventured to think He must be
the Messiah. But this did not for them involve divinity ;
Messiah was but Son of David. They had never asked them
selves the question Jesus propounded to them : " If David
call him Lord, whence is he then his son ? " and so they had
no answer for it. And even for the disciples, the death on
the Cross was then, as it has ever been for the Jew, the
stumbling-block to the idea of Christ's divinity. It is a
mistake to suppose that the monotheism of the Jew raises
an insuperable obstacle to the thought of Incarnation or
a virgin birth. As a Jewish friend said to me : " that
was quite simple, natural, ^'pn nna, by the Holy Spirit."
But this was his difficulty: "If Jesus was the Son of
1 The fact that in Acts iv. 27, 30, the person designated ttous is 0 Xpiords tov
Kvplov, who is 6 vlbs tov Kvplov in Ps. ii., which is expressly quoted, makes it
very doubtful, if we should not translate 7rais with A.V., Child or Son, and not
Servant, R.V. ; cf. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, i. 228.

to the Teaching of Christ 2 2 1
God, why did God allow His Son to be cursed by cruci
fixion ? " That is nineteenth century Judaism, it is true,
but it is an exact reflex of what men felt in Jerusalem in
Passion Week on Good Friday. And it was only the
Resurrection that changed the current of even the disciples'
thoughts, and led them to see in Jesus more than man, the
incarnate Son of God. That was the course of the disciples'
experience, as depicted in the Synoptics. And what the
references to Jesus in the Acts of the Apostles bring out is
not so much the sum total of what the apostles believed
immediately after the Resurrection, as if they lingered
at the thought of a distinguished man and nothing more,
until speculation put a new complexion on receding facts.
Rather it is this. It reports speech after speech, in which
Peter and his fellow-apostles seek to force home on the
consciences of their fellow-countrymen the dread significance
of the fact that they had crucified one, be he who he may,
whom Go.d raised up. They bring all the light of prophecy
to bear on the dignity of one so honoured (Pss. ii. xvi. etc.).
They seek to force from the hearts of their listeners an
answer to the question they set in motion there, who must
this be? They simply pursue again Christ's method of
provoking inquiry, and the book tells us how they did it.
And we are not to limit their own views to those they
express, when they take common ground with their
audiences. All the more must we take note of this, when
it is found that Paul, as reported there, pursues exactly the
same course at Lystra and at Athens, and we know how
far beyond what he says there his view of Christ's Person
went. Besides, throughout the Acts, Jesus is not only
trait; tov Oeov 6 XpicrTos, but also the Holy and Just One,
the Prince of Life, the Saviour, the God-appointed Judge
of all, 0 Kvpios, the LORD. If this does not amount
to an explicit statement of His divinity, it indicates at
least a latent consciousness that there is no blasphemy

222 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
or irreverence in attributing to Him prerogatives and powers
hitherto ascribed to God alone, and which they dare not
ascribe to any ordinary fellow-mortal.
Contemporary with these publications, or nearly so,
appeared the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Revelation
of John. The latter of these ascribes to Jesus the most
exalted position of which it is possible to think. He is the
constant and immediate associate, fellow and equal, of God.
It is needless to cite passages in proof of this. Scarcely a
chapter would fail to furnish abundance. And this feature,
common to the whole book, is all the more striking in view
of attempts to split up the book into fragments. It will be
sufficient to notice the impressive passage in the opening
chapter. After a salutation in the name of the Triune God,
there comes a self-introduction, abrupt and arresting : " I
am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, which is,
and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." Thus
it had fallen on John's ear, and he stops to tell the circum
stances. That done, he repeats what he heard, and proceeds
to describe the majestic presence from whose lips it came.
In the description we recognise the Son of Man (ver. I 3), but
exalted to His place in glory. He says, " I am the Alpha
and the Omega" 1 ..." I am He that liveth and was dead :
and behold I am alive for evermore, Amen ; and have the
keys of death and of hell " (cf. xxi. 6 and xxii. 1 3). It is
simply impossible to bring a personality of whom all that is
true within the limits of humanity. What is true of Him is
true only of God. And this is the keynote to the estimate
of Jesus in the Apocalypse. Not that there His manhood
is forgotten. It is striking how often He is named simply
by the familiar name of His earthly sojourn, Jesus (xii. 17,
xiv. 12, xxii. 16, cf. 20, etc.). His death, too, is sadly,
lovingly, gratefully recalled. But His name now is King OF
1 The interpolation of the Authorised Version at ver. 1 1, if without textual
support, is exegetically correct. Verses I7ff prove it.

to the Teaching of Christ 223
kings and Lord of lords (xix. 16; cf. xvii. 1 4).1 And
all this stands written in a book, which is so permeated by
Jewish imagery that some would fain get rid of its evidence
for the early recognition, in even Jewish-Christian circles, of
Christ's divinity by splitting it into fragments or relegating
it to a very late date. But the attempt is a failure. And
its testimony is conclusive.
Equally striking is the evidence of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. In this Epistle there are many references to the
Person of Christ. But what is distinctive of it is that, for
the purpose of its writer, it is important to accord to Christ
a position at once of unique relation to God, and of closest
affinity with men.2 This Epistle has been called the First
Apology for Christianity. And that is true. But it is an
apology addressed not to opponents, but to friends whose
loyalty has been affected. It seeks to show to Jewish
Christians that by the fall of Jerusalem and the wreck of
Judaism, those who believe in Jesus would lose nothing and
gain much. If their observance of the ceremonial of the old
law must therewith perforce cease, that would be only the
vanishing of the shadows before the light. From the first
there was really no need for believers in Jesus to cling to
Jewish rites and ceremonies. Indeed such observance had
been on sufferance during a period of transition. And all
that ever was of value in the Mosaic ritual was more than
preserved in what was' to be found in Christ. In virtue of
His Person, it is argued, the revelation in Him completely
transcended anything that had preceded. It was by no
servant ; it was by a Son. And the provision for the
1 Weizsacker (Apostolic Age, ii. 205) reaches a similar conclusion, only he
finds the clue in the name "the Word of God " (xix. 13).
2 Failing to notice this, Orello Cone ( The Gospel audits Earliest Interpretations,
p. 239) calls the double view, as others have done, an incongruity common to the
author of Hebrews and to Paul, of which he says, "neither of them attempts
an adjustment." Is not the probable explanation of this failure the conviction of
both that they were handling assured facts, not speculative opinions, and so felt
no sense of incongruity, and therefore no call to adjust?

224 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
approach of sinful man to God under the Levitical system
was changed from ritual to reality by Christ's offering of
Himself. But everything turns on the divine relations of
this Man, Christ Jesus.
The writer is thoroughly familiar with what was then
the prevalent Alexandrian mode of thought, and his lan
guage has been influenced by its terminology. But in
contrast with the Philonic resolution of Old Testament
personages, events, and rites into philosophic abstractions,
there is in Hebrews the steady effort to show a definite
relation between them and the life and experiences of a
concrete individual, Jesus. There is no resort to such an
idea as the Logos in order to account for Him, though
the word was at the writer's hand, had he thought fit to
use it. But his failure to do so is not due to his giving
Jesus a lower position than that claimed by Philo for the
Logos. Rather the Logos was a conception too limited,
too purely speculative, for the magnificence and the reality
that adhered to Him of whom he spoke. On the one hand,
there were those tragic features of His earthly career which
are never evaded or minimised, but rather are pressed to
their full significance in order to show how close was His
identification with the nature and conditions of human life.1
No writing in the New Testament asserts more emphatically
the reality of the humanity of Jesus. It is even subject to
temptation, and that as a means to perfect development.
The argument would fail, if this did not hold true. And it
is to its pages men turn for those forceful expressions that
gather up into a sentence the closeness of intimacy, and its
worth for sympathy and salvation, between Jesus and His
brother men (cf. ii. 10-18, iv. 15, v. 7-10). But the need
1 "However advanced is its christology — and there it stands essentially at the
highest point of the utterances of Paul — it is rich in glances back at the earthly life
of Jesus, or perhaps we should rather say, at the ethical life of the Son of God,
who was not ashamed to call men His brethren " (J. Weiss, Nachpolge Christ/,
p. 82).

to the Teaching of Christ 225
for this statement, so strong and emphatic, is due to the
exalted position which the writer has first of all accorded
Him. He is above Aaron, Moses, the prophets, the angels.1
All these are but servants, this is a Son (i. 2). In contrast
with Levitical priests, here is a Priest who owes His position
to no mere legal enactment, but to inherent capacity, " the
power of endless — i.e. indissoluble- — life" (vii. 15, 16; cf.
John's phrase, "life in Himself"). And in this He is the
archetype of all those original geniuses and benefactors of
men, like Melchizedek, who owe nothing to hereditary
descent or legal title, but all to what they are. His
presence in this world is an episode in a career which com
mences before all time and outlasts its farthest bound. He
is the one whom men do, or should, regard as Lord, the
object of their supreme devotion, and to whom they must
render an account at His glorious return as Judge. And
when all this is said and admitted, surely it is mere playing
with words to say that the writer still thinks of Him as
something other than, less than, God ; to try to escape
the force of his explicit calling Him God, by telling us of
possible modifications of the sense of the passage, in which
he does so, as it stands in the original Hebrew from which
it is quoted, when the quotation is made from the Septua-
gint, where it assumes a form that expressly transcends
1 It is not fair to contend, as Menegoz does (op. cit. p. 83 ff. ; cf. Bruce,
Epistle to Hebrews, chap. vi. ), that all that the author is anxious to prove is that
these are all kindred natures (Esprits similaires), among which Jesus is the
superior, or to support it by an appeal to the case of men, "whom He is not
ashamed to call His brethren." The whole argument of chap. ii. is that a being
of one nature has assumed another nature, and has submitted to the conditions of
its existence, for a definite purpose, and because complete identification is essen
tial to the attainment of this purpose, He is not ashamed to submit to these
conditions, though they are quite foreign to His own nature. His nature is that
of a Son, in which He is distinct from all others. They are all servants. The
highest of them is still a created intelligence. Son, in contrast with that,
expressly excludes creation. TWs and UpworoKos are cognate terms. Son
suggests begetting in contrast with creation. And the distinction is this. In
creation God produces something which is not Himself. In begetting He repro
duces Himself in a Son. Jesus Christ is the only-begotten Son.

226 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
all such modifications.1 The argument demands that in
Jesus, as He is here represented, should be recognised one
who stands to God as no other being in the universe stands,
not even the highest of created intelligences. He is the
Firstborn, through whom creation exists and stands. He
is a Son, the Son, the effulgence of the Father's glory, and
the express image of His person: And if here, as else
where, there clings to all language used with regard to Him
an element which suggests distinction from, as well as unity
with, God, that is not to be made an argument against
divinity, or to annul the completeness of the unity,
There is a distinction. He has associated Himself most
wonderfully and completely with man. In that He is
distinct from the Father. But it is a distinction for which
there is room within divinity. It is quite arbitrary, and a
begging of the question, to say " impossible."
From this is seen what were the views prevalent, not
only in Greek circles, but also in the Jewish-Christian com
munities to which the Epistle to the Hebrews and the
Apocalypse, both alike pregnant with Jewish sentiment and
sympathy, were addressed. And to these communities,
without a hint of criticism in opposition to those views,
came at least one of the Synoptic Gospels, with the quiet
recital of the earthly life that had produced such astounding
convictions. Was such silence possible, unless all were
agreed that Jesus was no less than divine ?
Of course it may be said that the Epistles of James
and of I Peter are opposed to this conclusion ; that they also,
as it were, bracket the Gospels and supply specimens of a
much simpler Christology, the true reflex of Synoptic
thought. But, in truth, the Christological references of
either are too meagre and incidental to build upon. It is
quite as natural to regard them as parallel in spirit to
passages in Paul that do not in themselves demand the
1 Menqgoz, La Thiologie de I'Epitre aux Hebreux, p. 84 ff.

to the Teaching of Christ 227
most exalted explanations, and which, if they stood alone,
might leave us in doubt as to Paul's own view, as to assign
to them only the most limited significance which they will
bear. This remark applies, for instance, to the use of
6 Kvpcos in James in several passages, where to Hellenistic
readers it might just as naturally suggest the Christ as
Jehovah, and by the very perplexity in which he leaves
us we are compelled to feel how exalted were James's
views of Christ.1 Peter and James do not, indeed, show
the same magnificent comprehension of what is involved
in what they thought of Christ, that Paul and John
display. But that is only in line with the general
inferiority in point of genius that their writings betray in
comparison with those of the other two. And yet to say
so is to do less than justice to Peter, across whose pages
Jesus moves on the plane to which Peter raised Him in his
heart, when he confessed, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of
the living God " ; while there are phrases in his writings
describing the relation of Christ to the divine forces at
work in the world, which are quite impossible as applicable
to a man, no matter how exalted (i. 3, 11, 20).2 Thus
any argument drawn from James and Peter loses all force.
This brings us to consider the weighty fact, that our
Synoptic Gospels lie between the marvellous conceptions of
Paul and of John, at once the most nearly allied in point of
thought and most widely separated in point of time, the
earliest and the latest expressions of apostolic Christo-
logical belief.
In attempting to present Paul's conception of Christ, it
is, of course, impossible to be exhaustive. But two things
ought to be noted at the outset, namely, (1) its distinctive
origin, and (2) its sacred nature.
As to the former, Paul's belief about Jesus was reached
1 Cf. what Harnack says of later Christian writings, History op Dogma, i. 183.
2 Cf. Stevens, Theology ofthe New Testament, p. 298 ff.

228 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
in a way peculiar to himself. The other apostolic writers
arrived at their faith in the Risen and Exalted Christ as
the confirmation of a strong, loving, personal attachment
cherished by them towards Jesus during His earthly life.
With Paul it was the very reverse. His conversion was
the decisive juncture. Then, in a moment, he learnt that
the whilom Jesus, whom he had hitherto regarded with the
bitterest antagonism, was the Lord of Glory. The Resur
rection was a fact ; Jesus was the Messiah, the Christ, and
that in a sense that far transcended all that Jew had ever
imagined. God had set His seal upon all the claims of
Jesus, and as he sums up the situation in Rom. i. 4, if He
was the Son of David according to the flesh, He was
emphatically marked out as the Son of God according to
the spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead.
That is the beginning of Paul's Christology, throughout
which two factors are constantly present, — true humanity
and true divinity, — but the dominating thought is that of
Jesus as the Exalted Lord of Glory. Everything is seen
in the light of that.
The origin of his thought about Christ harmonises with
what I call the sacredness of the subject for Paul. He
always speaks of Jesus with a holy awe and passionate
devotion. In his Epistles to the Thessalonians the
favourite phrase is "the Lord Jesus," as though, with all
his love for the human name which brought his Lord so
near, the use of it alone might let the great truth droop,
that He was the Lord of All. At other times, he chiefly
speaks of Him as Christ, using the word in various com
binations or alone, particularly in the great fighting
Epistles. And here he displays the freedom used in the
case of " all or nothing." In arguing with an infidel, one may
speak of God as described by an opponent contemptuously,
but only to reassert with the greater reverence the glorious
contrast of one's own belief. So Paul speaks of Christ.

to the Teaching of Christ 229
Christ is nothing at all, or all in all. Paul ascribes a place
to Him in his life, gives Him an authority over his conduct,
exercises a dependence upon Him, and realises a fellowship
with Him, which have simply no parallel in what any one
man could ever accord to any other. They are like
nothing else but the surrender, trust, and communion
between a soul and its God. It is this religious attitude
towards Jesus which is perhaps the most impressive
argument as to Paul's view of His Person. Yet it is the
argument which is most difficult to state. The gist of it is
seen in passages, culled from every Epistle, such as, " I live ;
yet not I, Christ liveth in me : and the life which I now
live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who
loved me, and gave Himself for me" (Gal. ii. 20, 21);
" The love of Christ constraineth us ... if any man be in
Christ, he is a new creature . . . God was in Christ, recon
ciling the world to Himself . . . we are ambassadors for
Christ, as though God did beseech you by us " (2 Cor. v.
1 4 ff.) ; the whole magnificent challenge at the close of
Rom. viii. ; the pathetic story of his prayer about his thorn
in the flesh in 2 Cor. xii. 7 ; the outburst of passionate
longing, his effort and hope for time and for eternity, in
Phil. iii. 8, 9. In such, God and Christ are interchange
able terms. Give their due weight to these, and who can
fairly say that, to a Jew like Paul, with his monotheistic
upbringing and his persistent and expressed abhorrence
of the polytheism of his day, Jesus can be less than
divine? Son of God for him means something more
than an official title. It states an essential fact of the
nature of Jesus Christ.
But Paul has not left us in any doubt. He has stated
his thought about the nature of Jesus and His relation to
the Father repeatedly and in various ways. Paul main
tained the existence of Christ prior to His advent into
the world. Attempts to explain this away in terms of

230 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
supposed Philonic or Jewish idealism all fail in view of the
activities of will and deed, which he ascribes to the pre-
incarnate Christ. He played a conspicuous part in the
creation of the world (1 Cor. viii. 6; Col. i. 16). As one
sent by God, He hailed the mission with delight, and His
conduct in undertaking it and entering the world to fulfil it
is a great moral example (Phil. ii. 5 ff.). In what sense
could this be said of an idea? From 1 Cor. xv. 45 ff. and
Rom. v. 1 2 ff. it has been argued that Paul thought of
Jesus as one in whom an eternally existent, divine arche
type of man, sc. the human element in the Divine, became
incarnate, and that he expresses this in the phrase, Last or
Second Adam. Now, Last Adam, Second Man, is Paul's
nearest equivalent for Christ's own phrase, Son of man.
But it requires a little manipulation to transform Last
Adam, Second Man, into First or Primal Adam. And
historical sequence and the idea of a reconstitution of
humanity in union with a new head are quite sufficient to
explain the adjectives First and Second in 1 Cor. xv.
45—47, while there is not a suggestion there of the nature
of the existence of the Second Adam prior to His appear
ance on earth. Something, indeed, is made of the term
" man from heaven " (ver. 47). But, as its contrast Ik 7^?,
Xo'i/co? (ver. 47), and the following 6 im-ovpavios (ver. 48) seem
to indicate, i% ovpavov is indicative not so much of origin
as of congenial sphere, similarly to the genitive toiv ovpavwv
in the phrase r) fiaatXela tow ovpavSiv {vid. supra). It is in
line with the statement that the Last Adam is a quickening
spirit (ver. 45), and emphasises the heavenly, i.e. the spiritual,
as the predominant element in the new head of the race.1
1 Paul's use of these terms is too limited to justify the building of theories
upon them or the making of them guiding categories in Paul's thought. They
are happy analogies used in passing. Holtzmann's difficulty is to establish a
connection between the heavenly man "and the historic Jesus" (Neutestament-
liche Theologie, ii. 90). But that is only a sample of common difficulties, when
such fluid terms are treated as technicalities.

to the Teaching of Christ 2 3 1
At the same time this is not to be used as an argument
to support a supposed identification in Paul's thought of
the Son with the Divine Spirit, on the basis of 2 Cor.
iii. 17.1 Much use has been made of this text in that
way on what seems defective exegesis, to irvevfia in ver.
17 is not the Divine Spirit, as is assumed. This seven
teenth verse simply resumes the dictum of ver. 6 : " The
letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life" (cf. Rom. ii. 29).
The subject in hand is the New Covenant. This is the
matter not of letter, but of spirit. In vv. 7-16 Paul shows
at once the value and the defects of the Old Covenant,
which he calls " the letter," and closes it with the quotation,
" Whensoever it shall turn wpo<; Kvpiov, to the Lord, the
veil shall be taken away." Then, immediately, he explains
6 Be Kvpios to trvevfid ea-riv, the Lord is the Spirit, not
meaning thereby to state the nature of the Lord, but to
indicate what he wished to contrast with the ineffective
Mosaic law, and regarded as entitled to be called spirit,
namely, the New Covenant embodied in Christ, and the
ministry that had for its subject, Jesus Christ, the Lord,
" in whose face the light of the knowledge of the glory of
God " shines with transforming power on the hearts of
men. That he calls the spirit, to irvevfia, in contrast with
to ypdfifia, the letter, because of its vitalising power.
We have, therefore, no statement as to the Person of Christ
in ver. 17 or in the last clause of ver. 18. But we have
very important light on it in the two contiguous phrases,
" the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the
image of God," and " the light of the knowledge of the
glory of God in the face of Christ " (iv. 4, 6). These
seem alternative, equivalent expressions, in closest harmony
with the phrase in Hebrews, " the radiation of the Father's
glory, and the express image of His person " (i. 3).
1 Somerville, St. Paul's Conception of Christ, p. 1 17 ff. ; Weizsacker, Apostolic
Age, i. I44f.

232 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
If it is asked, where exactly, according to Paul, does
Christ stand in His divine relations, the answer is supplied
in the name for God, which we have already considered,
and which Paul frequently uses, " the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ." Jesus is God's Son, and here that implies
community of nature. It is no objection to say that He
stands, in Paul's thought, in subordination to the Father.
Just as in - Hebrews, that is true. The only question is,
What is the nature of the subordination ? That suggested
in 1 Cor. xv. 28 is clearly official. The passage, "the
head of Christ is God" (1 Cor. xi. 3), also states a certain
subordination, and is quoted on this ground to disprove
community of nature. In reality it proves the reverse.
The subject under discussion in the context is the conduct
of women. And Paul's argument is that what is seemly in
man may be unseemly in woman. Why ? Because they
have different natures ? No ; then there would be no
perplexity. But they have the same nature, and yet
because of the relation in which they stand to one another
within their common humanity, what befits one does not
befit the other. There are among equals positions of
priority and subjection. It is with them as it is with
Christ and men, in view of His assumption of their nature,
or even on a loftier plane, as it is with God and Christ.
The passage really attests Paul's belief at once in the true
divinity of Christ, and in His relative subordination to the
Father. The whole case is stated at length in Phil. ii. 5—1 1 .
Here, for the sake of presenting an unanswerable plea for
the performance of the hardest task that ever meets men,
namely, the foregoing of our personal rights and privileges
for the sake of others, even to the extent of becoming their
servants, putting their wishes and claims before our own,
Paul appeals to the conduct of Christ in His appearance
upon earth and in His experiences while here. And this

to the Teaching of Christ 233
moral purpose must be kept in view in studying the passage.
Now what does Paul show ? He presents Christ's life as
reaching far beyond its earthly limits ; but the section from
His birth to the Cross he treats, in contrast with all the rest,
as a period of humiliation. Throughout that He was in the
form of a servant. The Cross was the climax of obedience.
Paul uses two terms to describe Christ's action here :
eKevwaev and eTairetvcoaev. They describe stages in the
same process. The first covers the surrender of the rights
to which, as God's equal, He might have legitimately clung,
but which He resigned in order to assume the form of a
servant. That surrender did not affect His essential nature.
It took place before He became incarnate, was, indeed, the
act of will which paved the way for the Incarnation. As
Gifford conclusively shows, iv fiopfyfj Qeov vtrdp-gcuv means
" while originally existing, and continuing to exist, in the
essential form of God." 1 The emptying, therefore, did not
consist in what Sabatier wittily describes as " the heresy,
at once modern and semi-pagan, of kenosis, the theory
according to which the pre-existent and eternal Deity com
mits suicide by incarnating Himself, in order gradually to
be reborn and find Himself God again at the end of His
human life." 2 It was rather a divesting of Himself in heaven
of what would have hindered His coming to earth, assum
ing here the role of a servant, and enduring the following
humiliation as man, with the privations and hardships which
the service He contemplated rendering would entail.3 And
on this the sequel throws important light. What He sur
rendered God restored, and more than restored. When
His work as servant is complete, He becomes, not God,
which He had never ceased to be, but Lord once more.
This is " the name above every name at which every knee
1 Gifford, The Incarnation, §§ iii. and iv.
2 Outlines of a Philosophy of Religion, p. 142.
3 Cf. Hall, The Kenotic Theory, chap. ii. ; and see Critical Review, ix.
200 f.

234 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
shall bow, and which every tongue shall confess." Jesus
Christ is Lord. But He holds His Lordship now not merely
by inherent right. It is doubly His, as is delightedly
owned and acknowledged by the men whose love and
loyalty He has secured by such matchless services for
them. And so Lord has an accent, when applied to Christ,
as tender as it is imperial. Here is a passage, then, which
locates and describes exactly the earthly career of Jesus.
That human life, so precisely like that of any other man,
was in reality the life under true earthly and human con
ditions of one essentially divine. It may be permitted at
this point to anticipate, and to point out the striking affinity
between the thought of the apostle in this passage and the
use which he makes of the conditions of Christ's earthly
career, and the similar procedure of Christ Himself. Paul
has only repeated what Christ had already taught by word
and act in His own way. It is the lesson of the feet-
washing (John xiii. 1—20). It is the lesson of the repeated
rebukes of the disciples' ambition. It is Paul's way of
saying what Christ said, when He epitomised the lesson of
His life in a single sentence, " The Son of man came not to
be ministered unto but to minister, and to give His life a
ransom for many" (Matt. xx. 28). But it is also in line
with the prayer in John, " Glorify Thou Me with the glory
which I had with Thee before the world was " (John xvii. 5).
The Epistle to the Colossians and the allied passages
in Ephesians carry farther the description of the dignity to
which the exalted Christ returned. They meet the tcevtuai,^
just described with a description of the divine tr\ripa>fia,
which it pleased the Father should dwell in Christ, and
which now dwells in Him bodily, i.e. under the human
conditions which He had voluntarily but permanently asso
ciated with His own existence. And written, as they were,
about the same time as the Epistle to the Philippians, they
only set in stronger relief the dignity of Him of whose great

to the Teaching of Christ 235
self-abasement the apostle also tells. They let us see the
stupendous extremes of thought of Christ that dwelt to
gether in the mind of Paul.
In these writings the apostle had in view theosophic
theories of the universe, which were exercising a pernicious
fascination on the minds of some Christians, and which, while
they seemed to bring principalities and powers into captivity
to Christ, were really reducing Him from the peerless plat
form, which was His own, to their level. These theories
were more or less allied with the teaching of Philo, in whom
they found their loftiest expression. We are not surprised
that there should have been an approximation between the
teaching of Philo and that of Christ, nor, at the same time,
that Paul and John would have only Christ, and none of
Philo. Philo and Christ addressed themselves to the same
problem, namely, the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile. Philo
offered as his solution a triumph of speculative genius, his
conception of the Logos, in which the loftiest philosophic
thought of the Greek seemed to meet the profoundest
theology of the Jew, and thus on the plane of a common
intellectual belief Jew and Gentile could lay aside their
differences and commence to walk side by side. To give
warmth and attractiveness to the conception, he ventured
on personification, which became at times so vivid as to
impose on the personifier himself, and leave him in doubt
whether his personification had not, after all, some measure
of personal existence. The solution which Paul found in
Christ was nothing so nebulous.1 Paul saw that the root
1 It is important to note a fundamental difference between Philo and the Chris
tian School in reference to the Logos. The introduction of the Philonian Logos,
as intermediary between God and man, was necessitated by a doctrine of the meta
physical conditions of divine and human existence, which made direct intercourse
between them impossible. That thought is never even hinted at in connection
with the mediatorial position of Christ, either in the teaching of Paul or of John,
or anywhere else in the New Testament. The need of a mediator there is found
solely in sin, an essentially ethical conception, the fruit of the abuse of man's
will, not a product of his physical nature. It is also noteworthy that the Philonic
Logos is never identified with the Messiah. Harnack, History of Dogma, i. 113.

236 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
of all antagonism between man and man was not intellectual
divergence, but common spiritual antagonism to God, which
reacted on the relation of man to man ; and in Christ he
found a definite personality, who, in Himself and by His
Cross, reconciled men to God and, working thus from the
spiritual and moral, destroyed all divisions among them.
Paul therefore adhered to Christ (Eph. ii. 1 1 ff.). But this
was only part, even if the part of supreme importance for
man, of Christ's r61e in reference to the universe. Exist
ing before it, He had been its Creator and its Upholder.
And when He appeared on earth and accomplished the
grand initial work of redemption under the conditions
essential to it, the Father was not content that He
should be less to His Church than He had been to the
creation at the first. And so " it pleased Him, that in
Him all the divine fulness should dwell." He should be
head over all things to His Church, and the source of all
its fulness of divine blessing. And thus, through Him,
a reconstituted creation should attain its grand ideal (Col.
i. 1 5 ff.). Here Paul's conception of Christ reaches its
sublimest expression, and all other intelligences and powers,
real or imaginary, are swept aside, and Christ left in a
peerless eminence, where none can compete with Him,
" the image of the invisible God."
This fully prepares us for the teaching of John. The
prologue to his Gospel is but a restatement of Paul's view
in John's way. But we are very apt to accord to his state
ments there a degree of significance that John himself
scarcely gives them.1 Especially has Christian thought
revelled in the application of Logos to Christ in a way
that John himself never did. He had used it once in the
1 This vitiates Weizsacker's very striking discussion of the Person of Christ,
and leads him to deny the Johannine authorship of the Gospel of John, while he
insists on the indispensability of apostolic (i.e. Johannine) countenance for the
combination of the Logos doctrine with the personal belief in Christ. Apostolic
Age, ii. 226-236.

to the Teaching of Christ 237
Apocalypse (xix. 1 3). He uses it in the prologue, but
never repeats it in the Gospel. And it is a matter of
debate whether he means the same thing when it occurs
once in his first Epistle (i. 1). Now, doubtless, the term is
a valuable one. But as John uses it in the prologue, there
is little distinctly Christian about it until ver. 1 4 is reached.
Prior to that John moves mainly on common ground with
the speculative thought of his day, Hellenic, Jewish, Ori
ental. All of these were more or less familiar with the
Logos. And though a Philo, for instance, might have
hesitated to accept ver. 1, for he speaks of a time when
God existed, trpb tov Xoyov, inrep tov Xoyov,1 still he speaks
of the Logos as the Son of God, the second God, the Only-
begotten, i.e. the unique one, the only one of His kind.2 So
bold, indeed, was his language about the Logos, that he had
to ask himself, if he was not idolatrous in calling Him God.
What John does, therefore, is to lay hold of this loftiest
existing philosophic conception of the inner relations of
the Godhead as imagined by the speculations of contem
porary thought, agree with it in its boldest form, and then
surprise it with the astounding announcement, '" The Logos,
the Word, was made flesh, and dwelt among us ; and we
beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the
Father, full of grace and truth " (John i. 14). All that others
have already said of one fitted to be the Life and Light of
men is true. We have found it realised in Jesus of Nazareth.
He is the Incarnate Logos. This the Gospel is written
to prove, or rather, to show what it means for a Christian.
It means the adoring recognition of Jesus of Nazareth as in
the very truest and highest sense divine.3
1 Quoted by Drummond, Philo-Judceus, ii. 184. It is worth asking whether
John may not, in the statements of chap. i. 1-3, have had Philo's positions in
mind, and meant, in what he wrote, expressly to pass beyond them.
2 On the meaning of /j.ovoyevrjs see Westcott, Epistles of John, p. 162.
3 Harnack, Zeitschrift filr Theologie tmd Kirche, i. 97 ; cf. History of Dogma,
i. 97, note ; McGiffert, History of the Apostolic Age, p. 488, note.

238 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
Now this is so universally admitted as John's view of
Jesus that there is no need to dwell further on the point.
It only remains to remark once more on the consensus of
view as to the divinity of Jesus among the apostolic writers,
and its evident acceptance among their readers. Thus,
except in the Gospel of John, they never stop to prove it.
They assume it. They argue from it. They show the
marvellous consequences for thought about Christ, or life
in fellowship with Him, which follow from it. Manifestly
the common belief of the early Christian Church was that
the only adequate account of the man Jesus was, that
He was more than man, the God-man, God manifest in the
flesh. Of course there were degrees in the vividness with
which they realised what this involved. There is a marked
difference, begotten of variety in the men, their modes of
writing, and the circumstances they had to meet, between
the simplicity of James, Peter, and the Synoptists, the
rapt adoration of the Apocalypse, and the spiritual insight
and genius of the Epistle to the Hebrews, of Paul, and of
John. But on the points that follow they are agreed.
They are agreed that Jesus was a true man ; that, with the
exception of sin, He was like other men ; that death was not
the end of His career, but that He was raised from the dead,
and is now at God's right hand ; that He is the present
Saviour and the coming Judge of men. They believed
that in all this He accomplished the true Messianic role,
and that in Him the prophecies were fulfilled. They are
equally agreed that He stood in quite a unique relation to
God, was the Son of God. In various ways they have ex
pressed their conviction that His existence began long before
His presence in the world, and that He holds a relation to
the world of men and of created things, vital to its very
existence. They all accord Him a worship and reverence
which they yield to no other but God. And their most gifted
representatives use language and adopt an attitude towards

to the Teaching of Christ 239
Him that place Him on the level of the highest deity.
Need we hesitate in the face of all this to give the natural
sense to the words when, at all hands, He is called Kvpw,
the distinctive Greek translation of the Hebrew name for
God, Jehovah, Lord ; when in Hebrews, in a quotation
from the Septuagint, He is addressed as God (Heb. i. 8) ;
when in Romans He is described as God over all, blessed
for ever (Rom. ix. 5) ; when in Titus He is called the great
God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ (Tit. ii. 1 3) ; and when
in John, in so many words, we are told not only that He
is the Word that was in the beginning, and in the beginning
with God, but that He the Word was God? (John i. 1).
Jesus had for them the value of God. And they were
unsophisticated enough to conclude that anyone who had
such a value must, in the fullest sense, be God. To them
to attach this value to anyone who was not God would
have seemed idolatry, and they would never have thought
of it. To them, this man was God, and they knew it,
because He was the revelation of God and did the works
of God. Is this a legitimate understanding of what Jesus
said of Himself, or implied by His eloquent life ?
In seeking to reach Christ's thought of Himself, we
have simply to deal with the facts. We do not need to
discuss the origin of His consciousness. And if, as is pretty
generally admitted, there is no indication of development of
His self-consciousness after the Baptism, but then it is
complete, it is futile to speculate as to what must have
been the processes of reflection prior to that by which
Jesus arrived at His convictions as to Himself. For one
thing, we have no direct evidence, and in spite of plausi
bility, the most successful attempt is only a speculation.
And for a second, it is speculation vitiated by a serious
defect. If His self-consciousness is what it is represented
even at the very lowest, while truly human, it includes an
element which has no exact counterpart in the conscious-

240 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
ness of other human beings, and it attains a result different
from that reached by any other human being. It is strictly
unique, and you cannot successfully argue from the origin
and development of the ordinary to the origin and develop
ment of the unique. If analogy is employed, the result is
somewhat unexpected. How does a man know himself to
be the son of his own father ? Does it not depend on
the witness of the father ? And the witness to which, in
John, Christ constantly appeals as abidingly afforded to
Him, and as accessible to others on His behalf, is the
witness of the only one of whom He ever speaks, even from
His earliest years, as His Father, namely, God. That is the
unique feature about His consciousness. Analogy seems
to confirm — if its evidence is worth anything — the old-
fashioned conviction as to Christ's original essence.
To get at Christ's thought as to Himself, we may
commence with the Temptation. That narration must be
autobiographical, and carries that value for us. The temp
tation proceeds on the assumption that Christ thought
Himself the Son of God (Matt. iv. 3, 6 ; Luke iv. 3, 9).
That conviction of His own mind had just been confirmed
to Himself, and attested to the Baptist, by the voice from
heaven (Matt. iii. 16, 17; Luke iii. 21, 22). It was with
the full consciousness of this that He was now prepared
to adopt publicly the Messianic r61e. And the Tempter
understood that for Jesus His relation to God was the
fundamental fact of His Being. That assumption he does
not attempt to challenge. He aims instead at provoking an
abuse of the privileges that would naturally accrue to the
Son of God, and so at rendering the Incarnation abortive by
diverting Messianic activity into wrong lines at the very
start. And this is how Jesus regards the temptation. He
does not repudiate the Sonship supposed. But He at once
and decisively refuses to seek a Messianic kingdom along
the devil's lines. Self-indulgence, vulgar display, methods

to the Teaching of Christ 241
of force and fraud He sets sternly aside as hateful to any
self-respecting, humble, God-fearing heart. He will live
His life and do His work under the strictly human con
ditions, and remain within the restrictions of the human
life, which He, the Son of God, had assumed. And what
He did then, He maintained to the end, when He repelled
Peter's dissuasive at Caesarea Philippi (Matt. xvi. 22, 23),
bade him in the garden sheathe his sword, though conscious
that legions of angels were at His call (Matt. xxvi. 52), and
heard, unheeding, from the Cross the challenge from His
foes, " If Thou be the Son of God, come down from the
Cross, . . . and we will believe Thee" (Matt, xxvii. 39—43).
He wanted no such belief. If men were to discover the
divinity within, it must be through the peerless excellence
found in Him amid the lowliest conditions of human life.
John expresses the realisation of Christ's desire in the
experience of his fellow-disciples and himself. " He taber
nacled among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of
the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth "
(John i. 14).
It is quite in line with this, that what was first in
Christ's mind was last in order of express admission to
men. It is only at the very end of His career that He
openly and fully accepts from men the name, Son of God,
though over and over again, in the course of His career, the
title was offered to Him. There were, however, two great
exceptional occasions, the Baptism and the Transfiguration.
There the voice that accords it is God's. And the words
are full of Old Testament reminiscence, weaving together
the thoughts of Ps. ii. and Isaiah's Servant of Jehovah.
These occasions were doubtless welcome to Jesus ; though
they were intended, in large measure, to guide the action
of John the Baptist and of the disciples respectively. The
wild cries of demoniacs to this effect Jesus sternly silenced,
refusing to accept testimony from such a source. And
16

242 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
other occasions were, so to say, privileged and private, not
public announcements. This reserve, however, did not arise
from any hesitancy in Christ's mind as to His claims. It
was for the truth of them He ultimately died.1 Jesus was
not really crucified because He claimed to be the Messiah,
but because He claimed to be the Son of God. Of course,
in saying that, I do not mean to suggest that the real secret
of the determined antagonism of the Jewish rulers to Jesus,
and their resolve to slay Him at all costs, was not due to
the fact that He claimed to be Messiah, but refused to be
a Messiah after their pattern, refused to be a mere political
tool in their hands, took His stand for far-reaching, spiritual
renovation, in which pride, formality, and love of worldly gear
must succumb to humility, sincerity, and self-sacrifice. But
in that there was no offence against the Jewish Law. They
expected a Messiah. There was no offence against Judaism
in any man claiming to be Messiah. It would all depend
on his being able to make good his claim. Rome might
assail him for treason on that score, but not Judaism. But
had Rome alone had to deal with Jesus, its verdict is
known — " Not guilty." He was King of a kind that did
not concern Rome any more than the Queen of the May
concerns our Queen. It was Judaism that condemned
Jesus. And why, slips out from His accusers' lips, when,
on hearing Pilate's verdict, " I find no crime in Him," the
fury of malice, like to be baulked, blurts out its inmost
thoughts : " We have a law, and by that law He ought
to die, because He made Himself the Son of God " (John
xix. 7). And this, it is plain from the earlier charge, meant
something different from Messiah (John xviii. 33 ff). Now
that was exactly what Caiaphas had elicited from Christ's
own lips as evidence against Himself, when every other
1 McGiffert (Histoiy of the Apostolic Age, p. 28), says less than the truth when
he sums up the situation thus : ' ' When Jesus was executed, it was as a distinct
claimant to the Messianic dignity." But his treatment of the mission of Jesus is
so utterly inadequate that his book would be improved by its omission.

to the Teaching of Christ 243
attempted charge had broken down (Matt. xxvi. 63 ; Mark
xiv. 61). It was on that they condemned Him, because
they counted it blasphemy. That shows at once what they
understood, and what Jesus understood, by " Son of God."
It was a relationship to God of such a kind that for any
ordinary man to claim it was to impinge on the sacred
prerogatives of God and to bring them into contempt.
It was, in other words, to claim to be divine. That was
what they meant, and what Jesus meant. It was a moment
of too intense feeling for anything but perfect candour of
thought and utterance on both sides. And from the terms
in which Jesus couches His reply, " Thou hast said : never
theless, from henceforth ye shall see the Son of man," etc.
(Matt. xxvi. 64), it is plain that it was because of what
they regarded as the irreconcilable contradiction between
His humanity and His claim to be Son of God, that they
refused to believe it. What they could not reconcile, Jesus
did. But their difficulty shows us conclusively the sense in
which both understood the words.
This becomes all the more plain when we recall the
passionate earnestness with which Jesus always repudiated
the charge of blasphemy, repeatedly made against Him. He
felt that it was something more than an insult to say that
He cast out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils.
It was itself on the very verge of blasphemy, because it
betrayed wilful blindness to the Divine Spirit that was at
work with and in Him, and which might easily have been
discerned even by men, who could not penetrate the dis
guise of His humanity. At Matt. ix. 3 we see that what
dictated the care with which He there justified His claim
to forgive sins was the fact that some said it was blas
phemy. John x. 3 2ff. has another most striking instance.
On the ground of the claim, " I and My Father are one,"
which His enemies regarded as His making Himself, a man,
equal with God, and therefore blasphemy, they were on

244 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
the point of giving Him a blasphemer's death by stoning.
Christ indignantly repudiated the charge, and that, not by
withdrawing His statement, but by emphasising His right
to make it, because some even in the Old Testament had
been called Gods, and He, as Son of God, stood on an
infinitely higher plane than they. Blasphemy He would not
confess to, even when asserting His claims in the presence
of men who interpreted them, and that without any abate
ment of them from Him, in their very highest sense.
We see, then, what Jesus meant when He accepted
the title, Son of God. But it was not a title He was in
the habit of using with regard to Himself. There is
another name, which was His own private name for Him
self, namely, Son of man. Here again, however, a
certain reserve is observable. Whatever He meant by
it, He did not use it with any frequency in the earlier
months of His public ministry. Dalman sums up his
results from a study of the use of the phrase in these
words : " It is not impossible, though not certain, that
Jesus never, prior to Peter's confession and the teaching
given by Jesus to His disciples then as to His future
fate, called Himself the Son of man." x Now what are
we to understand by that name? Without going the full
length with Dalman, we must approach it from the fact
just stated, that its use was comparatively rare until after
Peter's confession. But there is another fact equally ob
servable. From the first Jesus demands attention to Him
self. Without saying who He is, He teaches with an
authority which everywhere calls for remark. He speaks
about the nature, will, and ways of God with a familiar
confidence that surprises men. He even speaks of Him
self as the Judge before whom they shall give account
at the Last Day. He shows Himself to be possessed of
extraordinary control over the powers of earth and air
1 Die Worte Jesu, i. 216.

to the Teaching of Christ 245
and sea, over sickness and death. And though some of
the most arresting miracles occur in the last months of
His life, yet they are performed with greatest lavishness
and frequency at the very first ; later, He seems to stay
His hand. It is as these remarkable facts have served
their purpose, and won for Him that place in public atten
tion which He desired, and when consequently men were
asking on all hands who He was, that He begins to use
this name for Himself, the Son of man. What does He
mean by it ?
It seems fairly well established that Son of man was
not a common current Messianic term. There were Old
Testament passages, where the phrase occurred, which
might possess a certain Messianic suggestiveness to medi
tative minds, such as Ps. viii. and Dan. vii. 13. And
when once it had been appropriated by the Messiah, other
passages would acquire a new, like significance to His
followers. But as far as contemporary feeling was con
cerned, this was a secondary element in the term. In
ordinary usage it was an Aramaic equivalent both for
man, member of the human race, and for " son of man." 1
And the Greek phrase is to be interpreted from the
Aramaic usage.
What is the meaning, then, of Christ adopting this as
His self-designation, when men, by reason of His arresting
words and works, are inclined to think of Him as some
thing vastly greater ? It was this. He was accomplishing
the true work of the Messiah. But, owing to the prevalent
misconceptions of Messiahship, He was slow to accept the
title, the Christ. It would only have pushed mistaken
notions farther in the wrong direction, and fostered the
spirit which He so peremptorily checked, when they
sought, within a few days of Peter's confession, to take
Him by force and make Him a king (John vi.). Their
1 But see Dalman, Die Worte Pesu, sub voce ; Expos. Times, x. 438 ff, xi. 62 ff.

246 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
ideas about Him were extravagant, rather than exalted.
So He deliberately took a name that would compel them
to remember that He was man, true man, so much man
that He felt entitled to call Himself conspicuously the
Man, the Son of man. Whatever else He might be, He
was this. If He had made bold claims, exerted unpre
cedented influence, done as none other had done, and if
He contemplated still further claims for Himself, a coming
even as Judge of all mankind, still it was all at least as
man. " Son of man " is Christ's emphatic reminder of His
humanity, reminder of His humility indeed — but also when
thus appropriated by Him, it becomes a revelation of the
glorious possibilities there are for humanity, if once, like
His, it be delivered from sin and united with God.
This holy jealousy of His own divine nature, lest per
ception of it should, in any way, prejudice the perfect
confidence of men in the completeness of His assumption
of their nature and identification of Himself with their
interests, which led to His reserve in the statement of it
at the outset of His ministry, to His placing of an embargo
on the promulgation of it whenever it was perceived, and
to the adoption of the name, Son of man, as descriptive
of its equally important complement, is emphasised by the
forecast He immediately makes of what is in store for Him,
as soon as ever He has accepted Peter's God-inspired con
fession, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
From that day forward commenced the solemn and repeated
prediction, that He must be betrayed and crucified, and the
third day rise again (Matt. xvi. 2 1 ; Mark viii. 3 1 ; Luke
ix. 2 1 f.). It was the lesson He was constantly inculcating,
but which, in the first instance, His followers were slow to
learn, and found hard to understand (Luke xviii. 34). They
either, with James and John, belittled the tragic, dazzled
by the prospects of the Resurrection (Matt. xx. 20 ff. ; Mark
x. 3 5 ff.), or they were so overwhelmed by the tragedy, that

to the Teaching of Christ 247
they were afraid to inquire about it, lest Jesus should more
than verify their worst fears (Mark ix. 32). They could
not accept, with Christ, both facts without exaggerating
one of them to the prejudice of the other. But this only
confirms our impression of the difficulty Jesus had to
encounter in revealing Himself, and of the need He felt for
balanced statement to secure the whole truth for each side.
This same process is seen in connection with the
strongest statement as to Himself which is to be found
in the Synoptics (Matt. xi. 25-30 ; Luke x. 2 1, 22). There
He gives a justification of the new way in which He had
taught men to think of God, namely, as above everything
else a Father. And in doing so, He has made a great
claim for Himself.1 He has taught men to think of God
as their Father, because He knew Him as His own Father,
and knew so as only a son could- know. He bases the
knowledge on the relationship, and He states the relation
ship as something quite unique. All attempts to resolve
it into a unique degree of moral and spiritual affinity,
perfection of filial love and obedience, which differs only
in degree, not in kind, from the relation which other men
may bear to God, fail to afford the guarantee for the relia
bility of His revelation, which Christ's appeal to it demands.
It is relationship within the peculiar essence of Deity that
qualifies for making a revelation to men about the heart
of God. It is that relationship which Jesus speaks of as
that of the Son, and as His. It belongs to Him essentially,
and to Him alone. It is not found in ordinary human
nature. But Jesus has no sooner made this statement than
He follows it up with an invitation, couched in terms so
tender, so yearning, and so sincere, that the isolation of
His uniqueness, His divinity, vanishes in the throbbing
heart of His humanity, " Come unto Me ... for I am
1 Here is the prototype of the position claimed for Christ at the outset of the
Epistle to the Hebrews.

248 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
meek and lowly." And one does not know which to admire
most — the meekness and the lowliness of the offerer, or the
magnificence of the promise that comes from the throne of
His lowliness to the subjects who will crown Him King.
This passage in the Synoptics is the connecting link
on this subject between them and the Gospel of John. We
have here a saying of Jesus which is on all fours with the
most exalted claims attributed to Him in John. In John's
Gospel we do not, of course, miss the human side of Christ.
But it was written for the explicit purpose of proving, in
the . first instance, that Jesus was the Son of God (John xx.
31). And John has selected those incidents in the life of
Jesus and those utterances of His lips, which are especially
fitted to bring this into prominence, and to let us see where
He and His fellow-disciples discerned the glory shining
through the human veil (John i. 14 ; 1 John i. 1-4). John
thought that what He quoted would bear the construc
tion, and justify his contention. That, however, only
makes it the more significant, that we still see the Jesus
of the Synoptics, here as there regarded by men as the
son of Joseph (i. 45), surrounded by a circle of un
believing kith and kin (vii. 1-8), filled with the most
tender solicitude for His mother, Mary (xix. 26 f.). He
is the same toiling, weary, wistful, sympathetic wayfarer
and worker (iv. 6), hungering for human sympathy (vi. 67),
appalled at the prospect of spiritual conflict (xii. 23-28),
and clinging for support in the hour of desertion and
isolation to the unfailing presence of His trusted heavenly
Father (xvi. 32). He is still the Son of man who must
die, lifted up, even if it is to draw all men unto Him.
But over against that, He is one who makes the most
astounding claims both as to His personal position and
His personal significance for the spiritual welfare of others.
To read the list of 'Eyois and what they say, is to feel that
here is either the world's greatest victim of inordinate

to the Teaching of Christ 249
vanity, or else a soul possessed by the mightiest spiritual
force that has ever touched humanity. He is greater
than Abraham, Jacob, or Moses, Israel's greatest names
(viii. 5 3—S8, iv. 12 ff, vi. 32 ff). He is, even as Son of
man, in intimate touch with Heaven (iii. 1 3). And again
and again the passage from Son of man to Son of God,
in the description of Him, is so artless and natural, that
it is impossible to say which name is more appropriate.
Is the Son of God to be Judge of men ? It is because
He is Son of man (v. 26, 27). Is the Son of man to
be glorified ? It is by the return of the Son of God to
the glory which He had with the Father before the world
was (xii. 23 ; cf. xvii. 5).
In the third chapter of this Gospel, immediately after
Christ's statement to Nicodemus of His own qualification
as Son of man for conveying a revelation of heavenly
things, and of the conditions to which He had to submit
in order to become the medium of eternal life to men,
there comes a quick explanatory statement at the opposite
pole of the secret of His presence in the world. He is the
only-begotten Son of God, sent into the world for this very
purpose. But the transition is so quick that some cannot
believe that they are words of Jesus Himself, and not a
comment by John. Be it so; but John is then only
putting into this connection what Jesus repeatedly stated
of Himself, that He was God's Son, sent by the Father.
Never for a moment does Jesus disguise the dependence
of the Son on the Father. When in the fifth chapter
He justifies a Sabbath cure by an appeal to His Father's
example, and that so emphatically that the Jews sought
to kill Him, because in saying so He called God His own
Father and made Himself equal with God, Jesus does not
deny that ; He only proceeds to explain the mutual rela
tions of the Father and the Son. All the Son's activities
are determined by the example and commission of the

250 The Relation of the Apostolic Teacfiing
Father, but these are bestowed by a Father's love, — love
which exists on the basis of that relation, and gives
without stint. This is the secret of His already marvel
lous deeds, and of those still to follow, the reviving of
humanity spiritually dead, the raising of the dead from
their graves, and the fulfilment of the office of Judge of all,
— all designed by the Father to secure for the Son equal
honour with Himself. True, it depends on the Father;
but what of dependence is here stated only makes the
more arresting the claims made in keeping with it. It is
the same in the discourse on the bread of Life (chap, vi.),
where eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of
man is the alternative expression for beholding the Son
and believing on Him, the one in whom alone men can
see the Father, and either of these expresses the one
condition of eternal life and resurrection at the last day.
Chaps, vii— x. give two discourses at successive feasts
where Jesus discusses His own Person with great fulness.
At the first, replying to the Jews' astonishment at His
learning, Christ attributes it to His origin from God.
He is fit to be the source of spiritual life and the Light
of the World because of His mission from the Father,
and the tragic end to which they would devote Him would
have such an issue that they would thereby get the
answer to their question, " Who art Thou ? " He, as Son, is
the true liberator, through whom men can obtain the liberty
of sons of God, which means no mere national privilege,
but moral likeness to God and sympathetic recognition
of every son of God, pre-eminently of Him who says,
" I came out of God Himself, and am now here ; nor have
I come of Myself, but I am His messenger" (viii. 42).1
His truth He guarantees by His unchallengeable sinless-
1 This is the striking translation of the Twentieth Century New Testament.
Indeed, the testimony of that translation to the Divinity of Christ is very im
pressive. See especially translation of John i. 1-18.

to the Teaching of Christ 251
ness, and on faith in Him depends the eternal life of man.
And when this claim is set down to madness and arro
gance, He is not staggered by proposed comparison with
even the great father of the race, but solemnly avows,
" Before Abraham was, I am." All attempts to explain
away the force of this are hopeless. As Westcott says,
" There can be no doubt as to this final answer, which
follows as a natural climax to what had been said before.
Abraham died ; Christ was the Giver of life : Abraham was
the father of the Jews ; Christ is the centre of Abraham's
hope : Abraham came into being as a man : Christ is,
essentially, as God." 1 And when we recall the name
of God given at the bush to Moses (" I am "), there is
something arresting in that grandly simple iyio el/xl, I
am. After a lapse of a few weeks, Jesus is again at
Jerusalem, and over the healing of a blind man the
question is raised again as to His Person. To the blind
man himself He announces that He is the Son of God.2
This had been overheard, or at least it found its equiva
lent and explanation in a claim which He made forthwith,
" I and My Father are one." It is the justification of
His claim to be the coming Judge and Light of the World,
the Good Shepherd, ready to lay down His life for the
sheep and beloved of His Father for this rare devotion ;
and if men, not content with this, still ask, " If Thou
be the Christ, tell us plainly," He appeals to the safety
of those in His safe keeping, in His hand, God's hand, " I
and My Father are one." As we have already seen
(p. 243), there is no resiling by Him from the infer
ence His audience drew. There is only a plea for its
belief in view of His works, which witness to the fact
that the Father is in Him and He in the Father in a
1 Westcott, Commentary on John, in loco.
2 So A. V., as, with Godet, in loco, I think rightly.

252 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
union so deep-seated and real as fully to warrant Him
calling Himself the Son of God. Can any purely human
conception do justice to these claims ? In Him there
is something infinitely above this world's ordinary inhabit
ants even at their best. Only among the heavenlies can
His compeer be found, in His Father who sent Him —
God. This all leads straight to the answer which removes
Philip's difficulty, " He that hath seen Me, hath seen the
Father," and paves the way for an explanation of the
new form which prevailing prayer must take, " in My
name," and of the secret of His continued manifestation
of Himself to men, after He has gone to the Father.
That will be effected, as God effects it : " If a man love
Me, He will keep My words ; and My Father will love him :
and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him "
(John xiv. 23). He states the same fact in other terms.
The presence of the Divine Spirit is the equivalent of His
presence. Through that Spirit the disciples will receive
more and more of the things of Christ, and He claims that
all that is God's is His own. Could there be a more com
plete identification of Himself with God? The Son touches
the Father at every point. Imagine for one moment the
same thing said of any other human being. It is im
possible, incredible. And it is just as incredible, if said
of any other created being, any being in essence less
than divine. Yet Jesus says this, and says it of Himself.
It is to His words, as given by John, we here appeal, —
words which lived again in John's memory, when old age
blotted out the interval, but revived with all the freshness
of yesterday the arresting events of his youth. They
are words that say so much that they provoked the
charge of blasphemy at the time, and on any supposi
tion but one they are blasphemous. Had Jesus never
said them or anything like them, and had John invented

to the Teaching of Christ 253
them, we must have treated John as the gravest traducer
of His Master's name. But as Jesus said them, and as
John recalled and understood them with the full light
of the Resurrection upon them, they bear no taint of
blasphemy, nor ever did, but speak the words of truth
and soberness. With all this to go upon, it is superfluous
to expose again the makeshifts by which it has been
attempted to get rid of the pre-existence claimed in viii.
58 and xvii. 5. We have Jesus' own word for it that
it was out of an existence of real, glorious fellowship
with God that He came to fulfil Messiah's part here,
and that when He left the earth again, it was a return
to glory. All this, of course, is ampler far than anything we
find in the Synoptics. Indeed, it seems at variance with
the reserve or even silence which Jesus seemed there to
maintain on this conviction of His own mind. But it is
necessary to remember that the larger part of John's Gospel,
all from chap. vii. onwards, applies to the later months of
Christ's career. In what precedes, in chap. iii. for instance,
it is a question whether it is John or Jesus who speaks of
Him as Son of God. In chaps, v. and vi. His references to
Himself are the result of challenge, based on the intimacy
He claimed with God as His Father. In the former of
these chapters, too (chap, v.), in His reply to the charge of
making Himself equal with God because He called God
His own Father, the earlier part (vv. 19—29) might very
easily sound as a theoretic statement of the divine relations.
Save for the personal hint at ver. 24, it is all in the third
person. And when at ver. 30 He by implication applies
it to Himself, it is to follow it up by an appeal to witnesses
to prove that He Himself was sent by the Father. And
that is just how He represents Himself in the Synoptics.
In the other chapter (chap, vi.), though He does by implica
tion, but not expressly, call Himself the Son, sc. of God,

254 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
He yet keeps His humanity so persistently in the fore
ground that His hearers cannot find the clue to His claims,
and turn away in unbelief. So, after all, John is not out of
line with the method attributed to Jesus in the Synoptics.
Here again there is reserve. And John's mass of proof for
what he asserts is got, where we should expect it, from the
closing weeks and days. And Jesus justifies His disciple's
assertion. He makes good His claim to be the Son of
God. It is His fundamental thought about Himself. And
I would go farther than Professor Stevens, and say that
His thought is " primarily ontological " ; and Professor
Stevens's own words, which immediately follow, seem to
involve this. Quite true, it is " ethical," " a reciprocal and
dynamic fellowship," but " His work for men is grounded
in what He is," not on what He enjoys in virtue of what
He is.1
How, then, does Christ's conception of Himself agree
with the conceptions of His followers ? It lies at the root
of them all. One is at once struck with the remarkable
correspondence between Jesus and Paul. Their initial
thought is the same. They reach it, of course, in different
ways. To Paul it comes by the vision of the Lord in
glory. But Jesus is for him, just as He was for Him
self, first of all the Son of God, the Lord of Glory. It
is from that His Messiahship follows. It is in the light
of that they both regard the career on earth. And if
Paul pushes the significance of Jesus as the Son of God
into spheres where Jesus Himself never carried it, that is
not due to any departure from Christ's thought. It is
simply because Jesus had no occasion to pursue the lines
to which Paul felt himself called, and for which he found
the needed materials in Christ. But, beginning where
Jesus Himself began, Paul also looks at the life of Jesus
on earth just as Jesus Himself looked at it. Jesus is for
1 Theology ofthe New Testament, p. 204.

to the Teaching of Christ 255
Paul not less strictly human than any son of man. He
is bound to humanity by the closest ties of kinship. He
fulfilled the position of servant, as do His brethren. And
yet, at the same time, there is a degree of other-worldly
perfection about Him that makes Paul call Him, if not
the Son of man, yet something that expressed much of
the same thought, but with a tone of the reverence which
makes him shrink from using words Jesus did not hesitate
to apply to Himself — he called Him the Second Adam —
one of us, that is, truly one of us, but the best, our new
Head. The others, as we have seen, arrived at their
highest conceptions of Christ in the opposite direction.
They commenced with the humanity and rose to the
divinity. But when they did perceive it, their views cor
respond with those of Jesus and of Paul. John's picture
of Christ is so interwoven with Christ's own picture of
Himself, given in John, that it is an over-refinement to
distinguish sharply between them. But He does distin
guish. Jesus never calls Himself the Logos, nor, even
when traversing the inner relations of Father and Son,
does He resort to any philosophic terminology to explain
Himself. But we have seen that even when John does
this, it is by way of accommodation and in a merely pre
fatory and apologetic way, and not as an essential factor
in his thought of Christ. As to James and Peter, we
have seen that we have too little to go upon to set them
in opposition to the others. And there practically only
remain the Synoptists. Dalman 1 draws this distinction
between their view of Son of God and Christ's own.
Their mode of thought, he says, is Greek ; that of Jesus,
Semitic. And he explains that, by saying that " Jesus
uses the expression (Son of God), first of all, in reference
to His present relation to God, and only permits us a
glimpse that His origin is one that corresponds with this
1 Die Worte Jesu, p. 237.

256 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
position, while the Synoptists set the last-named point at
the basis of the sense of the expression." His proof is
based on the fact, that for the Greek in his own language,
Son had nothing like that range of significance which it
had in Aramaic for the Jew. But is that a proof of what
the Synoptists thought ? Two of them were not Greeks.
Besides, we have seen that it was in His relation to God
as Son that Jesus realised His call to be Messiah. Hence
though it be true that He does apply the title Son of God
to His present relation to God, it is over-refining to treat
that as the sole reference, or as if it so predominated in
His mind as to indicate a racial distinction of thought
between Him and His recorders.
The result we arrive at is that we possess a homo
geneous picture. The germ of the various presentations
are all found in Christ Himself. The form of each is
determined by the immediate circumstances which it is
to meet. And the latest, most mature, and most tran
scendent developments are the nearest approach to the
original thought of the Divine Prototype. It took time
for men's eyes to discern the magnitude and brilliancy
of the sun which had arisen in their heaven. But the
work He accomplished in themselves and in the world
around them, and the influence He exerted, which was
not spent or diminished, but vastly increased as the years
stretched out between His presence on earth and their
own day, confirmed the most exalted ideas which His
words and acts had suggested. His peerless humanity
was that of the Incarnate Son of God.

CHAPTER VII
The Intentions of the Cross, Hinted
and Grasped
In Christ's Teaching the Cross follows that about Himself— "Christ " is
an official Title — His Personality His Claim to Messiahship, not
vice versa — This understood by His Apostles — Value of His Death
lies in His Person — Order to be followed here : Christ's Teaching
first, and why.
Christ's Teaching about His Death — His Difficulty — (i) Facts elucida
tive of His Estimate of it — He predicted it, experienced growing
Emotion in the Anticipation of it, connected it with His Resurrec
tion, regarded it as at once a Murder and a Self-surrender — (2)
Light thrown on His Purpose in it by His Views of Life and Death
— Inevitable Effect of Old Testament View of Suffering on Christ —
His own Sayings on the Place of Suffering in Life — The original
Function He attributes to Death in Life — (3) His explicit Utterances
— (a) His Predictions of His Death — (b) His Description of His
disposal of His Life as Xvrpov — Sacrificial Element in Xvrpov —
(c) The Institution of the Supper — Does Covenant here refer only
to Ex. xxiv. ? — Significance of His Selection of Paschal Feast for
Time of His Death — (4) Additional Light from John's Gospel —
Wendt's abortive Attempt to reduce force of Johannine Evidence
— A homogeneous Conception.
Reproduction of Christ's Teaching by the Apostles. — (1) The Synoptics
emphasise its Connection with the Resurrection and its supreme Im
portance — (2) The Acts enforces the Crime of it — (3) Paul's Views
— Points of direct Affinity of Sentiment with Christ — Develops the
Necessity for Redemption by the Death of Christ (Galatians) — God's
Requirement, and consequent need of a Representative (2 Cor. v. 1 1-
21) — Rom. v. 11-21 brings out the Principle which makes Treatment
of Sin through a Representative legitimate — Rom. iii. 19-26 shows
how Christ fulfils the Part — Meaning of IXao-rripiov — How applic
able to Christ — What gave Value to Christ's Death, and how it
avails — Significance of Union with Christ for this Subject — Succeed
ing Epistles — Reason for comparative Silence — Relation of Paul's
Doctrine to Christ's— (4) Peter accords with Paul — But emphasises
Example in Christ's Work — (5) Hebrews presents Christ's Work as
17

258 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
that of a High Priest — Suggestion of this in Xpio-Tos — Represents
Effects in Terms of this Idea — The Author's Motive— His Point of
Departure the Intercessory Prayer in John xvii. — (6) John presents
Christ as the Lamb of God that taketh away the Sin of the World by
virtue of His Sacrifice — Justification of this View — Isa. liii. 6 — The
Lamb of Apocalypse is sacrificial — The Verdict of Caiaphas attests
it — Its expiatory Value — Emphasises chiefly sanctifying Effects —
but Terms include Expiation of Guilt — Summary.
When Christ had familiarised men's thoughts with the
truth about His own nature, the next stage of His
teaching was the unfolding of the fact that He must submit
to death, must carry identification with human nature to
its extreme limit, give up His life in death. He predicted
the tragedy in which He foresaw this would eventuate,
namely, betrayal into the hands of His enemies and
crucifixion by them. This is the subject we have now to
study, first seeking to understand in what light He re
garded these prospective sufferings, and what effects He
expected to flow from them, and then asking whether His
followers have been true to His leading, when they made
of them the very essence of the mission and work of Christ.
We have already noted that Messiah, or Christ, was
a title descriptive of the vocation, not elucidative of the
Person, of Jesus.1 And Jesus treated it in this way. It
was the word which enshrined the Jewish hope of a de
liverer, sent from God to introduce and set up the Kingdom
of God. And that was exactly the work which Jesus had
come to effect. But just as He had to transform the con
ception of the kingdom, so also had He to transform the
conception of the Messiah. And for this reason He practises
a reserve in the use of the name for Himself, which is as
marked as is that in the use of the name Son of God.
He could speak freely of the kingdom without incurring
1 It should be noted, however, that in John's Gospel and Epistles X/)ior6s is
frequently used as equivalent to wis tov OeoO, and takes its meaning from the
latter phrase ; cf. i. 17, 18, iii. 28, cf. 31, 1, i. 5, etc. Cf. Erich Haupt, Commen
tary on 1 John iv. 2, p. 209 (German edition).

to the Teaching of Christ 259
risk. He could not do the same with the acceptance of
the title Messiah. To have claimed to be Messiah at the
outset would, to the Jews at anyrate, have seemed to be a
putting of Himself at the head of a political movement.
He had first to eliminate the gross elements from the idea
of the kingdom, and then, by the impress of His character,
lead men to ask, whether He were not Messiah of such a
kingdom as He depicted, ere He could encourage that
belief. If ever He was to accept the title, He must interpret
what He meant by it, not they.
For Jesus His personality as God - man constituted
His right to assume the name Messiah, not His vocation as
Messiah His pretext for regarding Himself as Son of God.1
That is what He implies in His question, " What think ye
of the Christ? Whose Son is He?" He knew the reply
He would receive' — ¦" The Son of David." The contem
porary Jew looked first of all in his Messiah for signs of
pure Davidic descent. To Jesus, descendant of David as
He was, that was non-esssential. It was accidental : — " If
David call Him Lord, whence is He his son ? " (Matt. xxii.
42, 43). It is right to Lordship over even David, that is of
supreme moment. In the nature of His own personality He
knew He possessed that right. And ultimately He did
claim the title; but He put His own meaning into it, and
interpreted it from the secrets of His own being. That this
was the movement of His mind is plain from the reply
sent to John the Baptist. Whether John's question ex
pressed a perplexity of John's own mind — and I think it
did — or not, it certainly voiced what was a common mis-
1 Cf. Matheson, Studies of the Portrait of Christ; H. J. Holtzmann, Neu-
testamentliche Theologie, i. 272 f. Baldensperger maintains the opposite, or
rather refuses to admit the alternative. The two, he says, came to Christ's con
sciousness simultaneously. Previously to His certainty that He was Messiah, He
was still not yet the Son of God. Cf. Selbstbezausstsein Jesu, p. 221 f. But how
could the realisation of a conviction as to His vocation produce a change in His
person? Or are Son of God and Messiah identical terms ? Baldensperger does
not treat them so.

260 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
giving among those who were inclined to be well disposed
towards Jesus. Seeing Him pursue a line so different from
what their interpretation of prophecy had led them to
expect, finding Him use the fan, with which He was ex
pected to purge the threshing-floor and gather the chaff for
burning, only to bring feeble sparks to a flame of love and
faith, they could scarcely believe He was the Messiah. For
answer Jesus only emphasised, by special activity in the
same line at the moment of reply, the deliberateness of
the method He had adopted, and bade men take no offence
at Him. He knew who He was, and what He was doing.
Let them await developments (Matt. xi. 2—6 ; Luke vii.
19—23). In time developments came, which seemed to
confirm the darkest misgivings. His life went out in death,
shameful and accursed. Is not this final ? No, for He
rose again, and now He gives his clue to the perplexities.
He sets in the foreground that aspect of Messianic experi
ence, which an easy optimism had overlooked, but which
was of supreme import. On the way to Emmaus and in
the upper room that same evening, He makes the hearts
of the disciples burn with a glow of wonder and delight, as
He answers for them from the Scriptures the startling
question, " Ought not the Messiah to suffer these things
and to enter into His glory?" (Luke xxiv. 25, 26, 44-
47). His Person and His experience are the clue to what
constitutes Messiahship, and the adumbrations of prophecy
must be explained in the light of their fulfilment by Him.1
With this attitude of Christ His followers entirely coin
cide. They use Messiah or Christ of Jesus just as freely
as He avoided it. They use it so constantly that it became
practically a proper name for Him. But they do so be
cause " Christ " ceased for them to mean anything else than
what they found in Jesus. If asked what it meant, any one
of them would have replied by giving the facts about Jesus
JCf. Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah, p. 149 ff.

to the Teaching of Christ 261
of Nazareth. If, in writing to Jews, they seek to prove
that in Him prophecy was fulfiled, they do it, not by show
ing that His life conforms to the lines laid down for the
Messiah in the interpretations of prophecy, common among
the Jews. They do mention certain occasions, critical
junctures (Matt. xxi. 1 ff), at which Jesus deliberately acted
in detail as the prophet had foretold. Such was the tri
umphal entry into Jerusalem, when He was anxious to bring
things to a definite and final issue ; and the meaning of
His action was too eloquent to be mistaken. But, in the
main, the evangelists describe the actual course of His life,
and appeal to a truer reading of prophecy to justify the way
in which He had revolutionised the Messianic idea, and
filled it with a new content.
If what has been said is true, if His consciousness of
Himself as the incarnate Son °f God was for Jesus His call
to Messiahship, only then are we loyal to His thought,
when we endeavour to interpret His work in the light of
that fact. As we saw, the aim of His work was Salvation,
— salvation rendered necessary by the rupture, through the
entrance of sin, of man's proper relation to God. Now, if
Jesus felt that as God-man He possessed the qualifications
for achieving this result, and on the ground of this claimed
to be the true Messiah, it must have been because in virtue
of His nature He found Himself completely qualified to
represent the mind of God, and at the same time, from
within and by experience, thoroughly to understand the
thoughts of men, and to enlist their love and confidence.
In virtue of the union of God and man in Him, He was
able to represent God to men as He really is, and that
under a form which men could understand, i.e. in terms of
humanity. He was able to say, " Pie that hath seen Me,
hath seen the Father." He was also able, in virtue of the
perfection of His humanity and of the principle of human
solidarity, which He so well understood, to assume the

262 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
position of their true representative, the Son of man. His
whole earthly career, therefore, is official. It is to introduce
an irrelevancy to ask whether His Messianic work com
menced before, or at, or after His death.1 He is the
Messiah. Anything He does, possesses Messianic signifi
cance. And if, with growing impressiveness, He points to
the value of His death, and if His apostles, from the very
first, concentrate their atttention upon that, still it is not
simply the death, but the fact that it is His death, that
gives it such importance.
In studying this subject, we shall proceed in the
opposite way from that followed under the previous topic.
There we worked from the apostles to Christ Himself.
Here, we shall commence with Christ, and proceed to His
apostles. The reason is, that the utterances of Christ on
this subject, though very important, are scanty.2 It is
His followers who enlarge upon it. On this Jesus was
eloquent in action, not in speech. He bore the Cross to
Calvary, and there He died. And, with a few pregnant
suggestions, He chiefly left the fact to sink deep into the
hearts of men and speak there for itself. It was a marvel
lous service on their behalf. It was the cost of a great
forgiveness. And, as Dr. Forsyth has beautifully said,
while it would ill become those who by experience have
learned its value to keep silence on such a theme, on
the other hand, for Him who paid it to dwell on the cost,
and to do so while paying it, would have been to rob the
1 While Messiahship is an office, it is an office which is personal, and which can
never be dissociated from the person. McGiffert (History of Christianity in the
Apostolic Age, p 43 f. ), in his anxiety to prove that to the apostles Jesus only became
Messiah after the resurrection, seems to forget Peter's confession, and the line of
argument in the early speeches in the Acts. There the Jews are charged with
having crucified the Lord's Anointed. This charge would be manifestly unfair if
Jesus never was thought of as Messiah till after His resurrection and ascension.
2 There is great force in Dr. Robertson's remark : "The remarkable thing is
that Jesus says so much of Flis death by anticipation, and attaches so much signifi
cance to it. It is not a usual thing for a great teacher to make his own death
his subject" (Our Lords Teaching, p. 90).

to the Teaching of Christ 263
grace of its graciousness, to impair its wonder, amplitude,
and spell.1
Besides, until the death took place, in spite of His
efforts to familiarise the disciples with the prospect, they
simply could not credit it.2 Indeed, there is something
tragic in the estrangement which grew up between Him
and them, because of His insistence on it.3 And we have
an echo of the hopelessness, to which it reduced them, in
Thomas's loyal, though despairing, cry, " Let us go, that we
may die with Him " (John xi. 1 6). It was next to impos
sible, therefore, for Him to let them see its significance.
What He did say, notes of their own tell us, they often
at the time did not understand, only understood afterwards
in the light of the accomplished fact (Mark ix. 32; Luke
ix. 45, xviii. 34; John x. 6, xii. 16). Jesus, therefore, was
compelled to speak in hints and allusions, so striking as
sometimes to be remembered by their very unintelligi-
bility, and to leave time and event and experience to bring
the explanation. Not only so, but Christ spoke in prospect,
spoke of what He was going to do for the Father and
for them. They speak in retrospect of what was done, and
out of experience of what had been accomplished by it
for their spiritual lives. It was then the true proportion of
things took shape for them, and their theme, as stated by
one of them, became not simply Christ, but " Christ, and
Him crucified."
To determine Christ's own thought, these facts must be
taken into account : {a) Jesus foresaw and foretold His own
death. At first, there were mere allusions, such as lurked
in the question, " Can the children of the bridechamber
mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them ? But
1 Sermon on Holy Father.
" Their incredulity bears out the now prevalent opinion that contemporary
Jewish Messianic thought did not anticipate a suffering Messiah. Stanton,
op. cit. p. 122.
3 Fairbairn, Expositor, Fifth Series, iv. 14 ff.

264 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken
from them, and then shall they fast " (Matt. ix. 15; Mark
ii. 19 f . ; Luke v. 34 f.). It day in the well-attested phrase,
explained by John as a reference to His death, " Destroy
this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John
ii. 19).1 There is another allusion in the reference to
Jonah, and the parallel, " So shall the Son of man be three
days and three nights in the heart of the earth " (Matt. xii.
40). The sign of Jonah meant still more, but it meant
that. There is still another in the words to Nicodemus
(John iii. 13, 14), for when they were in effect repeated at
viii. 28, the "lifting up" is said to be work to be done by
His antagonists, and at xii. 32, 33, John explicitly explains
it as referring to His death. These are mere hints, but
definite enough to show that Jesus had the thought of His
death, and that not merely as the ordinary end of human
life, clearly before His mind from the beginning of His
ministry. It was no afterthought, called up by the
hostility which He found Himself provoking.
After Peter's confession explicit statements come. And
they are made with detail and completeness, like matters of
old standing in the thought of Christ, and only kept in
abeyance hitherto till men's minds were fit to receive them.
Time after time with increasing particularity He states the
fact, the certainty, the necessity, the agents, the place, the
time of it, down to a final " after two days is the Feast of
the Passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be cruci
fied " (Matt. xxvi. 2). It is the subject He discusses at the
Transfiguration, when He made the great renunciation and
went back, the acknowledged heir of glory, to meet death
1 It is quite gratuitous to ask us to accept the construction put upon that by
His enemies as a more correct explanation than that perceived by John. For my
part, I prefer throughout the explanations appended at times to ambiguous
utterances of Christ in the Gospels by contemporary, friendly commentators, to
those offered by foes then, or by superior persons in our day who set Matthew
and John aside and, in effect, tell us that they themselves have a better under
standing of the mind of Jesus than had those who heard Him speak.

to the Teaching of Christ 265
for others (Luke ix. 31). 1 His fate was foreshadowed in
that of His forerunners. It would fall out where every
prophet met his fate, in hardened Jerusalem (Luke xiii. 3 3).
His anointing at Bethany was to Him an anointing for His
burial (Matt. xxvi. 1 2 ; Mark xiv. 8 ; John xii. 7). Judas
would betray Him. The passover was the last meal He
would eat with His disciples before He suffered. It is all
foretold, and that deliberately : " Now I tell you before it
come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I
am He" (John xiii. 19).
But {b) another significant set of facts are those which
show the mingled eagerness and dread with which Jesus
approached and endured the crisis. From the commence
ment of the last year of His ministry, when Jesus made it
clear that men must decide for Him or against Him on His
terms, and as a consequence widespread defection set in, a
certain nervous anxiety appears in Christ's demeanour. He
asks His disciples, "Will ye also go away?" and even
Peter's loyal reply does not allay the unrest, for Jesus
follows it with the dreary word, " Have not I chosen you
twelve, and one of you is a devil?" (John vi. 66-71). He
felt the treason already in the air. When He met the
throng at the foot of the Transfiguration Mount, there is a
note of patience sorely tried in the exclamation, " O faith
less generation, how long shall I be with you ? How long
shall I suffer you?" (Mark ix. 19). The impression became
more marked from the day whose significance Luke
detected and noted so vividly, " When the days were well
nigh come that He should be received up, He steadfastly set
His face to go to Jerusalem " (Luke ix. 51). What that
meant for Him is very plain. There awaited Him that
fateful crisis He so wished was past : "lam come to send
fire on the earth ; and what will I if it be already kindled ?
'For a very fine study of the meaning of the Transfiguration, see F.
Warburton Lewis, M. A., Jesus the Son of God, pp. 30-37.

266 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
But I have a baptism to be baptized with ; and how am I
straitened till it be accomplished?" (Luke xii. 49). No
Herod could forestall it, or rob Jerusalem of its unholy
privilege, its bad pre-eminence : " I must go on My way . . .
for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem "
(Luke xiii. 33). No wonder that the steady look became
a fixed look — absorbed, preoccupied, strained. It terrified
His disciples. And His rapid steps drawing Him on alone,
ahead of His disciples, told of one hurrying towards a
crisis. " They were in the way going up to Jerusalem ; and
Jesus was going before them ; and they were amazed ; and
they that followed were afraid " (Mark x. 32). When the
Greeks came seeking to see Him, He feels the crisis is
near, and in rapid lines He draws His scheme of death and
life for Himself and all who hold with Him, and then
exclaims : " The hour is come, that the Son of man should
be glorified . . . now is My soul troubled ; and what shall
I say? Father, save Me from this hour? But for this
cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify Thy name"
(John xii. 20—33). The same state of feeling led Him to
desire so earnestly to eat the passover once more with His
disciples before He suffered (Luke xxii. 15). But over the
comfort of its fellowship hung the pall of the traitor's
presence. And for the others ! " The hour cometh, yea, is
now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own,
and shall leave Me alone : and yet I am not alone, for the
Father is with Me" (John xvi. 32). Hitherto the thought
of that presence had fully sustained Christ. But on the
way to Gethsemane the horror of loneliness and desertion
grew so terrible that He was sore amazed. The words
were wrung from Him : " My soul is exceeding sorrowful,
even unto death" (Mark xiv. 34). He clung to the com
pany and sympathy of fellow-men, only to let them go
again, and turn to wrestle in prayer with His Father ; and
soon He is able to say to Peter : " The cup which My

tp the Teaching of Christ 267
Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?" (John xviii.
1 1). And through all the indignity and cruelty of the trial
He gave no sign of flinching. At last the Cross is reached.
The full force of the storm broke upon Him, and out of it
came the awful cry, " My God, My God, why hast Thou
forsaken Me?" as if that were an ingredient in the cup
beyond His darkest forebodings (Matt, xxvii. 46). In all
this it is impossible to ignore Christ's sense of that, element
in death which gives it its terrors to men, and which Paul
expresses when he says : " The sting of death is sin." Sin
less as He was, Christ could not meet sin's penalty without
a nameless and strange dismay. But that passes, and the
last words are the explanation of the eagerness to suffer,
which ever rose superior to the dread : " It is finished "
(John xix. 30) ; " Father, into Thy hands I commend My
spirit " (Luke xxiii. 46).
A third fundamental fact in reference to the death of
Jesus is that He connected it most closely with Flis
resurrection. When He came to announce it explicitly to
the Twelve, it was with the immediate consequent, " and the
third day rise again " (Matt. xvi. 2 1 and often). This pre
diction of Christ's was so well known that, little as it
helped the disciples in the hour of trial, it had reached the
ears of His enemies, and seemed to them to contain germs
of a possible danger which they, as cautious men, must
forestall (Matt, xxvii. 62 ff.) No view of His death, there
fore, can correspond to Christ's thought of it that does not
take definite account of this constant factor in it. It is a
death to be illumined by a glorious resurrection.
Once more, to Jesus His death was a fatal necessity ; but,
at the same time, it was no less a deliberate murder, and
also a great act of self-surrender. " The Son of man goeth
as it is written of Him, but woe unto that man by whom
the Son of man is betrayed " (Matt. xxvi. 24; Mark xiv. 2 1 ;
Luke xxii. 22). How vividly the crime of it looms out in

268 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
the fate decreed on the wicked husbandmen who slew their
lord's son ! (Matt. xxi. 40 f.). And this becomes the more
impressive when we notice that this parable stands between
that of the Two Sons, the picture of the kingdom slipping
from the grasp of hypocritical hands, and that of the
Marriage Feast of the king's son and the fate of earlier
contemptuous guests who slew the inviting servants. The
comment on the husbandmen gives the clue -to the whole :
" Did ye never read this scripture " — a favourite text ever
after with Christ's heralds — " ' The stone which the builders
rejected is become the head of the corner '? Whosoever shall
fall on it shall be broken ; but on whomsoever it shall fall,
it will grind him to powder." Foreseeing the possibility of
such a fate for them, what pathos in His prayer : " Father,
forgive them ; for they know not what they do " (Luke
xxiii. 34). They knew not that, by slaying Him, they
served themselves heirs to the accumulated guilt of their
nation's apostasy, reached the climax of the world's sin.
But Jesus is not less explicit in asserting His control over
the disposal of His life to the very last. With quiet
mastery He eludes all plots to seize Him till His hour is
come, le. till He has effected all He wished to do, and His
enemies might work their wicked will without prejudice to
His cause (Luke xiii. 31 ff; John vii. 30, xi. 54; Luke
xxii. 10). If He is the Good Shepherd laying down His
life for His sheep, still it was not per force : " No man
taketh My life from Me ; I have power to lay it down, and
I have power to take it again " (John x. 1 8). If Judas will
betray Him, it will not prevent His eating the Supper with
His disciples as He desired. When captors seize, Peter
need not draw sword. Had Jesus willed it, twelve legions
of angels would have rallied to His call (Matt. xxvi. 53).
Pilate is plainly told, " thou wouldst have no power against
Me, except it were given thee from above" (John xix. 11).
He will accept no drugging draught to dull His pains (Mark

to the Teaching of Christ 269
xv. 23).1 With full consciousness He lays down His life.
If His death was a murder, it was still more a great
surrender. These things show us how Jesus forecast His death.
What did He mean by submitting to this tragic fate,
deliberately weaving it into the scheme of His life ? The
view of life and suffering in which He had been brought
up, and which He had grasped in a quite original way,
helps us to understand it.
{a) It is impossible to believe that anyone with the
insight of Jesus — to put it on the lowest level — could have
read the Old Testament with the Book of Job there and
Isa. Iii. 1 3-liii. and kindred passages, or witnessed the
sacrificial rites of the Temple, without discerning the inner
meaning of the sufferings of the innocent, or discovering
the extraordinary achievements possible through sufferings.
These show that sufferings often afford a test of integrity,
and are an opportunity for a triumph of faith. Owing, not
only to the power of sympathy, but to the very constitution
of humanity, they may be vicarious, and acquire a sacrificial
value. Borne at hostile hands, without a murmur, they
may be a plea for, and an expression of, the farthest reach
ing forgiveness, and prove the very crown of service to
friend or foe. True of all sufferings, this is pre-eminently
true of death, their severest form.
{b) Christ's own utterances leave it no surmise that
thus and thus He thought. For instance, there was, He
said, no bodily sacrifice that was not well worth making
in order to escape insidious temptation or becoming a
stumbling-block to others (Matt. v. 29 f., xviii. 1-14). No
privation, however complete, should stand between a man
and perfection (Matt. xix. 1 6 ff.). Humiliating and hard
1 Jesus was offered the cup twice. It was the earlier offer He refused. Three
hours afterwards, when, on His cry, "I thirst," the second was offered, He
accepted it to strengthen Him for the Victor's shout, with which He died, " It is
finished; Father, into Thy hands I commit My spirit" (Mark xv. 23, cf. ver. 36).

270 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
as it may be, burden-bearing is a small price to pay for
deliverance from the unrest of earth's unsatisfying quest
(Matt. xi. 28-30). Besides, suffering is inevitable, if a
consistent stand is made against wickedness, and " blessed
are they that are persecuted for righteousness' sake " (Matt.
v. 8 ff). Less than such cross-bearing is unworthy of
Christ (Matt. x. 38). Even after He explained the terribly
literal place the Cross would have in His own life, He
required of His disciples that they should take up their
cross and follow Him (Matt. xvi. 23 ff; Mark viii. 34;
Luke xiv. 27). For as Joseph Parker magnificently puts
it, summing up Christ's philosophy of life in a sentence,
" Whatever is not Sacrificial is Satanic." 1 Suffering, suffer
ing for others, was the divine secret, God's plan, for the
world's cure, and Christ revealed it (Matt. xvi. 23 ff).
The way of the Cross is the way of salvation.2 And men
must learn that, if they are to serve Him and His cause.
Tolstoy is not wrong when he pitches on " resist not evil "
(Matt. v. 38-42), as of the very essence of Christ's Chris
tianity.3 It is the passive side of what follows in the
succeeding paragraph, " Love your enemies, and pray for
them that persecute you" (Matt. v. 43-48). It is the
practical form of forgiveness, and none knew better than
Jesus Christ the power of forgiveness to awaken love (Luke
vii. 47 ; Matt, xviii. 2 1 f.). Suffering, therefore, patient
suffering, at the hands of others and for their sake, ay,
even unto death, was seen in all its possible potency by
Jesus Christ.
(c) In view of all this, is it surprising to find death,
the climax of suffering, given quite a new function in the
scheme of life by such an original genius as Jesus? Life
to Christ was no mere matter of food and clothes and
shelter (Matt. vi. 2 5 ff), a span bounded by death. Life
1 Inner Life of Christ, iii. 9. 2 Amiel's Journal, p. 167.
3 Christ's Christianity, p. 106 ff.

to the Teaching of Christ 271
was eternal, death but an episode, though it had become
for sinful men the punishment of their sin (Luke xiii. 1-6).
But even for them Christ saw in it far other possibilities.
There could be a losing of life which was in reality a
finding (Matt. x. 39, xvi. 25 ; Mark viii. 35 ; Luke ix. 24,
xvii. 33 ; cf. John xii. 25). Of that the crowning example
is His own experience. Death was for Him the supreme
opportunity of serving the ends of life. He looked before
it, and He looked after, and He grasped its chance. And
it was this quite original way of taking death into the very
scheme of life, and utilising to the full this climax of suffer
ing, to attain the purpose of His life on earth, that made
His predictions of His death so utterly unintelligible to
His disciples at first, and ultimately led them to discover
such fascinating grandeur in it.1
That we are not wrong in reading thus Christ's view
of His sufferings, is shown by three of His sayings, which
tell us, too, what effects He sought to secure by them.
There is, first of all, the common form in which He
announced His death (Matt. xvi. 21, etc.). In it the
reiteration of " the elders, chief priests, and scribes," set
over against " the Son of man," as the agents of His
death, tells us that Jesus regarded His death as having
more than a personal significance. It was a national
crime, and yet also a national sacrifice with Himself the
Victim, set apart by the civil, sacerdotal, and religious
representatives of Israel, i.e. by the body corporate of
Israel.2 This corresponds to John's conception of the
deeper significance of the advice of Caiaphas (John xi. 49).
And when we add Christ's equally significant inclusion of
" the Gentiles," in the infliction of His death, not only
Israel acts, but all mankind (Matt. xx. 17-19). His death
1 I owe the thought of this paragraph to a remarkable sermon, delivered by
the Rev. George Davidson, M.A., late of Hawick, now of Adelaide, South
Australia. 2 Fairbairn, Expositor, Fifth Series, iv. 288.

272 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
is the deed of the concentrated wickedness of humanity, and
it is endured by their signal Representative.
The second saying is in the sequel to the reply to the
request of James and John : " The Son of man came not
to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life
a ransom for many" (Mark x. 45 ; Matt. xx. 28). The
request of the sons of Zebedee followed immediately on a
renewal of the announcement of His death by Jesus not
a week before it took place, and on the very eve of His
arrival in Jerusalem. Ambitious and unseemly, it yet was
opportune. Christ had just restated the cruel facts of His
death ; this request leads Him further to explain its use.
The brothers thought only of the kingdom to which they
perceived it was in some way the portal. But just as on
the first announcement Christ had to teach Peter that for
every man the way of the cross was the one way of life
(Matt. xvi. 21 ff), so now He has to repeat that lesson to
the two, and carry it further to the ten. Before, He had
wound up with the question, " What will a man give in
exchange for his soul ? " {dvTaXXayfia = the price for which
something is bartered). Here He supplies the answer:
" The Son of man is come to give His life a ransom for
many." What occasions the statement is the ambitious,
jealous feeling abroad among disciples, who will think of
His kingdom as like earthly kingdoms, with earthly senti
ments and methods prevalent in it. There rulers lord it
over the subjects, practically make them slaves. Christ's
order of rank and power is the very reverse. The greatest
is " the prime minister," he that does most service. And
the Son of man Himself in founding the kingdom achieves
that work along the line of this fundamental principle of
its constitution, for " He came not to be ministered unto,
but to minister," not to make men slaves, but to set them
free. But here is a point from which He can let the
disciples see something of the meaning, and so of the need,

to the Teaching of Christ 273
of His death. The death is the ransom price He pays to
achieve man's liberation. What another man could not
do for his own soul, even if he had the whole world at his
disposal, Jesus does for many, " instead of them " (dvTi
troXXSiv), by giving His life as ransom. In what sense?
To the mind of Jesus, men were the slaves, not so much
of suffering and death, — these were mere effects, — they
were slaves of sin. He knew that returning prodigal and
penitent publican alike found the burden on the conscience,
the sense of guilt, the severest element in sin. " Father,
I have sinned against heaven ... I am no more worthy
to be called thy son." " God be merciful — be propitious
— towards me, the sinner " (Luke xv. 1 8, xviii. 1 3). And
it is from sin in its entirety He sets them free. In view
of this, it is improper to ignore the sacrificial reference in
XvTpov. Not only in the Septuagint, but also in contem
porary Greek, Xi/Tpov was used in a sacrificial sense. It
is an atonement. It describes an expiatory offering, by
which one sets himself free from guilt, by discharging the
duty imposed by the god.1 And in view of the very
general recognition among the apostolic teachers of a
sacrificial element in the death of Christ, it is arbitrary
to deny its presence in Christ's own mind, when He used
this word. His mission was to achieve in reality effects
which men hitherto associated with sacrificial rites. True,
He does not identify His death with any particular sacrifice.
But by the use of this word with its familiar sacrificial
reference He puts it into relation with the system in its
general aspect, and in so far as that did illustrate the
meaning of His death. What that popular conception was
is very strikingly stated by Schmiedel. He says : " The
idea of substitutionary expiation, though quite strange to
their real signification, lay so close to the Old Testament
sacrifices, and especially to the sin-offering, that it almost
1 Ramsay, Expository Times, x. 109, 158.
18

2 74 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
inevitably made its appearance in the popular mind." x Is
it not almost incredible, I ask by the way, that something
so naturally suggested could have been essentially foreign
to the true meaning of a selected symbol ? 2 But what
chiefly concerns us, dealing with Jesus who spoke to
common people on the level of their own popular thoughts,
and in their familiar speech, is that sacrifice suggested sub
stitution and expiation to them. And when Jesus said
XvTpov dvTi troXXwv, He knew they would interpret it in
that way, and we cannot believe it was not in His mind,
or that He deliberately allowed His disciples on this
important matter, and at a time when He was ostensibly
explaining the subject to them, to misunderstand Him.
The third great statement is what Christ said at the
institution of the Supper, and particularly in giving the
cup. The view seems correct which sees in the bread a
predominant reference to the Incarnation. The cup con
centrates attention on the Death. And without staying
to debate at length the precise terms used of the cup, we
may take it as well established that, at least, He connected
it with His blood, shed as the ratification of a covenant
between God and man.
1 Hand-Commentar, ii. I, 209.
2 It is nothing to the purpose as determinative of the sacrificial element in
Christ's death to appeal to Robertson Smith's studies in the Religion of the
Semites, and to his discovery that sacrifices originally implied communion
between the god and his worshippers, while expiation is a later and subordinate,
though increasingly important, element. Christ's death was not framed on the
model of these, either Pagan or Jewish. But His death really achieved results
for men, which are properly enough suggested by, and described in, terms of
ancient sacrifices in so far as these were intended to be expiatory and propitia
tory. Christ's death and its stated effects are determinative of the sense in which
it is sacrificial, not the remote and often forgotten elements in sacrifice, which only
patient archaeological research has recovered. What Ritschl says (Rechtpertigung
und Versb'hnung, ii. 228) of the apostles holds good here. They commence with
the fact of Christ's death and resurrection. Being His, they are of infinite
significance for men. What that significance is, no one line of illustration fully
slates. The old sacrificial law suggests something of it ; the corn of wheat in
the ground suggests something of it, and so on. And that is how we ought to
icach doctrines, and not vice versS.

to the Teaching of Christ 275
Now this idea of covenant at once recalls the atmo
sphere of the Old Testament. But is it sufficient in order
to understand the meaning of Jesus here to go back to
Ex. xxiv., and restrict any sacrificial reference in the
ordinance to the burnt-offering and thank-offering, the
sacrifices mentioned there? The motive for urging this
is not far to seek. It is to confirm a contention that
Jesus never hints that there is any need of an expiation
in order to the forgiveness of sin by God. All that is
necessary is penitence on man's part.1 Now, unquestion
ably, that is the predominating note in Christ's teaching.
But could it be otherwise prior to His own death ? And,
supposing it is true that nothing but penitence is required
on the part of the sinner, does that exclude the possible
necessity of other adjustments wrought by Him who for
gives? Jesus did represent God as really forgiving, and
Himself claimed and exercised the right to forgive sins on
earth ; but it was because He was Son of man, and for
Himself that suggested the humiliation and sufferings in
separably connected with His mission, and if so, a con
sciousness of their necessity in order to the forgiveness
He felt free to bestow. Besides, we have seen already
that there is a general reference to sacrifice, which includes
propitiation by expiation, in Xinpov. There is, therefore,
no prima facie objection to finding more in the reference,
in giving the cup, to His blood, than is implied by its
connection with Ex. xxiv. And even in that connection,
to deny reference to the remission of sins is to ignore the
light of the Epistle to the Hebrews on the Jewish under
standing of the blood then shed, and, therefore, indirectly
on the meaning of Christ's words (Heb. ix. 22 ; cf. Lev.
xvii. 11).
1 Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, ii. 239 ; Zeitschrift filr Theologie und Kirche, iv.
16 f. ; H. J. Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Theologie, i. 296 ff. In reply, see
Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaftli'che Theologie, xxxvii. 529 ff.

276 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
Weight must also be given to the selection by Christ
of Passover time for His death. He brought things de
liberately to issue then, just as surely as He avoided the
crisis at other feasts and times. It was then He made
that public entry into Jerusalem, again cleared the temple,
and so challenged attention, that He forced the hands of
His enemies. Still more, even while doing this He took
special pains to gratify His intense wish to observe the
Paschal Supper, undisturbed by His foes, for a last time
with His disciples. It was with this He associated His
new rite and memorial. It is surely perversity, therefore,
to ask us to believe that Passover conveyed no suggestion
as to the meaning of His death. The Paschal Supper was
associated with the birth into freedom of old Israel. The
lamb slain for that feast was a sacrifice which stood in the
same relation to that nation's existence, as Christ said
{XvTpov dvTi troXXmv) His death stood to the origin of the
kingdom of God (Matt. xx. 28; see p. 272 f). It was
connected with the last blow that struck the fetters from
Israel's limbs, and it also was sealed in covenant blood.
Is not the conclusion obvious that just as the sprinkled
blood of the Paschal Lamb was the safeguard of each
Israelitish house, and its death took the place of the death
of Israel's firstborn, so the death of Jesus was instead of
His people? He endured the fate impending over men,
which they had incurred by their sin. And Jesus having
borne it for them, their sins can be remitted, and they can
enter into the new covenant relationship with God. Christ's
determination to associate His death with the Paschal feast
warrants us in attributing these thoughts to Him. And so
we are not surprised at the phrase in full in Matthew, " This
is My blood of the covenant, which is shed for many for,
et? = with a view to, the remission of sins " (Matt. xxvi. 2 8).
It expresses the very thought to which we have been led
by Christ's conduct, and draws aside the veil to let us

to the Teaching of Christ 277
catch a glimpse of what forgiveness costs God, though it
cost us nothing but genuine penitence and faith. It is on
the basis of this that men are forgiven and enter into the
new covenant, described by Jeremiah in the passage which,
even more directly than Ex. xxiv., suggested the phrase,
and in which itself the covenant rests on a foregoing for
giveness (Jer. xxxi. 31-34). It results in a reconstituted
humanity, once more set on its right footing with God,
animated by the right spirit, and living and acting as His
people. There are several additional phrases in John's Gospel,
in which Jesus alludes to His death and its effect. The
allusions are chiefly figurative, but they convey a very
definite impression. Here Jesus states quite explicitly
again and again that He gives His life for the good of
men. And, having regard to His unmistakable anticipa
tion of His death, it is doing less than justice to the
language to treat this as if it meant no more than that
He devoted Himself to their service. He is the Good
Shepherd who lays down His life for the sheep (John x.
15). He is the Friend who gives the crowning exhibition
of friendship by laying down His life for His friends (John
xv. 1 3). Thus in His death He acts for others, and does
it from deep-seated love. But, as we have noted already,
it is to be a lifting up from the earth, which will indeed
effect glorious results and shed a flood of light on its own
significance (viii. 28, xii. 32, 33), but which is carried out
by His enemies in no friendly spirit, and is illustrated by an
ignominious parallel, the brazen serpent (iii. 14, 15). For
what does the type of the brazen serpent imply ? Salvation
through Him ? Yes. But the impaled brazen serpent
represented the defeated foe, and the crucified Son of man
exhibits the sin of man, man's subtlest foe, in man's perfect
representative, condemned, treated as it deserved to be, and
so robbed of its power (cf. Rom. vi. 6; Col. ii. 14, 15).

278 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
But the tragic side of the death was never uppermost in
John's memory of Christ. If its approach did trouble
Christ's soul, it was for a moment, and only to give place
, to the thought of the glory (John xii. 27, 28). Jesus saw
the magnificent possibilities of death. It is like the case
of a corn of wheat, that can only bear fruit if it die (xii. 24).
Jesus saw that, if He died for men, He could reproduce
Himself in them. He could thus gain such a power over
them, that they, with heart and mind and will, would re
spond to His view of sin and holiness, the claims of self
and the claims of God and their fellow-men. Let Him die
for them, and He could infuse life into them, and that mar-'
vellous service would remain forever the food of their souls
(vi. 35 ff). It would prove the mightiest appeal He could
use as Risen Lord to keep His Spirit alive in them. And
so if He laid down His life, it was that He might take
it again, no longer simply His, but a life-generating and
sustaining force, quickening the souls of men. In this
aspect of it His death was, at once, an act of His own,
a response to a command of His Father, and something in
which His Father found pleasure (x. 1 7, 1 8). Are we
wrong in finding here light on the value of the death
as a propitiation ? It pleased God, among other things,
because of its enormous capacity as a moral force in the
life of man. This glorious side of the death especially
fascinated John — " . . . This is not to die,
If, by the very death which mocks me now,
The life that's left behind and past my power,
Is formidably doubled."1
It was death, as Paul says, " swallowed up in victory."
Wendt would have us believe that, according to John's
Gospel, Christ attributed His redemptive influence entirely
to the educative power of His words. And he appeals to
1 Browning's Balaustion.

to the Teaching of Christ 279
such texts as, " The flesh profiteth nothing : the words that
I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life (cf. v.
24, vi. 63, viii. 51, xii. 49 f.).1 But, if attention is paid to
the use of pr)p.a.Ta, words, in this connection, it is seen that
Wendt does not do justice to the words of Christ. pijfiaTa
refers not to the teachings per se, but to the substance of
the things taught.2 Christ's sayings are the record of His
doings. And it is the doings at the back of the sayings
that give the sayings quickening power. Christ is mighty
as a Teacher, because His words breathe the realities which
His life, death, and resurrection embody. His words express
His acts, which first secured results for men, and so pro
duced effects in them ; and these acts on behalf of men
reach their climax in death for them. Still more, words
expressing such vital facts " are spirit, and they are life,"
because they are the instruments through which the life-
giving Spirit touches the lives of men, and brings the facts
into operation upon their minds and hearts and wills.
Since this is so, one of the divergences which Wendt finds
between Jesus and Paul vanishes into thin air. Jesus is
as much more than a mere teacher to Himself, as He is
to Paul. Thus, from John and the Synoptics, we gain a single
homogeneous conception of Christ's own view of His suffer
ings and their primary effect. Its outstanding points are
these. His death, the climax of His sufferings, was fore
seen by Him from the first. It was at once a crime into
which humanity concentrated its antagonism to God, and
the crown of His work for the race which He represented.
Though endured in line with principles of common appli-
1 Teaching of fesus, ii. 201 ff. ; Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche,
iv. 59, note, where v. 24, viii. 51, xii. 49, etc., are also quoted. In several of
these \6yos is used not prifiara ; but that does not affect the argument from the
usage of p-qixara, for, as viii. 47, cf. 51, shows, pri/j-ara states the substance of \6yos.
2 See Cremer's Lexicon, sub voce; and Westcott, Commentary on John iii. 34,
vi. 63, viii. 47, xvii. 8.

280 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
cation, it secured unique results such as He attributes to
the death of no other being, and which were due to His
unique Personality. Its power lies in the fact that it is
the surrender of His life in death. It was the sacrifice
which embodied the price of men's redemption, and was
the exhibition of what their forgiveness cost God. It pro
vided the basis of a new compact, ratified in it between
God and man, was thus the fundamental article in the con
stitution of the new Kingdom, and supplied the Risen
Lord with the mightiest force for securing men's adherence
to the New Covenant.
We pass to consider the way in which this lesson was
apprehended by the followers of Jesus. All our . informa
tion, so far, has been derived from the Gospels, and there is
little more to learn on the matter from them. Yet, it would
be to ignore a very significant feature of them all, if mention
were not made of the large proportion of those compara
tively brief records that is taken up with the story of the
Passion of Christ. The events here are followed with a
minuteness of detail which conveys the impression that
every incident is noteworthy. If this means anything, it
is that for them everything in the life of Jesus led up to and
found its culmination in His death. The Cross is for them
the point of view from which to survey the field and under
stand it. But, with Jesus, they make it plain that the Cross
itself is only to be understood in the light of the Crucified
and of His resurrection. To the proof of the latter event
they devote only less attention than to the narrative of the
death itself. And so the testimony of the evangelists is,
that in the earthly career of Him who, by His peerless
character, unequalled gifts, and undoubted resurrection, was
proved to be the Son of God and as such the Messiah, the
event of crowning importance was His Cross, His death.
In the Acts of the Apostles we learn the immediate
effect of the Resurrection on men to whom the death had

to the Teaching of Christ 281
been first an enigma and then a shattering blow. At once
the Cross lost its paralysing power. Under the guidance of
the Risen Christ, it was seen that it was in line with the
divine forecast of the Messiah's work, and yet even more
appeared the monstrous crime of it. They grasped, too, the
power of it as a scourge with which to lash the consciences
of their contemporaries. And they wielded it with unspar
ing hand. Nor is it difficult to understand that such an
appeal to men of the race that had so impiously rejected
their heaven-sent Messiah should have evoked a deep
revulsion of feeling, a surrender in shame and remorse to
Jesus of Nazareth, but with a humble hope for forgiveness
and remission of sins for His sake, and yet that all the
while neither preacher nor hearer should have formulated
any distinct theory as to the part the death played in
securing it for them. So long as the apostles were dealing
with Jews, they do not seem to have realised more about the
nature of the death than this. Perhaps this is not doing
full justice to what they learnt under Christ's instruction
(Luke xxiv. 25—27, 44 ff.) from what the prophets had said
as to the Messiah's sufferings. They may already have
had more than an inkling of what Christ understood. But
it is true of all that is explicitly stated. It is a little more
difficult to understand how this crime of the Jews could be
made to rouse the consciences of mankind in general. The
speeches of Paul, however, throw light on it. In them the
Resurrection appears as evidence for the position of Jesus
as the God-appointed world Judge (Acts xvii. 31). Thus
consternation was aroused at the way in which such a one
had been treated by men ; but they are urged, in the hope
that they may be forgivingly received and pardoned, to turn
in faith and penitence to Him. The attitude of the Acts,
save in a single clause (xx. 28), does not show how the
death of Christ was intended to secure the forgiveness of
sins in any other way than by this appeal to conscience and

282 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
awakening of penitence. This drops far behind Christ's
own teaching, but it can claim to have its roots there.
There is no light shed on this subject in the Epistle of
James, and we pass to the writings of Paul. And here we
are at once struck with the way in which Paul's statement
of the meaning of the Cross grows and expands. Out of
his own experience of blessings obtained through the Cross,
Paul reaches his conception of the meaning of the death.
Enjoying these from the hand of his Crucified and Risen
Lord, he turns to gaze anew at the Cross, and finds it
illumined by their light. But what also contributed largely
was his work as Apostle of the Gentiles. That necessitated
the full consideration of the necessity of the death. As
was said, the presentation of the Crucified Jesus, as raised
by God from the dead, and by Him appointed world Judge,
could arouse consternation, and lead to adhesion to Him
for salvation. But when the first alarm wore off, question
ing arose. Why should the Judge first have died, and He
the innocent Son of God ? Surely to arouse consciences
other means, less terrible and less tragic, might have availed.
What was the need of the death ? For answer, Paul had
not direct guidance from Christ. But there were general
points of agreement between the apostle and his Master,
which pointed towards the answer, {a) For them both the
Cross, though men come to glory in it, was in itself a thing
of shame. As with the speakers at the beginning of Acts,
the Cross was the crux, the offence of Christ, which needed
to be explained and understood in order to be hailed with
rapture. (Jf) They held exactly the same view of life. Its
ideal use is sacrificial. Rom. xii. I, 2, Phil. ii. 17, 18,
and many parallel passages, show how natural it was for
Paul to find in sacrificial usages the fitting form under
which to describe life as it should be spent for God. {c) It
was, with Paul as with Jesus, the Resurrection that made
the death of Christ significant, and it could not be under-

to the Teaching of Christ 283
stood divorced from that, " If Christ be not risen, all is in
vain" (1 Cor. xv. 12-19). («Q Besides, without explaining
the reason of it, Christ had insisted upon the fact of its
necessity. He had used words that gave broad hints as to
its meaning. And Paul, combining with this what he knew
by experience of man's spiritual need and what he had
found for himself, in harmony with Christ's hints, in the
Cross, was prepared to meet inquirers and say why it was
that the Christ must die.1
The answer is to be found in the Epistles to the Gala
tians, 2 Corinthians, and Romans. In the Epistle to the
Galatians the subject is still encumbered, from the circum
stances of the case, with Jewish elements, and it is on one
point its evidence is of chief value. The Epistle is addressed
to the first purely Gentile Christian community, a community
which had embraced the first news of the gospel with avidity,
but which was in danger of being diverted into legalism
under the idea that Christ's work was incomplete without
the supplement of conformity to the Jewish law. To meet
this, Paul takes them back to the original teaching, and
restates with a new emphasis points whose importance they
had apparently forgotten or failed to grasp. He reminds
them that the believer in Christ, by his faith, has entered
into a union or fellowship with Christ of the most intimate
kind, and it is as the result of this union that he enjoys all
blessings in Christ. He repeats what is the primary bless
ing of all, and for it he employs a name virtually peculiar
to himself. He is not content to say the man is forgiven.
He says he is justified.2 That word had indeed been used
once by Jesus, to describe the position of the forgiven pub
lican (Luke xviii. 14). But Paul uses it constantly. It
1 Cf. Lidgett, Spiritual Principle of the Atonement, p. 262.
2 "Forgiveness does not feel the word to say, —
As I believe in One who takes away
Our Sin, and gives us righteousness instead."
A. H. Clough, Mari Magno, "The Clergyman's Tale."

284 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
occurred in his first sermon in Galatia itself (Acts xiii. 39).
And he now recurs to it, preferring it to " forgive," because
it is positive, states where the forgiven man is. The man
is restored to the position one would occupy, had he fully
kept the law. He is in the position of the returned and
restored prodigal. He is a son once more. The Galatians
had allowed themselves to be told that, while the forgive
ness came through union with Christ in His death by faith,
the reinstatement as son depended on conformity to the
rights and requirements of the Jewish law. If that were
so, Paul tells them, as he told Peter in similar circumstances,
Christ is dead in vain (Gal. ii. 1 1— 21). To make His death
this mere awakener of conscience, is to reduce it to a need
less horror. For the man united with Christ it is some
thing very different. By God's commission and out of
purest love, Christ had submitted to the conditions of human
life, " born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem them
that were under the law, that they might receive the adop
tion of sons" (iv. 4, 5); " He loved me, and gave Himself
up for me " (ii. 20). And what He gave Himself up to was
this. Every man under the law had proved a law-breaker,
and was therefore under its curse. But, as His death on the
Cross showed, Christ had also come under the curse (iii. 1 3).
That could not be for Himself, for He was personally
innocent. He bore that for others therefore, and so redeems
them from the curse and repones them in the position of
sons. And the net result of this is, that, for one thing,
Christ's death is the endurance for others of the penalty
of the law. Even if they die, death has lost for them its
penal character. Christ's death terminates entirely their
connection with the law (ii. 19), and provides for the
attainment of all blessings by faith in Christ.
In the relative passage in 2 Cor. v. 11—21, Paul is
mainly occupied with presenting in the most solemn and
persuasive terms the importance of reconciliation with God.

to the Teaching of Christ 285
It is a moot point with theologians whether reconciliation
between God and man involves a change wrought in the
feelings of God as well as in those of man. A fair con
sideration of the way in which Paul states it here shows that
he thought so. He was a true son of the evangelical
prophet : " Thou wast angry with me, but thine anger is
turned away" (Isa. xii. 1). The following points make that
obvious, and they contribute their quota to an under
standing of Paul's thought of the necessity for Christ's
death, {a) He leads men up to the crisis of acceptance
or rejection of God's terms of peace by a reference to the
eternal issues which depend upon it, to the dread thought
of a Judgment, and to all those monitions of conscience that
awaken fear of God in guilty hearts (iv. 7— v. 11). If all
that means anything, it means a very deep sense of the
terrible consequences of the wrath of God against sin
(ii. 16, iv. 3). (b) Alongside of this must be set the fact,
that Paul speaks of the reconciliation as already in one sense
an accomplished fact, to which he calls men to give in their
adhesion (cf. Rom. v. 11). He speaks in terms that
remind of Christ's words on the Cross, " It is finished,"
which are simply the triumphant repetition of His verdict,
pronounced in anticipation on the previous night upon the
course of His earthly career, " I have finished the work
which Thou gavest Me to do " (John xix. 30, cf. xvii. 4).
Through Christ God has accomplished a result, in view
of which He does not impute to men their trespasses,
but sends them a message of peace. But it is on the basis
of what Christ has achieved, and of what that expresses
of the change of God's attitude toward the sinner, that
the sinner is invited to change his attitude toward God.
(c) But what is" it that God has done? Paul states it
in a single sentence with impressive abruptness, — there
should be no connecting particle, — " Him who knew no
sin, He made to be sin on our behalf; that we might

286 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
become the righteousness of God in Him" (v. 21). That
is the substance of the word of reconciliation. In the
connection there is no doubt of what was in Paul's mind
when he speaks of Christ being made sin. He means
His experience in His association with humanity and in
death (cf. vv. 14, 15, 20, 21). Death was the curse of
sin. It had come upon Him who knew no sin. He
endured it therefore not on His own account, but in
virtue of His union with sin-cursed humanity, as " the
representative of sin's totality," to use Schmiedel's phrase.1
And the need for dealing with sin thus in a representa
tive was just this, that if it was to receive that exposure,
and meet that condign treatment, which God felt to be
indispensable, it could not be done otherwise, without
involving the annihilation of the race, which God was
anxious to save.2
That we are not putting a wrong construction upon
Paul's words becomes evident, when we turn to the Epistle
to the Romans. Here he so far traverses the ground
already covered in Galatians, but he does so with less of
the polemic spirit. He once more brings the death of
Christ into the foreground, and shows its bearing in two
directions— upon us and upon God. It is a potent factor
in the new life of the justified man in mystical union with
Christ. But it is so because, first of all, it puts the man,
united with Christ by faith, into his right position with
God. How it does so Paul explains in two passages,
namely, iii. 19-26 and v. 1 1-2 1, and other references in
the Epistle can best be understood in connection with these.
To take the second first, v. 11-21, we saw already
1 " Repriisentant der gesammten Sunde,'' Hand-Commentar, ii. 208.
2 Orello Cone makes the very pertinent remark, however, that "the relation
of Christ and men, though reciprocal, is not, in Paul's thought, that of equals, so
that any man might be conceived as taking Christ's place" (The Gospel and its
Earliest Interpretations, p. 194). Jesus was the only one fit to occupy this
lepresentative position.

to the Teaching of Christ 287
that this passage proves the legitimacy of salvation by
means of the work of a representative. That is done
by an appeal to the constitution of humanity, to its
solidarity. That had given fatal effect to the sin of
Adam, and involved widespread condemnation. It was
therefore perfectly legitimate to utilise the same principle
in the interest of justification of the many through the
obedience of one. This passage, therefore, establishes
the principle on which the position ascribed to Jesus in
Galatians and 2 Corinthians is founded, and warrants the
virtue ascribed to His actions and sufferings in it.
In the very same way it sheds valuable light on the
still more important passage in this Epistle itself, namely,
iii. 19—26. This explains exactly what is the service
Christ renders for men in His death. Paul puts it in
one word, IXao-Trjpiov. After much discussion, it is be
coming more and more generally admitted that this
word involves propitiation, and propitiation by expiation.1
Objections to this thought are largely dictated by the
idea that it is somehow derogatory to the honour of
God. And certainly in the forms which among the
heathen such offerings often took, and the ideas of God
to which they were addressed, that is true. Yet, as
Professor Lewis Campbell says, while fully admitting
the force of Plato's scorn for the believer in gods who
can be bribed by prayers and incense to the remission
of sins, " the Eleusinian mystic, the Orphic preacher, and
even the juggling priest of Sabazius had an inkling of
human needs and requirements, which the intellectual
scorn of Plato overlooked : disorders which they con
tented themselves with healing slightly, in their ignorance
of a more prevailing remedy." 2 And so we must not
1 " The offering by which expiation is attained," Ramsay, Expository Times,
x. 158 ; cf. Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 91 ff.
2 Religion in Greek Literature, p. 351 ; cf. Dods, Gospel of John, i. 375.

288 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
take fright at the ideas there associated with this word,
but see what Paul meant, when he says IXao-Ttjpiov. The
conceptions interwoven with this passage show that this
is his name for Christ in His death. This death of
Christ is the means to the attainment of a result which
stands in sharp contrast with the consequences of the wrath
of God. It exhibits the righteousness of God. It suc
ceeds where the law had failed, and that in two ways —
(a) The law had only succeeded in ratifying the con
demnation of men ; it did not justify their justification
(iii. 19—22). {b) It also failed to secure or guarantee
obedience (viii. 3). Christ, by His incarnation and death,
did both. Death to Paul was the wages, the fruit, the
inevitable end of sin. Even if trepl dfiapTias in viii. 3
does not mean " as an offering for sin," there are other
phrases in which it is explicitly said that Christ died " for
sin," " for sins " ; and so in whatever sense we take nrepl
or virep in this connection, Paul thought of Christ as
receiving sin's wages. But while Christ died for sins,
they were the sins of others. He died for us (Rom. v.
6, 7). For Himself He was perfectly innocent. His
appearance in flesh condemned sin in the flesh, proved
it had no inherent right to be there, while His death
under these conditions at once exhausted sin's claim, and
expressed in the strongest terms possible God's utter
abhorrence and condemnation of it (vi. 6-1 1, viii. 3).
Thus at the cost of His life (iii. 24) Christ set men
free, not only from the guilt, but also from the power,
the slavery, of sin. On the basis of this God is recon
ciled to us (v. 9), and reckons us as righteous (chap. iv.
passim). Why? Because of the obedient spirit which
throughout His life and Passion Christ displayed (v. 19).
It is not because of the excruciating agony which He
endured, but because of the humble acquiescence with
which He accepted the fate, which God, on account of

to the Teaching of Christ 289
their sins, had decreed against the race with which He
had identified Himself. That is the propitiatory element.
That is what expiates the sin, and it was because only
by the endurance of death all this could be adequately
expressed, man's Saviour in saving him must die.
Viewed thus, the death was a great acknowledgment
in practical form by a worthy representative of the race,
that God made no unreasonable demand on men, when
He called them to perfect holiness, and that the fate He
decreed against its refusal was no more than it deserved.
It afforded a basis on which God could forgive men
and reinstate them in His favour without the risk of
any possible misconception arising, as to His antagonism
to sin, either from that forgiveness or from past forbear
ance. Here was something provided by God, done by
Him through His Son, which satisfies Himself, and is
thus a propitiation, even though it is His own work.
And when it is seen that all this was provided by God
Himself in order that He might deal graciously with
the sinner, " be just and yet the justifier," the death of
Christ becomes above everything the revelation of God's
love. In His death, — God's Son, as truly as He is Son
of man, — sin, the wrong inflicted on God by men, is seen
to remain, as it were, on God in place of recoiling
upon the head of the sinner. And so if Christ once
said, " Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay
down his life for his friends " (John xv. 1 3), human
gratitude discovers in His death a love greater still :
" God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while
we were yet sinners, Christ died for us " (Rom. v. 6—8).
In order to do full justice to Paul's thought of the
efficacy of Christ's death, however, another element has
to be taken into account. For lack of it, the exposi
tion of his thought just given, which is in harmony with
the old Augustinian and Reformed view, has always
l9

290 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
incurred the reproach of being juridical, forensic. Now,
I am not inclined to take fright at nicknames. But if
there is anything in the reproach, it does not apply to
Paul's own view, when we remember the intense reality
which the union of Christ and the believer possessed
for him, and the complete reciprocity which it implied.
If Christ was united with him, he was iv XpictTw. If in
Christ's case there was an Incarnation, in the believer's
there was, to coin a clumsy word for the moment, an
In-Christation. How complete, in his mind, was the
union, is only seen when we discover that the very name
" Christ " can be used by him to describe, not the indi
vidual Jesus, but the new humanity in all its numbers
who adhered to Him (1 Cor. xii. 12; cf. Gal. iii. 16).1
In virtue of this, the death of Christ, as well as every
other act or experience of His, is also the act and experi
ence of the man united to Him. If Christ dies, he dies ;
if Christ rises, he rises. And so Paul could say, " I am
crucified with Christ " (Gal. ii. 20), and " Our old man
was crucified with Christ, that the body of sin might be
done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage
to sin : for He that hath died is justified from sin . . . we
are buried with Him " (Rom. vi. 4, 6, 7, cf. vii. 4). It is a
union which is inseparable (Rom. viii. 35-39). In virtue
of it, by the Cross of Christ, the flesh is crucified with
the passions and lusts thereof (Gal. v. 24), " The world
is crucified unto me, and I unto the world" (Gal. vi.
1 4) ; and I am dead to the rudiments of the world
(Col. ii. 20). Now, this identification of the sinner with
Christ in His death explains the curious introduction of
the subjective element at Rom. iii. 25, IXacrTijpiov Bia
¦7rlo-Tea><; iv toj amov aifiaTb. Why Bid 7rlaTea><; ? Because
all suspicion of legal fiction disappears when, through the
appropriation of faith, Christ's death is not simply a death
1 Godet, Introduction to the New Testament, Pauline Epistles, p. 209.

to tfie Teaching of Christ 291
vtrep rifiuv, but becomes our death, is made our own, and
in it we not only expiate our guilt, but have done with sin.
It also explains why, in order to the realisation of God's
plan (2 Cor. v. 11 -21), it was not sufficient that God was
in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, as if all could
be effected ex opere operato, but man must respond and be
reconciled to God.
In the succeeding Epistles (Eph., Phil., Col., 1 and 2
Tim., and Titus) Paul does not add anything to what
he has already reached. But the use that he makes of
the death adds enormously to the conviction, that he
did regard it in the way just described. Throughout, he
assumes the points just stated as well established positions
on which he can build. He appeals to them, and urges
upon men their practical consequences, namely, the sub
jective effects which the death should produce in the lives
of men who have already, by faith, appropriated the great
initial objective advantages secured by it, which Paul com
prehends under the term, justification. These later Epistles
all correspond more or less with what follows chap. v. in
Romans. They assume what is stated up to that point.
And this is not surprising. We can easily understand it in
the case of the Pastoral Epistles, written to men who had
spent months in Paul's company, and must often have heard
him express the ideas which he writes to Rome as a sketch
of the principles of the gospel, as he understood it. But
the truth there elaborated would be equally familiar to the
readers of the other Epistles, for it was while he was in
prolonged personal contact with the Church at Ephesus,
had occasion to visit the Philippian Church, and was in
direct touch with the men through whom the. gospel was
carried to Colosse and the valley of the Lycus, that Paul
was writing these Roman, Corinthian, and Galatian Epistles.
They are the reflection of his preaching at the time at
which they were written, preaching heard by the men to

292 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
whom he subsequently wrote.1 What is said, when he
writes to them, as to the nature and objective effects of
Christ's death corresponds to what they knew he had
preached. It is a death for us (Eph. i. 7 ; Col. i. 20-22).
It is the outcome of His love (Tit. iii. 4 f.). It is the pro
vision of God's grace, to secure the great object He had in
view for men (Eph. ii. 5). Its spiritual value lies in the
spirit of obedience, in which it is endured (Phil. ii. 5 ff.).
It effects a redemption, whose first result is the forgiveness
of sins, and the ascription of a status of righteousness,
which could not otherwise be attained (Phil. iii. 8 ff). It
gives a footing in an inheritance of liberty, which is the
grand position and possession of the sons of God, and in
which it is possible to work out one's own salvation, and
to realise its possibilities under the motive power of the
indwelling energy of God (Phil. ii. 1 2 f. ; Eph. iii. 1 5 ff).
On reflecting on the whole body of Paul's thought, may
it not be fairly said that he has simply elaborated, in the
light of the accomplished fact of the predicted death and
resurrection, and under the guidance of his own spiritual
experience and observation, the hints given by Christ
Himself, when He spoke of His mission as a mission of
salvation, undertaken at the will of His Father ; of His
right as Son of man to forgive sins, and as Son of God to
make men truly free ; of His life given as a ransom for
many, and His blood as the blood of a new covenant?2
1 Cf. what Weizsacker says of Paul's method of argument in Rom. i.-v. :
' ' This scripture proof was not arranged for the first time during the composition
of the letter . . he had composed a kind of doctrinal scheme for didactic
purposes" (Apostolic Age, i. 132).
2 Mackintosh (Natural History of the Christian Religion, pp. 368-412) draws
an elaborate contrast between a doctrine of salvation without atonement, which
he ascribes to Christ, and Paul's doctrine of atonement. It contains some
remarkable dialectics, such as when he represents Paul as attracted to Christ's
teaching by its revelation of a way of salvation without atonement, which he
transforms, on accepting it, owing to a residuum of Jewish influence in his nature,
into a doctrine of salvation by atonement. He attributes the popularity which,
in opposition to most kindred critics, he maintains was enjoyed by the Pauline

to the Teaching of Christ 293
The terms XvTpow, dtroXvTpwai<;, dvTikvTpov are an echo of
Xxnpov, and the connections in which they occur are a
commentary on it. The sacrificial idea is pervasive rather
than prominent, and in line with the common sense of its
need, not in direct reference to particular Jewish rites. This
was only to be expected in the case of the Apostle of the
Gentiles, but it is in striking agreement with the Master
Himself. Paul has penetrated too, and utilised to the full,
the closeness of the union with humanity which Christ
established by His Incarnation. He speaks, indeed, without
any anxiety about technical or conventional terms, or the
exactness of his reproduction of words of Christ. He uses
with characteristic liberty all material that makes his mean
ing plain. But he has thoroughly assimilated his Master's
thought, and is only anxious to share it with his brethren.
And the very freedom of expression which he uses is the
best proof of his deep-rooted conviction of his loyalty to
the meaning of Christ.
Closely akin to Paul's thought is the conception of the
meaning of Christ's death given in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, in 1 Peter, and in John. We are not concerned,
of course, with the inter-relation of the various views. We
are only dealing with their relation to the teaching of their
common Master, and variety of view, which remains har
monious, is only testimony tb the richness of the original
conception. And the views are harmonious. Peter, for
instance, again presents that sacrificial view of life which
we saw in Christ, and found in Paul (1 Pet. ii. 5). He
knows something of that vital connection with humanity,
doctrine, to the fact that it corresponds with ordinary, unphilosophic, anthropo
morphic views of God, and admits that "it may have been the only form in
which the truth could have been made level to the apprehension whether of Jews
or Gentiles in that age " (p. 387). And the net result is that "Jesus was a pure
idealist whom the age could not comprehend ; while, on the other hand, Paul as
a teacher remained in touch with his age." It requires more than a re-reading of
the original documents to accept this as a true account of the relations of Christ
and Paul.

294 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
taught by Jesus, which becomes of priceless significance to
men through faith, though it does not mean so much to
his simpler nature, as it did to Paul who, with his eager,
mystical nature, absorbed and lived in it. Years of experi
ence, too, forced Peter beyond the position of his speeches
in the Acts, and in his Epistle he sees more of the objective
need of the death of Christ for redemption. The terrible
irony of the Cross he sees now (though once he could not)
as the Saviour foresaw it (i Pet. ii. 7, 8). He explicitly
ascribes redemptive value to the death of Christ. In Jesus,
on His trial and on the Cross, He had seen in living char
acters Isaiah's patient, suffering servant of the Lord (1 Pet.
ii. 21—24), as innocent, too, as He was patient (1 Pet. iii.
1 8). He was the true Lamb of sacrifice. He bore the
sins of others. His precious blood ransomed them, and
brought them, once alienated, near to God (1 Pet. i. 18, 19,
ii. 24, iii. 18). The correspondence between this and the
teaching of Paul is obvious, and its roots in Christ's teach
ing are the same as in Paul's case. It is true that a radical
difference is asserted to exist between them, namely, that,
while Paul attributes the redemptive power to the pro
pitiatory effect, Peter finds it in its force as a moral
example. This, however, is to ignore those things. First,
Paul, while he insists on the objective value of the death
as an atonement, also speaks of it as an example (Rom.
xv. 2, 3 ; cf. 1 Cor. xi. 1 ; Eph. iv. 32, v. 1, 2; Phil. ii. 5),
and there is therefore no incompatibility. Secondly, while
Peter does speak of it as an example in iii. 1 8 and ii. 2 1, he
does not do so in i. 1 8, 1 9. And even where he does, there
is not the slightest suggestion, that it is by its use for an
example it possesses redemptive worth. Thirdly, in appeal
ing to it as an example, Peter is only following the lead
of Christ who, when stating the quite unique redemptive
significance and power of His giving of His life, at the
same time exhibited it as a crowning example of the

to the Teaching of Christ 295
principle on which men ought to utilise their lives.1 And
so in Peter's emphasis on the influence as an example that
lies in Christ's death, we have not a divergent conception
of its saving efficacy, but an interesting addition to our
sense of its range of power.
In the Epistle to the Hebrews, as we have seen already,
we have a writing devoted to showing that in Christ and
His life and death, Christianity has something which con
serves all that was good in the Levitical ritual and which
transcends even its best, as the reality does the shadow.
In the Levitical system, all was earthly, material, typical.
In Christ we have the heavenly, a term which, throughout
the Epistle, is not to be interpreted locally, but as meaning
the real, the true, the essence of what was formerly only
symbolised. The writer dwells on two points : {a) Christ,
the True Priest ; (b) Christ, the Perfect Sacrifice, (a) He
establishes his first contention by an appeal, expressed in
terms of Messianic prediction, to the outstanding features
of the Person and Life of Christ. As Son of God incar
nate, possessed of the power of an indissoluble life, among
men He at once, in virtue of His inherent capacity (after
the order, not of Aaron, but of Melchisedec), filled a repre
sentative position as true mediator between God and man.
He was in reality all that a priest was officially. He was
in direct touch with God, in abiding fellowship with Him,
and so was able to command instant attention for all that
appealed to God through Him. But He was also in vital
sympathy with man even in his most tragic situations,
tempted and tried like as we are, made perfect through
suffering, heard in that He feared, and so He is able to feel
for infirmities and succour them that are tempted.2 He
1 See note above, p. 272.
2 How vital to truest sympathy is the experience of trial, whether succumbed
to or triumphed over, is vividly illustrated by what Green (Short History of the
English People, p. 360) says: " It was with the unerring instinct of a popular
movement that among a crowd of far more heroic sufferers, the Protestants fixed,

296 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
needed no sacrifice for Himself. His was the flawless life.
And so He was fit to offer the sacrifice for the people, and
to renew the covenant. This is quite an original way of
presenting Christ, and peculiar to this writer. He alone
speaks of Christ as Priest. And the idea strikes us as
without motive in previous language. But the very name,
0 Xpto-To?, might suggest Priest to a Jew as naturally as
Prince. Lev. iv. ff. (LXX.) speaks of 6 lepeix; 6 Xpio-Tos, le.
the Anointed or Christ Priest. And if the writer was
already familiar with sacrificial views of Christ's sufferings,
it is not unnatural to see him find in Christ also the
anointed Priest, {b) But what was the sacrifice; ? It was
Himself. The Author grasped the great truth that, when
it comes to reality, Priest and Victim must be one. The
supreme sacrifice anyone can offer is himself.1 To show
how complete Christ's sacrifice was, the author, to work
out a comparison, selects the ritual of the great Day of
Atonement. He does so, because the rites and offerings
then were a most instructive epitome of all the Jewish sacri
ficial ceremonies. They embodied everything suggested
by other sacrifices, the nation's sin, its burden, its guilt,
its hatefulness to God, its rupture of the relations between
God and His people. They tell us of what is needed to
remove all that, secure forgiveness, cleanse the conscience,
renew the covenant, and keep the life pure. But, after all,
these were mere symbols. The blood of bulls and goats
in spite of his recantations, on the martyrdom of Cranmer as the deathblow to
Catholicism in England. For one man who felt within him the joy of Rowland
Taylor at the prospect of the stake, there were thousands who felt the shuddering
dread of Cranmer. The triumphant cry of Latimer could reach only hearts as
bold as his own, but the sad pathos of the Primate's humiliation and repentance
struck chords of sympathy and pity in all."
1 In the face of this it is an inconsequence to say, as Menegoz does (La Thlo-
logie de I'Epttre aux Hcbreux, p. 244), that it is not the victim that expiates the
faults, it is the offerer. If in the grand reality Priest and Victim are one, and
the priest is the representative embodiment of all offerers, we must argue from
this, and not from the symbolic rite. Besides, how does the offerer expiate his
sin ? It is by offering the Victim, which represents himself.

to the Teaching of Christ 297
could neither appeal to God, nor touch man's moral and
spiritual nature. Nothing can do that, except a holy life,
freely surrendered in death. That is what Christ offered.1
Death means both endurance of sin's penalty, and life set
free for larger service. Both elements are there. And it is
impossible to eliminate the former in favour of the latter in
this Epistle, when account is taken of the strong insistence
on the endurance of death, death that terrifies, death that is
shameful, as the means by which Christ accomplished His
work and attained His glory (cf. ii. 9, 14, ix. 15, xii. 2,
xiii. 12, 13). His holy character, His flawless life, the blend
of all perfection in the world of the moral and the religious,
animated by the eternal Spirit, and in absolute submission
to the will of His Father, made Him in fact all that sacri
fices and holy attire made the priest, and unblemished form
made the victim, in symbol. And by that spirit, in sub
mission to that will, He offered Himself to God, as the
great world-atonement, gathering up into Himself all that
the priest, fulfilling the different parts of his office, sacrifices
of every kind, slaughtered victim, presented and sprinkled
blood, each dimly foreshadowed in fragments and patch
work. In Him, all that is reduced to its net essential
significance, and Priest and Victim are one. But the
author of this Epistle is fully alive to the significance of
the Resurrection, although he never mentions the fact. To
him the Priest and Victim have not perished in the oblation.
The death was also the rending of the veil. The Priest
has entered the Holy Place with the propitiatory offering.
And He ever liveth with the irresistible plea to urge con
stantly on behalf of all who adhere to Him. What this
effects in men, the writer expresses by the terms nadapi^eiv,
dyid£et,v, TeXeiovv. Of these, the last is practically equi
valent to Paul's Bikmovv, and refers not to character, but
1 Bruce (Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 436) gives a capital analysis of the points
included by the author in his conception of the death of Christ.

298 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
to standing before God.1 KaOapl^eiv refers to the pro
duction of effects in the conscience and character of men,
but contemplates these effects as results, reached by
the reflex action of the propitiatory sacrifices offered to
God. And dyid^eiv refers to the relation of holy fellowship
with God, which those enjoy who avail themselves of the
merits of the sacrifice. The right of access to God, and
fitness for it, are the results which Priest and Victim secure
for those whom they represent. And a call to the diligent
use of this privilege is the grand practical application which
the writer makes of the truth he has been expounding.
How sacrifice, innocent life laid down in death, for the sake
of sinners avails with God for sinners, how it does expiate
guilt, the writer does not fully explain. He felt no need
to do so to men who all their lives had used sin and guilt
offerings, and taken part in the rites of the Day of Atone
ment. Their own hearts explained those things to them.
The writer's object is only to convince them that Christ
more than takes the place of these and fulfils their part.
But there is surely a suggestion in those references to the
stainless innocence and humble faith of the Victim, to His
bearing the curse of sins, and to the capacity of such a
life, so laid down for men, to quicken, convict, and calm
the conscience, and impel to holy living. They imply that,
not because of the effects produced, but because of its
capacity to produce these effects, this Life and Death
counted for so much with God.
How does this, then, stand related to Christ's own
teaching ? In form it is very different. There runs through
it all a scholastic strain as different from the artless direct
ness of the Saviour's words as well can be. But it is, all
the while, a grand effort to translate the ideas learnt from
Christ into that stereotyped framework of the Levitical
1 As to the form, what in Paul is expressed forensically is in Hebrews ex
pressed in terms of sacrificial and priestly ritual ; cf. Edwards, Hebrews, p. 171.

to the Teaching of Christ 299
economy, which had meant so much to many a devout Jew,
and had been the subject of devout reflection to so many a
patient student among them. They were old-fashioned folk
to whom the author was writing, intensely conservative in
their ways of looking at things, yet not past saving, if truth
could be brought within their range of vision. There was the
danger of bursting wine skins in such an effort. And while
the Levitical ritual still prevailed, Christ and His apostles
did not make any such attempt. But when the Holy City
was threatened and the Temple was tottering, the case
was different, and our author bravely undertook the task.
There is rare sympathy all through and wonderful tact.
And the result is a real gain to the understanding of the
life and death of Christ in its connection with the rites, in
which men had sought to express their hearts' necessities
and cravings before He came and before they knew Him.
But this is so because the writer is so loyal to the truths
which he had first learnt in their essential form from the
teaching, life, and death of Jesus Christ Himself, and
his Epistle has not lost its value in later days. In the
prayer of Christ, in John xvii., there is a specimen of
activity on behalf of men, which embodies the very reality
of the best that efficient priestly service can effect. Christ
speaks there from the standpoint of His work as completed,
and so, as affording a basis of appeal with the Father. And
there we have something from His own lips more than
sufficient to justify all that the writer to the Hebrews has
said. What he has done has been simply to lay hold of
the Living, Exalted Christ within the veil, and, in the vivid
light of these prayers of the days of His flesh, the tragedy
of His death, and the triumph of His resurrection, show
men that what He did then He does still. His death
remains the permanent plea of the Living Christ on behalf
of every soul that comes unto God by Him.
In John's writings the clue to the thought of Christ's

300 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
death is found in the Baptist's designation of Christ, " the
Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."
The music to which Handel, in the " Messiah," has set these
words, changing from a weird, wistful wail to a note of
calm, thankful joy, exactly reproduces John's view of
Christ's sufferings. In John's view the glory always sur
mounts the gloom, and he dwells chiefly in his Epistles on
the effects which the death for men can produce in them.
But effects have their causes. Jesus is the Lamb of God,
i.e. He is the God-appointed sacrifice. It is as such He
beareth away the sin of the world. The latter of these two
statements is not the explanation of the former. It is the
former which justifies the latter. It is by bearing as sacri
ficial Victim, that He is able to bear away the sin of the
world. Can that view be made good ? Is it John's ?
The following considerations seem to justify it. (i) The
term Lamb of God certainly suggests sacrifice. This is
not invalidated by saying that the name is suggested by
Isa. liii. 6, and that the simile of the Lamb there only
illustrates the patience of the uncomplaining Servant of God
in the midst of His sufferings. Doubtless it was the patience
and submission with which the Sufferer bore the sufferings
that gave them their value. But the whole thought of that
passage is saturated with the spirit of sacrifice ; it is the dis
tillation of the quintessence of all that sacrifices symbolise.
The Lamb of God, when once it has taken us to Isa. liii.,
attaches itself, not to a verse, but to the passage as a whole.
But (2) in view of the Apocalypse and of other passages
in the Gospel, it is quite arbitrary to say that Lamb here
cannot refer to the sacrificial Victim. These show that
John was quite familiar with the idea of sacrifice in connec
tion with Christ. In the Revelation the favourite term for
Christ is the Lamb.1 The Lamb referred to is a slaughtered
1 The difference of the Greek term in the Apocalypse and in the Gospel indi
cates no divergence of thought.

to the Teaching of Christ 301
Lamb. And its remarkable powers are attributed to the
fact that it has been slaughtered, i.e. slain for sacrifice. We
are not compelled to think of any particular sacrifice here.
As is usual in the case of Christ, the reference is general,
and the Lamb is mentioned because it was the animal in
most common use for all sacrificial purposes. (3) But most
significant of all is John's record, in his Gospel (xi. 49-52,
xviii. 14), of the diabolical advice of Caiaphas.1 That was
a deliverance which, for inherent wickedness, and yet in
trinsic truth, struck him as unparalleled. And to have
come from Caiaphas ! He knew the man, and it was
astounding. He never could rest satisfied till he explained
it to himself as a sort of unconscious prophecy, made by
him in virtue of his high-priestly position, and as, at the
same time, the official setting apart by the high priest of
the true world's Sacrifice. Dr. Marcus Dods has focused
the significance of it, when he calls his chapter on it, " Jesus
the Scapegoat." 2 John, therefore, was perfectly familiar
with the idea of Jesus as, in His life and death, the world's
Representative, who bore the burden and the curse of the
world's sin.
When we come to his first Epistle, we see again that he
regarded this as the means in Christ's hand of expiating the
world's sin.3 Twice over he tells us that Christ is the pro
pitiation for sin. The word he uses is different from that
used by Paul. It is l\ao-fi6<s, a term descriptive of the
slaughtered victim as presented to God by the priest on
behalf of its offerer, and that as a means of restoring
1 See Chapter IV. p. 120.
2 Gospel offohn, vol. ii. Whether we agree with Ritschl's view of sacrifice
or not, his statement is undeniable, that we cannot escape the sacrificial view
of Christ's death, it is so prevalent, not only in Paul, but throughout the New
Testament. Rechtfertigung und Versohnung, ii. 161.
3 It is a confirmation of the argument for unity of authorship to find, both in
Gospel and Epistle, the same spontaneously expressed expansion of the range of
the efficacy of Christ's work from an inner circle to embrace the whole world.
Cf. xi. 52 and I John ii. 2.

302 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
him to a place in God's favour (cf. Lev. iv. (LXX.) passim).
Christ is that. He is that in virtue of His character (chWo?,
i John ii. 2). He is that by the will of God, and as the
result of God's love (1 John iv. 10). But Christ is more.
Christ is our HapdicX^To^ (1 John ii. 2). Advocate fully
expresses the idea intended. Only, when advocate is
associated with sacrifice, we think of a priestly advocate.
And John here is in line with the distinctive note of
Hebrews, that ultimately the true Priest and Sacrifice must
be one. In view of all these expressions, which show John's
familiarity with the sacrificial view of Christ's sufferings,
and therefore his harmony with Paul and the Epistle to the
Hebrews, it is not necessary to repeat what this involves.
We must, however, repeat that John makes most, explicitly,
of the effects produced by the blood of Christ upon men.
It secures for them, indeed, forgiveness, forgiveness con
stantly renewed for every renewed need of it, and the
deliverance from all sin.1 And nobody who knows, as John
did (1 John iii. 20, 21), the paralysing power which the
element of guilt in sin exercises over the life of man, can
speak of deliverance from all sin, and fail to include guilt.
The very term he uses, tcadapl^eiv, means, not simply
cleansing, but cleansing by expiating.2 Still his chief
thought, as we are led to expect from those utterances of
Christ on the matter which he has treasured in his Gospel,
is of the effect the death of Christ produces in the lives of
men. He is more occupied with the blood applied to the
conscience than with the blood shed. But we have seen
that he recognises that the secret of the power of that blood
is that it is the blood of the Sacrifice.
We have thus reviewed the teaching of the New Testa-
1 On this see Alexander's extremely interesting paragraph, Epistles of John,
p. 63. 2 See Cremer's Lexicon, sub voce.

to the Teaching of Christ 303
ment writers on this all-important subject. And while there
is remarkable harmony, there are unmistakable variations.
Each and all are legitimate reproductions or developments
of Christ's own teaching, but they present the workings of
individual minds upon that teaching in the light of its great
practical demonstration in His life, death, and resurrection,
and of the effects which experience told them it had pro
duced in themselves. They show us it in these aspects.
(1) It was the inevitable issue of His life, but the Resurrec
tion was its equally inevitable sequel and the mirror in
which to see it aright. (2) It was a terrible crime, but
well fitted to stir the consciences of men. (3) It was the
divinely appointed means of expressing God's utter con
demnation of sin, of freeing men from sin, of restoring
them to their right relation with God, and securing them
permanently in the enjoyment of the position. (4) Endured
to serve a great redemptive end, it was the crowning
instance of self-sacrifice, and so fitted to be an example to
men. (5) It was the great reality foreshadowed in the old
rites of sacrifice. (6) It was capable of exercising the most
potent influences over the lives of men, not simply formally
or sentimentally, but morally and spiritually, as a vital
principle within. The Gospels represent the first view, the
Acts the second, Paul the third, Peter the fourth, the Epistle
to the Hebrews the fifth, John the sixth. But even to say
this is to risk leaving the impression that these views are
held exclusively and antagonistically, while in reality, in
every case, it is only predominantly, and with a more or
less full suggestion of the other views as well, and that
particularly in the case of Paul. And full justice is not
done, either to their thought, or to the satisfaction with which
God regarded the sacrifice of Calvary, unless all of these
are kept in view. This wealth of conception, drawn from
the event and from Christ's utterances about it, is not in
excess of what these sayings led us to anticipate. And

304 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
if it was impossible for Jesus Himself to speak more fully
in the days of His flesh, and before the event, than He
did, still the pregnancy of His words is decisively shown by
the fruit that has sprung from them, when once " this Corn
of wheat had fallen into the ground and died."

CHAPTER VIII
The Activities of the Exalted Christ
The Resurrection — The Christian Community as seen in the Acts.
The Ascension and its Significance— As seen in the Acts and in the
Apocalypse — The Relation of this to Christ's Predictions — Signifi
cance ofthe Method of His Ascension to His Throne.
Pentecost and the Promise of Christ — Their Expectation and its recog
nised Fulfilment — The Gift of the Spirit not an isolated Experience
— Meaning of Holy Spirit, derived from Old Testament and
endorsed by Christ — The Gift of Tongues — The Spirit's Influences
in the Church and in the Individual — (i) As Author of Holy
Character; so Paul — The Community a Temple, the Individual a
Shrine — The Spirit applies the Work of Christ, Rom. vi.-viii. — Was
Paul a Perfectionist? — Comparison with John — Evidence of Rom.
vii. 7— viii. 2 — (2) Guide to the Truth ; so John — Was the Holy
Spirit a Person to the Apostles ? — Divine Energy — Personal Sug
gestions — Relation to God and Man — Relation to Christ — Christ's
Alter-Ego — Basis of this Teaching in Words of Christ, especially
in John's Gospel — The Value of the Spirit — The Work of the Spirit
— The Person of the Spirit.
Baptism, the Symbol of Union with the Living Christ — Baptism always
symbolic in Christ's Thought — Authority for, and Meaning of,
Rite — Rite in Practice — Was Paul a Ritualist? — Like Christ, not
himself anxious to baptize — How Paul treats Men — Paul's phrase
"in Christ" — Its correlative "Christ' in you'' — Correspondences —
The Truth derived from Christ.
The Lord's Supper, the Symbol of Communion- -Was it instituted as a
permanent Rite ? — The Meaning of the Rite as explained by
Christ in Anticipation — How Paul deals with Christ's Teaching —
Reminder of constant need of Fellowship with the Risen Lord
— How Fellowship is realised— Christ, by making His memorial a
family Meal, meant by it Fellowship among His People with Him.
The death of Christ, as we have seen, was the condensa
tion into a single, many-sided event of the most potent of
moral, spiritual, and religious forces. Starting from the
20

306 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
Saviour's pregnant utterances, His disciples, with varying
fulness, developed different aspects of it in the light of
the event. And, briefly summarised, what they taught
amounted to this, that in virtue of the spirit in which that
death was endured, the acknowledgment in it by man's
representative of the righteousness of God's treatment of
sin, the demonstration in it by God's representative of
what God was willing to suffer to win back man's con
fidence, and the capacity it possessed for appealing to
the deeper and finer sensibilities of human nature, God
accepts it as ample satisfaction for man's sin against
Him, and on the basis of it is willing to have a reconsti
tuted humanity built up. On this footing He can forgive
the past, and reinstate men in their proper relation to
Himself. But we saw also that, following Christ's own lead, His
apostles never looked at the death of Christ apart from
the thought of His resurrection. It is quite unnecessary
to prove that the disciples believed and taught the literal
resurrection of Jesus. The whole course of anti-super
natural criticism has been a determined effort to parry
the force of the awkward fact that Christianity is built
upon an empty tomb. And equally certain it is, that
this belief of the disciples in the empty tomb owed its
origin to the precise predictions of Jesus, and to their
actual fulfilment by Him. It is not within our province
to restate the argument for the Resurrection. It is enough
to point out that hostile criticism is not content with its
own attempts to invalidate the record, and has had to
resort to the device of accepting the fact, and then either
of seeking to resolve it into a so-called fact of the inner
consciousness, not a literal event, or else of contending
that belief in it is not essential to Christian faith.1 That
1 Harnack, History of Dogma, i. 85, note ; Schwartzkopf, Prophecies of fesus
Christ, pp. 129-136.

to the Teaching of Christ 307
I take for an elaborate confession of failure and an attempt
to cover defeat.1 Essential to present faith or not, it was
of supreme significance to the faith of the earliest disciples.
It restored their shattered hopes. It supplied an unanswer
able argument with their fellow-countrymen. Followed up
by the Ascension, it was their guarantee of the departure
of Jesus to heaven, His entrance into glory, and His
accession to the position of power, which He had asserted
for Himself during His lifetime, and from which they
expected His aid in their efforts to realise His kingdom.
All this they associated with the actual fact. All that I
take for granted.2 What we have to consider is the posi
tion which Jesus predicted for Himself as the Crucified
and Risen Lord, the results which He encouraged His
disciples to expect from it, and their understanding of
this as shown in their writings.
In investigating this subject, the most likely point from
which to start is the Acts of the Apostles. This book
begins with the record in successive chapters of two all-
important events, the Ascension (chap, i.), and the gift of
the Spirit at Pentecost (chap. ii.). In it, too, is seen a
rapidly growing community, the members of which, amid
great variety of opinion and custom in other directions,
were at one in this, that in Christ's name they observed
the ordinance of Baptism, and met for the Breaking of
Bread. It is in connection with these matters that we
discover their attitude towards, and beliefs with regard to,
the great Founder of their community, learn what they
thought as to His position after His resurrection, as to
His relation to them, and as to their relation to Him.
1 With the fact established it is not necessary to discuss attempts to explain
away expressions of Jesus predictive of it, as if it had never occurred ; e.g. Wendt
on "the third day rise again " ( Teaching of fesus, ii. 265 ff).
2 "The earthly Jesus might have founded a school; hero-worship might
have sprung up round His name — a religion could only arise because the old
community was convinced that in the resurrection and ascension of the Lord,
God had revealed Himself" (J. Weiss, Nachfolge Christi, p. 83).

308 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
If we take up these points in turn, we shall find that
round them gather the distinctive thoughts of Christ's
followers, and be led to the germs of their convictions
in words that had fallen from the lips of Christ.
I. The Ascension. — The mere fact of the Ascension
meant little more to the disciples than that Jesus, their
Risen Lord, was now finally separated from them. But
departure in such a way was a symbolic anticipation of
the predicted manner of His return, " with clouds " (Matt.
xxiv. 30; Acts i. 9-1 1 ), and the conviction sank deep
into their minds that Jesus had passed straight to the
throne of God, to the right hand of power (Acts ii. 33-36,
v. 31, vii. 55). That meant that He was now in the posi
tion to prosecute, in uninterrupted activity and vigour, the
extension of His kingdom, to put into full operation all
the spiritual forces at His command for the world-wide
accomplishment of the work for which He had made such
sacrifices upon earth, and to maintain the most constant
vigilance over them and care for them. And with many
a hint from other quarters, we have two great companion
pictures of this activity of the Exalted Lord. These are,
respectively, the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse.
The former lets us see the conflict waged with evil as
it appeared in the sphere of history, and there worked
itself out through human agents, by whom it was carried
on, and in whom it was accomplished. The latter lets us
see it in the spiritual plane, where, over against each other,
stand the great elemental powers, between whom the an
tagonism ultimately rests.
In the Acts, there are the apostles, making a valorous
attack on Jew and Greek, working miracles that arrest the
attention, and compel the recognition, of their most deter
mined adversaries, facing without flinching intolerance and
persecution, refusing to be silenced, and standing their
ground with a firmness that amazed their adversaries.

to the Teaching of Christ 309
What is the secret of this heroic movement, which, in
view of the feebleness of its agents, the smallness of the
number of its original adherents, the slenderness of their
intellectual equipment, and the vastness of their preten
sions, has only been saved from ridicule and oblivion by
its astounding success ? Hear themselves. Are they asked
for an explanation of their exuberant outburst at Pente
cost? It is because the Risen Lord has more than kept
His promise (Acts ii. 16-21, 33). Are they pressed to
explain their power to heal ? It is because Jesus is on
the throne of the Universe, and they who trust Him have
invoked His aid (Acts iii. 1 2 ff). Are they met with a
demand for some warrant for setting at naught the injunc
tions of the highest religious court of the land ? They
appeal to a higher Authority, the Lord at God's right
hand (Acts iv. 7 ff, v. 28 ff). Are they asked to tell men
how they can escape the consequences of their sins, get
quit of a bad past that is ruining them ? They bid them
adhere to Jesus in a spirit of true penitence and trust, and
all will be forgiven (Acts ii. 37 ff). All is due to the fact,
that Jesus is for them the Living, Supreme Lord, on whom
they can certainly count. Death has no terrors for a
Stephen. Heaven opens ; and he sees Jesus at the right
hand of God (Acts vii. 56). Prison doors cannot hold
Christ's commissioners (Acts v. 19, xii. 3 ff, xvi. 26). Is a
new servant needed to carry on the work in a new direc
tion ? The Exalted Lord can apprehend His most bitter
foe, turn him into His devoted slave, send him to a humble
believer to be taught the power and sweetness of Christian
brotherhood, and then use him to reach the most unlikely
auditors, and compel them to listen to the awe-inspiring
facts of the Christian faith (Acts ix. 1 ff). Antioch,
Ephesus, Athens, Corinth, Rome in quick succession fall
under this mighty spell. The Acts of the Apostles are
the Acts of the Risen Christ. These men are, they wish

310 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
to be, nothing else than the instruments of their Exalted
Lord. The Apocalypse shows us the same thing in another
form. It is no longer Peter and John, Stephen and Paul,
Philip and Barnabas and Silas and a score of others, led on
by the invisible but Exalted Christ, pitted against Caiaphas
and Herod, Annas and Tertullus, Felix and Festus, Agrippa
and Nero, all in league against the Lord and His anointed.
It is the Lamb, which is in the midst of the throne, carry
ing on His mighty conflict against all the forces of iniquity,
sin in its head, the devil, and in all his agents, worldliness,
militarism, sensuality, and even the religious spirit invoked
under the disguise of the sensuous, the superstitious, and
the idolatrous (the Beast, the Kings, the Whore, the False
Prophet, Sodom and Egypt, Babylon). As one phase after
another of the stupendous conflict, of which Paul also was
deeply conscious (Eph. vi. i 2), passes before the enthralled
mind of the seer, in picture after picture he shows the
progress of the judgments in which every new type of
wickedness is successively routed and overcome. But ever
one commanding figure controls the field. Now it is the
Lamb that was slain, now Michael ( = who is like God !) the
Archangel, now the champion called " Faithful and True,"
" the Word of God," mounted on a white horse, and on
his garment and on his thigh a name written, " King OF
kings, and Lord of lords." All these are but varying
names for Him who appears at the very outset, " He that
liveth, and was dead, and is alive for evermore ; and has
the keys of Death and Hell." It is the Exalted Lord, who
must reign, as Paul says, " till all things are put under His
feet." These two books, therefore, vibrating with the convic
tion that Christ has ascended to the throne of God, put
in the clearest way possible one great belief of the early
adherents of Jesus based thereon, and that is that the

to the Teaching of Christ 3 1 1
Exalted Lord is in the most direct and energetic way pro
secuting from heaven the great work, which He initiated
here, of establishing that kingdom wherein dwelleth right
eousness. It would not be difficult to show from the
Epistles of Peter and of Paul that the same idea was
familiar to them (cf, inter alia, Rom. viii. 34; Eph. i. 20 ;
Col. iii. 1 ; 1 Pet. iii. 22; and cf. Mark xvi. 19; Heb. i.
3, x. 1 2). But it is not necessary to do so. It is only
necessary to find the justification for this conviction in
the words of Christ Himself. As Chap. V. has dealt with
passages which speak of Christ's coming again as Judge,
here we may restrict our attention to sayings which predict
His abiding control of the course of the world pending
that event. There is a passage which leads up to it.
When the Seventy returned, their enthusiastic report on
the power, which they discovered belonged to them in His
name, was, " Lord, even the demons are subject unto us in
Thy name." This called out a very notable reply : " I
beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven " (Luke x.
1 7, 1 8). It expresses that, to the immediate consciousness
of Jesus, a distinct stage had been reached in His conflict
with the Evil One, when the body which He had been
training reported their first success in the field. And He
follows it up with a serious confirmation. This power was
not more than He had anticipated. It lay in the authority
and power with which He had invested them when He
sent them out. It was a foretaste of greater things. But
it was power given for use, not for display, and to be used
in all humility (vv. 19, 20). A not less significant passage
is Matt, xviii. 15-20. There Christ contemplates the
coming existence of a community of His adherents, His
Church. He invests them with very large powers of
administration and appeal to God. But what safeguards
this from the possibility of abuse, guarantees its use for
edification and not for destruction, is the concluding assur-

3 1 2 Tlie Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
ance, " where even two or three are gathered together in
My name, there am I in the midst of them." 1 The best
commentary on the general understanding of such a promise
is Paul's charge to the Corinthian Church (i Cor. v. 3-5,
or 2 Cor. ii. 5 — 1 i).2 But this was all more than con
firmed in the farewell words, and experience again attested
it (Mark xvi. 19, 20). Take the statement as given in Matt.
xxviii. 18—20, and the justification of the whole views of
Acts stands out in bold relief. " All authority hath been
given unto Me in heaven and in earth ; go ye therefore . . .
and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world." There is no force in the " therefore " without that
concluding clause. It is this abiding presence with them
of Him to whom all authority has been given, that makes
the command not only momentous, but welcome, and fires
those to whom it is given with eagerness to carry it into
effect. They appreciate the force of that striking peti
tion, which they had overheard, at the commencement of
the Intercessory Prayer : " Father, the hour is come ;
glorify Thy Son, that the Son may glorify Thee : even as
Thou gavest Him authority over all flesh, that whatsoever
Thou hast given Him, to them He should give eternal life"
(John xvii. 1, 2). He already possesses the authority.
He asks the place of glory from which He can use it
with effect, not only directly, but still more, through those
who already adhere to Him (xvii. 20).
But in studying Christ's own teaching here, what was
said in reference to the Cross is true. Actions are as
1 The emphasis on the small number was probably dictated by way of con
trast to the ten heads of families, or the Minyan, requisite for the formation
of a Jewish synagogue.
2 Cf. Col. ii. 5. A comparison of those passages, in which Paul speaks of a
certain sense in which he himself is present, though absent, with Christ's own
utterances of a like nature concerning Himself, and Paul's references to the
spiritual presence of Christ, only brings into stronger relief the difference between
the two, and therefore between the two persons, Paul and Christ. The presence
of Christ as real, actual ; that of Paul, the figurative expression for intense interest
and vivid imagination.

to the Teaching of Christ 3 1 3
instructive as words. And it was by Christ's own deliber
ate action that the sequel to His death took the course
it did. If His crucifixion was partly the crime of His
enemies, partly His own act, His resurrection and ascen
sion are spoken of partly as the work of the Father,
partly as His own doing. It was not essential to His
accession to the position on the divine throne, that He
should return in visible form to this earth for a time, and
then ascend before the rapt gaze of His followers. But
He adopted that course in order to supply them with ob
jective grounds for their faith in what He had promised.
The purpose of the method of His resurrection and ascen
sion was not that Christ might satisfy men, that though
He was alive still, His work on earth was over, and He
was gone to enjoy well-earned rest and reward. His
ascension took place while He was blessing them (Luke
xxiv. 51), and the outstretched arms have never been with
drawn. His ascension was not His signal of separation.
It was the assurance that, with Him living and abiding
at the very centre of heaven's activities, carrying their
nature with Him there, they had a pledge of His abid
ing presence with them here, and an unfailing source of
strength, courage, and comfort for all the work He had
left them to do.1 The mighty movement which, on the
strength of these facts, His disciples undertook, and which
shook the world and turned it upside down, was, as we have
seen (Chap. V), but the first evidence of His coming with
power, which Jesus had told His murderers they should
live to see.
II. Pentecost. — A flood of additional light falls on the
matter, when we consider the second great event that
meets us at the beginning of Acts, namely, Pentecost.
The second chapter of the Acts is occupied with that
1 Cf. Schwartzkopf, Prophecies of fesus Christ, p. 146 ff. ; J. C. Lambert,
The Omnipotent Cross, p. 1 1 7 ff.

314 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
extraordinary manifestation, in which the apostles recog
nised the fulfilment of the special promise left them by
the Risen Lord. Everything indicates that, while they
were patiently, yet eagerly, awaiting the promised gift of
the Spirit, they had no preconceived idea of the way in
which it should come to them. They were all, doubtless,
familiar with the story of how the Spirit came to Christ
at His baptism in the form of a dove. But when on
Pentecost the place where they were met resounded with
the sweep of a hurricane, and flashes of fire played upon
each of them, and when, as the result of it, they experi
enced an exhilaration of spirit, that would not keep silence
but burst out in uncontrollable shouts of joy and praise,
they were not long in understanding the event. Strangers
might be perplexed, and ask in amazement what it meant.
But Peter, with his fellow apostles, was at once ready with
the explanation. It was a fulfilment of ancient prophecy
of Messianic days, and, at the same time, a great imple
menting of His recent promise by their Exalted Lord, and
so a new proof to them that He was really the Messiah,
as they believed, and now in that position of power from
which He could send to His followers the mightiest of
agents, the Divine Spirit, to cheer their hearts and inspire
their tongues. It was just what Jesus had taught them
to expect. Long ago He had told them that the Holy
Spirit would give them the right words to speak in any
emergency in His service (Matt. x. 20; Luke xii. 12).
Again and again, during His farewell talks with them,
He had told them the Spirit would come to them, and
what results would ensue (Mark xvi. 17-20). Indeed, at
one of His last meetings with them, with His fine sense
of the value of symbolic actions to impress great truths,
He had breathed on them and said, " Receive ye the Holy
Ghost" (John xx. 21-23). For the full reception of the
gift He had bidden them wait at Jerusalem ; and so con-

to the Teaching of Christ 3 1 5
vinced were they of His sincerity, that they never thought
of leaving the city until the blessing came, but occupied
the intervening time in recruiting their ranks, so as to
have all in readiness for the witness-bearing they were to
be equipped to render. So Pentecost found them (Luke
xxiv. 49 ; Acts i. 4, 12 ff), Their experience then was
no isolated event. It was repeated, not indeed in the
same emblematic form, but with no less reality and effect,
on every fresh accession to their ranks, and in every new
community which the apostles reached (viii. 1 7, ix. 1 7,
. xiii. 5 2). So uniform was it that, until it supervened,
men were not regarded as having entered into a full
knowledge of Christ (Acts xix. 1—7). To use Paul's fav
ourite phrase, " the earnest of the Spirit " was God's seal
to the union of a heart to Jesus Christ by faith, and to a
man's entrance thereby into the position of a son (2 Cor.
i. 22, v. 5 ; Eph. i. 13, iv. 30; cf. Rom. viii. 14 ff.; Gal. iii.
1 — 14, iv. 5, 6). And the convincing proof to Peter, that
he had followed divine guidance and no vain imagination,
when he had preached to the Gentiles, was the fact that
on them, as on his Jewish brethren at the first, there came
the Holy Ghost (Acts x. 44, xi. 15-17).
But what did Holy Ghost suggest to these men ? So
far, it was a common heritage from the Old Testament.
There it was the name for the divine energy operative in
the world in the most varied directions, from the brooding
over chaos at the Creation (Gen. i. 2) to the refining of the
deepest emotions and holiest aspirations of a repentant soul
(Ps. li.). It was the promised equipment of the, Messiah
(Isa. Ixi. 1 , etc.), and the expected characteristic of mankind
in Messianic days (Joel ii.). In accordance with this, the
opinion was prevalent among the apostolic writers that it
was to the Holy Spirit the writers of the Old Testament
owed their inspiration and their capacity to predict the
coming Messianic times (Acts i. 16, cf. iv. 25 ff. ; 1 Pet. i. 11).

3 16 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
In like manner, Luke attributes to the Spirit the utterances of
these precursors of the Messiah, John the Baptist, Zacharias
and his wife Elisabeth, and the aged Simeon (i. 15, 41,
67, ii. 25 ff). Matthew (i. 18-20) and Luke (i. 35) alike
represent the Holy Spirit as playing a most important part
in the entrance of Christ into human nature. All the
Synoptists tell of the incident at the baptism of Jesus (Matt.
iii. 1 6 ; Mark i. 1 o ; Luke iii. 2 1 f), when in a signal way
the Spirit came to Him at the moment of His consecration
of Himself to the public prosecution of His life mission, and
in doing so (Matt. iv. 1 ; Mark i. 1 2 ; Luke iv. 1 ; cf. Matt.
xii. 18 ; Luke x. 21) they take occasion to show that they
regarded the Holy Spirit as the guiding force in Christ's
ordering of His life. It was this equipment of Jesus before
the eyes of the Baptist that made him recognise in Him the
one fitted to carry out the mission, of which he was the
precursor, namely, a baptizing of men with the Holy Ghost
and with fire (John i. 3 1 ff. ; Matt. iii. 1 1 ; Mark i. 8 ;
Luke iii. 16).
Though Christ Himself never enters into particulars as
to His own birth, yet the substance of these utterances as
to Christ has the justification of His words. At Nazareth
Christ appeals to Isa. Ixi. 1 as His commission, and He
urges on His antagonists the solemnity of the issue, and the
evidence it bore of the proximity of the Kingdom, when
He in their midst was casting out demons byr the Spirit of
God. They might ignore Him in His humble guise with
comparative impunity, but to malign the Spirit working in
Him was nothing short of blasphemy (Matt. xii. 28 ff).
When Jesus promised the Holy Spirit, therefore, and when
His disciples declared that they had at Pentecost received
the gift, He meant and they meant this at least, that they
were put in possession of an endowment with divine wisdom
and power similar to what had been possessed by Jesus
Himself. It was His, indeed, in so marked a manner that

to the Teaching of Christ 3 1 7
John at the recollection of it breaks out, " God giveth not
the Spirit by measure (unto Him). The Father loveth the
Son, and has put everything in His hands" (John iii. 34,
35). But after Pentecost they discovered that that gift was
theirs also.
In their own experience the outpouring of the Spirit
produced in the apostles primarily an exuberant, holy joy,
which found vent in an outburst of ecstatic praise (cf. Rom.
v. 5 ; Eph. v. 18-20). From the account in Acts we are
plainly intended to understand that one phase of the endow
ment was ability to speak in foreign languages (Acts ii.
6-1 1 ). But that is not all, nor the chief thing, implied in
the gift of tongues. Indeed, there is no evidence that it
ever again assumed that form, or qualified any apostle to
address a foreign community in its own language, without
the drudgery of learning it.1 The gift of tongues is
repeatedly mentioned (Acts x. 46, xix. 6), and the best
clue to its common form is 1 Cor. xii.-xiv., where its value
and importance are fully discussed (xii. 10, xiii. 1-8).
The impression conveyed is that it was something like a
spontaneous outpouring of joyous song (Acts ii. 4-13;
cf. Eph. v. I 8), — " songs without words," or in which the
words were of quite secondary importance (1 Cor. xiv. 2,
6, 7, 13, 14), — the joyous counterpart of that other effort of
the Spirit, — " groanings that cannot be uttered " (Rom. viii.
26). If we take the light of the subsequent conduct of the
disciples on the subject, and note the word used to describe
it, we shall get the best idea of what the gift of tongues at
its richest and fullest meant. The word is Trapprfala (trdv
and pr)ai<i). It means the telling of everything. It is a
favourite word to describe the plain, frank, fearless style in
which Christ spoke (Mark viii. 32 ; John vii. 26, xviii. 20).
1 Compare the case of Paul, who claims to have had this gift in special
abundance (I Cor. xiv. 18), and yet apparently at Lystra was ignorant of the
speech of Lycaonia (Acts xiv. II, 14).

3 1 8 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
And when the apostles became filled with the Spirit that
dwelt in Him, they reproduced the Master's style in their
speech to their fellow-men (Acts iv. 29, 31, etc.).. But the
term covers more. It is used by Paul, in Hebrews, and by
John to express the holy frankness and joyous confidence
with which the child of God speaks in His Father's pre
sence (Eph. iii. 12; Heb. iv. 16; 1 John ii. 28, v. 14).
Here, therefore, seems the best word to describe the effect
as regards utterance of the presence of the Spirit in men,
a word that covers everything described in Rom. v. 1-5,
as flowing from the Holy Spirit which is given unto us.
The influences exercised by the Spirit may be divided
into two classes — (1) those operative within the Church
for its management and for its work in the world, and
(2) those operative upon the life of the individual believer.
1. In the first case, the Spirit appears as the secret of
the extraordinary mastery which those speaking under His
influence are able to exercise over their auditors. He is
the Spirit of Power. Words spoken at His incentive strike
home to the consciences of men, and whether they are
broken into concern and contrition or hardened- into more
determined antagonism, they cannot resist the influence.
The source of the power lies in the fact that He is the
Spirit of Truth, as is clear in the tragic case of Ananias and
Sapphira (Acts v. 3—9). But it is ever the same, with
Peter at Pentecost (Acts ii. 37), with Stephen before the
Sanhedrin (Acts vi. 10, vii. 54), with Paul in Cyprus
silencing Elymas the sorcerer (Acts xiii. 9 ff).
Then, again, the Spirit guides Philip to the side of the
eunuch, and Peter to the household of Cornelius (Acts
viii. 29, x. 19). He is the source of prophetic admonitions
of coming famine, and of trials and danger to Paul,
both directly, and through other gifted individuals (Acts
xi. 28, xx. 23, xxi. 11). It is under His guidance Paul
and Barnabas are set apart for their missionary career

to the Teaching of Christ 319
(Acts xiii. 2), the Council comes to a finding on the
Gentile question (Acts xv. 28), and Paul and Silas are led
to the coast of Asia to receive the call to carry the gospel
to Europe (Acts xvi. 6 f). It is through Him men, elected
and ordained by their brethren (Acts xiv. 23), come to office
in the Church (Acts xx. 28). And it is in keeping with
this that in the Apocalypse His is the voice through
which Christ addresses His solemn counsels to the Church,
whether they be words of reproof or encouragement (Rev. i.
4, ii. 7, 1 1, etc. ; cf. Acts ix. 31). Indeed, throughout the
Acts, the possession of the Spirit is the accompaniment and
complement of that intense conviction of the abiding
presence of the Risen Lord. No theological deduction is
drawn there from it, but the fact is significant.
When we come to the Epistles to the Corinthians,
we find such a diversity of gifts in play in the service of
the Church, that men were losing sight of their common
origin, and had to be reminded that all came from the
same Spirit (1 Cor. xii. 4—1 1). He is the vital bond which
binds the whole Church into one (Eph. iv. 3, 4 ; cf. iv. 1 — 1 3
and 1 Pet. iv. 10, 1 1 ; Heb. ii. 4). And in the gifts, which
Paul enumerates, he is simply gathering up the influences
which we can see at work through the Spirit's guidance
in the course of the Acts of the Apostles.
2. In the life of the individual believer the Spirit is
(1) the author of holy character, and (2) the perennial
source of knowledge of the truth (cf. 2 Thess. ii. 1 3).
(1) The chief authority for the former statement is Paul x
(cf. 1 Pet. 1, 2). He agrees with the great thought ofthe
Apocalypse, of which there is just a hint in Peter, that the
Church is a company of priests, ministering to God in the
temple ofthe heavenlies (Rev. i. 6, v. 10, vii. 14, 15, xix. 8,
xxii. 3 ; 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9). We have had suggestions of this in
his sacrificial view of life. But he puts it in a way peculiar
1 Cf. Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes, p. 77 ff.

320 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
to himself, when he says to the Corinthians, " Know ye not
that ye are a temple of God ? " (i Cor. iii. 1 6, vi. 19; 2 Cor.
vi. 1 6), and to the Ephesians speaks of that glorious build
ing on Christ, the foundation on which Jews and Gentiles,
reconciled to one another in Christ, grow into a holy
temple in the Lord (Eph. ii. 21). His argument in proof
of this is the fact of the indwelling of the Spirit. Now the
peculiar feature of a temple is that it is a consecrated
building, set apart for God — holy. And if the presence of
the Spirit in this community constitutes it a living temple
it must be because of His sanctifying influence. This
result, however, is not attained en masse. If the whole
body is a temple, it is because every heart is a little temple,
a shrine, in which the Spirit dwells. And while other
references are to the community, 1 Cor. vi. 19 is strictly
individual, and what is implied there is developed at
length in two passages, Gal. v. 13-25 and Rom. vi.-viii.
The former of these gives a sketch of what is meant by
liberty, the liberty of sons, which is secured by Christ for
those who trust Him. It does not mean licence or dis
regard of the provisions of God's law. It means a glorious
deliverance from the slavery of the lust of the flesh. Not
that the conflict with sin is over. It is little more than
begun. The entrance of the Spirit has brought it to the
acute stage. But their liberty has secured this for them,
that now they can follow the Spirit's lead. And that is
the lead which men ought to follow, if they profess to
belong to Christ (ver. 24), to be living by the Spirit, not
under the law but under grace. To do anything else
would be, as Hebrews puts it, to do despite to the Spirit
of grace (Heb. x. 29). What then are the fruits of the
Spirit's leading? Not only a sturdy resistance to all
forms of immorality, but " love, joy, peace, long-suffering,
kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, temperance."
These are but samples of the whole field of Christian

to the Teaching of Christ 321
virtues, elements in that holy life after the pattern of
Christ's own, which is the type of life that corresponds with
His kingdom (Chap. V.). It is towards these that the Holy
Spirit impels men, and it is by response to His impulse
that men attain them. And the very results for which
Christ gave His life, namely, that the world might be cruci
fied unto men and men unto the world, are not attained in
a man, until the Holy Spirit has gained such an ascendency
over him that this life becomes a second nature (Gal. v. 24,
25 ; cf. vi. 13-16).
The passage in Romans (chaps, vi.-viii.) is still more
instructive. It comes, in the Epistle, after the full dis
cussion of the retrospective effects of the death of Christ,
securing for men their break with a bad past and pardon
for it and their justification before God, their restoral,
that is, to their right relationship to Him. At this point
Paul supposes a would-be Antinomian objection to his
teaching. His reply is that sin is something the believer is
dead and done with. What death meant for Christ, it
means for men united with Him in His death ; and that is,
the end of sin's dominion.
But what does Paul mean by this ? Does he mean that
the believer from the hour of his union with Christ does not
sin ? Was Paul what we call a perfectionist ? That has
been lately maintained by Wernle.1 He would have us
believe that Paul was such an enthusiastic idealist, so
completely under the spell of the Parousia, — though what
that has to do with it, is difficult to see, — that for himself
he had lost all consciousness of sin, and looked for the
same in every sincere fellow-believer. The contention is
absurd on the face of it. Paul's solicitous dealings with
Churches, wherever he saw backsliding or feared relapse, are
fatal to such a view. But two things in this very passage
refute it. ( 1 ) First of all, here Paul puts himself exactly in
1 Der Christ und die Siinde bei Paulus.

322 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
line with John (i Ep. i. 6— ii. 2, iii. 6, etc.). John, in his first
Epistle, goes the length of saying in so many words,
" Whosoever abideth in Christ, sinneth not " (iii. 6). Yet
nobody on the strength of that would say that John taught
that from the hour of his believing in Jesus a man never
sinned. Immediately chap. i. 6-ii. 2 would refute him.
There in his favourite antithetic forms John puts the whole
case. The ideal undoubtedly is sinlessness. That is the
aim towards which the believer, in fellowship with God,
strives, and to which his teachers impel him. If he were all
that he wishes to be, that would be his happy position.
But the fatal fact is that, in spite of the best efforts and
desires, sin persists, and the only resource and consolation
is frank and full confession, the inexhaustible power of
Christ the Advocate, the propitiating and cleansing blood,
and the consequent forgiveness which God will certainly
bestow. And so we understand John when he says, " Who
soever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed
abideth in him : and he cannot sin, because he is begotten
of God " (iii. 9). He means that the ruling principle is
no longer sin. Not that is the master. The man is
controlled by the persisting germ of holy life. Righteous
ness is his desire and effort. Sins are an accident, not a
habit ; a source of sorrow, pain, and regret, from which ever
more and more determinedly he turns away. The sixth
chapter of Romans develops the very same idea in Paul's
own way. Those men, he says, are servants of righteous
ness whose habit it is to devote themselves to righteousness
as its eager servants, seeking therein their fruit unto sancti-
fication, and the end everlasting life. That disposition is
inevitable in the believer. With him the love of sin is dead,
and the practice of it is being rapidly supplanted by the
practice of holiness. (2) What further confirms this is the
striking passage vii. 7— viii. 2. Two questions are asked
about this passage : Is it autobiography ? and is it true of a

to the Teaching of Christ 323
man before, or after, conversion ? There can be very little
doubt, from the intensity of the passage, that every word
springs from Paul's own experience. And if we lay aside
all preconceptions, either as to the impossibility of an
unconverted man having feelings like this, or of such a state
of conflict still prevailing in the breast of a man under the
control of God's Spirit, and if we simply look at the position
of the passage in the course of Paul's disquisition, we shall
not hesitate for a moment to say that in it he is describing
an experience of a regenerate man. He has already carried
us far past the stage of initial believing contact with Christ
(v. 1). In chaps, vi. and viii. he is undoubtedly dealing with
the experiences of men in union with Christ. It would
therefore be a quite unaccountable leap backward to find
in the midst of this (vii. 7— viii. 2) a description of pre-
regenerate experience. But if this argument is sound, then
here is Paul, painfully conscious of the persistency of sin, of
the terrible hold which it still retains, and of the persistent
conflict to which it calls, even in the life of a believer.
After sanctification is well in progress, the side of it which
is mortifying the flesh is no serene task, unstained by
penitential tears, but a struggle which reduces almost to
despair, and in which victory only accrues through a help
more than human : " I thank my God through Jesus Christ
our Lord."
Now here we return to our proper subject, namely, How
does deliverance come through the Lord Jesus Christ?
The eighth chapter of the Epistle is the reply. It is through
the gracious aid of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (cf.
1 Thess. iv. 1-8). That Spirit comes to dwell in a man, as
soon as he becomes a son of God. It is a quickening spirit
that calls into exercise spiritual aspirations, impels by its
aid and intercession to prayerfulness (cf. Eph. ii. 18-22,
vi. 1 8), and produces that frame of mind which delights in
the will of God. The Spirit gives that sense of confidence

324 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
in God under all contingencies, which imparts courage to a
man to attempt the life of holiness, which before seemed
hopeless.1 (2) In the writings of John, the other side of the
Spirit's work comes to the front. The Holy Spirit is the
source of the knowledge of the truth. Not that this is
peculiar to John. When Paul had weighty questions in
morals to decide, his anxiety was to discover the mind of
the Spirit (1 Cor. vii. 40). And in 1 Cor. ii. 10—16 he
elaborates the part of the Spirit as the Revealer to men of
the deep things of God. But John specially dwells on
this. In the Revelation it was when he was in the Spirit,
i.e. in fullest enjoyment of that elevation and insight which
the Spirit generates, that the visions of the future broke
upon him (Rev. i. IO, iv. 2, xvii. 3, xxi. 10). In his
First Epistle, as in his Apocalypse, he discusses the
manifestations of Antichrist, though not in the symbolic
figures in which, in the Revelation, the whole antichristian
movement is portrayed (sc. the dragon, the beast, the false
prophet, the great whore), but in the individuals in whom
Antichrist is to be seen among men. " There have arisen
many antichrists" (1 John ii. 18—23). -And the serious
matter is that, in many instances, they have grown up
within the circle of the Christian community. How then
are the Christians to distinguish the false from the true?
It is in virtue of their anointing from the Holy One. That
abides in the true disciple, and consequently he knows all
things. He knows, as Paul says (1 Cor. xii. 3), that "no
man speaking by the Spirit of God saith, 'Jesus is
anathema'; and no man can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' but in the
1 "With the opening of the heavens a great redemption comes and, by
presenting an infinite object of personal affection, converts the life of Duty into
the life of Love, and reinforces the individual will by ' the Spirit that beareth
witness with our Spirit, that we are children of God.' The point of contact
between Ethics and Religion is thus analogous to that between the bondage of the
Law and the freedom ofthe Gospel " (Martineau, Study of Religion, i. 26).

to the Teaching of Christ 325
Holy Spirit"; or, as John says himself in the connection
(1 John ii. 22 f. ; cf. iv. 2 ff), "Who is a liar, but he that
denieth that Jesus is the Christ?" The Spirit is the great
equipment for discerning spirits, because He is the truth,
and He gives unmistakable guidance as to what is the
truth (1 John v. 7, R.V.). But it is to be observed that truth
with John is not something purely intellectual, nor yet
simply what is in accordance with fact.1 It is the real as
opposed to the illusionary. It is practical, something not
simply to be thought, but something to be done (1 John
i. 6). It is embodied as fully in brotherly love as in sincere
confession. These are, indeed, inseparable (1 John iv. 20;
cf. iii. 17; Jas. i. 26, 27, ii. 15, 16). And it is when we
observe this that we see that there is no vital difference
between saying that the Holy Spirit is the Author of
personal holiness, and that He is the source of the know
ledge of the truth. If our conception of truth be as wide as
John's, the two coalesce. There is then, too, no difficulty in
understanding those passages which speak of saving and
sanctifying influences as due to the Word or the Truth, as
if these indicated a different view from that which attributes
them to the work of the Spirit. The Word is simply the
expression in which the Truth is embodied, and by which
the Spirit operates. And Paul and John have simply gone
to the roots of things, when they lay this bare and
emphasise the agent without belittling the instrument, of
which at other times they speak in enthusiastic terms.
Before passing to the teaching of Christ to show the
source from which these writers reached this wonderful
conception of the Holy Spirit, the divine agent working
in them for holiness and truth, one further point in their
thought must be considered, and that is, how did they
think of this Spirit? What, or who, is He? It would be a
little daring to say dogmatically whether the Holy Spirit,
1 See Wendt, Teaching of Jesus , i. 2578".

326 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
as presented in the Old Testament, was by Christ's con
temporaries thought of as a Person or not. The language
used is on the borderland, sometimes suggesting no more
than a divine energy at work in man, at other times
seeming to imply a great deal more. And in the New
Testament there is much to which full justice would be
done, if we took Spirit to mean no more than a subtle
influence exercised by God on and in the human mind.
Much said by the Synoptists requires no more. And
the same is true of the Apocalypse, and of very much
of the Acts of the Apostles. But, on the other hand, the
Spirit appears in connections that seem to require personal
consciousness and activity. When Ananias and Sapphira
deceive the apostles, Peter says they lie to the Holy
Ghost. John (1 Ep. v. 7, R.V.) speaks of the Spirit as the
Witness-bearer, though there the force is somewhat broken
by the immediate identification of this with the witness of
God. Stephen speaks of men resisting the Holy Spirit
(Acts vii. 51), and Paul of their grieving the Spirit (Eph.
iv. 30). In 1 Cor. ii. 10 ff. he uses the analogy of a man's
spirit to illustrate the familiarity of the Spirit of God with
the things of God, and at first sight that might seem to
militate against the idea of Personality. But there would
have been no reason for appealing to this human analogy,
if, in the ordinary thought of the men to whom he was
writing, the Holy Spirit, whom they knew as operative in
themselves, had not acquired for them a certain independ
ence of existence within the Deity. And so the thought
of the passage bears a striking resemblance to Christ's
argument for His own acquaintance with the things of God,
based not on absolute identity with the Father, but on
closest essential affinity. What makes this passage all the
more instructive is its correlative in Romans (viii. 26, 27).
There, in place of the Spirit, on the ground of His relation
to God, being the source to men of the knowledge of things

to the Teaching of Christ 327
divine, He is the source of a knowledge of things human to
Him who searcheth the hearts. Dwelling in men, under
standing them, He is able to make intercession for them to
Him who knoweth the mind of the Spirit. It would be as
legitimate on the strength of this passage to deny any
distinction between the Holy Spirit and the heart in which
He dwells, as to deny His Personality within the Godhead
on the ground of the other. Taken together, they imply
a very close affinity with both God and man, but also, for
that very reason, a definite relative independence.
Still it is easy to exaggerate the extent of that
independence. Nothing is more striking than the freedom
with which the Spirit is spoken of as the Spirit of Jesus
(Acts xvi. 7), or, even when operative in the prophets of
the Old Testament, as the Spirit of Christ (1 Pet, i. 1 1), a
form which is also repeatedly found in Paul. The genitive
in each case, as also in the phrase ' Spirit of God,' seems to
denote the origin or source, not of His existence, but of His
presence with men. He is not identical with the Father or
the Son. He has been given by God, sent by Christ. But
while the sense of distinction is thus well marked, it
constantly tends to disappear. And no passage is more
instructive than Rom. viii. 9 ff. There He is spoken of
indifferently as the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Him who
raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, and the Spirit of
Christ. But what is still more striking is the apparent
equivalence between the indwelling of the Spirit and the
indwelling of Christ. In successive clauses stand these
equivalent expressions : " Ye are not in the flesh, but in
the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you.
But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of
His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of
sin," etc. This easy natural passage from the one to the
other forbids us thinking that Paul so distinguished
between God and Christ and His Spirit as to lose sight

328 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
of a deep and true sense in which they are one. And the
truest conception of the Spirit, as it existed in the mind of
the most penetrating thinker of the apostolic age, is that of
the alter-ego of the Exalted Christ. He is the one through
whom Christ can continue in immediate living touch with
everyone of His dependants, and operate graciously both
within them individually and among them as a community.
He is as truly divine as Christ Himself is. Indeed, when
He is so closely linked at once with God and Christ, His
divinity becomes one of the best proofs of the nature and
reality of the divinity of Christ.
What, then, is the basis for this teaching about the
Holy Spirit, which meant so much to the Early Church,
in the teaching of Christ Himself? We have seen already,
that even in the Synoptics, the Spirit, in some of His
activities, was very definitely promised to the disciples
by Christ both before and after His resurrection, and that
after His ascension they were waiting in daily expecta
tion of the fulfilment of this promise, till at Pentecost it
came. This was the gift which, long before, Christ had
told them was the characteristic blessing with which the
Father would convey to them, in answer to their prayers,
every good thing in the kingdom (Luke xi. 13; cf. Matt.
vii. ii).1 In it what had been the peculiar endowment
of a favoured few in the Old Testament (Matt. xxii. 43)
would become the common property of men. Thus they
would be specially fitted for bearing witness to Him and
to His cause (Luke xxiv. 44—49 ; Acts i. 5, 8). In the
teaching about blasphemy, too, He draws a distinction
between the Son of man and the Holy Spirit, which is
significant for the Spirit's personality, while the fixing
1 In the two passages which refer to it (Luke xi. 13 and Matt. vii. 11), we
have an instance of repetition (Chapter III.) which accounts for the variety of
form. But it is significant that Christ should treat the gift of the Holy Spirit as
equivalent to all good, which men can desire. Given the Holy Spirit, every
thing becomes good.

to the Teaching of Christ 329
upon any word spoken against the Holy Spirit as of the
very essence of blasphemy is decisive as to His divinity
(Matt. xii. 3 1 ; Luke xii. 1 o). Were there nothing more
than this, it would still be legitimate and quite in keeping
with Christ's methods to hold that what the disciples
taught as to the Spirit, out of their experience of the
enjoyment of the gift of the Spirit, was only the unfolding
of what Jesus implied. But what these statements in the
Synoptics really afford is confirmation from a wider area
of the specific and definite teaching, which is to be found
in such fulness in the Gospel of John, especially in chaps.
xiv. and xvi.
To begin with, we find in these chapters a gauge by
which to estimate the value Christ attached to the presence
of the Spirit. He says, " It is expedient for you that I go
away : for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come
unto you ; but if I go, I will send Him unto you " (xvi. 7).
Christ regarded the coming of the Spirit as of such moment
for His apostles and their work for Him in the world,
that it was worth their while to lose the coveted privilege
of His own gracious presence in order to secure it.
Christ never explains in so many words why His departure
was necessary to the coming of the Spirit. But, if we
may take as a clue John's remark on the matter, " the
Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glori
fied " (vii. 39), the reason was this. There was nothing to
prevent the Spirit being in the world, while Jesus was
there in bodily presence ; but, until Jesus by His death
attained His glory and furnished the materials with which
the Spirit was to work, He could not effect the results
which Jesus contemplated through Him. When once
Jesus had suffered, risen, and ascended, the time had
come when a divine Agent, not limited by fetters of
space and time as Jesus had been during His sojourn,
should be sent into the world to operate everywhere.

33° The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
And with the prospect of such a one to be with them,
Christ could assure His disciples that their loss through
His departure would be more than made up to them.
The work, which the Spirit was to do, was to bring
men into the kingdom by the new birth, and supply them
with the qualifications for living there. This is attested
by Christ in His conversation with Nicodemus, "Except
a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter
into the kingdom of God " (iii. 5). What that means loses
all air of mystery, when we recall John the Baptist's
testimony, " He that sent me to baptize with water, He
said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit
descending, and abiding upon Him, the same is He that
baptizeth with the Holy Ghost" (i. 33).1 According to
John, his own baptism was pre-eminently associated with
repentance. But repentance prior to Christ would only
take men back to a more sincere Mosaism. Christ's
mission was to carry men right beyond this, and infuse
into them a new life, animated by a new spirit of sonship ;
and the Agent in this was to be the Holy Spirit, bestowed
by Him. This was baptizing with the Holy Ghost. This
was being born of water and of the Spirit. Men thus
equipped were fit to enter the kingdom and to live
within it.
The way in which this was to be effected far and
wide is not explained till we reach chaps, xiv— xvi. A
hint of it was given in the magnificent promise at the
feast of Tabernacles, when Jesus stood and cried, " If
any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink. He
that believeth on Me, as the Scripture hath said, out of
1 It is no extravagant assumption to suppose that Nicodemus, to whom Christ
was speaking, and who was evidently deeply interested in the whole movement,
was familiar with the gist of this important and characteristic utterance of John
the Baptist, a man who had so attracted the attention of men of Nicodemus' own
class, that they had sent a deputation to interview him (cf. John i. 19 ff.). The
references in the New Testament to the distinction which Jesus makes are
frequent (Matt. iii. 1 1 ; Mark i. 8 ; Luke iii. 16 ; Acts i. 5, xi. 16, etc. ).

to the Teaching of Christ 3 3 1
his belly shall flow rivers of living water." " But this,"
says John, "spake He of the Spirit" (vii. 37 ff). Such
abundance of supply suggests overflowing for the benefit
of others. And so, when we come to chaps, xiv— xvi.,
we find that while the work, which the Spirit is to do,
is largely upon the world, convicting it of sin, of righteous
ness, and of judgment (xvi. 8-14), yet to effect it He
comes as a gift to the disciples. He comes to teach
them all things, partly by bringing to their memory
things they had already learnt from Christ (xiv. 26),
partly by setting the things they knew of Christ in their
proper and full light, partly by showing them things to
come, and thus leading them into all the truth (xvi. 1 3 f).
But when we recall that, in John's vocabulary truth meant,
as we have seen, not simply correct thinking, but right
acting,1 we understand that the Spirit of truth is not
only an enlightener, but a sanctifier, and we are not
surprised that the results which He achieves (conviction
of sin, righteousness, and judgment, xvi. 8) are moral
and religious rather than intellectual. But what is the
purpose of this training and perfecting of the disciples ?
It is that in them He may have the instruments through
which to effect His work on other men. He is to bear
witness of Christ, but it is through the disciples. If He
supplies directly the prick of conviction in men's hearts,
it is as a response there to the effects which He has
produced upon them through the lives and lips of the
disciples (xv. 26 f). It is in view of this that He is
so appropriately called the Paraclete, the Advocate that
is called in to help to plead the cause, the Comforter, in
the good old English sense which remembers that " fort "
means strong, not the Consoler, but the Encourager, the
strengthening comrade of devoted men.
But who is this Spirit, to whom Christ delegates His
1 Cf. p. 325, and see Wendt there quoted.

332 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
own work ? Is there anything to justify Paul's remark
able interchange of terms that led us to speak of the
Spirit as Christ's alter-ego ? 1 The answer to this is
found in the first reference to the Spirit in the course
of chap. xiv. 1 6 ff. Jesus has been speaking of His
near departure, and the inestimable advantages He will
be able to -secure for His disciples thereby, e.g. a place
in the house of many mansions, a new plea and claim
in prayer, etc. (xiv. i — i 5). This fails, however, to dispel
the lurking dismay at His departure. So Jesus adds, " I
will pray the Father, and He will give you another
Comforter — i.e. one to take My place — that He may be
with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth " (vv. 16, 17);
and then almost immediately He follows that up with
what is evidently intended for an explanatory equivalent,
" I will not leave you desolate — orphans — I will come to
you " (ver. 1 8). Then, with reference to both the Spirit
and Himself, He speaks on almost identical lines of the
contrast between the incapacity of the world to recognise
them and the ability of the disciples to do so. From all
this only one result can follow, namely, that the relation
ship of the Spirit to Christ is so close that the presence
of the one is practically the presence of the other. More
over, when the nature of the presence in each case is in
the immediate context repeatedly spoken of as an in
dwelling, the conviction is confirmed that, in some very
true sense, this divine Spirit of truth and Christ Himself
are one. And yet it would not be true to say that the
Spirit is simply the spiritual presence of the Exalted
Christ, as if they were in reality indistinguishable. Christ
distinguishes quite as pronouncedly as He identifies. If
1 The comparison between Paul and John in Sanday and Headlam's Com
mentary on Romans, p. 200 f. , is really a comparison between Paul and words of
Christ. It is Christ who speaks of " another Comforter," and the phrase serves
to bring into relief the distinction present to Christ's mind between Himself and
the Spirit.

to the Teaching of Christ 333
He comes in the Spirit, it is because at His request the
Father sends the Spirit. And He speaks of Him in
terms that imply as real distinction as exists between
the Father and Himself. In these words of Jesus, then,
we have an almost exact counterpart to what we found
from the pen of Paul in Romans. Ripe Christian ex
perience exactly tallies with Christ's predictions. Men
rejoice in the presence in them and with them of the
Spirit of God, the gift of the Risen Lord, and in Him
they feel that once more they are in immediate touch
with their Living Lord, as He had said.
III. We pass now to consider the fact that the
disciples we meet with in the Acts were men who were
in the habit of observing two ordinances, Baptism and
the Lord's Supper. For the observance of both of these
they appealed to the authority of Christ. In reference
to the significance of the former rite, it is not necessary
to repeat what was said just a few lines above. It is
enough to note how intimately it associates the symbolism
of the rite with the operations of the Holy Spirit. That
the rite is primarily symbolic is manifest from the wider
language of Christ. Twice over, when referring to the
grand crisis of His own life, His passion, He calls it a
Baptism. Under the staggering sense of its gravity, as
it steadily drew near, He exclaimed, " I have a baptism
to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be
accomplished " (Luke xii. 50). And when James and
John urged their wild request, in order to sober them
and make them realise its consequences, He challenges
them, " Can ye drink the cup that I drink of, and be
baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ? "
(Mark x. 38), as though to say, Can you endure the
searching test and vigil through which I must pass in
loyalty to My mission and as proof of its worth ?
Baptism, therefore, in any case, was for Christ some-

334 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
thing figurative, a possible symbol for more than one
great spiritual reality, represented by the word or sign.
The rite was in use prior to Christ's time. It was even
practised by His disciples during His earthly ministry
and seemingly with His approval, although He did not
baptize Himself (John iv. 1-2 ; cf. iii. 22 f.). But as
that which Christian baptism specially symbolised, namely,
the operations of the Spirit on the lives of men with
the completed work of Christ, was not yet given, because
Christ was not yet glorified, it is questionable whether
that baptism of Christ's lifetime really meant more than
John's baptism, namely, repentance in view of the advent
of Messiah. Baptism, distinctively Christian baptism, as a rite
among believers in Christ, so far as the records attest,
owes its origin to a definite command of the Risen
Lord. " Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them
to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you "
(Matt, xxviii. 19, 20), "He that believeth, and is bap
tized, shall be saved " (Mark xvi. 1 6). It was to be a
symbol, that is to say, to the men who became disciples
on having the gospel preached to them (Mark xvi. 15),
of their response to it, and of God's acceptance of that
response, their entrance by faith into the sphere of the
gracious influences that are exercised by Father, Son,
and Spirit, and their engagement to carry out all that
is involved therein, namely, that loyalty to truth, practice
of holiness, and activity of service, which Jesus had
claimed from His disciples during His lifetime among
them. In other words, it was the symbol of the estab
lishment of a union with Christ. There is Christ's word,
on which everything else is built. He does not enter
into fuller explanations. What the rite as previously

to the Teaching of Christ 335
practised by John and by the disciples themselves con
veyed, and what had been said in anticipation of the
baptism which Christ was to bestow, would serve as an
adequate commentary.
When we turn to the Acts of the Apostles, we find
baptism constantly practised, whenever men are admitted
to the company of believers. The formula in use there
is modified. It is " into the name of Christ," or " into
Christ." It is associated with the laying on of hands,
a kindly custom which grew up expressive of welcome
into the circle of believers, and accorded to all who pro-
¦ fessed their faith in baptism, not simply to those ordained
to office (Acts ii. 38-41, viii. 12-19, 36-39, ix. 17-19,
x. 47, 48). It is explained as referring to repentance
and remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost, in one
word, salvation (texts just quoted, and Acts xvi. 15, 33,
xviii. 8, xix. 5-7 ; Heb. vi. 2 ff.). And 1 Pet. iii. 21
expresses the consciousness and intention of the man
who honestly accepts the rite. It is therefore the symbol
of a union already completed with Christ, and because
of this union with Christ, the baptized individual is on
his baptism recognised as a pledged member of the
Christian community.
But it may be asked, Is not Paul strikingly at variance
with this ? Does he not reverse the order ? Is not baptism
with him the means of union with Christ ? Is he not in
effect a Ritualist? for this is, by implication, the conten
tion of Ritualists, be they Lutherans or Anglicans or, even
unconsciously, Baptists. If this were true of Paul, it would
indicate a serious breach between the teaching of Paul and
his Master. But the first suspicious thing is that Paul was
not supremely anxious about baptizing people. Just as
Jesus Himself in the days of His flesh, while keen to secure
men's adherence to -Himself, baptized not, but left it as a
minor matter to subordinates ; so Paul vigorously protests,

336 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
" Jesus Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the
gospel," and he thanks God that he had baptized practi
cally nobody in Corinth ( 1 Cor. i. 1 7 ff). Could this have
been possible, if to him baptism had been a sine qua non
of salvation or of the spiritual life? Most certainly not.
But if that is so, how are we to explain the terms Paul
uses in Rom. vi. 3 ff. and Gal. iii. 27 (cf. Col. ii. 12), which
are so emphatic that even such cautious writers as the
authors of the International Commentary on Romans think
that they warrant them in saying, " the sprinkling of the
blood of Christ seals that covenant with His people to which
baptism admits them." x There is no doubt that Paul in
these passages does speak, in the very strongest terms, of
what is involved in a man's accepting this rite of baptism.
It is all summed up in one word, " as many as were bap
tized into Christ, put on Christ" (Gal. iii. 27). Baptism
involved a union with Christ so close that not only were men
committed thereby to live a life of holiness, but it became
a spiritual impossibility for them to do anything else. They
were, in their acceptance of baptism, dead, buried, and risen
with Christ. They had passed through all He had passed
through, and their whole subsequent life was simply a sur
render to the impelling force of the life within, namely, Christ.
If baptism involves this, is it not the supreme factor in the
spiritual life ? Before saying so it has to be remembered that
Paul always treats men as true to all they profess. The
community at Corinth are spoken to as saints, not because
the blemishes that disfigured that community were com
patible with saintliness, but because they were not. So in
1 Sanday and Headlam, Romans vi. 9 ff. Contrast with this the trenchant
words of Beyschlag : "This is to make the letter of the apostle contradict his
meaning and spirit. How are we to conceive that the apostle, whose whole
doctrine of the way of salvation hitherto has advanced in a psychological and
ethical way, should all at once take a leap into the magical, and unite the pro-
foundest moral action of grace with an outward rite from which the unrighteous
could never be excluded" (New Testament Theology, ii. 196). The whole para
graph is admirable.

to the Teaching of Christ 337
the case of baptism. This rite symbolised a great truth of
union with Christ, the result of men's response in faith to
Christ's approaches. And men who submitted to this rite,
by doing so offered, of their own accord, a formal testimony
to the reality of that union as an experience of their inner
life. And when Paul addresses them, treating them as
honest men, and looking at their baptism from the side of
their own act in accepting it, he presses on them what they
have committed themselves to, when they entered that union
with Christ, which the rite symbolised. The matter of
supreme moment for Paul therefore was not baptism, but
the union which it represented. He only, uses the observ
ance of the rite for the purpose for which the institution of
such rites is intended, namely, to enforce the solemnity of
the thing symbolised. He agrees with his fellow-apostles
and with his Master.
For this union, Paul, " the prince of mystics," 1 had a
striking phrase, iv Xpio-Tu>. It has its correlative in the
idea of Xpicnos ev nw. And Holtzmann is right in saying
that " the significance of it is only understood from a com
parison of the conceptions ' Christ ' and ' Spirit.' " 2 But
that comparison is not to be made along lines which, on
the basis of 2 Cor. iii. 17, identify Christ and Spirit (cf.
Chap. VI.). It is to be made in view of the true relationship
between the Risen Christ and the Spirit, His messenger,
which we have just been considering. We are helped to
the sense of it by Phil. iii. 8-1 1. There Paul states the
controlling crave of his heart, " to win Christ and be found
in Him." This to him was the secret of standing before
God and of successful advance along the whole line of
spiritual development. It describes a relation so close, so
vital, so significant for spiritual life, that it is simply impos-
1 Sabatier, Francis of Assisi, p. 293. See whole paragraph, and cf. Mar-
tineau, Types of Ethical Theory, ii. 79.
2 H. J. Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Theologie, ii. 79.

338 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
sible to find terms sufficiently strong, earthly relations
sufficiently intimate, to say all of it that should be said.1
It is not once or twice, but constantly that the phrase
recurs, till we feel that for Paul Christ is the sphere of
being, the atmosphere in which alone a man can truly live
or breathe (Col. ii. 6, 7). For the Christian, everything he
thinks, purposes, says, does, experiences, will be " in Christ."
At times Paul expresses the union by the preposition avv
instead of iv (though the " with Christ " is in virtue of the
" in Christ," a result, not an alternative), and then his
analysis of life is a being crucified with Christ (Gal. ii. 20),
a being buried with Him (Rom. vi. 3), a dying daily with
Him (1 Cor. xv. 31), a being risen with Him, a living with
Him (Rom. vi. 8), and, since He is seated at the right hand
of God, a cherishing of thoughts and seeking of ideals and
objects as unworldly and spiritual as are those dearest to
the heart of Christ (Col. iii. 1-4). Christ is the garment
which envelops him (Gal. iii. 27). His life is hid with
Christ in God (Col. iii. 3).
But, as I have said, the correlative is " Christ in us."
" Christ liveth in me," says Paul (Gal. ii. 20), and his grave
concern for the Galatians, to whom he says it, is, that the
same should be true of them : " My little children, of whom
I travail in birth again, until Christ be formed in you"
(Gal. iv. 19; cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 5). And at Rom. viii. 10 this
indwelling of Christ appears in that passage where the
intimacy of the connection between Christ and the Spirit
comes into such prominence. It is the subject for which
Paul prays in that outpouring of his soul for the Ephesians
(iii. 14 ff). It is "the great mystery" which it is his to
preach, " Christ in you, the hope of glory " (Col. i. 27, ii. 9),
passages in Colossians from which it becomes evident once
more how closely this thought is associated with the sym
bolism of baptism. It is in this intimacy of union with
1 Cf. Principal Caird, University Sermons, p. 106 f.

to the Teaching of Christ 339
Christ that Paul sees the possibility of holiness. Here
enters the divine energy, which is able to master all
unworthy, wicked tendencies, and supply the irresistible
impulses to the good works, for which, as God's workman
ship (poem), men were created in Christ Jesus (Eph. ii. 10).
But is Paul alone in this thought ? It has been con
tended that the phrase iv Xpicnw is of his coining. But
even if that be so, the parallel of the thought is to be found
in John's Epistles, and has its affinities in Peter, and even
in James. The whole idea of a divine begetting, which is
found alike in James, Peter, and John (see Chap. V), sup
plies the explanation of the process by which the union is
effected. It is the entrance of Christ, who is the life, into
men's beings (cf. Paul's striking phrase, " Christ, who is our
life," Col. iii. 4). But the result of this is that God dwells
in them and they in God, and it is through the possession
of the Spirit that they are aware of the fact. It is in virtue
of the divine life in them that they are able to resist the
seductions of the world and attain to holiness. This life in
them is the root of sonship, and the honour and hope it
confers impels to a holy conformity to the image of Christ
(1 John iii. 1—4).
But here once more we are carried back to the farewell
discourses in John xiv— xvii., i.e. to Christ Himself. The
union is indeed suggested in that view of the solidarity of
life, which we have already recognised as familiar to Christ,
even from the Synoptics. But in John's Gospel it is the
very essence of the great parable of the Vine and the
Branches (xv. 1 ff). There Christ goes to the secret of
lives that can please God by the fruits they bear of obedi
ence to God's holy commands (cf. Gal. v. 22—25). And it
is found in an inseparable union between Christ and them :
" I am the vine, ye are the branches. . . . Without, i.e.
apart from, Me, ye can do nothing. . . . Abide in Me and I
in you." And the whole paragraph, in ever-varying phrase,

340 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
makes plainer and plainer what is the union of hearts and
interests, of generous self-bestowal and confidence reposed,
and of answering faith and service, in which Christ and His
followers become one. What is here expounded as a glori
ous coming experience for His disciples, Christ next makes
the subject of request in the Intercessory Prayer. To
ensure at once their perfecting in holy, consecrated service,
and the success of the great mission in the world which the
Father had committed to Him, and which, now that it had
reached the successful completion of its first and crucial
stage, He was passing on to them, He prays for a union
with them so close, so complete, that the only parallel to
suggest it is in the relation He bore to the Father Himself,
and which, indeed, will be the crown of His great scheme :
" that they may be one, even as we are one ; I in them,
and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected into one."
Once more we are back to Christ Himself as the authority
for what His followers teach. But here, as in other cases,
we find in it a fulness and magnificence which His followers
never quite reproduced in teaching, and which they have
never yet realised in fact.
IV. And yet that is scarcely true, as appears when
we consider the other ordinance which the early followers
of Christ observed, namely, the Lord's Supper, and the
meaning it conveyed to them. This ordinance was fre
quently by synecdoche spoken of as the Breaking of Bread
(Acts ii. 42, 46, xx. 7 ; 1 Cor. x. 16). Of its origin there
is no need to speak. It was observed by Christ on the
night of His betrayal. From the first it was regarded by
the Church as a permanent institution, and practised by
them as such. But the question has been raised, had
Christ this permanent rite in view, when, amid the tension
of that solemn hour, He rose, gathered up the meaning of
His whole life into a symbolic act so eloquent and yet so
simple, and offered Himself, even in His death, to His

to the Teaching of Christ 34 1
disciples as the very life of their lives ? The Acts of the
Apostles, where we see the custom of the Church from the
very first, shows that the disciples thought so. The terms
of the institution in Luke (xxii. 19) and Paul (1 Cor. xi.
23-26) state that it was so. But appeal to Luke is
challenged. There is confusion in the text at this point,
and the words are viewed with great suspicion. Set him
aside and no evangelist says that such was Christ's inten
tion. The words of Christ, as Matthew and Mark give
them, are silent on this point. John does not mention the
Supper explicitly at all. What is the meaning of this
silence ? Is it a dumb protest against the habit of the
Church and the statement of Paul ? It is too much to
ask us to believe that. The Synoptists give the circum
stances of the Feast with great detail. The custom, as we
have seen, sprang up at once. All critics are agreed that
the custom was in John's mind, when he introduced the
great discourse of chap. vi. into his Gospel as a helpful
lesson on its meaning. Paul's words are precise, that he
" received of the Lord " — whatever meaning be attached
to that, it conveys that here he is not giving a view of
his own, but something he threw back on Christ's authority
— "that which He delivered"; and his closing comment, "as
often as ye eat this bread," etc. (ver. 26), is meaningless
apart from repetition. If, in the face of all this, the
evangelists meant to discredit the practice, and to indicate
that it had really no warrant from Christ, more than
silence was needed. That of itself could not discredit a
rite so singular and original, at once adopted and sacredly
cherished in memory of Christ ; nor can it shake our con
fidence in a solemn, explicit report, from the pen of the
earliest writer on the subject, that the practice had its
origin in Christ's own request : " This do in remembrance
of Me" (1 Cor. xi. 24, 25).
We have seen already the light cast by the ordinance

342 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
on the meaning of Christ's death for us. But its symbolism
is not exhausted thereby. If baptism represents union,
the Lord's Supper represents communion. The symbolism
of the rite is eating and drinking. The material is food.
It represents Christ's supply for the life of the souls He
had quickened. For it is very necessary to bear in mind
Dale's significant remark, that in the sacraments we do not
offer something to God ; we receive something from Him.1
The something that is received in the Supper is Christ.
" Take, eat ; this is My body . . . drink ye all of it, for this
is My blood of the covenant, which is shed for many unto
the remission of sins" (Matt. xxvi. 26—28). Of course, He
meant nothing so gross, as that by some mysterious trans
formation the disciples were to eat His physical flesh, and
drink His physical blood. He knew that, even if that
could be done, it could serve no purpose for their spiritual
nourishment. Spiritual life is not nourished through the
organs of physical digestion (cf. Mark vii. 1 8 ff. ; Matt. xv.
16 ff). What He says in the great discourse in John
(chap, vi.) is the conclusive proof to the contrary. It is
entirely occupied with the secrets of soul-nourishment ; and
just as in the discourse on soul-cleansing (chap, iii.), He
had to disabuse the mind of Nicodemus of all materialistic
notions, He had to do the same here. A crass material
ism asserted itself. They asked, " How can this man give
us His flesh to eat ? " They could not understand the
figure He used, and so He had to explain it: "Labour not
for the meat which perisheth, but for the meat which abideth
into eternal life, which the Son of man shall give unto you ;
for Him the Father, even God, hath sealed" (ver. 27). . . .
" I am the bread of life ; he that cometh to Me shall never
hunger, and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst"
(ver. 35). . . . " It is the Spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh
profiteth nothing" (ver. 63). He lifts the whole out of the
1 Life, p. 359.

to the Teaching of Christ 343
realm of figure and symbol, and touches the realities lying
behind, which alone can feed the soul, and which are re
ceived by faith into the heart, namely, Himself and the
great redemption in Him.
Nothing that Paul says in the least conflicts with this.
As in reference to baptism, so on this subject, he speaks
to men on the assumption, that in the observance of the
rite they are dealing with the reality, not with the mere
symbols in which the reality is represented (1 Cor. xi.
27 ff). He understands thoroughly Christ's principle as
to mere food (1 Cor. vi. 13). And at 1 Cor. x. I4ff he
states clearly what the observance of this ordinance means.
It means communion, fellowship with Christ. More than
keen dialectic on religious topics, or even the kindly
concourse of man with man, is needed to nourish the
spiritual life. It wants direct personal intercourse with the
living Christ. And this is the clue to what was meant by
Christ and understood by His followers, when He said,
" this do in remembrance of Me." In view of Christ's own
statements as to His resurrection, His return, His being
always with them, that cannot mean that this was the
provision by which He, the loved friend of bygone days,
would continue to live after His decease. It was not
needed to secure for Him an immortal memory, by which
He might escape oblivion, the fate of the dead. As grasped
by Paul, it was Christ's provision, by which the disciples
would have preserved fresh before their minds the fact of
the spiritual presence of their absent but Living Lord, and
also it would keep their thought of Him constantly associ
ated with the never-to-be-forgotten fact, that it was by His
death He purchased their allegiance and their love. Paul
knew how mechanical and deadly may become loyalty to
a mere memory. And it is not that he offers as supreme
dynamic for Christian service, but loyalty to Him who died
for us and rose again (2 Cor. v. 14, 15). From experience

344 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
he knew how this consciousness of the Risen Living Lord,
present in the world, working with and through His
followers, watching with delighted eye every effort in His
service, could call forth lively delight in every task, and
responsive desire to share in all His experiences for and in
and with His people (i Cor. iii. 9 ; 2 Cor. vi. 1). And
such fellowship was a very real privilege to Paul. It was
sharing Christ's sufferings in the sufferings of His faithful
followers, be these persecutions demanding warm, prayerful
sympathy (Phil. ii. 1, 2), or privations needing a helping
hand (2 Cor. viii. 4). It was no less sharing His triumphs
and His glory (Rom. viii. 17; 2 Cor. i. 7 ; 2 Tim. ii. 1 1-1 3).
It was appropriation to the full of all Christ meant, when
He said, " he that receiveth you, receiveth Me " (Matt. x.
40 ff; Luke x. 16; John xiii. 20), and "inasmuch as ye
have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye
have done it unto Me " (Matt. xxv. 40). In that rich
enjoyment of fellowship, partnership, with Christ is the
strongest, most wholesome food for human souls.
John appreciated this (cf. John iv. 32, 34). There is a
hint of it, which is expanded later, in the message of the
Risen Lord to the Laodicean Church : " Behold, I stand at
the door and knock. If any man hear My voice and open
the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and
he with Me" (Rev. iii. 20). That is the very counterpart
of the explanation Christ gave to Judas of how He would
manifest Himself to His disciples, when manifestation to
the world ceased: "If a man love Me, he will keep My words:
and My Father will love him, and we will come unto him,
and make our abode with him" (John xiv. 23). And
fellowship is as truly the object of the Intercessory Prayer
as union. As in the teaching of Paul, it is realised accord
ing to John in the effort after personal holiness and in the
active service of Christ. To further the widespread enjoy
ment of this great privilege was John's motive in writing

to the Teaching of Christ 345
his Epistle. It stands stated there on its very forefront
(1 John i. 1—7). In the first instance, it seems as if the
fellowship he meant were fellowship between fellow-Chris
tians. And it is so. The whole subsequent strain of the
Epistle aims at binding Christian brethren more closely
together in the bonds of love, and that in well marked
contrast to the associations of the world. But John has
scarcely struck the opening chord, when the deep basal
note proclaims the fact, that all real fellowship among
believers finds its origin in fellowship with the Father
and with His Son, Jesus Christ (i. 3). It is by a thorough
common knowledge of God, revealed in Christ as Spirit,
Light, Love, a knowledge not simply of the head but of
the heart, not only of the ear but of experience, that men
advance into the full delight and matchless helpfulness
of fellowship with God, and there find that with God it
is all giving, with them all receiving (1 John v. 18-20;
cf. John iii. 27); and so they can, as Paul says, work
out their own salvation, for it is God that worketh in
them both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Phil.
ii. 12, 13).
This fellowship with one another on the basis of fellow
ship with Christ, Paul found suggested in the sacraments
of the Old Testament and reproduced in the Supper
(1 Cor. x. 3, 4; cf. ver. 17). And in this he is reading
aright the ordinance instituted by Christ. What other
purpose could our Lord have had in view in selecting as
His memorial a social meal, the elements of which repre
sented Himself? It stands on the very face of it. Fellow
ship with Him lies at the root of all. But men bound to
Him are a band of brothers, fed on a common meal, at a
Father's table, members of the great kingdom, not of this
world, which He came to found, and in which they can
enjoy the salvation He has realised. The bond is the bond
of the Spirit, through whom the Risen and Exalted Lord

346 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
maintains His operations among His people on earth, while
He acts for them in the fulness of His power in heaven.
And the benediction of this community is " the grace of
the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the com
munion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all" (2 Cor.
xiii. 14).

CHAPTER IX
Man's expected Response — Faith
Faith — Christ's Teaching — Faith a Term in current Use — How under
stood — Misconceptions of His Day — God its ultimate Object
— Passages illustrative of this — The Justification of Christ's Call
for Faith in His Message and in Himself — Form the Call to Faith
takes in Conformity with this — The Expression of this in Terms of
Discipleship — This Combination justified by the Risen Lord — How
presented in John's Gospel — Criticism of Wendt — Christ's Anxiety
to develop Faith — Summary.
Apostolic Teaching — (a) The Acts — (6) James, Meaning of his Strictures
— Where Paul agrees with him — (c) Paul, his Polemic — Faith alone
wanted because of Function to be performed — Its Object is the
Crucified and Risen Christ — It is a Faculty kept in constant Exer
cise — It plays a practical Role — Relation of Paul's View to Christ's
— (d) Peter's View — (e) Faith in Hebrews — (/) John dwells chiefly
on the Object of Faith. — General Comparison with Christ — Illus
trated by a Diagram.
Two cognate Questions — (i) Are Christ and His Apostles at one as
to God's Activity and the Exercise of Faith in Salvation ? — Paul
—Christ in John's Gospel — (2) What is the proper Object of
Justification?— It is the Individual — The Function for Faith of the
Community.
We have considered the Ideal, the Person, and the Work
of Christ, Incarnate and Exalted. These all play their
part in His accomplishment of His divine mission, the
salvation of mankind. Through them we have seen a
union effected from the divine side with humanity, in
virtue of which a regenerative transformation of humanity
is practicable. The one thing still requisite to the reali
sation of this is man's response to this divine approach,
his voluntary entry into and continuance in this union.
And by common consent the step he must take to effect
347

348 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching '
this is Faith. This is what remains for us to consider, in
order to complete our study of the outstanding features
of Christ's teaching, and of the shape these took in the
hands of His disciples.
As there is room for difference of opinion as to what
exactly faith meant on the lips of Christ, it will be well
to commence in this instance with Christ's own teaching.
Thus we shall see from the first with what we must cor
relate the teaching of His followers. And it may be
noted at the outset that faith appears in the vocabulary
of Christ as a well understood term, which He does not
think it necessary to explain. From that, Johannes Weiss,
in his valuable monograph, Die Nachfolge Christi, draws
the very just inference, that we must look for its signifi
cance in the common source of ideas familiar at once to
Jesus and His everyday associates, namely, Old Testa
ment usage. Faith, for Christ Himself and for those who
heard Him, meant, in the first instance, what it meant
to a really devout Jew. And here as in all other subjects
which involve both the intellectual and the moral, for the
Jew the moral is primary. Faith is for him a matter of
the heart and will rather than of the head. Faith, in the
sense of belief, intellectual assent, credit, acceptance of
something as truth, is quite subordinate to the idea of
trust, confidence, reliance reposed, by a deliberate act of
will, where some glad fact or commanding personality has
mastered the respect and allegiance of the heart. Faith
is the activity of the soul, by which men pierce the veil
of the unseen and lay hold upon the Eternal. From the
Old Testament 1 we get that conception of faith in virtue
of which it is variously described as a " spiritual principle
planted in the soul, apprehending things above reason,
and raising us up to conceive of all things as God hath
discovered them " (Sibbes) ; " the perception of the opera-
1 See Dillmann, Alttestamentliche Theologie, p. 416, cf. p. 432.

to the Teaching of Christ 349
tion of God which calls up in us a new mode of thinking,
feeling, and willing, and lets us see the world in which
we live in a new light " (Herrmann), or " the sixth sense "
(Watson). But it is more. It is all of these in exercise,
in living grasp upon God and the promises of God. That
is the true type of Old Testament faith, " without which,"
as Dillmann says, " no genuine religion is possible." And
the reason for that is that faith is the true childlike atti
tude ; and that is the right relation of a soul to God.
So Christ understood it. But He found that among
many of the Jews, faith, as thus understood, had lost its
significance. It had succumbed to one of its constant
dangers. Its prime importance for the religious life had
become obscured ; and it had been supplanted by one of
its own dependents. Faith always carries with it a call
to a type of character to be attained and maintained by-
its own constant exercise, along the lines of delighted
spontaneous obedience to the will of the trusted heavenly
Father. But missing this connection between faith and
obedience, and mistaking the true nature of both, the man
deemed religious in Christ's day conceived of his relation
to God as resting on the basis of formal attention to
stereotyped lines of moral and religious observance.
Christ's teaching was designed to correct this. It shows
a steady effort to restore the lost conception, and reawaken
the childlike confidence, or faith, in God. God is ulti
mately the Object to whom He directs the faith of men.
His method, it is true, is to invite confidence, first, in the
Good News He brings, and then in Himself as the em
bodiment of the Good News. But it is always on the
tacit assumption, which He ultimately makes explicit, that
in dealing with Him men are dealing with God. He
restores confidence in God by first awakening faith in
Himself, and then revealing God in Himself. This will
become plainer as we proceed.

350 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
An instructive passage in reference to this is that
section of the Sermon on the Mount, in which He brings
out the paramount importance of righteousness (Matt. vi.
19-34). What is the basis of His strong dissuasive there
from all worldly anxiety ? It is the absolute reliability
of God. He is a Father, who can be entirely depended
upon. He is the one who is worthy of trust. Still more
impressive is the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke xv.
1 1— 32).1 In the two preceding parables, the parables of
the Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin, Christ depicts the
efforts of God to recover the lost. And that must be
borne in mind in considering the third parable. It is one
of a series, and is not complete in itself. The first two
bring out what there is nothing to embody in the third,
namely, the active efforts made to recover the lost ; and
that should prevent any misconception arising from the
comparative inaction of the father, as if it meant that for
man's salvation nothing was needed on God's part, no effort,
no sacrifice, nothing but man's penitent return.. To think so
is to ignore the exertions of the Shepherd and the Wroman.
But in the parable of the Prodigal, Christ gives us man's
part, represented now by no inert coin, or senseless sheep,
but by a human being. And what is the very essence
of it, as a picture of all that is required in a man, for his
return to a place in God's family? Is it not what took
place in the desolate heart away among the herd of swine
— a return to faith in his father? It is the abandonment
of the attitude of self-assertive independence, which trusted
its own intelligence and strength as a better guarantee for
its well-being than the wise provisions of fatherly love,
and the return to the childlike attitude under the restored
conviction of the unshaken constancy of the father's love.
Thus, in both of these passages without saying faith Jesus
1 For a very acute criticism of Wendt's view of the parable, see Hilgenfeld,
Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaftlichen Theologie, xxxvii. 503 f.

to the Teaching of Christ 351
has depicted the very thing, and that as the essential to
make a life well-pleasing to God.
He puts the matter quite explicitly in another con
nection, and that in a passage which is one of a group in
which, with slight variations due to change of time and
circumstance, He repeatedly refers to the power of faith.
In this case it is introduced by Peter's expression of aston
ishment at the speedy decay of the fig-tree which Christ
had cursed (Mark xi. 20 ff). Christ's reply is, " Have faith
in God." What is the meaning of that reply? Is it not
the revelation to His disciples of the secret principle of
His own life, the wellspring of His own power ? Delight
ing in the thought of God as His Father, He, as a Son,
cherished the spirit of boundless confidence in that Father,
and was sure of His aid in any transaction which He
regarded as likely to contribute to the better understand
ing, or to the success, of the cause which He represented.1
He gave an exhibition in Himself of what the right
relation of a soul to God should be. And, that the most
surprising deeds of His life might become intelligible to
men, He invited them to cherish toward God the same
spirit as His own, when they would acquire a similar
power to what He possessed Himself. " All things are
possible to him that believeth " (Mark ix. 23). And this
is the logic of His miracles. In many instances they
depended on a measure of faith in the individuals benefited
by them (Matt. ix. 2, 28, 29), and were intended to en
gender a still deeper faith. Where the faith was lacking,
Jesus had no freedom to work (Mark vi. 5, 6). But where
the faith existed and miracles would serve the great end
of His mission, He used His power. By doing so, He
appealed to the common convictions of the day. In the
light of His own personal character and of the character
1 For a very interesting study of the place of faith in Christ's own life, see
Haussleiter's monograph, Der Glaube Jesu Christi und der Christliche Glaube.

35 2 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
of the miracles He performed, He was well aware that men
would feel that in Him God had drawn near to them. For
the truth of this, Peter's cry at the miraculous draught of
fishes, " Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord "
(Luke v. 4— ii), speaks volumes, and so does the formal
tribute of Nicodemus (John iii. 2). And Christ's object
in performing miracles was not simply to arrest attention
or to alleviate clamant need, but, by showing the mighty
forces within the reach of faith, to develop in others that
unhesitating faith in God which He Himself possessed in
His heavenly Father.1
In view of this there is something startling, until it is
understood, in the way in which Jesus demands a like faith,
first in His message, and then in Himself. The explanation,
of course, is found in what we have already seen was a
feature of His teaching, its progressive character com
mencing with the kingdom and gradually concentrating
upon Himself, when He is found to be " God manifest in
the flesh." Similarly, His earliest calls for faith began far
away. " The time is fulfilled ; the kingdom of God is at
hand: repent, and believe the good news" (Mark i. 15).
That is little more than a repetition of the call given by
John the Baptist. If it meant more on the lips of Jesus
than it did on the lips of John, that was due to the testi
mony which John himself had borne to Jesus. But it is
necessary to notice that, even in this form, the essential
nature and the ultimate object of faith are alike prominent.
The good news to be believed is the good news of the near
advent of God's kingdom. The emphasis is on the fact
that this coming kingdom is that in which God is supreme.
The faith, too, is a faith which has its roots in a moral
revolution, called repentance. That word itself, as well as
the Greek which it translates, means, as is well known,
afterthought or reconsideration. But when the subjects,
1 See Expository Times, xi. 194 ff., and article noticed there.

to the Teaching of Christ 353
on which this reconsideration is to be expended, are taken
into account, it becomes apparent that this is not simply a
mental review of the situation. It means the recognition,
with sorrow and shame, of the wickedness and the hopeless
ness of the existing relations ; but over against that, prevent
ing a resultant despair, it sets the welcome tidings of God's
coming reconstitution of humanity, and it issues in a resolve
to venture all upon that, make what Romanes calls " the
experiment of faith." x As Chapuis puts it, " Faith betrays
a need, an aching void ; it is begotten of our misery, and
presupposes repentance." 2
A similar view of faith, with many sidelights on its
counterfeits, is presented in the parable of the Sower (Matt.
xiii. 1— 23 and parallels). The seed sown is the word of
the kingdom. The various soils and their reception of the
seed represent various attitudes which wish to pass for
faith. But in the explanation only that is approved as
genuine which is attentive, intelligent, unfettered, persistent,
fruitful. Thus it is evident that faith involves credence of
a message, a message about God and His kingdom ; but it
involves also a far-reaching moral activity as an equally
essential part of it.
But from news of God's kingdom Jesus passes, by an
almost imperceptible transition, to Himself, as the object of
faith. At first sight the fact of a transition like this almost
suggests that it involves a change in the nature of the faith
demanded. But it is only necessary to recall, what we have
just seen, that the ultimate object of faith is always God,
that is to say, a personal object, in order to dispel that
impression. Christ formulates the call to faith in Him
self in various terms : " follow Me " ; " come unto Me " ;
" learn of Me." But the most helpful thing to an under-
1 Thoughts on Religion, p. 167.
2 Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche, v. 320. The whole article, "Der
Glaube an Christus," is most valuable.
23

354 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
standing of faith in this second stage will be to observe it,
where Christ recognised it. On two occasions it appeared
in such strength that it surprised Him, in the appeals,
namely, of the Roman centurion and of the Syrophenician
woman. In the former case it expressed itself in this way :
" I am not worthy that Thou shouldest come under my roof;
but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under
me : and I say to one, Go, and he goeth ; and to another,
Come, and he cometh ; and to my servant, Do this, and he
doeth it." Now this is no nicely balanced critical judgment
of the nature of Christ. But the centurion was convinced
of Christ's integrity, and therefore of His power to heal.
His heart thrilled in response to Christ's sympathy with
suffering. He saw at once that such power as His was
more than human, and could not be fettered by limitations
of space or time. Christ was absolute master here, just as
he himself was in a limited way in his own sphere. And
so with magnificent recklessness he put his servant uncon
ditionally in Christ's hands. That confidence in Christ is
pure faith (Matt. viii. 5 — 13). The Syrophenician woman
achieved an even greater triumph. Pagan as she was, she
saw so far into the secrets of Christ's heart, that she was
sure a love dwelt there that no distinctions of race or creed
could check. She would not believe her ears when Jesus
seemed to falsify her judgment of Him. And that quick
penetration, by which one soul pierces and grasps the char
acter of another, and that self-abandonment with which it
cleaves to it, are of the essence of faith (Matt. xv. 21-28).
In a third case Christ recognises the faith which He
demands, where its exercise did not secure the removal of
any external trouble, but the pardon of a sin-sick soul.
This is His verdict on the spiritual attitude of the woman
who washed His feet with her tears and dried them with
her hair. But what did she believe ? That in coming to

to the Teaching of Christ 355
Jesus she was coming to God's Son, who would grant her
God's pardon for her sins ? No ; but this. Jesus was to
her the revelation of the beauty of holiness. The impress
of His character awakened in her a loathing of her past, a
crave for a new life, and somehow the hope that this was
still within her reach. From touch with Him she conceived
a thought of God, such as the law had never given her. If
such pity, love, and helpfulness as she imagined dwelt in
the heart of Jesus, where also dwelt such antagonism to sin,
she dared to think that God's heart might be like that, not
" coldly sublime, intolerably just." 1 So she determined to
put it to the severest test possible, and accordingly ap
proached Jesus, and offered Him her homage in the very
presence of the frowning representatives of the law. He
stood the test. He had no repulse for her, but tender,
encouraging tones. Her faith grew boundless, and when
He said she was forgiven, she knew it was God's truth.
Through Jesus she reached God, and probably also, in a
sense she hardly fully understood, in Jesus Himself found
God (Luke vii. 37—50). In each of these cases the attitude
which Christ recognises as faith is the absolute reliance upon
Himself, the conviction of hearts that in Him they have
found vital principles, and these the personal activities of
the living God.
But the intimacy of the association with Christ,
established by faith, is further explained in the call to
discipleship. It is true that disciple is a term used with
considerable laxity to describe different degrees of attach
ment to Christ. But what it means is determined by what
Christ says with regard to it. Primarily it means one who
receives His teaching. But when Christ's teaching is seen
to issue in a call to a complete break with the past and
the adoption of a new method of life, when He so enlarges
its content as to include His own transcendent example even
1 Myers, St. Paul.

356 The Relation ofthe Apostolic Teaching
in its crucial experiences, and when He refuses to recog
nise anyone as worthy of the name of scholar of His, who
is not prepared to give up all for Him and identify himself,
body and soul, with His cause, then receiving His teaching,
becoming a disciple, acquires a significance that it possesses
in no other connection. Discipleship in this case does not
simply involve a discipline of the intellect, but is a surrender
of the whole man to the Teacher. What the position may
require is seeri in the case of the disciples par excellence —
the Twelve. They forsook all and followed Him. And
that any aspirant to discipleship must be prepared for such
constant attendance, if need be, is plain from the way in
which Christ, while yearning for disciples, will encourage no
false hopes, rides rough-shod over offers lacking in either
deliberateness or thoroughness (Luke ix. 57-62), insists on
men counting the cost, for association with Him meant
sacrifice salted with fire, sharing His cup and His baptism
(Luke xiv. 25-35 ; Mark ix. 49 f., x. 38 f). At the same
time, personal attendance on Him in His wanderings during
His lifetime, or wholesale adoption of the itinerant life, was
never essential to most real and complete discipleship, as is
evident from the case of the cured Gadarene demoniac, the
nameless worker of miracles in His name, or the family at
Bethany, where Mary found the one thing needful, the good
part (Mark v. 18-20, ix. 38-40; Luke x. 38-42). It was
enough that men and women have the spirit ready for the
complete surrender of even the dearest affections and life
itself, if these conflict with fidelity to Him, acquire His
confidence in the sufficiency and supremacy of lowliness
and gentleness in the conflict with trial, opposition, and
hatred, adopt His example as the pattern to be fol
lowed, His will as the law to be obeyed (Luke xiv. 26;
Matt. xi. 28, 30). Add all this to what has already been
gathered as to the nature of faith, and the conception is
complete. It involves the acceptance of Christ, in all the

to the Teaching of Christ 357
activities and trials of His career, as the adequate and
trustworthy specific for all the needs of mankind.
This combination of discipleship and faith, and the
recognition of their inner unity, have the sanction of the
Risen Lord. His commission to His apostles was to
" make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things He had com
manded" (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20) ; while of the response to be
expected it is said, " He that believeth, and is baptized, shall
be saved " (Mark xvi. 1 6). Discipleship is reached, there
fore, when on hearing the Good News a man welcomes it,
realises the blessed intimacy of relation with God, into
which he may enter through Christ, and expresses in
outward act the union, into which he has entered with
Christ by faith, by accepting the rite, which, as we have
seen, was instituted by Christ to symbolise the gracious
provision on which that union rests. Discipleship in the
fullest sense is the position held by one who has reached
a full-orbed faith.
Alongside of this teaching found in the Synoptics must
be placed the teaching of Christ in the Gospel of John. As
was to be expected in a Gospel written with the avowed
purpose of calling forth faith in the Son of God, faith itself
received much prominence. And yet it is one of the lexical
curiosities of this Gospel that the substantive tiIo-tii, faith,
never occurs. Only the verbal forms are used. These
forms assume the two constructions, iria-Teveiv with the
dative, and with eh. Broadly the distinction is the same
as in English between " believing a statement or a person,"
and " believing on or in a person." x And in the course of
the Gospel the Saviour discriminates and makes perfectly
plain what is the faith, which He requires as an adequate
response to the mission on which He is come (John ii.
1 Westcott, Commentary on John v. 24.

358 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
23-25, vi. 60 ff). In view of his purpose, it is not sur
prising that John at once hastens to present that more
advanced type of Christ's teaching, in which He offers
Himself as the object of faith.
Wendt here again labours his thesis that it was for His
teaching in the narrower sense that Christ really sought men's
faith, and he states that " the faith required in it consists in
nothing otherwise than in trustful and obedient recognition,
reception, and following of the teaching which revealed
God, showed the right, and was the means of salvation,
and which forms His Messianic vocation." x And there
are passages which, taken alone, might bear that construc
tion. For instance, Wendt quotes John v. 24 : " He that
heareth My word, and believeth Him that sent Me," etc.
And he seeks to strengthen his case by appeal to passages,
where Christ insists on the practical test of professed love :
" If ye love Me, keep My commandments " (John xiv. 1 5).
But the very form of the former (John v. 24) calls into the
foreground a fact which Christ continually reiterates and
to which He constantly appeals in addressing men who
profess to know God, namely, that He has come on a
mission from God, enjoys God's attestation, as is to be seen
from the type of message He delivers and from the works
He does, and as such demands faith in Himself. That is
the bearing of the words quoted, " heareth My word, and
1 Wendt, Teaching of fesus, ii. 331. In the section where Wendt seeks to
establish this from the Synoptics (ii. 312 f.), there is an argument, which is
positively ludicrous. We are solemnly told that "the difference between the
conduct of Martha and Mary (Luke a. 38 ff.) is to be stated thus, that the
former was busied with regard to the person of Jesus in external activity for His
external welfare, but the latter devoted herself to His preaching with inner
understanding of the true purpose of His life and work." True, but what
bearing has that contrast on the proper object of faith? Does Wendt think
that catering for the bodily wants of Jesus has even a distant resemblance to
what men mean who insist that the Person of Jesus and not merely His teaching
is the matter of supreme moment ? They would regard Mary as their own
representative, listening so eagerly to His teaching because it was His, and
deriving its chief weight from the dignity of the Teacher, whose spirit is so
truly discerned.

to the Teaching of Christ 359
believeth Him that sent Me" (cf. ver. 36). Faith in Him
who sent Jesus only bears sense here, if it means believing
that Jesus was sent by God, was His Son, as He claimed
to be, and was possessed of the powers which He claimed.
It is but another way of saying, what He said in reply to
a question : " This is the work of God, that ye believe on
Him whom He hath sent" (vi. 29). As for the call to
obedience to His will as a proof of love, it has no direct
bearing on the subject. And its indirect evidence is in
favour of the idea, that the paramount object of faith is
His own sublime Person. Most instructive as to the object
of faith is the suggestive verse (xiv. 1). Be the sense the
familiar " ye believe in God, believe also in Me," or two
imperatives, " believe in God, and believe in Me," nothing
could be more impressive than the placing of faith in
Himself on the identical footing with faith in God. And
when the substance of the following chapters, which is the
justification of this demand, is taken into account, consisting,
as it does, of the explanation of the vital relationship which
He was to maintain after His departure with those who
did believe in Him, the true nature of the faith which alone
will satisfy stands out in vivid characters as a living, lasting
grip of soul with soul — " abide in Me, and I in you " (xv. 4)
— not merely a response to a truth, no matter how impres
sive or how profound.
In this Gospel Jesus does undoubtedly attach great
importance to His teaching. It is one of the potent forces
He uses to call faith into existence. Similarly He uses
miracle and accords an evidential value to it, although it is
only as a concession to the dulness of His contemporaries.
He welcomes, where He finds it, anything that possesses
even the germs of faith. But He is never content, whether
in the general public or within the narrow circle of those
who were most closely attached to Him, with anything
that stopped short of that pure, spiritual insight which

360 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
only required a hint of the unseen and eternal to penetrate
to its grandest secrets (John xx. 8). He always sets to
work on the ruder types to develop them to something
higher. The case of Nicodemus makes this very clear
(iii. 1-1 5). When he comes, professing a certain measure
of respect in view of the outward manifestations of divine
approval, Christ sets these significantly aside as not the
material by which " the master of Israel " should judge.
If he condescends to this, he will have no capacity of faith,
when heavenly things are revealed. Christ's principle is,
" to whom much is given, of him much shall be required."
At a different level stands the blind man at the pool of
Siloam (chap, ix.), but the method is the same. This man,
at the outset, had simply faith enough to act on the advice
of a kindly stranger, and go wash in the pool of Siloam.
The cure which followed convinced him of the moral integ
rity, religious character, and prophetic position of his friend,
and he was prepared to contend for that at all costs.
When Jesus meets him again, He probes his faith, and
finds that as yet it reaches no higher than that. But at
that level it is so strong as to be fit to rise higher, and He
lets him into the secret of His own dignity, and at once
receives his adoring worship. That is true faith, so inspired
with confidence in Christ as constantly to respond to His
growing revelation. The case of Martha is equally instruct
ive (xi. 20 ff). When Jesus came to Bethany, He was
met with half-reproachful words : " Lord, if Thou hadst
been here, my brother had not died." Christ's reply is,
"Thy brother shall rise again." Martha answers with a
pious platitude : " I know he shall rise again at the last
day." But Jesus does not deal in platitudes, and for those
who know Him, spiritual truths should be realities. And
He flashes on Martha the staggering, but stimulating
announcement : " I am the Resurrection and the Life ; he
that believeth on Me, though he die, yet shall he live ; and

to the Teaching of Christ 361
he that liveth and believeth on Me shall never die. Believest
thou this?" And a look of surprised intelligence came into
the eyes of Martha, as if new meaning had streamed into
an old conviction, and she answered, " Yea, Lord, I have
believed that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God, even He
that cometh into the world." And she means, " I believed
that before in a way ; but it means something practical to
me now." A few minutes' interval sufficed to show that it
did not even yet mean all that it might. But the home
thrusts of Jesus showed her, as they show us, that faith in
Him is personal and practical, regarding Him as guarantee
of all. The treatment of Thomas brings out the same truth.
It teaches us, that faith has not reached its acme, until it
can dispense with outward evidence, grasp the inherent har
monies of the moral and spiritual domain, and recognise
at once and appropriate their necessary results. " Blessed
are they that have not seen, and yet have believed " (John
xx. 24—29).
Faith, then, according to Jesus, whether we turn to find
His mind on it to the Synoptics or to the Gospel of John,
is the one essential in the response by man to God's over
tures and exertions in order to His achieving His desired
result with him. Given that, though but as a grain of
mustard seed, in a heart willing to use it, and He can
make anything of a man. It so attaches a man to Him
that it opens the possibility of everything else. The call
for it lies at the root of every other demand, be it to repent,
convert, or obey. And faith is so essential and so compre
hensive, because the believing heart is the humble, receptive,
renewed heart of a child.
When we pass to the teaching of the apostles, a book
of the records of the spread of the gospel like the Acts
naturally throws much light on the response which was
expected for the message they bore. The addresses there
culminate in an appeal for repentance in view of the mercy

362 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
and forbearance of God who, even after the inconceivable
wickedness of the rejection of His proffered Messiah, still
waits to be gracious. This repentance, however, only
marked what was to be the initial stage of the new attitude
of those who were aroused by the apostles' preaching.
And when the writer comes to speak of those who have
repented, that is not the phrase he employs. He calls
them those who believed. The latter term covers the
former, and describes a permanent spiritual attitude. This
believing, faith, is for the apostles themselves the secret of
their power (Acts iii. 1 6). It includes the reception of the
message delivered by the apostles as true, and may go
no further than that, fall short of any spiritual reform, as
in the case of Simon Magus (Acts viii. 1 3). But in its full
form, it shows itself in a radical change of life (Acts ii.
37 ff), an identification of oneself with Jesus Christ as
Saviour and Lord, an emptying of the heart of evil that
leaves it ready for the filling with the Holy Spirit, and a
spontaneous activity, free from all thought of self, in the
service of the Christ's cause and of the Brethren (Acts iv.
32 ff). Its object is Christ (Acts xvi. 31), the Christ
whom God hath raised from the dead, or the name of
Christ (Acts iii. 16,. x. 43), where "name," as so often in
language influenced by Hebrew methods of thought and
expression, means all that Christ stands for, Christ, with
the saving power that is His in virtue of what He is, has
done, and has suffered for men. Throughout the book this
faith is the comprehensive term for the different spiritual
experiences involved in a response to the gospel appeal,
and that because it lies at the root of them all.
Looking at the separate writers, we are not surprised to
find such a many-sided subject variously handled. In the
very first work, the Epistle of James, as was noted in the
first chapter, the nature of faith had to be asserted against
a very common perversion. Jesus, when He began His

to the Teaching of Christ 363
ministry, had to eject the prevailing erroneous conception
of what constituted the true relationship to God, and restore
faith to its rightful dominant position. And James fully
understood that. Faith is for him the feature in a life that
reduces all other distinctions to insignificance, and gives
a man his true rank as in God's sight (ii. 5). It is the
secret of acceptability with God and of stability of character
(i. 3-8). Its object is the Lord Jesus Christ, " the Glory," x
i.e. the visible manifestation of God (ii. 1). But he found
that, with the customary human proneness to error, among
the early Jewish Christians a counterfeit, void of all moral
or spiritual content, without vital force, a mere assent of the
intellect, was treated as the faith which Christ demanded,
and with vigour and thoroughness, once for all, James
pulverised that sham (ii. 14-26). And the faith that sets
men right with God is seen to be a spiritual energy that
develops a life and character that corresponds to itself, and
operates in active practice of holy graces.2 It is the faith
that saved the penitent that stood weeping at Christ's feet,
and which immediately developed much love (Luke vii.
47-So). In Thessalonica Paul had to attack an error of prac
tically the same kind as that assailed in his Epistle by
James. And in 1 Corinthians he shows that he knows a
faith in marked contrast with genuine faith (xiii. 7, 1 3) as
profitless as that which James spurns (1 Cor. xiii. 2). And
where he meets it, he assails it with the same demand for
practical Christian activity in obedience to God's will. The
1 So Bengel, in loco. ; cf. Warfield in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, art.
"Faith." 2 It is a failure to observe the point of the analogy in Jas. ii. 26, that permits
writers to say that the author represents works as the soul of faith (cf. H. J.
Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Theologie, ii. 330 ; the whole section reads like so
much solemn trifling). The figure is not intended to offer, in the relation of body
to soul in their union, a parallel to the relation of faith to works. The point of
comparison is the effect of severance in each case, namely, death ; for works
without faith are just as dead as faith without works.

364 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching ¦
idea of conflict between Paul and James is based on a
mistake as to the relative order of their writings.1
But from Jewish-Christian centres, another perversion
of the truth, striking at the very roots of Christ's teaching,
was assiduously propagated in the wake of Paul's missions
to the Gentiles. It was nothing else than the attempt to
transplant to Christian soil that radical misconception of
the true relationship of man to God, which had smothered
the religious life of Judaism, and which Jesus Himself had
had to combat and eradicate. As it now appeared, it was
the attempt to reduce faith in Jesus Christ for salvation to
a mere adjunct to the observance of Jewish ritual, while
these ordinances were represented as of paramount import
ance. In his polemic against this, Paul's temperament led
him to use no measured terms in his insistence on the
futility, for this purpose, of works of the law in any form,
and writing to men who were perfectly familiar with his
uncompromising hostility to sin and demand for holiness,
he was not careful in this connection to maintain the
permanent value of obedience to the law. His object is
to show the peerless place and power of faith. And he
meets attempts to belittle it by a thoroughgoing analysis
of the spiritual experience by which a man attains to the
position of a son of God. He works out the meaning of
the picture which Christ gave in His sketch of the returning
prodigal. Rom. i— viii. and Galatians are little else than
commentaries on Luke xv. For in them Paul shows how
far, to begin with, man is from the filial state of heart. In
the colossal framework of a depravity which includes all
branches of the race, he pillories the sin of each individual.
He knows the consternation of conscience which his trenchant
1 See Mayor's capital summary in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, art.
"James." Sanday and Headlam's account of the relation of James and Paul is
different. They assume that James's Epistle is directed against a perverted con
struction that had been put, wittingly or unwittingly, upon Paul's teaching
(Romans, p. 102 ff.).

to the Teaching of Christ 365
exposure is bound to bring, and the need which it will at
once reveal. And then to the anxious heart he presents
God's propitiation in Christ, simply awaiting man's recep
tion. Let faith accept that, and men are right again with
God, have peace with Him (Rom. v. 1). In Romans he
justifies his contention by an appeal to Abraham's case
(chap. iv.). In Galatians he brings matters to an issue by
the pointed question, " Received ye the Spirit by the works
of the law, or by the hearing of faith ? " (iii. 2). The reply
is a foregone conclusion. And he speaks of the Spirit and
the way in which He is received as decisive, because the
gift of the Spirit, the indwelling Spirit of Jesus Christ, is
God's seal to sonship (Gal. iv. 6; Rom. viii. 9-17 ; 2 Cor.
i. 21, 22), man's proper relationship to God, to a return
to which Christ's work paves the way for penitent hearts.
A man's restoral to that filial relationship is his justification
by God. Justification and adoption, righteousness and
sonship, are two sides of the same thing. The difference
is between the form and the matter of the one gracious act
of God. And it is easy to see why, so far as man is con
cerned, faith, and faith alone, can and does, as these
Galatians knew, avail as response to that gracious treat
ment, and place him in that position. It is because faith,
loving trustfulness in a father, is the only proper attitude
for a child. And so what else but faith can put a man in
that position ? A man who executes orders to the letter
may be but a splendid slave. A son is a man who uses
his liberty to please the father, whom he trusts, and who
trusts him. Works, therefore, or the spirit that rests in
them, no matter how carefully they be performed, can
never be the substitute for that joyous, childlike trust which
God desires, and which, when found, is the guarantee of a
life of constant delighted effort to harmonise with His will.
Given that trust, God counts it to a man for righteousness
(Rom. iv. 3), le. not as a substitute for it, but as the thing

366 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
itself in germ, the attitude of heart and will, which will
inevitably express itself in acts which please Him. Thus,
from the relationship which from man's side faith re-estab
lishes, we get at Paul's reason for maintaining its sole
sufficiency. The object of faith with Paul is the Lord Jesus Christ.
But it is this Lord invested with all the potencies which are
His in virtue of His death and resurrection (1 Thess. iv.
14; 1 Cor. ii. 2 ; Rom. viii. 34). And the significance for
faith of these events receives a prominence in Paul's teaching,
which they receive nowhere else. The reason why this
should be so, in contrast with our Lord's own teaching, has
already been discussed in connection with the events them
selves, and was seen to lie in the impossibility of His
explaining their full significance to men who, prior to their
occurrence, simply did not comprehend His anticipatory
references to them. The prominence which Paul gives
them is only the legitimate consequence of the momentous-
ness of the events themselves, and of the anticipations of
them, so solemn and eager, which we have detected on
Christ's part, in spite of the disappointing dulness at the
time of His disciples. Paul has done, if we may so say,
what Christ wished to do, and could not. He has rightly
interpreted the mind of his Master, directed faith to the
Living Christ, but the Christ who died, is risen, and lives
again. Still, a faith in the Cross of Christ for salvation is
only Paul's faith, when the value of the Cross is seen to be
entirely due to the fact that it was Christ's. It is the
Person who gives value to the experiences, not the Work
which gives value to the Person. Indeed, I question if
Paul could think of the Work apart from the Person. They
were so wedded together in his thought that he refused to
think of them apart, and felt that he should correct him
self, if he seemed to suggest it (1 Cor. ii. 2).
This faith in Christ, through whom righteousness — the

to the Teaching of Christ 367
right relationship with God — is mediated, is for Paul a
habit, a permanent attitude of receptiveness for the power
which the living Christ wields in our natures. It is the
opening of the individual heart (Rom. x. 1 o) for the accom
plishment in it of that union with God, which Christ
achieved for human nature from the divine side in His own
Person. And Paul's account of his own experience of it,
and his call to men to enter into it, are like a reproduction
by an apt scholar of Christ's far-reaching words about
discipleship, read in the light of those profound statements
of the secrets of spiritual vitality, preserved for us in the
Gospel of John. He meets men with a call for Christ, like
the " come unto Me " ; " take up the cross, and follow Me " ;
" abide in Me." He says, " Be ye followers (imitators) of
me, even as I also am of Christ " (1 Cor. xi. 1 ; cf. iv. 16 ;
Phil. iii. 1 7). There imitation means nothing external, but
assimilation based on the appropriation of the righteousness
in Christ (Phil. iii. 7-17). That passage (Phil. iii. 7-17),
thick with the throbbing of his ardent bosom and beating
heart, tells the path men must take, and the pace they
must make, if they will be followers together with Paul.
And the possibility of such discipleship Paul had found out
years before he wrote to Philippi ; for he told the Galatians,
and Peter before them, " I am crucified with Christ, yet I
live ; and yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me ; and
that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the
faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me and gave
Himself for me " (Gal. ii. 15-21). This believing reception
of life, believing submission to the divine energy of the
Spirit of life in Christ Jesus with whom he is united, is the
fundamental attitude to which the Christian attests himself
as committed, when he receives the ordinance of baptism. As
has been said already, when referring to this rite, Paul treats
the men, who have been baptized, as men who were sincere
in the observance of the rite, and for whom, therefore, what

o

68 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching

it typified was a reality. Now baptism presupposes faith
(Gal. iii. 24-27), which, apart from the rite, clings to Christ;
and the purely passive attitude of the recipient in this rite,
as also in the Lord's Supper, is a striking reminder to him
that for the reception of all that the rite typifies he has
nothing to do but to take it. That is the equivalent of the
faith in the reality. It is a putting on Christ ; but this is no
passing initial step, but a permanent union whose results
are only to be measured by the consequences which must
follow (Rom. vi. 2 ff).
The intensity of Paul's own sense of the reality of
spiritual operations, the vividness of his sanctified imagina
tion, the keenness of his enjoyment of the mystic union with
Christ, in other words, the strength of his faith and the stress
he laid upon it, sometimes so impose upon students of his
teaching that they lose sight of the very practical shape
faith also takes in his hands. With all his mysticism Paul
never forgets that God carries through the salvation of men
with a profound regard for the mental and moral nature with
which He has equipped them. And if in response to faith
mighty spiritual forces are to work within them, the true
receptive attitude is attained on putting ourselves into the
groove of God's will, where these can work. If the results
detailed in Rom. vi. 2 f. are all the outcome of the life
received by faith, they are achieved in men who put their
members at the disposal of the Spirit of God, who "yield
their members servants of righteousness unto holiness"
(vi. 12 ff). As he says in Phil. ii. 12, 13, "Work out your
own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God that
worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure."
As was pointed out in Chapter V, Paul's ethical interest is
of the keenest, and his delight in the salvation he found in
Christ is not least, because it brings him within the reach
of holiness. And there is a warning at the close of Rom.
xiv., " whatsoever is not of faith is sin " (ver. 2 3), which

to the Teaching of Christ 369
shows that the use made of faith carries a grave responsi
bility with it. There he is speaking of perplexities which
often distress timid souls, and which they would like to escape
by simply following the example or advice of other trusted,
good men. As the context shows — and it has its bearing
on his view of faith and effort — Paul attaches a very high
value to example (xiv. 13, 21). But each man ultimately
may only do what his own faith approves. He can only
go as far as his own insight into the liberty which he pos
sesses as a son of God will carry him. All beyond that,
be it intrinsically right or wrong, for him is sin. Faith is
for Paul a principle of obedience. The measure of what
we receive is the measure of what we may do.
This whole view of faith is a most original and profound
reproduction of Christ's own. The main difference is, that
what Christ describes from the point of view of the one
who invites faith, Paul describes out of the experience of
one who accords it. What Christ had ascribed to it Paul
attests, and invites others to verify his testimony. In ex
ternal form there is the widest divergence. But if in Paul's
teaching we have no parallel to those personal dealings and
appreciations, which make the natural history of faith so
vivid and charming in Christ's hands, if we have the dust
of conflict and the ring of battle in place of the words
which drop as the rain and distil as the dew, still we learn
from him to appreciate more and more fully the perfect
insight into the workings of the human spirit which Jesus
possessed, when He staked all man's salvation on the
response of faith — simple, whole-hearted faith. There is
an echo, too, of the Master's manner. Those "foolish
Galatians," deserting faith for the law, or Corinthians, who
must be startled back to the importance of faith's cardinal
facts by the disconcerting picture of the consequences, if
Christ be not risen (" your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your
sins, of all men most miserable "), remind us of those faint-
24

370 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
hearted disciples who forgot their faith amid the scare of
the storm. The triumphs of a centurion or of a Syrophen
ician woman are eclipsed by the soaring aspirations of Paul's
own confidence or his calm reflection at the end, " I know
whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that He is able
to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that
day"1 (2 Tim. i. 12).
The treatment of faith in 1 Peter is a reflection of that of
Paul. There is not the same massive handling. There is
no polemic. Faith is treated as a familiar principle among
those to whom Peter writes, which he may take for granted.
It is the substance of their spiritual life, for it is that which
is really tested by a time of persecution (1 Pet. i. 7). It
ultimately rests in God (1 Pet. i. 21), and is mediated
through the Lord Jesus Christ by His redemptive work
(1 Pet. i. 8, 9). It is a response to the message of Christ,
in virtue of which they enter into a living union with Him,
and receive therein the capacity for holy service. As sym
bolised in the acceptance of baptism, it is the confident
appeal of a good conscience to a God who has forgiven
(1 Pet. iii. 21). It is an abiding attitude of depend
ence upon the mighty forces by which God preserves
from temptation. It is the secret of a present joy in
an unseen Saviour (1 Pet. i. 8). And its end is com
pleted salvation (1 Pet. i. 9). But these points appear
incidentally, for Peter's main object is to cheer be
lievers by the brilliant prospects which are in store for
those who possess such faith, and to call out the buoyant
expectancy and strenuous effort in which such faith should
show itself.
1 There is a use of the term "the faith " in the Pastoral Epistles as equivalent
to the body of truth believed, and which is regarded as un-Pauline. And yet it
is very questionable whether, in the light of the text quoted above (2 Tim. i. 12),
and of that other, kindred to it (II. iv. 7), "I have kept the faith," the faith
does not mean personal trust in Christ (cf. I Tim. i. 14, 16, 19, etc.). If this be
so, the context in which it repeatedly occurs expresses just those safeguards which
prevent it from being regarded as merely intellectual assent without moral content.

to the Teaching of Christ 371
The Epistle to the Hebrews is also, like that of Peter
which we have just considered, an effort to rally desponding,
disconcerted Christians (xii. 12). But the real secret of
their unrest is not so much their trials as the incidence of
these trials concurrently with the clearly impending destruc
tion of the old Jewish ritual in which they had been brought
up, and whose supersession, and more than supersession, by
the work of Christ, to which they had given adherence,
they did not fully realise. This was having a deleterious
effect on their loyalty to Christian truth. The object of
the writer, therefore, is to rehabilitate their faith in Christ,
to restore it to its old courage, patience, and hopefulness
(Heb. x. 19-25, xii. 1 — 1 3). And to do this he does not
simply go over the old ground. He assumes the elementary
stages of Christian culture, the doctrines of " repentance
from dead works, and of faith towards God, of baptisms and
the laying on of hands,1 of resurrection of the dead, and of
eternal judgment" (Heb. vi. 1, 2). By doing so he lets us
see that for him faith lay at the very commencement of
the Christian life, and bore the same nature as it did to the
mind of Christ (cf. Mark i. 14, 15). What he does is in
painstaking terms to set forth the strength of the testimony
to the Christian gospel ; the encouraging intimacy which
God's Son had assumed with men, identifying Himself with
them at all points ; the superexcellency of Christ, the
Author and Perfecter of faith, over every other high priest ;
the real value of the sacrifice which He offered, namely,
Himself; the now ever-open door of access to God; and
the guarantee of constant influence with God on men's
behalf, which Christ's entrance and standing within the veil
afforded. And as one point after another is established,
he ever presses anew on the minds of those, in whom he
1 The laying on of hands here is not that connected with ordination to office,
but the more general and earlier practice frequently referred to in the Acts in
connection with the gift of the Spirit and reception into the ranks of the believers.

372 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
seeks a genuine revival of their religious faith, the inspiring
force of these enlarged views of Christ and His work.
What he seeks to evoke is what he variously calls " full
assurance " of faith or hope, " boldness," and so on ; and he
gathers it all up into one word, " faith." The richness of
his conception of faith is seen in the epic of faith, which
he gives in chap. xi. It is that spiritual faculty that gives
body to things hoped for, that supplies the power of recog
nising things that are not seen (xi. i). It is the capacity
to lay hold of, and depend on, God and His promises in all
circumstances, to find the interpretation of everything in
Him, and in dependence on Him to pierce without fear the
veil of the future. It is the feature which differentiates the
character of all Israel's heroes, amid all their variety of tem
perament and task. What Christ said of the man who
possessed it is true, " all things are possible to him that
believeth." Having thus demonstrated what is the nature
of the spirit which he wishes the great truths, which he has
stated, to inspire once more in his readers, he finally draws
attention away from all the noble examples he has given,
and concentrates it upon Christ alone, at once its peerless
example and worthiest object. The opening chapters of
the book show us that in faith the author recognised the
place of credence. But the essence of it and the object of it
are, as Men^goz well says in his most enlightening chapter
on the subject, " the gift of the heart to God," or " the con
secration of the soul to God."
We come to the writings of John. In the Apocalypse,
the subject is not directly treated. And it is in the
Gospel and first Epistle that faith receives prominence.
He writes his Gospel to restate the proof that Jesus is,
in the highest sense, the Son of God, for it is by faith
in this that men have eternal life (xx. 3 1 ). His Epistle
again is written to demonstrate the ground of Christian
certainty to men that believe (1 John v. 13). He was led

to the Teaching of Christ 373
to this by the appearance of some features of what was
afterwards called Gnosticism. Two symptoms, which evi
dently appeared conjointly and were bound by some inner
affinity which he does not specially discuss, evoked his
displeasure, namely, the denial that Jesus was the Christ,
the Son of God, and a perfectionism which was radically
antinomian. These considerations, together with features
of his own natural temperament, determined his line of
argument. And in his writings we really learn more about
the object of faith than about the nature of it, and more
about the Person of the Object and His supreme personal
claim to confidence than about the work by which He
benefits those whose faith He enlists. In regard to its
nature, it seems fair to infer that he entertains those
views of it which the utterances of Jesus, recorded by him,
imply. But we are not left to inference. We gather that
faith is such a receiving of Christ, as obtains the right
to become children of God (John i. 11, 12). It is the
recognition of Jesus as at once the Life and the Light of
men, that is, the one who satisfies men's needs on both
the spiritual and moral, and the intellectual sides of
their nature. It is both the initial and the permanent
response of the heart to God's approach by His Son and
by His Spirit. It is "receiving," "walking," "abiding in"
Christ in the closest of spiritual union.1 When we gather
up what he offers as proof, to men who believe, that they
have eternal life, and what he states are the things by which
they may know that they have eternal life, they resolve them
selves into a record of the characteristic features of that
life — a penitent confession of sin, a consequent assurance
of forgiveness for Christ's sake, a steady, practical love of
others who are children of God, a persistent resistance to
wordliness and sin, and victory over them. But the secret
1 As Erich Haupt says : " Es liegt in ino-Teieiv in der That der Begriff der unio
mjstica" (Commentary on i John v. I).

374 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
of it all is the triumphant faith, begotten in the heart by
God's Spirit, when there is discovered to it the fact, that
the Jesus, on whom it is asked to stake all, is the Son
of God. It is the discovery, the knowledge, of this fact
about Him that raises faith to its highest power and
makes it irresistible (i John v. i 3 ; cf. vv. 4, 5).
It is evident from what has been said that the apos
tolic writers remain true to the attitude of Christ. The
one demand they make upon men — but it is absolute — is
faith, faith in Jesus Christ. That is the one requisite on
man's part for the realisation in him of the object for
which Christ lived and died and rose again. As we have
seen, the apostles had to handle the subject under a great
variety of aspects, and disentangle it from many perver
sions and misconceptions. Paul had to bring into pro
minence the work which gave the exalted Christ His
claim on man's regard. John had to assert the dignity
of His Person, to the full recognition of which faith must
rise before it secures all that is to be found in Him.
But none of them swerve from the essential conception
of faith as a personal projection of the whole being of
the believer into immediate and permanent union with
Christ, a disposition at once of constant receptivity for
divine energies and of constant activity in the use of them.
When this is recognised, it is seen that faith ultimately
includes all the activities of the spiritual life, is their great
common ground, whether they appear as repentance, or
obedience, or any one of the Christian graces. And its
constant object is God in Christ.
It is, however, a power which grows and concentrates
with exercise. Dr. John Ker, revered Professor of the
United Presbyterian Divinity Hall in my student days,
was fond of elucidating such subjects by diagrams. If I
might follow his example here, I should illustrate, at once
the progressive presentation of faith running continuously

to the Teaching of Christ

375

through the teaching of Christ and of His apostles, and
the anticipated progressive development of it in the experi
ence of a believer by a diminuendo and a crescendo mark
placed across each other.

The
Gospel of
Salvation

The diminuendo mark represents the object of faith,
the general message of goodwill which Jesus came to pro
claim, stated at first in its widest and vaguest form, but
steadily progressing in distinctness and precision, until it
concentrates itself in Christ Himself. On the other hand, the
crescendo mark represents the expansiveness and growing
volume of faith starting from its germ in an attentive ear
and a welcoming heart, gradually permeating every section
of man's being, and bringing them all into the delighted,
trustful fellowship with, and service of, Jesus Christ, the
crucified and living Son of God.1 Faith thus runs parallel
to the progressive revelation of its proper object, which
Jesus carried so far, and -which His disciples, in loyalty
to their Master's Spirit, carried to its complete expression.
And true faith, the faith which Jesus desires to elicit, and
which alone He regards as worthy of the name, is a con
fidence in Him that is ever ready to receive what He
offers. It is steady responsiveness to His call. If it is
but sincere, He is ready to accept it even in its most
meagre and elementary form, " to recognise perfection in
the piece imperfect " ; but He expects that it will grow,

. . . ' ' Beliefs fire, once in us,
Makes all else mere stuff to show itself.'

376 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
and when matured and at the full, recognise in Him the
Son of God, the Divine Crucified and Risen Saviour and
Lord. Would that followers of Christ, of ripe personal
experience, would recognise the truth of this, and not look
for the fruit where they are only entitled to expect the
seed, would recognise the genuine character of true faith,
no matter how meagre its present content, if only it is
genuine, never insist that it do violence to itself or assent
to more than it has attained ! If it be true that, with
out faith it is impossible to please God, it is equally true
that whatever is not of faith, no matter how excellent in
itself, is sin. But equally is it to be desired that such
scanty, though genuine, faith should not insist that its own
preliminary stage and content are all, its limited vision
of Christ the whole, but aspire to the richness which
matured experience of heart and mind and will delights
to cherish and declare of the " unsearchable riches of
Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom
and knowledge."
We are not done with this matter of faith, however,
until we have looked at two further points. The one is,
Is there harmony between Christ and His apostles as to
the relation between God's activity and the exercise of
faith ? and the other is, What is their teaching as to the
proper object of justification, the initial blessing obtained
by faith ; is it the individual or the Church ?
i. The former, which has been glanced at already in
Chapter IV, presents itself, because of the prominence
which it receives in Paul's hands in his discussion in Rom.
ix.-xi. of the problem raised by the attitude of the Jews
towards Christ. If the course of his previous argument in
the Epistle is a clue to the workings of his mind here, what
compelled Paul to face this question was the conviction
wrought in him by the spectacle of divine grace, that all
things work together for good to them that are called

to the Teaching of Christ ^jj
according to God's purpose, for " whom He foreknew, He
also foreordained," etc. (Rom. viii. 28-30). He at once,
on the strength of that conviction and all that led up to
it, clinches it with the magnificent challenge, in terms of
the Christian's confidence against all objectors (viii. 29—39).
But, having done so, he feels he must answer the feas
ible enough retort, if God's purposes and promises are so
sure, what of Israel and their failure of salvation ? His
first reply is, that it is too hasty to speak of failure, for
they " are not all Israel, which are of Israel " (ix. 6 f).
And he returns to that later (xi. 1-5). But then the
petulant objection comes in, which seems to have some
thing in it, that according to Paul's conception of Israel's
action, God has no ground of complaint with those who
do fail; they are the victims of fate (ix. 19). And Paul
does not hesitate to insist in the strongest terms on the
autocratic rights of God ; but he refuses to admit man's
right of challenge, or of self-vindication, on the basis of
these rights. But that is not all his answer. Paul re
minds men of what is God's will. It is that men should
be saved, and saved by faith in His Son, Jesus Christ.
The forces God uses to bring this about are neither those
of physical omnipotence, nor of a mechanically logical
invincibility. They are those suited to the equipment of
a spiritual personality to whom God Himself has granted
the power of moral judgment and spiritual discernment
(x. 14, 15). They embody themselves in the gift of His
grace, the gift of His Son and of His Spirit. And it was
according to a favourite maxim of Paul (cf. Eph. ii. 6, 8),
to preserve the graciousness of the salvation, that He
made faith the sole medium of reception. Where faith
was refused, the gift was forfeited. But the secret of the
refusal was not fate, but moral antagonism to God's will,
disobedience, self-will. Paul solves the problem of the
position of the Jews by a magnificent tour de force. It

378 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
is temporary, to remove an obstacle, in their previous
privilege, to the welfare of other nations ; but it will give
way to a glorious return in faith at full flood, and all
Israel be saved. But what this has brought out is, that
God is the great prius. The salvation of sinful men was
an impossibility, the perfect life could not be reached,
until He took it in hand. The whole process originates
and eventuates through Him. It is the right of none.
Towards any it is an exercise of grace. Where any fail
of its blessing, it is, however, from no want of will on
God's part, or want of means to meet the case. It is due
to the moral perversity of a gainsaying and disobedient
people. In this position Paul is simply stating, in the
light of personal experience (" by the grace of God I am
what I am ") and of a wide observation of the process in
others, the secret of personal salvation. Every saved man
refers his salvation ultimately to God. The part played
by his own faith in no way invalidates this, while the
secret of rejection, being moral antipathy to the type of
life in which faith inevitably issues, shows the moral fibre
that is to be found in true faith itself.
In all this Paul is not solitary. It is not simply John's
Epistle, with its uncompromising reference of all spiritual
life and every activity of it to the new birth, which coin
cides. His position is that assumed by the Master Himself.
There is perhaps no more valuable section of Wendt's
treatise on the Teaching of Jesus than that in which he
discusses this subject.1 In it he discusses the hindrances
to obtaining the blessing, the aid of divine grace, the ex
clusion of the unreceptive, both according to the Synoptics
and according to John's Gospel. And he shows the entire
harmony there is between the teaching in each set. In the
1 Wendt, Teaching of 'fesus, vol. ii. section third, chap. vii. 4. 11, pp. 74-121.
Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Theologie, i. 193-200, and his expres
sive dictum, " Das Reich Gottes ist ebenso sehr Gabe wie Aufgabe."

to the Teaching of Christ 379
Johannine source there are passages like those in the sixth
chapter, where the teaching and drawing of the Father is
represented as indispensable to a man's coming to Christ.
'' No man can come to Me except the Father which hath
sent Me draw him" (vi. 44). Or, again, there are those other
passages which describe the disciples as the Father's gift to
His Son (vi. 37, 39, xvii. 2). But, as Wendt points out,
these passages must not be looked at alone. They occur
in contexts where Christ, so far from implying thereby a
limit in the range of the divine grace, is deploring, exposing,
and thereby trying to overcome, the moral and spiritual
apathy and antagonism which turned a deaf ear to the
Father's persuasive appeals.1 And here, as with Paul, the
lack of faith is found not in lack of grace or means of grace,
but in unholy hearts that have no taste for the fruits of
grace. They love darkness rather than the light, because
their deeds are evil. Where faith does spring up, it is due
to the graciousness of the divine approaches. It is the
first inspiration of a newborn Child, begotten of God. The
same truth is brought out in the attack on the Pharisees in
the Synoptics (Matt, xxiii.), and rejection is seen to be the
result of a conflict of wills : " I would . . . and ye would
not" (Matt, xxiii. 37). How much there is for God to
overcome, and how necessary it is that He should do it, was
keenly felt by the apostles, and Jesus agrees. When the
rich young ruler went away sorrowful, and Christ's yearning
eyes followed him, He said, with a sigh of regret, " How
hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom
of God." " Who then can be saved ? " asked the disciples.
And Jesus admitted the justification they had for their
question. " With men it is impossible, but not with God ;
1 The terms of the verse which follows vi. 44 are suggestive, viz. : " It is
written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God." There is no
limit to the teaching. But the coming to Christ only takes place in the case of
the responsive : " Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath
learned, cometh unto Me."

380 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
for with God all things are possible" (Mark x. 17-27 and
parallels). And so for Jesus also, as for Paul, the hope of
the world's salvation lay ultimately not in the readiness
and simpleness of faith, but in the readiness and persist
ence of grace. The poet asks —
"Is there a reason in nature for these hard hearts?"
He has the authority, alike of Christ and of His great
scholar, Paul, for his reply — "O Lear,
That a reason out of nature must turn them soft, seems clear." x
ii. The second point is not directly a question as to the
nature, origin, or object of faith, and yet in the truth as to
this lies the answer to the problem it raises. It is the con
tention of Ritschl — and he is followed by Sanday, Gore,
etc., in this country — that the proper object of justification
is not the individual, but the Christian community as a
whole. For a succinct summary of the argument in
favour of it, reference may be made to Sanday and
Headlam's Commentary on Romans, p. 122 ff2 And what
is stated there fairly represents how slender is the
support for it to be found in either Christ's own teaching
or in the teaching of His followers. It is said to be a
legacy from the Old Testament. If so, it was a legacy
never claimed. As to the passages quoted, they all receive
1 Browning, " Halbert and Hob " ; cf. Arthur H. Clough's lines —
"One Power, too, is it who doth give
The food without us, and within
The strength that makes it nutritive :
He bids the dry bones rise and live,
And e'en in hearts depraved to sin
Some sudden gracious influence
May give the long lost good again,
And wake within the dormant sense
And love of good." — Poems, p. 14.
2 For a concise summary of Ritschl's attitude, see Garvie, The Ritschlian
Theology, pp. 319-321 ; also Gore, The Epistle to the Romans i.— viii. , p. 34L ;
and Orr, Ritschlian Theology, p. 169 ff.

to the Teaching of Christ 381
a perfectly natural explanation in view of the common
benefits each enjoys who is a member of Christ's community,
and who is only entitled to be a member of that society,
because he does enjoy them. The appeal to the Christian
rites, especially baptism, as ordinances of the society carries
little weight ; for, as we have repeatedly seen, these rites are
declarative, not constitutive. They do not bestow the bless
ing which they represent. They are administered, where
there is reason to believe the blessing exists. Above all, when
we review the course of study which we have followed, the
contention is seen to fail. Christ's mission, as He explained
it and as His apostles understood it, was devoted, it is true,
to the setting up of a society of men, each of whom would
so act that in that society would be realised God's ideal of
humanity. But the method He adopted for the creation
of members was the drawing of individuals into a union
with Himself, in which they would obtain a new standing
before God, be animated with a new spirit toward their
God and their fellow-men, and thus be fit for a place in that
society. This union is consummated by the response of
faith on man's part. That faith unites him with Christ, and
in Christ he is right with God. The blessing comes to him
directly and personally through Christ, through union with
Him. And it is as a man who in Christ by faith is right
with God, that he becomes a member of the Christian
society, not as a member of the Christian society in virtue
of a rite administered by it, or a faith exercised toward it
and which unites with it, that he is right with God, justified.
The latter conception savours of
" Man's wonderful and wide mistake,
Man lumps his kind i' the mass : God singles them
Unit by unit." *
The Christian community has a function, however, in
reference to faith. And it is not surprising that this
1 Browning, Ferishtah's Fancies, "a Camel Driver."

o

82 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching

should acquire greater prominence in the later writings than
it did at the earliest stages. And it is quite intelligible
how men allow the part, which it was designed and fitted
to play, to assume such significance in their eyes as to
obscure its own fundamental constitution. While there is
not a single sentence that explicitly or implicitly suggests
that it is only when within the Church men secure the
privilege of justification, yet from the outset Christ saw in
the Church a great instrument for the drawing of men into
connection with Himself. As soon as Peter and the others
discovered the secret of His Person and had risen to the
belief of it, He felt that in them He had obtained a base of
operations : " On this rock will I build My Church." And
He conferred on them, as we have seen, large powers for
the effective accomplishment of this design (Matt. xvi.
16—19; John xvi. 7— 1 1). As the Christian community
increased and began to recognise itself as in a measure the
realisation of Christ's design (see Chap. V.), it growingly
understood its own missionary and evidential value, and
gathered all whom it awakened to a saving interest in
Christ into its brotherly fellowship, within which the bless
ings of the kingdom were, if not first attained, yet most
heartily enjoyed. And as Paul grasped this great truth,
he felt free to speak of the Church as " built upon the foun
dation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Him
self being the chief corner-stone" (Eph. ii. 20), and later
to call a single community " a pillar and buttress of the
truth" (1 Tim. iii. 14 f.).1 It was the delight of fulfilling
this missionary and evidential function with the happy
interchange of spiritual privilege within its borders, that
led men at a later date to say enthusiastically like Origen,
" extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur." 2 But it was perversion
1 See Hort's note, Christian Ecclesia, p. 172 ff., though there is room to
doubt whether the anarthrous construction does justify all he reads into it.
2 Gieseler, Ecclesiastical History, i. 257, where will also be found quoted
the yet stronger utterances of Cyprian.

to the Teaching of Christ 383
of the truth, when this was interpreted to mean that union
with the Church was the ground of acceptance with God.
It is easy to belittle the value of the Christian community.
The spirit which does so constantly reappears. And so,
while the followers of Jesus were quick to insist on the
necessity of fellowship practised and maintained, if life was
to be healthy and useful, and not become stunted and
unfruitful, they would have repudiated with holy horror any
attempt to make themselves or the community, of which
they formed a part, in any way the indispensable inter
mediary between Christ and the fundamental blessing
He bestows on the individual soul. They recognised
the function which Christ had given them, the privileges
which He had secured for them, and the spiritual account
to which He had turned the natural social instincts of
mankind, by breathing into them the sanctifying breath
of the Spirit of God. But for them the only claim to
a place in the community, and to the enjoyment of the
benefits to be found in the practice of its fellowship, was
a previous union with their Master by faith, a personal
transaction between the soul and its Saviour alone. The
place of the community, the relation to it, while inevitable,
is quite subordinate to the place of Christ, and relation to
Him.

CHAPTER X
Results and their Application
First Result : Fundamental and widespread Agreement — Bearing of
this on Essence of Christianity.
Second Result : No Fixity of Terminology — -Illustrations— Scientific
Bearing of this Result — Practical Significance.
Third Result : Special Emphasis on one side of Truth does not imply
Divergence from those left unnoticed — Christian Truth a whole —
Illustrations in Proof of the Result — Light it throws : (i) On the
Estimate of the Jewish Law — Christ's Attitude — James — Paul's
various Positions — Hebrews — Their Harmony ; (2) On the -Ques
tion, Is there a legal View of Salvation in the New Testament?
— How did such a Theory arise?
Fourth Result : Development is a Feature in the Presentation of Chris
tian Teaching — Instances — Its Reasonableness — What constitutes
Legitimate Development — Post-canonical Instance, the Doctrine
ofthe Trinity — Later Developments — How to test them — The Test
applied.
The Measure of the Authority of the Apostolic Teaching in View of
our Results.
We have now completed our study of the fundamental
truths taught by our Saviour, and have endeavoured to
see the relation which the lines of teaching followed by
the apostles bear to them. We saw, at the outset, that
the apostles appealed throughout to Christ as their authority.
They were simply exponents of what they had learnt in
His school, and had been commissioned by Him to teach
to others. We have seen how they interpreted this com
mission, and what place they allowed to the personal
factor and to the play of circumstance in determining the
form in which they should present the truth, while seek
ing to remain loyal to its substance. We are now in a
384

The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching 385
position, therefore, to formulate certain results, and in the
light of these to look at some points, which have not been
directly treated in the previous discussion, but which
ought not to be overlooked.
I. The first broad general result is this. The truths,
which Christ specially emphasised and treated as funda
mental, His apostles understood as He understood them,
and treated as He treated them.
Here, there is general and unmistakable agreement.
The purpose of Christ's mission, the ideal in which its
attainment would be fully realised, His own supreme sig
nificance for it, and the grounds of this in His unique
personality, the faith by which men appropriate the bene
fits, which He has secured for them, and receive the power
to use them, — on all these points there is no difference
between the Master and His followers. Whatever be the
special aspect of truth any individual amongst them may
have specially in view in his particular writing, and to
which, therefore, he gives special prominence, these are
great fundamental assumptions without which it is impos
sible to proceed. These are matters with which nothing is
set in competition. And when they are handled at any
length, it is with that gravity and seriousness which
belongs to the ground principles of a whole system of
life and thought. There is no doubt among Christ's
followers as to what Christ regarded as of supreme im
portance for the welfare of mankind. There is no doubt
as to what it is their prime duty to fix indelibly in the
minds of those they address. And there is not a docu
ment from the pen of one of them, which could be satis
factorily explained to anyone unacquainted with Christian
truth, but would necessitate a statement on these points.
This does not mean that with a dead uniformity they all
simply traverse and retraverse the same ground. It means
the very reverse. It does not mean that they have all
25

386 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
been careful to include the mention of every important
point within the limit of their writing, however brief it be.
They were no such martinets, imagining, if we may use
a modern parallel, that they could not be evangelical,
unless their every utterance were an evangelistic appeal.
They knew better than that. James, for instance, says
little or nothing about the sufferings of Chrst. No one
but the writer of Hebrews points out Christ's priestly
significance. On the other hand, the same writer never
mentions the resurrection of Christ ; and John, in his Epistle,
has scarcely a line on the great outlook beyond the grave.
Before the presentation of the divine provision for the per
fecting of the saints, which appears in preponderating
measure in Paul's later Epistles, we almost lose sight of
the means for the reclamation of sinners, which bulk so
largely in those of earlier date. But what is uniform is
the common consensus as to the nature of salvation and
the factors in its attainment, and the strict continuity
between the apostles' utterances on this matter and those
of the Master Himself. The results which we have attained
in reference to each of the outstanding topics of Christ's
own teaching — the kingdom of God, Himself, His Death,
His resurrection, faith in Himself, union in Him between
God and man — fully bear this out. The less we are left
to inference from hints and suggestions, and the fuller the
literature of any one author we possess, the clearer does
this become. And when the case is made out for Paul,
that member of the school who came least directly into
contact with the Master, and the conditions of whose
work offer the greatest contrast to those amid which Christ
Himself moved and spoke, the significance of the fact is
overwhelming. Paul is almost the first to take pen in
hand. His literary work is finished, before the others have
really begun. It has touched such a wide area of the
Christian community, that it was inevitably familiar to

to the Teaching of Christ 387
many of those who heard Christ speak. And yet, when
writings from any of them appear, there is not a hint of
dissent from the reflection of Christ's teaching, which is
to be found in this most original formulation of them.
What does that mean, but that amid all the diversity of
form, they recognise here what we have found, teaching
in substantial agreement with their own, teaching that
showed an understanding of Christ identical with their own,
teaching that laid the stress where they laid it ; and they
laid it where they did, because Christ did so. We know
that, in certain quarters, there was grave opposition to
Paul's presentation of Christian truth. But that opposi
tion had no countenance from any who had been Christ's
directly accredited followers, and has no representative among
the Apostolic teachers of the New Testament. They saw in
Paul's work a form suited to convey the great truths, which
they had learned from Christ, to Gentile minds and hearts.
In substance, it is Christ's truth. In essence, it is the great
gospel of salvation which He brought and taught.
From all this it follows that Christianity, the truth
about Christ's mission in this world, is not truly presented,
when it is resolved, as it is by Matthew Arnold, into a
tale of suave benevolence, amorphous and vague. Nor is
it, after the author of Ecce Homo, the vitalising of an
ethical system of a peculiarly lofty tone under the spell of
a uniquely charming personality. We have not grasped
it, when, with Herrmann, it evaporates into a non-mystical,
but very mysterious provision for fellowship with God, en
joyed through the energies of a vividly realistic memory
and imagination, concentrated upon the figure of the " his
toric '' Christ.1 It is not something indeterminate, of which
each individual can make very much what he likes. It
is the good news of the advent and sojourn, in the midst
of mankind, of a gracious Personality, whose character,
1 Der Verkehr des Christen mit Gott, c. ii.

388 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
whose nature, whose every act, is fraught with permanent
value for the realisation of God's purpose in humanity,
whose influence begins to tell as soon as He has enlisted
the genuine confidence of any man, and increases just in
proportion to the extent to which the man, following the
discoveries of his faith, penetrates to an intelligent appre
hension of what is, and what is involved in, the nature
and career of such a Personality. It is primarily a faith,
a faith in a person ; but it is a faith which feels that it
has not been loyal to the divine equipment of its own
nature, to the interest it owes to the dignity of its object,
or to the revelation of Himself which He has given,
until it adds knowledge to faith, and obedience to love,
can say, " I know whom I have believed," and has
responded to the injunction, " If ye love Me, keep My
commandments." It can be stated in the form of a well-
digested and articulated body of truth ; and the believer,
who intelligently grasps that, is not less, but more, truly
Christian, because he does so.1 And though Christ and
His followers did not formulate a system of doctrine, it
is to go in the face of the pains He took to teach them,
and the wonderful harmony which they have maintained
with Him, to ignore the importance for Christian life of
all the truths, His divinity, His death, His resurrection,
as well as His kingdom and His character, on which He
laid special stress.
II. A second general result is this: while preserving
the same thought, there is often variation in the termin
ology in which it is expressed.
This is so obviously what might have been expected,
that it seems almost trifling to state it. And yet it has
at once a scientific and a practical bearing, frequently
ignored. There are justifications, therefore, for stating
this second very obvious result.
1 Cf. Bovon, La ThSologie du Nouveau Testament, ii. 350 f.

to the Teaching of Christ 389
Before pointing out what these bearings are, it may be
well to recall a few illustrations in proof of it. There is
the use as to Christ's own name. In the Gospels, He is
predominantly called Jesus, or Jesus of Nazareth. "Christ "
is still mainly an official title. In later writings, "Christ"
has been so appropriated to Jesus, that it is used virtu
ally as a proper name. This variation in the naming of
our Saviour corresponds to a change in the official title.
Among the Jews, who were expecting a Messiah, and who
had very definite though erroneous views, requiring much
correction, of what Messiah meant, it was natural that
Jesus should be called the Christ. He was, in truth, what
the Christ should be. But Gentles had no such associa
tions with the name " the Christ," " the Anointed." And
to take its place another term is used, 0 Kvptos, the Lord,
an epithet, in classic Greek, at once of gods and men,
the head of the family, the master of his slaves, and in
the Septuagint the regular equivalent of Jehovah. Later
still, His title is " the Saviour," " the great God and our
Saviour, Jesus Christ." But the fundamental idea of His
office as divine Redeemer and Master remains ever the
same. Take again the term in which to describe compre
hensively the essentials of the Christian movement. It is
" the Gospel," " the Way," " the Name," " the Truth," " the
Faith " — different aspects of the same thing. Its realisa
tion is the establishment of a community, which may be
called with equal truth the Kingdom of Heaven, the
Kingdom of God, or the Church. Admission to it is
variously described as " repenting and being converted,"
" being converted and becoming as little children," " be
lieving the good news," " entering the kingdom," " seeing
the kingdom," " entering into life," and " being in the
truth." To tell how this is brought about, Christ uses the
figure of generation ; John follows Him ; and Paul ex-

390 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
presses the same idea in terms of creation. The position
of those who are thus admitted is pictured in an erring
son now penitent, restored to all his privileges as a son.
John says he has a right to become a child of God. Paul
uses legal terms, though in no mere legal spirit, and says
he is restored to his right position and is a son, justified or
adopted according as you consider what God has done, or
where the man finds himself. The man who is there, the
Epistle to the Hebrews says, is perfected. Those in this
position are sometimes called " disciples," sometimes " those
who are being saved," sometimes " those who believe," some
times " brethren," sometimes " saints," sometimes " those
who are perfect." Now it is to their credit, like newborn
babes, to desire the sincere milk of the word, that they may
grow thereby. Again, it is to their shame that they still
need milk, when, by reason of age, they should be fit for
the strong meat of full-grown men. Their attainment may
be so little that Paul can only call them carnal, and yet
they truly call Jesus Lord, which only those can do who
have the Spirit. What all this shows is that, as Matthew
Arnold contends, the Scripture is literature, not dogma.
In the documents which preserve the teaching of Christ
and the teaching of the apostles, we have no set of technical
terms. Even within the limits of a single writer the same
term is not used with a uniform signification. Salvation is
used in all the tenses to describe the past, the present, and
the future of eternal life. The language is all used with
the freedom and elasticity of popular address, not with the
precision of the class-room. It is addressed not to students,
anxious about strict definition and limitation of terms for
purposes of exact science. It possesses the freshness that
comes from the entrance into the life and thought of men
of new important truth, a very revelation which even in the
most plastic and delicate language of antiquity often found
no terms adequate for its expression, and had to resort to

to t lie Teaching of Christ 391
figure, and allusion, and explanation, as it used now this
term, now that, to convey its meaning, until it suffused
an old term with its spirit and made its own, or coined a
new word for itself. Hence the wealth of form, in which
the same truth appears, is an evidence, not of diversity
of view, but of degree in literary skill in finding fitting
terms in which to clothe and circulate the new Christian
truth. Now the scientific bearing of this result of our study is
this. It teaches us to discount the degree of divergence of
statement between teacher and teacher. Where it is simply
a matter of terms, the divergence indicates no more than
difference of capacity in felicitous use of language to ex
press the same truth, and serves to emphasise the funda
mental agreement among the teachers.1 Through failure
to remember this distinction among kinds of divergence,
the various teachers of the New Testament have often
been made to appear as if standing far farther apart
than they really do. A difference about words has been
magnified into a difference about truth, divergences dis
covered where the authors, to whom they are attributed,
would have been the most astonished to hear of them,
divergences from the Master which would have led the
scholar to exclaim, " Perish every word I have written, if
my clumsy way of putting it has seemed to divide me
from the Master's perfect utterance of what I think and
what I believe ! "
There is also a practical side to this. There are sensi
tive souls, anxious as to the genuineness of their interest in
Christ, who imagine that their individual spiritual experi
ence must correspond with all that is said in Scripture.
To take the • commencement of the spiritual life as an
1 "This is the true harmony, consisting not in minute coincidences of words
and events, but in communion of spirit " (Jowett, Commentary on Romans iv.
6-8).

392 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
example, they think that they have to go through a series
of processes, — repent, be born again, be converted, believe,
be saved. And if they cannot objectify each of these as a
distinct experience, they have grave doubts as to the
soundness of their spiritual standing. And yet all of these
are simply slightly different aspects of the same spiritual
crisis, of which, if one of them is a reality, all must co
exist with it. And the needless perplexity and distress
might have been escaped, and can be dispelled, by ob
serving the result we have found, that in Christian truth,
even as between His apostles and Christ, there is often
variation of terminology, while the fundamental thought
expressed is the same.
III. The third result is that in the apostolic teaching
one writer gives greater prominence to one aspect of
Christ's teaching, another to another, without thereby
indicating deviation from the points left in the back
ground. The last clause of the statement of this result is, of
course, the point that is challenged. But my contention is
that the result of .our studies reveals nothing in the
emphasis, which is laid by individual writers or in single
writings, on particular aspects of truth, to justify the con
clusion, that they held views antagonistic to those expressed
in other quarters on the points on which they maintain
more or less silence. We have found such a wonderfully
complete and symmetrical body of truth embraced in our
Saviour's teaching, and bound into one whole by vital ties,
that it hangs or falls together. And a man who expresses
his adherence to it, and shows an intelligent appreciation
of its spirit at one point, must be assumed to be in
sympathy throughout, or else provide us with some ex
planation of how he vindicates his adherence just where
he does, while he lets the rest go. If he makes no such
attempt in the midst of a community, where the rounded

to the Teaching of Christ 393
whole is familiar, and which welcomes his utterances, his
silence expresses not antagonism, but consent.1
In the brief review of the contents of the several sets of
teaching in Chap. I., we met with proof of the variety of
aspects of truth which appealed to particular minds and
received special prominence in particular writings. More
intimate study has only confirmed the impression. While
no single topic of our Saviour's teaching has been ignored,
some have received greater attention from one follower,
others from another. Take what was embraced, for
instance, in what Christ taught under the name of the
Kingdom. Here James fastened almost exclusively on
the practical duties which it involved. Peter saw chiefly
the encouragement which the prospect of its realisation
afforded. Paul laid special stress on the conditions of
entrance and the spiritual endowments for the enjoyment
of its privileges and fulfilment of its duties, and its appear
ance on earth in the form of the Church. John, in the
Apocalypse, sketched the conflict through which it would
be realised ; while in his Gospel and Epistles he empha
sised the nature of the life within its sway. But do these
involve mutual contradictions? They only indicate the
writers' sense of the varying need of the hour. There is a
like diversity as to the reproduction of what Christ taught
about Himself. The Synoptics bring especially into view
the external traits of that perfect human life. John
deliberately sets himself to complete the picture, to pro
vide what Clement of Alexandria2 calls a spiritual gospel,
going to the inner sphere, the springs of grace and truth,
and so to let us see the manifestation of the glory of the
1 Compare Godet's witty remark : ' ' The true Paul could (otherwise) only have
written one Epistle ; for if he had written a second, he could either only repeat
the first (and the second incur therefore the suspicion of forgery), or differ from it
(and the second be suspected as the work of a different writer)" (Introduction,
St. Paul's Epistles, p. 167).
2 So Eusebius, H. E. vi. 14.

394 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
only-begotten Son of God. But we have seen already that
there is here no thought of contradiction. James again
dwells on Christ's moral authority, Paul on those acts in
which in Him the Divine entered into such an intimate
union, and was so closely identified, with humanity, that He
is for ever the God-man, while in the Epistle to the
Hebrews it is His heavenly offices for mankind in view of
such a relation that come specially into notice. Similarly,
the work of Christ receives varied presentation by various
hands, but the germ of each is found in Christ's own teach
ing ; and so too with the teaching about the Spirit. Faith
we have just treated of in the previous chapter, and there,
if James insists on its proving its genuineness by taking
practical form, John no less insists on definite conviction,
Hebrews portrays its invincible power and limitless range,
and Paul demonstrates its capacity for effective, subtle, vital,
spiritual unions between person and person, which explains
the Master's thought, when He made it the imperious
demand for the rescue of men. We have seen already
how closely allied are all these various schemes of thought,
but in their diversity affording a refreshing interest to the
study of separate minds imbued with the same great truth.
But it is necessary to look under this head at two
points which have not been treated in the course of our
study, though they have received incidental mention, and
which ought to be noticed in a work like this. They are
these : It is contended (i) that there is a fundamental diver
gence of view as to the purpose and value of the Jewish
law ; and (2) that there is a type of doctrine in the New
Testament which represents a way of salvation by works in
strong contrast to Paul's view of salvation by faith alone.
(1) If an understanding can be reached as to the
former of these points, a long step will be made towards
the truth with reference to the other. And it must be
at once conceded that there is a great variety of view as

to the Teaching of Christ 395
to the value and purpose of the Jewish law. That, how
ever, is a different thing from an admission that the diverg
ence is fundamental. To say nothing of the fact that it is
looked at in more ways than one by the same writer, the
motive that leads to the consideration of the question is
not the same in each case, and that accounts for the
divergences. One great duty that Jesus felt incumbent
upon Him was to rescue the law from its would-be
champions. They, He said, had made it void by their
tradition, the Jesuitry of which He denounces with righteous
scorn (Mark ii. 23-28; Luke vi. 1-5; Matt. xv. 1-20;
Mark vii. 1—23, etc.). But while rejecting these, He shows
a respectful attention to many provisions of the law itself,
and inculcates a like attention on the part of others (Matt.
v. 17-20, xxiii. 2, 3). If you ask why, it is because it is
God's law, and He has a profound regard for what is His
Father's (Matt. xv. 6). But He assumes and exercises a
right of revision that shows clearly that He did not regard
it as final (Matt. v. 21-48; Mark x. 2-9). Valuable as
it was, He knew its limits, and where it would fail. His
interview with the young ruler seeking eternal life, and the
reference to it there, reveals His conviction, that as surely
as a man makes earnest with it, he will be left unsatisfied,
crying, " What lack I yet ? " Then Christ has His oppor
tunity, when men turn to Him from the failure of the law
(Matt. xix. 16-22). For while to Him the law, in its
ceremonial as well as its moral enactments, is God's law, it
is only provisional. He supersedes its authority. And it
is only retained in so far as it can be interpreted in terms
of His statement of what is fundamental in it, namely, love
to God, and love to our fellow-men (Matt. xxii. 40). It
remains, not as a means of salvation, but as a guide to the
lines along which lies the path of the saved life.1
1 On Christ's attitude towards the Jewish law, see R. Mackintosh, Christ and
thefewish Law ; and Meinhold, fesus und das Alte Testament.

396 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
Among Christ's followers, it is remarkable that James,
the supposed champion of Judaic Christianity, in his Epistle
has nothing to say about this matter. He speaks, indeed,
of the law, but he would be a bold man who would claim for
the language of James in i. 23 ff, ii. 8—13, a reference to
the Jewish law in any sense other than that in which it is
understood by Christ, and is flooded by Him with that new
spirit that makes all the difference between the law as given
by Moses and the grace and truth that came by Jesus
Christ. To do so would be deliberately to ignore the
context. But what of him in the Acts of the Apostles ?
(xv. 13—21). Is he not the advocate of the permanence
of the Jewish law there ? So far from that, as Ritschl has
admirably argued,1 there he is the man willing to drop
everything except what must be retained meanwhile to
facilitate intercourse between those brought up in Judaism
and those brought into touch with Christ from Paganism.
And it is to force on his language and his practice a
construction which he expressly repudiates, to treat it
as an assertion of the permanent obligatoriness of the
Jewish law for all Christians. He insists on no such
demand. He dissociates himself from any who do (Acts
xv. 24). In Paul there is to be found a variety of positions.
And they are determined entirely by the pleas that he
found made on behalf of the law, and the treatment he had
to mete out to different advocates. In the Epistle to the
Galatians he had to deal with a party who were asserting
for the Jewish law a place in the spiritual history of a man,
which he regarded as fatal to any- true spiritual life. That
pretension he strenuously opposes. But then the dilemma
arises, what of the law then ? Has it ever served any purpose ?
Had it ever any right to be spoken of as God's law? Yes,
he says, it had a pedagogic purpose. It was a temporary
1 Die Entstehtmg der altkatholischen Kirche, 2nd ed. pp. 122-146.

to the Teaching of Christ 397
measure, used by God to prepare men for Christ (Gal. iii. 24).
In Romans he goes farther. With his keen insight into,
and correct diagnosis of, human perversity, he detects an
effect produced by the law. It became a provocative to
sin. This was not the purpose for which God intended
the law. It was an abuse of it by sin, which, however, only
served to make sin more odious in the eyes of any reflecting
observer ; and so it still served God's ends. All through
this argument he is most careful to insist on the goodness
of the law and its gracious intention ; on the privilege, too,
that was theirs who possessed it ; but its purpose was
temporary and preparative, not final (Rom. vii. 7-1 5, ix. 4, 5).
And all it anticipated was only attainable by the advent
and mission of Christ, which was its end indeed, but only
because it was, not its abrogation, but its fulfilment (Rom.
iii. 3i,x. 4). It is in line with this that in 2nd Corinthians
he speaks of it as a ministration of death (2 Cor. iii. 7 ff).
He is looking there at it in the light of its effects. Gala
tians states his view of its purpose. In the practical parts
of his Epistles he still enforces it as a rule for Christian
practice in terms of Christ's re-enactment of it, transfused
with a love of which it is only the expression (Rom. xiii.
8-10). Thus the law for Paul is ever an object of rever
ence and a rule of life. It is only rejected as an adequate
instrument of salvation.
In Hebrews still another aspect of the matter arises.
Once again the law is set aside. But here it is the law
especially on its ceremonial side. On the surface it seems
to be done with a far gentler hand than by the staggering
blows of Paul. The argument is apparently only a plea
that in Christ's Priesthood and Sacrifice there is something
not different from the old law ; only something better. But
when considered more closely, and when the betterness is
seen to consist in power to effect in reality what the Jewish
law could only symbolise, to effect for the soul what the other

398 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
could only do for the body, for externals, it is clear that
there is a difference of the most radical kind. And I ques
tion if the apologetic of Hebrews is not really the most
drastic assault of all.
But in all this is there a departure from Christ? Is
there a fundamental antagonism between the varying views ?
There is not. They simply correspond to the changing
circumstances which the writers had to face. The followers
draw their inspiration from Christ. They had found liberty
in Him. He had transformed the law for them, and they
had seen its true place and significance. They were pre
pared, therefore, when the time arrived, to carry farther
that respectful disregard of it in the letter, which they had
seen in Him. They saw with ever greater clearness that
it had served its day. They took the hint which Christ
had given, and used it, not as its slaves, but with the freedom
of sons of God. One did so in one direction, another in
another. But it is in Christ's spirit and on His initiative
that they act throughout.
(2) Now this prepares us to face the question, Is there
a view of the way of salvation, countenanced by New Testa
ment writers, and, as they supposed, warranted by an appeal
to Jesus Christ, distinct from that exclusively insisted on by
Paul, namely, by faith ? The most accessible and vivid pre
sentation of such a supposed view is to be found in Professor
McGiffert's History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age}
There it is represented that there was a legal type of Chris
tianity. In it, however, the observance of the law — where
law, it should be mentioned, means the law as Christ trans
formed it, and is so far equivalent to a man's own efforts
in righteousness — was not an end itself, but a means to the
attainment of salvation. Salvation was not a present pos
session, but only a prospect of the future. Faith had a place,
and an important place, in inducing and enabling men to
1 Pp. 440-482.

to the Teaching of Christ 399
keep this law by which salvation is attained ; but the attain
ment depends on the observance of the law, not on the
faith. This, it is said, was the conception of Christianity
prevalent among all who did not succumb to Paul's spell,
or come under his influence ; and it is common to the
Epistle of James, the Apocalypse, the Epistle to the
Hebrews, the Pastoral Epistles, Jude, 2 Peter, and the
Sub -Apostolic writers.1 It is important to note that
McGiffert holds that this view was not so true to the teach
ing of the Master as Paul's view (p. 447). It was due to
an inheritance of prevalent ideas from which its advocates
had not succeeded in shaking themselves free. And we
need not hesitate to admit that this view did exist. It is
the type of legalism which always tends to recur. It is the
mistake, which William Blake reprehends so strikingly in
his quaint lines —
" Jehovah's finger wrote the law.
He wept ; then rose in zeal and awe,
And in the midst of Sinai's heat
Hid it beneath the Mercy Seat.
O Christians, Christians ! tell me why
You rear it upon your altars high ? " 2
But Blake was only repeating the attack in his own way
and in his day, which Paul directed against it in the Epistle
to the Galatians. And what we are concerned about is,
whether it has any countenance from the apostolic writings
appealed to. Did some of Christ's best accredited followers
so mistake His meaning ? We have already seen the true
1 As regards the Sub-Apostolic and other Anti-Nicene writers it would be
worth while to consult a remarkable article by Harnack, Zeitschrift fiir Theologie
und Kirche, i. 82, " Geschichte der Lehre von der Seligkeit allein durch den
Glauben in der Alten Kirche." In this Harnack argues that this doctrine was
really the view held by many sects regarded as heretical by the orthodox com
munity, and that its place in the orthodox creed was only vindicated by Augus
tine. The suspicious element in this view is that this is undoubtedly the doctrine
taught by Paul, and the orthodox community has preserved his writings.
2 Poems, Camelot Classics, p. 227.

400 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
sense in which to understand the emphasis throughout on
the observance of God's law. It is due to the commanding
place held by ethical interests in Christian circles. It is as
strong in Paul as it is in James. There is a probationary
view of the life of the Christian to be found in Paul's teach
ing outside of the Pastoral Epistles, and to be found in
Christ's teaching, which corresponds to all that is said in
James or Hebrews. On the other hand, we have seen
already that even in the teaching of James faith, properly
understood, has the determinative place on man's side. It is
passing strange how McGiffert (p. 459) and those whom he
follows can think of deducing from James's language in ii.
14 ff. that the lifeless shell James scornfully rejects there had
any resemblance to real faith, or could, by the addition of
works to it, be set up as the faith required in the Christian.
James's contention is that the only faith, worthy of the
name, is faith in vital, not formal, union with works, an
energy, that is to say, and not mere mental reflection. As to
Hebrews, a passage, xii. 1 8—24, in which the argument of
the Epistle is summarised and applied, explodes the hope
of finding this legal conception there. It puts the gospel
in Christ in touch, not with the scene of lawgiving, Mount
Sinai, but with the scene of sacrifice, Mount Zion, which is
as much as to say that the gospel is not the institution of
a law, but a new provision for establishing gracious rela
tions between God and those who had not been able to
bear the law. The crowning feature of this provision is
Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant, and the blood
of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of
Abel, i.e. not of vengeance, but of pardon and capacity
for holy fellowship. And all this is within their reach
on the basis of cordial acceptance (ver. 2 5 ff. ; cf. x. 38,
39). It is the identical argument which Paul uses in
Gal. iv. 21-31. By this we arrive at the answer to our
question. The legal conception of Christianity has no

to the Teaching of Christ 401
countenance from apostolic writers.1 They had not so
learned Christ.
But this misconception is due to the varying presenta
tion of works — le. practical Christian activity — in different
writers. In view of their teaching on faith, their silence
gives consent to what Paul's circumstances compelled him to
assert so energetically, namely, that no works, the works of
Christian activity just as little as those of Jewish legalism,
could earn salvation. That is a gift, God's gift, and spiritual
gifts can only be obtained by acceptance, which in spiritual
matters is called faith. But works are not without signi
ficance. They are inevitable, where true faith is. And
their place is variously, yet harmoniously, stated by Christ's
followers. Ritschl happily focuses the variety in a sentence :
" Peter does not think of works as the consequence of faith,
like Paul ; nor as the concrete material of faith, like James :
but good conduct, obedience to the truth, the righteousness
attained in works, constitute for him the proof for the cer
tainty and reliability of the faith." It is only doubtful, if
the sentence should have begun as it does, for it was quite
possible for Peter to think his own thought, and James and
Paul's thought too, for there is no incompatibility between
them. They are different aspects of the one homogeneous
truth. They are quite explicable in line with what we have
found as a third general result of our study, that, while
abiding loyal to the same fundamental teaching, one writer
sometimes emphasises one side of it, another another, with
out intending any opposition to, or deviation from, the views
expressed by others.
IV. There remains the fourth general result, and it is
this. Passing beyond the original utterances of Christ, His
followers have, in some instances, drawn deductions, given
1 " The unequivocal standpoint of the New Judaism had not been the doctrine
ofthe primitive Church and apostles. They had lived in the free Spirit of Jesus,
and, thanks to unbelieving Judaism, they had preserved their attitude of spiritual
independence ofthe law" (Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, i. 269).
26

402 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
amplifications, and presented developments of His teaching.
The question is, Are these legitimate ?
It will be worth while to recall some of the cases where
we have found such developments. There was, to begin
with, that very remarkable development of the conception
of the Christian community by which, under the leadership
of Paul, it gradually came to recognise itself as an organic
whole in union with Christ, and to know itself in this
organic relationship for the realisation, in ever increasing
measure, of Christ's ideal which He had spoken of
frequently as the Kingdom, and twice as His Church. This
was a development by which, out of experience, a truer con
ception of Christ's meaning was reached than had at first
been grasped, and by development they returned to Christ.
Similarly there was a distinct advance under the discipline
of experience in the understanding of the future of the
Kingdom. The more realistic and materialistic elements in
the eschatological conceptions were gradually dropped.
The early, eager expectancy of an immediate triumphant
and final nvapovo-la subsided under the sobering influence
of delay. Not that hope grew dim ; but the vision was
clarified. The practised eye gauged the foreshortening
better. The spiritual elements came into bolder relief.
And men came to think less of the prospect of heaven,
and more of the prospect of the unveiled vision, face to
face, of heaven's King, more and more of fellowship in
unhampered directness with the soul's Lord. But there
again, the advance was from the glowing imagery of
Christ's more popular address to the spiritual kernel of
His private talks with His most intimate friends. There
was undoubted development also in the disciples' thought
of the Person and Office of Christ. What they perceived
of His Person disclosed to them His official rank. Seen as
the Christ, they entertained still more exalted views of His
Person. It would be needless to recall the stages reached

to the Teaching of Christ 403
by different spiritual leaders, as they rose by a necessary
compulsion to regard Him as in the highest sense divine.1
It is only important to remember that, in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, it is under the impressive sense of His incom
parable identification with humanity that its author pro
claims Him humanity's High Priest. It is, again, through
His overmastering conviction that Christ is all in all to
men, that Paul perceives His cosmic significance. If his
argument seems to proceed in the reverse direction in
Colossians, it is because, having already from thought of
His relation to mankind mastered the thought of His
relation to the created universe, he can now unfold the
truth in historic sequence, and show how Redemption
reproduces Creation. So when John proclaims Him the
Logos, identifies Him, that is, with the profoundest con
ception of speculative reason, and therein says the last word
from his immediate followers about their Master, it is not in
order to resolve Christian truth into a philosophical system,
or to convey the impression that the truest conception of
Christ is as a kind of symbol for men's noblest ideals, but to
remind philosophy that the greatest truths in the world are
not concepts, but persons. It is to pave the way back to
the meaning of Christ's sublime assertion, " I am the Way,
the Truth, and the Life. . . . He that hath seen Me, hath
seen the Father." We have seen how the thought of
Christ's work grew upon Paul ; how Christ crucified and
risen gradually dominated all his thought ; and how far he
carried his efforts to understand and to explain why, for
man's salvation, it was necessary that for man Christ
should die. No other cultivated so assiduously the germs
of thought sown by Christ on this absorbing topic, probably
because no other of the early followers felt so keenly, as
his first impression of Jesus, the offence, and then the
1 Cf. Lidgett, The Spiritual Principle of the Atonement, p. 354 f., and Dale
quoted there.

404 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
power, of His Cross. There is meaning of an intensely
personal kind in what he says in 1 Cor. i. 22 ff. The Cross
was ever reasserting itself to him as the solvent for the
deepest problems of conscience, or the most baffling tasks
of humanity. And it was to it he constantly turned in
order to penetrate farther into the mystery of God. In like
manner, his eager mind appropriated and carried farther
every hint he received of the energy and potency of the
Divine Spirit, though, far as he carried it, it only served to
bridge the way back, for the memory of John, to the most
significant words of Christ Himself on this momentous
theme. It is needless to carry illustration farther. It is to
shut one's eyes to a most patent feature of New Testament
teaching to ignore the evidence on every side of the
development within it of Christian truth. It would only
be surprising, if it were absent. It was anticipated in the
method of Christ's own teaching. In Chapter III. we noted
that Jesus deliberately pursued the plan of gradually un
folding the truth to His followers, according as they were
able to bear it. It forced itself upon our notice in the very
order in which the books of our New Testament appeared.
Circumstances arose which called upon their authors to
address themselves to fresh problems and to expound the
aspects of Christian truth to which they were led for a
solution. And Christ Himself had assured His disciples
that He had many things to say to them which, prior to
His death and resurrection, they were not fit to bear, but
that under the guidance of the Spirit, whom He would send,
they would be led into all the truth. But, it may be asked,
did this not imply advance by further revelation, not by
development ? There is not a hint of that. Christ, as we
have already seen, spoke of Himself, rather than of any
words He uttered or truths He declared, as the revelation.
And the mission, on which He was to send the Spirit, was

to the Teaching of Christ 405
to take of the things of Himself and show them to the
disciples. The meaning obviously is that by the Spirit's
guidance they were to be led to a fuller and fuller under
standing of the truth, which in the knowledge of Him they
already possessed. And it is a significant fact in this con
nection that the last work we have from apostolic hands is a
Gospel, a retelling of the story, that is to say, of the life of
Jesus. The man who, admittedly, has travelled farthest on
the line of development in reference to the most momentous
matter in the Christian faith, namely, the question, Who
was Jesus ? and who, with a simple boldness and grandeur
that is awe-inspiring, has said of Jesus that He " was the
Word, and the Word was God," — what has he done to
justify his assertion ? He has appealed to Jesus Himself.
From the treasures of his memory, quickened into rare
activity by the delighted insight of faith and love, John has
recalled things Jesus Himself had done and said, which fully
justified the road that had been travelled by men learning
to attribute to Him ever higher dignity and name. The
meaning of this cannot be missed. Development has its
place ; it is legitimate ; but it has its limits. It is a spiral
round Christ, and mounts higher by returning upon Him.
It never can leave behind what it once has learnt of Him.
Let it do that, and it goes astray.
Since the closing of the record, there has still been
development in many directions. I only refer to one phase,
the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. Perhaps
the truest word that can be said about the formulation of
that doctrine is Dale's suggestive statement, " The doctrine
of the Trinity (is) the Christian attempt to assert the unity
of God." x The meaning of that is, that the emphasis in
the statement of the doctrine lies not on the assertion that
the Persons in the Trinity are three, but on the assertion
that the three are one God. None but the most superficial
1 Dale, Christian Doctrine p. 320.

406 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
reader could fail to note that, in the New Testament and
in any spiritual responsiveness to its teaching, the soul of
man is met by the Divine along three well-marked lines.
In his thought of the Universe God meets a man as its great
Architect and Engineer. In the historic figure of Jesus
Christ, God meets him again. In his own spiritual life,
forces which he can only think of as Divine touch him once
more. His experience is verified by the run of Scripture.
Constantly, not only the broad scheme of redemption, but
the ordinary turn of New Testament speech takes on this
threefold colour. Without thinking of it theologically,
Master and School alike fall spontaneously into what we
call Trinitarian terminology. Passages taken almost at
random bring this out. In the twelfth chapter of Luke
Jesus passes in quick review the God, before whose presence
the world lies spread, Himself the Son of man, on loyalty
to whom all hope of mediation with God depends, the Holy
Spirit, whom to blaspheme is to forfeit forgiveness. In
similar close contiguity, in the previous chapter, stand
Father, Spirit, and the Bringer-in of God's kingdom. In
all three Gospels we have the account of Christ's baptism,
where Father, Spirit, and acknowledged Son appear. In
Matthew there is the Baptismal formula. John's Gospel,
especially in chaps, xiv— xvi., bristles with instances. Or take
a brief paragraph, Acts v. 30-32, "The God of our fathers
raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, hanging Him on a tree : Him
did God exalt with His right hand to be a Prince and a
Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and remission
of sins. And we are witnesses of these things ; and so is
the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey
Him." 2 Thess. ii. 13, 14; Gal. iv. 4-6; 2 Cor. i. 18-22,
xiii. 14; Rom. v. 5-8; Tit. iii. 4-7; 1 Pet. i. 18-22;
Heb. ii. 3, 4; Rev. i. 4, 5 ; 1 John iv. 13-15 show the
prevalence of this trend of thought throughout the New
Testament. My argument is not that these are proof

to the Teaching of Christ 407
texts for the doctrine of the Trinity as held by the Early
Church. But it is the phenomenon which these present,
this appearance of the divine under a well-marked three
fold guise, which forced the followers of Christ soon to ask
themselves what it meant, and how it was to be explained.
They were not Tritheists. They were strongly mono
theistic. And yet they had to face facts that would not fit
into a dry Unitarianism. Even the Jewish conception of
God would not do so. And it was in the doctrine of the
Trinity in Unity that the Church soon formulated the
answer to the facts of the case. These facts are all
found in the teaching of Christ and His apostles. It is
the truth they held about God in its richest form. But it
is a truth of experience discovered by faith, and is a source
of spiritual profit, not when treated as a point of departure
in the study of Christian Theology, but only when men
arrive at it by spiritual compulsion as the result of personal
acquaintance with God in Christ ; when they speak of the
one God they know as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
because they can do no other.
The case of the doctrine of the Trinity helps us to
gauge aright still later developments of Christian thought.
As was only to be expected with anything so vital as
Christian truth, it has constantly been assuming new forms
of expression. There have been great types, such as the
ecclesiastical type of Cyprian, the theological type of Augus
tine, the earlier monastic type, the form this assumed with
Francis of Assisi, the Reformation type. In our own day
we have had the reassertion of the kingdom, both theolog
ically and ecclesiastically, and, by the Christian Socialists,
economically. The dignity of the Person of Christ has
had new emphasis laid on it by the prominence given to
the Incarnation. There is a side of Sacramentarianism,
which is a reassertion of the value of the work of Christ.
In movements like the Missionary enterprise, the Keswick

408 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
School, and the Sacerdotal claims of Clergy, there is a
reassertion of the living presence of the Exalted Christ
with His Church and by His Spirit. And some of these
are accepted as legitimate developments of the teaching
of Christ, some are challenged as perversions. Has our
past study helped us to any kind of principle, by which
to test the legitimacy of anything that makes such claims ?
It has taught us to expect that there will be development.
It has taught us to expect that Christianity will always
find in Christ, and in some fundamental position taken
up by Christ, the answer to the deepest needs of every
generation. It has taught us to expect that it will afford
these answers not simply by repetition in the old form of
the familiar truth. It will restate itself in terms of the
new situation, and, in doing so, pass to a still better under
standing of itself. But it has let us see that every move
ment which claims to be such an advance on Christian
truth must, to begin with, show itself to be deep rooted
in some undoubted truth of Christ's own teaching; it must
be in harmony with the other sides of the truth which
Christ presented ; and it must lead back to clearer con
ceptions of the original truth in Christ. Views of which
this holds good can alone be regarded as legitimate de
velopments of Christian teaching.
If this principle is applied to the topics which have
been instanced, it will be seen that, if the reassertion of
the Kingdom means a great reminder that Christ's ideal
commences its realisation here, and that salvation in no
sense belongs to a man whose moral, social, and civil
obligations are left unfulfilled or are not determined by
God's will, and if the reassertion is an application of this
to present-day conditions, showing how it bears on our
modern life in quarters where its place was not hitherto
recognised, then it is a legitimate development of Christ's
own teaching. But if it resolves Christ's ideal into a

to the Teaching of Christ 409
scheme for the world-wide attainment of mere earthly
affluence and pleasure, treats the spiritual as secondary,
or ignores the supreme need of Christ's work, accomplished
and appropriated, for its true realisation, it is no develop
ment, but an aberration, leading to darkness and not to
light. Or take the prominence given to the Incarnation.
If this is done at the expense of the Cross, if it so bases
the salvation of men on Christ's assumption of humanity
that the impression is left, intentionally or not, that the
result would have been attained even had He never died,
this again is no development, but a bold arrestment of
Christ's own unfolding of His teaching, when only half of
it was declared. And it has to be met, as Dr. Forsyth
has happily put it, by recalling the Church from Bethlehem
to Calvary, from Christmas to Good Friday and Easter
Day. But if it means, in view of our better understanding
of the laws which govern human nature and the ties which
bind humanity together, new insight into the significance
of the life and nature and personality of Jesus Christ, and
of the influence which His place within humanity gives
Him, then it is a movement to be hailed with gratitude
and satisfaction. In so far as Sacramentarianism leads
back to the Cross, or leads us to inquire more carefully
as to the blessing that accrues to the observance of the
rites which Christ sanctioned and enjoined, its services to a
better understanding of Christian truth are real. But when
it offers symbols as the reality, a rite for a living Spirit,
a dramatic spectacle instead of a dying Saviour, it is not
leading nearer to the truth, but away from it. As to Sacer
dotalism, and Higher Life, and Missions, when these mean,the
one the pretensions of a class, the other a pharisaic aloofness,
and the third an effort to spread Western commerce or stamp
Teutonic civilisation on other types of humanity, one can
only wonder at the narrow-mindedness that inspires them.
But when to the priesthood of a class the Church of Christ

410 Tlie Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
replies with a claim for the priesthood of all believers ; when
it maintains that the so-called " higher life " is nothing but
the normal Christian life, and refuses to countenance as truly
Christian anything less ; and when it regards its missions,
not as an adjunct, but as the great purpose of its own
existence, namely, to bring men back, through the news
of Christ, to the spirit of sonship to God and brotherhood
to men, this is to see with new clearness the priceless
blessing of the knowledge of the activity of the Exalted
Christ and the Life-giving Spirit. It is to carry farther the
line the apostles began to draw at Pentecost, take up, with
new perception of its bearing, the truth they then perceived.
This must suffice by way of indication of the application
of our fourth result to present-day movements of Christian
life and thought. But it may be permitted, in a closing
paragraph, to indicate one grand result that may be drawn
from the study as a whole, and that is the position that
should be accorded to the apostles as exponents of Christ's
teaching. We have seen their loyalty to His teaching
and authority. We noted, in an early chapter, how strenu
ously they asserted their independence of all other teachers,
but their absolute subordination to Him. And what has
come out in their treatment of the fundamental positions
assumed and taught by Christ attests the sincerity and
truth of their word. They have introduced nothing, they
have emphasised nothing, but what they received from
Him. He is the authority ; and the authority is personal.
His words spoken during His earthly career cast light
forward on work He had then still to do or is still
doing, and that again has reflected a new significance
on the utterances themselves. Words and Work alike
derive their weight from the fact that they are His. And
it is the faith in Him of that all-embracing type that
gathers under its sway the whole manhood, which perceives
the authority, and penetrates to the depth of meaning, in

to the Teaching of Christ 4 1 1
His words. And yet it is legitimate — and more than
legitimate, it is obligatory — to recognise also the authority
of His apostles, and of the teaching which emanates from
them. It is not original. It is derived. But it ranks
close behind His own, just because of their nearness to the
primal source, of the vividness which still remained of the
impression of Himself as He was known on earth, and of
the immediate quickening of their spiritual understanding
by the entrance of the Divine Enlightener, the Holy Spirit,
whom Christ had promised for the very purpose of leading
them into all the truth. It is this which has secured for
them the unrivalled place they hold in the esteem of the
Christian Church. It was a feeling of this kind which led
to the early formation of their writings into a Canon of
Scripture, and which induces disputants of later days to
appeal to them as the reliable exponents of the teaching of
Christ. A refusal to accede to such an appeal and to abide
by its decision, a demand instead for quiet acquiescence in
the dicta of later teachers, forecloses discussion on common
ground, and is like fear of the result of a resort to the
Supreme Courts. Christ indeed stands behind them. But
to get behind them to Christ Himself, we must perforce go
through them. We owe our knowledge of all Christ said
and did, our primary knowledge of Christ Himself, to them.
If He becomes our Friend, it is because we have been
introduced to Him by His earlier friends, who in the
Gospels tell us how He lived and spoke, and in the
Epistles what He did for them. We may get to know
Him even better than they did. The light of His subse
quent achievements from His throne, which were mainly
a hope to them, may show us more. The Spirit that
taught them is with us still. But we can never dispense
with them. Nothing can supersede the value of their
account of His personality, His life, and His words. They
were the first to experience those operations of the spiritual

412 The Relation of the Apostolic Teaching
life, which owe their existence to Him. They record them
with the vividness and accuracy, begotten at once of their
novelty and of a sense of their importance. And nothing
subsequent can ever rival them in this service. We do
them an injustice, if we exalt them above Christ. We do
them as great injustice, when we forget that without them
we could have had no certainty as to the mind of Christ.
It is easy to suggest that Christ's personality was so
commanding, that it would have asserted itself throughout
all subsequent ages even without a record. But it is a
statement that has not a shred of evidence to support it.
Its only conceivable ground would be the idea that, if He
is indeed the Son of God, He is able to dispense with all
human agents whatever. And if in the abstract that is true,
it loses all force since, as a matter of fact, He has not
done so. If it means that, without the apostles, thousands
of others would have passed on the blessed tradition, what
is that but to recognise again the need of a record, to
forget the freaks of tradition when severed from a fixed
report, and to belittle the reliability of the very thousands
looked to, for it is they who have passed down these
writings as the truest embodiment of the tradition as it
reached them ? To set the Apostolic teaching aside is to
reflect on the wisdom of the Master, who selected its writers
as His disciples, and who guided them by His Spirit to
adopt the method of writing their Gospels and Epistles,
in order to preserve and transmit to the coming ages
the message which He had left heaven to bring. The
intimacy between the teaching of Christ and the teaching of
His apostles on the one hand, and, on the other, the vigour
and individuality of that spiritual life which He infused
into them and which preserved all of them, while abiding
most loyal to His fundamental truth, from descending to a
mere parrot repetition of His sayings, or from attempting
an imitation of the matchless form in which He cast His

to the Teaching of Christ 4 1 3
teaching, give the group a distinction and a character all
its own, and afford a rare sense of confidence, when one
turns to it for instruction in the things of Christ. Master
and followers understand each other. They are reliable
witnesses for all time to the truth He taught. If their
authority with us is not absolute, it is not for lack of
accord between them and their Master. It is only because
they have made their Master so fully known to us, that
we also know Him. As to what He said, as to what He
did, as to what He meant, as to what He was, we can
go no higher than their writings. And the only qualifica
tion on our acceptance of their word and our obedience
to it is that which may be made in view of the fact that
it is not to them we are responsible, but to the Master
who sent them. Even in His own dealings with us He uses
no compulsion, calls for no tame surrender, even to Him
self, of the faculties with which He has created us. When
He asks our adhesion, He bids us bring all these powers
for ennobled use in the discernment of His mind and will
and the practice of His service. The last word on the
subject is His own word — " If any man willeth to do His
will, He shall know of the teaching, whether it be of God "
(John vii. 1 7).

INDEX OF TEXTS

 T
PAGE

PAGE
Gen. i. 2 .
• 315
Matt. v. 38-42 .... 270
Ex. xix. 5, 6 .
. 186
v. 43-48
172, 270
xxiv.
• 275, 277
v. 45 .
• 147
Lev. iv. ff. .
296, 302
v. 48 .
152, 154
xvii. n .
. 275
vi. 1-18 .
. 165
Deut. vii. 6
. 186
vi. 9-13 .
¦ 154
a. 15 .
186
vi. 12, 13
• '37
xxiii. 1-3
. 192
vi. 12, 14L
. I65
Ps. ii.
221, 24I
vi. 14 f. .
• 174
viii.
¦ 245
vi. 19-34
165, 350
xvi.
. 221
vi. 24
. 132
li. .
• 315
vi. 24-30
. 128
cxviii. 22
. l86
vi. 25 ff. .
. 270
Prov. xxv. 27
. 101
vii. 11 .
I40, 328
Isa. xii. 1 .
. 285
vii. 12 .
173
xxviii. 13
. . 96
vii. 22 f. .
. 172
xxviii. 16
. 186
vii. 29
. 82
xiii. 2, 3
. 40
viii. 5-13
158. 354
Hi. 1 3— liii.
. 269
viii. 8
. 90
liii.
. . 58
viii. 10 .
. 158
liii. 6 .
. 300
viii. 12 .
¦ H3
Ixi. Iff. .
98, Il6, 315, 316
viii. 20 .
. 213
Jer. xxxi. 31-34.
• 277
ix. 2, 28, 29
• 351
Ezek. xviii. 1, 2.
. 126
ix. 3
• 243
Dan. vii. 13
¦ 245
ix. 13 .
117, 141
Hos. i. 6, 9, 10 .
. 186
ix. 15 .
. 264
ii. 23
. 186
ix. 17
. 170
Joel ii.
• 3*5
ix. 36 .
• H7
Matt. i. 18-20 .
¦ ¦ 316
ix. 36-x. 6
• 177
i. 21 ff. .
• H5
X. .
• 65
i. 22
• 44
x. 20
67, 3H
iii. 9
¦ 15°
X. 22
. 127
iii. 11
¦ 3!6, 33°
x. 27
• 67
iii. 16
. . 316
x. 29-31
. 147
iii. 16, 17
. 240
x. 38 .
. 270
iv. 1
. 316
x. 39 ¦
. 271
iv. 3, 6 .
. 240
x. 40 ff. .
• 344
v. 8ff.
. 270
xi. 2-6 .
. 260
v. 17 ff. .
170
xi. 3
• 213
v. 17-20
• 395
xi. 4-6 .
. 116
v. 17-48
. . . 165
xi. 19
124
v. 19-48
132
xi. 20-24
140, 209
v. 2I-48
• 395
xi. 23
142
v. 23
. . . 165
xi. 25 ff. .
• 74, 151
v. 29 f. .
. 269
xi. 25-30
¦ 247
416

Index of Texts

PAGE

PAGE
Matt. xi. 28 . . 117
Matt. xix. 28
. 201
xi. 28-30
. 270, 356
xx. 17-19
. 271
xii. 12 .
¦ 147
XX. 20 ff.
. 246
xii. 18 .
. 316
xx. 28 . . II
7, 234, 272, 276
xii. 18-20
. 4°
xxi. 1 ff. .
. 261
xii. 23-45
¦ 95
xxi. 12, 13
. 148
xii. 28
. 180
xxi. 23 .
. 86
xii. 28 ff.
• 316
xxi. 28 ff.
. 152
xii. 29 .
107, 108
xxi. 31 .
. 140
xii. 31 .
329
xxi. 33-44
• 143
xii. 3 1 f. .
. 142
xxi. 40 f.
. 268
xii. 40 .
. 264
xxi. 43 .
. 206
xii. 43-45
. I40
xxii. iff.
• 143, 158
xii. 48 ff.
. I96
xxii. 7, 9, I2 -
. 206
xiii. 1-23
• 353
xxii. 11-13
• 149
xiii. 10-23
65, 182
xxii. 13 .
¦ 143
xiii. 11-17
¦ 159
xxii. 40 .
• 395
xiii. 24-30
135, 209
xxii. 42, 43
• 259
xiii. 24-49
• 149
xxii. 43 .
. 328
xiii. 31-33
• 125
xxiii. 2, 3
¦ 395
xiii. 36 ff.
¦ 65
xxiii. 8-10
¦ 71
xiii. 36-42
• 135
xxiii. 23 .
. 169
xiii. 36-43
. 182
xxiii. 29 ff.
. 160
xiii. 42, 50
• H3
xxiii. 33 .
¦ H3
xiii. 43 .
. 210
xxiii. 34~36 •
. 126
xiii. 47-50
. 209
xxiii. 37 .
• 379
xiii. 51 .
• 65
xxiii. 37-39 .
. . 96
xiii. 52 .
97
xxiii. 37-xxiv. 1 ff. .
¦ H3
XV. 1-20
• 395
xxiv.
• 203
xv. 6
• 395
xxiv. 10-13, 15
• 205
XV. 11-20
132
xxiv. 30 .
• 308
XV. l6ff.
¦ 342
xxiv. 31 .
. 205
xv. 21-28
¦ 354
xxiv. 34, cf. 23, 36 .
. 204
xv. 28 .
. 158
xxiv. 48 .
. 206
xvi. 13-20
. 188
xxiv. 51 .
• 143
xvi. 16-19
. 382
XXV.
• 203
xvi. I7ff.
. 66
xxv. 5 . . .
. 206
xvi. 21 .
2t
\6, 267, 271
xxv. 14-30
. . 96
xvi. 2 iff.
270, 272
xxv. 19 .
. 206
xvi. 22, 23
. 241
xxv. 25 ff.
. 209
xvi. 23 .
. 66
xxv. 30 .
¦ H3
xvi. 25 .
. 271
xxv. 31 ff.
208
xvi. 26 .
. 128
xxv. 34 .
. 210
xvii. 5
¦ 75
xxv. 40 .
¦ 344
xvii. 9 .
• 67
xxv. 41 .
¦ 143
xvii. 20, 21
. 176
xxvi. 2 .
. 264
•xviii. 1-14
. 269
xxvi. 12 .
. 265
xviii. 3 .
. 196
xxvi. 13 .
. . 67
xviii. 15-20
• 3H
xxvi. 24 .
140, 267
xviii. 17 .
. 188
xxvi. 26-28
¦ 342
xviii. 18 .
¦ 69
xxvi. 28 .
. 276
xviii. 21 ff.
174, 270
xxvi. 36-46
. . 138
xviii. 23-35
• 143
xxvi. 52 f.
. 241
xix. 8 .
169
xxvi. 53 .
. 268
xix. 1 2 f.
. 168
xxvi. 56 .
¦ 44
xix. 16 .
. 269
xxvi. 63 .
• 243
xix. 16-22
• 395
xxvi. 64 .
. 204, 243
xix. 16-xx. 16
• 185
xxvii. 39-43 .
. 241
xix. 17 .
. 140
xxvii. 46
. 267
xix. 25, 26
• 145
xxvii. 56
• 49
Index of Texts

417

Matt, xxvii. 62 ff.
xxviii. 18-20 .
xxviii. 19, 20 .
Mark i.

i5

1. 10
i. 12
i. 14
i. 15
i. 22
ii. 10
ii. 17
ii. 19 f.
ii. 21 f.
ii. 23-28
iii. 5 ¦
iii. 13-15
iii. 22-30
iii. 27
iii. 28-30
iv. 1 1 ff. .
v. 18-20
vi. 5, 6 .
vii. 1-1 6
vii. 1-23
vii. 9-13
vii. i8ff.
viii. 21
viii. 31
viii. 32
viii. 33
viii- 34
viii. 35
ix. 7
ix. 19
ix. 23
ix. 32
ix. 33-42
ix. 38-40
ix. 49 f.
x. 4-IO
*¦ 5
x. 17-27
A. 18
A. 26, 27
x. 30
x. 32
x. 35 ff
A. 38
A. 38 f.
x. 45
xi. 9
xi. 20 ff.
xi. 28
xii. 34
xu. 37
xiii. 11
xiv. 8
xiv. 21
xiv. 34 27

PAGE

.

267

69, 157,

312

• 334.

357

"5

• 316,

33o

316

316

¦ "5

37i

352
82
"7
• "7
141
264
170
395
149
64
95
107
108
142
159
356
35i
44
395
155
342
66
246
317
66
270
271
75
265
35'
¦ 247
263
63
356
356
395
169
380
213
145
196
266
246
333
356
272
182
35i
86
140
82
67
265
267
266
Mark xiv. 61
xv. 23
xv. 36
xv. 40
xvi. 15
xvi. 16
xvi. 17-20
xvi. 19 .
xvi. 19, 20
Luke i. 15, 41, 67
i- 35
ii. 10, 11
ii. 25 ff. .
ii. 3°"32
iii. 16
iii. 21 ff. .
iii. 21, 22
iv. 1
iv. 3, 9 ¦
iv. l6ff. .
v. 4-1 1 .
v. 32
v. 34 f. •
v. 36, 37
vi. 1-5 .
vi. 20-49
vi. 24
vi. 31 •
vi. 36 .
vi. 46
vii. 19-23
vii. 21 ff.
vii. 37-50
vii. 47 .
vii. 47-50
viii. 9 ff. .
ix. 21 f. .
ix. 24
ix. 31
ix. 35 .
ix. 45 .
ix. 46-50
ix. 51
ix. 51-xviii. 34
ix. 55 .
ix. 57-62
ix. 58 .
A. I ff. .
a. 2, 3 .
x. 16
x. 17, 18
A. 19, 20
A. 20
X. 21, 22
X. 21
*• 25-37
A. 38-42 _
x. 38-xiii. 9
xi. 4
xi. 13 .
3if
PAGE 243 269
269 49
334
334, 357 3143n312 316316 116
316 116
. 33°3'6 240316240 116
352 117
264 170
395 94
168173154172
260 116
174, 355270363 159
246
271 265 75
263 63
265
94, 184 66
356
213 64
177
3443" 3" 66
247 3i6 165
356. 358 94
165
328
4i8

Index of Texts

PAGE

PAGE
Luke xi. 14-36 .... 95
Luke xxiv. 44-49 . . . 328
xi. 29
107, 108
xxiv. 46-49
. . 69
xi: 37-54
. IOO
xxiv. 49 .
• 315
xii. 5
• ¦ 136
xxiv. 51 .
¦ 313
xii. 6, 7 .
¦ M7
John i. 1
• 239
xii. 10 .
• 142, 329
i. i-3 •
• 237
xii. 12 .
• 3M
i. 1-14 .
196, 237
xii. 22-40
• 95
i. 1-18 .
• 250
xii. 32 .
. 210
i. 4
• 76
xii. 35-38
. 209
i- 9-13 •
¦ 159
xii. 47, 48
140, 209
i. II, 12
• 373
xii. 49 .
. 266
i. 14
2;
7, 241, 248
xii. 50 .
¦ 333
i. 17, 18.
258
xiii. 1-6
54, l<
12, 149, 271
i. 18
¦ 151
xiii. 5
• 149
i- 19-34 •
23. 33°
xiii. 13 .
• 273
i. 31 ff. .
. 316
xiii. i6ff.
. 165
'• 33
• 330
xiii. 23 ff.
. 210
i- 45. Si-
51, 248
xiii. 28 .
¦ 143
ii. 13-17
. 148
xiii. 31 ff.
. 268
11. 19 .
204, 264
xiii. 33 .
265, 266
ii. 23-25
. 358
^xiv.
• 149
iii. .
89, 342
Xiv. 1-24
. IOI
iii. I-I 5 .
193, 360
xiv. 23-25
142
iii. v.
• 352
xiv- 25-35
• 356
iii. 3 AT. .
• 195
xiv. 26 .
¦ 356
iii. 5
• 330
xiv. 27 .
. 270
iii. 6
• H5
XV.
H7, H9
iii. 13 f. .
249, 264
xv. 3-7 .
96, 118
iii. I4f. .
204, 277
xv. 11-32
142, 35o
iii. 15, 16
• 155
xv. 18 .
• 273
iii. 16
146, 160
xvi.
¦ 149
iii. 17
11S
xvi. I9ff.
168, 209
iii. 18 .
• 143
xvii. 1-6
. 176
iii. 22 f. .
• 334
xvii. 10 .
. 208
iii. 27
345
xvii. 20, 21
. 202
iii. 28, 31
. 258
xvii. 33 .
. 271
iii. 34 .
¦ 279
xviii. 14 .
. 283
"!• 34. 35
• 317
xviii. 18-30 .
• 193
iv. 1, 2 .
• 334
xviii. 19 .
2I3
iv. 6
248
xviii. 22-25
. 168
iv. 12 ff. .
249
xviii. 30 .
• 193
iv. 13, 14
¦ 193
xviii. 34 .
246, 263
iv. 19-24
¦ 147
xix. 10 .
• H7
iv. 22-24
. 129
xix. 11-27
. 209
iv. 24
83. 152
xix. 12-27
• 96
iv. 32, 34
• 344
xix. 41, 44
• 96
iv. 42
¦ 23
xxi. 14, 15
67
v. 14
. 142
xxii. 10 .
. 268
v. 19-29.
• 253
xxii. 15 .
. 266
v. 24
2C
7, 279. 358
xxii. 19 .
• 34i
v. 24 ff.
197, 253
xxii. 22 .
. 267
v. 25-29 .
. 207
xxii. 30 .
. 201
v. 26, 27
• 249
xxiii. 34 .
. 268
v. 36
• 359
xxiii. 43 .
. 209
vi. .
i
iS. 24
5. 250, 342
xxiii. 46 .
. 267
vi. 27
¦ 342
xxiv. 25, 26 .
. 260
vi. 29
133. 359
xxiv. 26, 27 .
. 68
vi. 32 ff. .
• 249
xxiv. 27, 44 ff.
. 281
vi. 35 .
194, 342
xxiv. 44-47
260
vi. 35 ff •
. 278
Index of Texts

419

John vi. 37, 39

379

vi. 37, 44, 45

. 159

vi. 39, 40, 44,

54 • • • 207

vi. 44 .

¦ 379

vi- 45 •

379

vi. 50

• 193

vi. 60 ff. .

¦ • • ¦ 358

vi. 63 .

279, 342

vi. 66-71

. 265

vi. 67

. 248

vi. 68 .

72

vi. 69

. 23

vii. 1-8 .

. 248

vii. 15 .

86

vii. 15, 16

. 90

vii. 17 .

91, 413

vii. 26

104, 3i7

vii. 30

. 268

vii. 37

. 117

vii. 37 ff.

• 33i

vii. 39 .

• 329

vii. 46 .

. 86

viii. 1 ff. .

117

viii. 2

. 142

viii. 7

140, 141

viii. 12 ff.

90

viii. 28 .

204, 264, 277

viii. 34 .

• 133

viii. 39 .

150

viii. 39-56

. 152

viii. 42

250

viii. 44 .

• 134

viii. 45 •

. 91

viii. 47

279

viii. 51 .

• 279

viii. 53-58

249

viii. 58 .

¦ 253

ix. .

94, 360

ix.-x.

. 94

ix. 1-3 .

• 149

ix. 3

126, 142

ix. 35-38

• 23

ix. 39-41

• 143

A. 6

• 263

A. IO

194

A. 11-15.

96, 118

x. 15 .

• 277

x. 17, 18

. 278

A. 18

. 268

A. 24

¦ 213

x. 32 ff. .

243

xi. 1

94

xi. 16

. 263

xi. 20 ff. .

. 360

xi. 24 ff. .

. 206

xi. 25

• 193. 194

xi. 25 ff. .

. 207

xi. 49 .

. 271

xi. 49-52

120, 301

xi. 52

. 160

John xii.xii.xii.xii.
xii.
xii. xii.xii.xii. xii.xii.xii.xii.xii.xii.xiii.xiii,
xiii. xiii.xiv.xiv.xiv,
xiv.xiv. xiv.
xiv.xiv. xiv.
xiv.xiv.
xiv.
xv. XV.
XV.
XV.
XV.XV.XV.
XV. XV
XVxvi. xvi.
xvi.xvi.
xvi. xvi.
xvi.xvi.
xvii.xvii,xvii,
xvii.xvii.
xvii.
xvii. xvii.xvii.
xvii.

xi. 54
7 ¦
16 .
19 .
20 f. .
20-23
22-2323 •
23-2824 •
25 •
27, 28
32, 33
32, 34
34
49 1-201319
20
-xvi.
, -xvii I1-1
69
. 11
15
. 16 ff.
23 26
iff.
2
45 12
1315
16
22-2526 f.
i-7
7

7-i 1
8-14 13 f-
32
33

11. 25
18-20

207, 33

PAGE 268265263 82
I58
266277249248
278
27127S264204213279
234 72
265
344 196
1, 406339 359332 194152 91
358
332344331
339 127
359 199172
, 289 6664
143
68, 331

329
68, 133. 33i
38233i
33i
8, 266 127
299
312379 194
285
234, 249, 253279 154 67
312

77,

125

277

248,

76,

420

Index of Texts

PAGE

PAGE
John xvii. 20-23 . . .195
Acts viii. 4 . . . . 160
xviii. 11 .
. 267
viii. 12-19
¦ 335
xviii. 14 .
120, 301
viii. 13 .
• 362
xviii. 20 .
• 317
viii. 17 .
• 315
xviii. 33 ff.
. 242
viii. 29 .
. 318
xviii. 33-38
. 185, 214
viii. 36-39
335
xviii. 36 .
• 193
ix. Iff. .
• 3°9
xix. 4, 5
. 123
ix. 17
• 315
xix. 7
. 242
ix. 17-19
• 335
xix. 11 .
. 268
ix. 31 .
189, 319
xix. 25 .
. 49
x. 19
. 318
xix. 26 f.
. 248
a. 43 .
• 362
xix. 30 .
. 267, 285
a. 44 .
• 315
xix. 36, 37
• 44
A. 46
• 3i7
xx. 8 .
• 360
x. 47, 48
• 335
xx. 21-23
69, 314
xi. 15-17
¦ 315
xx. 24-29
• 361
xi. 16
¦ 330
xx. 31 .
23, 248, 372
xi. 28
. 318
Acts i.
• 3°7
xii. 3ff. .
¦ 3°9
i. 1-5
. 42
xiii. 2
• 319
i. 4, 12 ff
• 3iS
xiii. 9ff. .
• 318
i- S
¦ 33°
xiii. 34 .
. 284
i. 5,8
• 328
xiii. 52 .
• 3i5
i. 8
¦ 69
xiv. 8-18
¦ 147
i. 9-1 1
. 308
xiv. II, 14
• 317
i. 15-26
. . 64
xiv. 22 .
. 205
i. 16
• 315
xiv. 23 .
¦ 319
ii. .
• 307
XV.
. 156
ii. 4-13
317
XV. II .
¦ "9
ii. 6-1 1
¦ 317
xv. 13-21
• 396
ii. 16-21, 33
• 309
xv. 23-29
. 42
ii. 21, 22, 36,
38
. 118
xv. 24
¦ 396
ii- 33-36
. 3°8
xv. 28 .
¦ 319
ii. 37 ff .
309, 318, 362
xvi. 6f. .
• 319
ii. 38, 41
• 335
xvi. 7
• 327
ii. 42, 46
• 340
xvi. 15, 33
335
iii. I2ff. .
¦ 309
xvi. 26 .
• 3°9
iii. 13
. 220
xvi. 30, 31
119
iii. 14
. 129
xvi. 31 .
. 362
iii. 16
• 362
xvi. 35-39
. 190
iv. 7ff.
• 3°9
xvii. 22-31
¦ M7
iv. 12
. 118
xvii. 30 .
281
iv. 13
. 67
xviii. 8 .
• 335
iv. 20
. 70
xix. 1-7 .
• 3i5
iv. 25 ff.
¦ 315
xix. 5-7 .
• 335
iv. 27, 30
. 220
xix. 6
• 317
iv. 29, 31
• ¦ 318
xix- 32, 39, 41
. 186
iv. 32 ff. .
• 362
xx. 7
• 340
v. 3-9
¦ • 318
xx. 23 .
318, 319
v. 19
• 3°9
xx. 24 .
• "5
v. 28 ft".
• 309
xx. 28 .
281, 319
v. 29-32
. 406
xxi. 11 .
. 318
v. 31
• 308
xxi. 18 ff.
¦ 47
v. 32
. 70
xxii.
42, 57
vi. 10
• 318
xxii. 14 .
. 129
vii. 38
. 186
xxvi.
42, 57
vii. 51
. 326
Rom. i.-v.
. 292
vii. 54
. 318
i.-viii. .
• 364
vii. 55
. 308
i. 16
• "9
vu. 56
• 3°9
i. 19 ff. .
. 140
Index of Texts

421

PAGE

PAGE

Rom. i. 20

• 143

Rom. viii. 29-39

¦ 377

i. 24-26 .

142

viii. 31 .

. 208

ii. .

. 148

viii. 34 .

• 311. 366

ii.-iii.

140

v»i- 35-39 •

. 290

ii. 1-17 .

¦ 149

ix.-xi. . 158, 1

59, 167, 205, 376

ii. 9

. 148

ix. 4, 5 .

• 397

ii. 29

• 231

ix. 5 .

• 239

iii. 10

. 140

ix. 6f. .

• 377

iii. 19-26

. 286, 287, 288

ix. 19

• 377

iii. 24

. 288

x. 2

• 55

iii. 25 .

. 290

A. 4

• 397

iii. 26

• 155

x. IO

¦ 367

iii. 31 .

• 397

x. 14. 15

7°, 377

iv. .

• 365

xi. 1-5 .

• 377

iv. 3

• • 365

xii. -xvi. .

. 167

iv. 6-8 .

• 39i

xii. 1, 2 .

163, 282

v. 1

• 323, 365

xii. 4, 5 .

. 190

v. 1-5 .

• • ¦ 318

xiii. 8-10

171, 397

v. 3ff. .

¦ 127, 175

xiv. I3ff.

124

v. 5

• 3i7

xiv. 13, 21

• 369

v. 5-8 .

. 406

xiv. 23 .

• 174. 368

v. 6, 7 .

. 288, 289

xv. 2, 3 .

. 294

v. 9

. 288

xv. 6

. 150

V. II

. . . 285

xv. 16

. 115

V. 11-21

. 286

xvi. 20 .

. 136

v. 12

• 134

1 Cor. i. 14 ff. .

¦ 336

v. 12-21 .

. 125, 141, 230

i. 22 ff. .

. 404

v. 19 .

. 288

i. 26 ff. .

. 124

vi.-viii. .

167, 320, 321

ii.

. 109

vi. 2ff. .

. 368

ii. 2

• • 366

vi. 3

• 338

ii. 10-16

. 324, 326

vi. 3-1 1 .

• 197, 336

ii. 11-15

122

vi. 4, 6, 7

. 290

ii. 15 .

• 73

vi. 6

• 277

iii.

. 109
vi. 6-1 1 .
. 288
iii. 3
122
vi. 8
• 338
iii. 5-15
72
vi. 9ff. .
• 336
iii. 9
344
vi. 12 ff. .
• 368
iii. 14 f.
. 209
vi. 16-20
• 133, 139
iii. 16
320
vi. 23 .
• 197
iv. 16
• 367
vii. 4
. 290
v- 3-5
• 312
vii. 7ff. . 132, 1
33. 139, 322, 323
vi. 13
• 343
vii. 7-15
• 397
vi. 19
¦ 320
vii. 14 ff.
. 137. 169
vii. 10, 12, 25, 40
• 73
vii. 18 .
• 137
vii. l8ff.
124
viii.
113. 207, 323
vii. 40 .
28, 324
viii. 3 .
. 138, 288
viii. 6
¦ 230
viii. 3 ff. .
. 198
ix. 1 ff.
• 72
viii. 9 ff. .
• 327
ix. 9, 10
. 147
viii. 9-17
• ¦ 365
ix. 19-22
• 103
viii. 10 .
¦ • 338
ix. 21
. 172
viii. I2ff.
¦ 197
ix. 25
. 210
viii. 14 ff.
• 315
a. 3. 4
• 345
viii. 15 .
• 197
a. 14 ff.
¦ 343
viii. 17 .
198, 210, 344
x. 16
¦ 340
viii. 19, 20-24
. 114
x. 17
• 345
viii. 26 .
• 3'7
xi. 1
• 294, 367
viii. 26, 27
. 326
xi. 3
. 232
viii. 28-30
¦ 159, 377
xi. 23
• 73
viii. 29 .
• I29
xi. 23-26
• 34i
422

Index of Texts

PAGE

PAGE
I Cor. xi. 27 ft". . . . . 343
Gal. i. 12-18 .
¦ 57
xii. -xiv. .
• 317
i. 16 .
. . 56
xii. 3
• 324
ii.
. . 156
xii. 4-1 1
• 319
ii. 1-10 .
64. 71
xii. 10 .
- 317
ii. 11-21.
. 284
xii. 12
. 290
ii. 15-21.
¦ 367
xii. 12-14
190
ii. 19
284, 290
xiii. 1-4 .
. 166
ii. 19, 20
• 197
xiii. 1-8 .
• 3*7
ii. 20
284, 338
xiii. 2
¦ 363
ii. 20, 21
. 229
xiii. 4-7 .
171
iii. 1
¦ 97
xiii. 7, 13
• 363
iii. 1-14 .
• 315
xiv. 2, 6, 7, 1;
. 14
¦ 3i7
iii. 2
365
xiv. 18 .
• 3r7
iii. 13 .
284
xiv. 37 .
73
iii. 16
. 290
XV.
. 126
iii. 18 .
. 198
xv. 1-5 .
• 97
iii. 23-iv. 5
• 197
xv. 4-8 .
56
iii. 24
• 397
xv. 12-19
283
iii. 24-27
. 368
xv. 28 .
• 232
iii. 27
• 336, 338
xv. 31 .
338
iv. 4, 5 .
. 284
xv. 35 •
. 206
iv. 4-6 .
. 406
xv. 45 ff. .
• 230
iv. 5 .
• 197
xv. 50 ff. .
. 206
iv. 5, 6 .
• 315
2 Cor. i. 1 .
. 189
iv. 6
• 365
'¦ 3
. 150
iv. 19
• 338
i. 7
344
iv. 21-31
. 400
i. 17-23 .
• 74
v. iff. .
. 198
i. 18-22 .
406
v. 6
. 176
i. 21, 22.
¦ 365
v- 13-25 •
• 320
i. 22
• 315
v. 17 ff. .
• 137
ii. 5-1 1 .
312
V. 20
• 139
ii. 16
. 285
V. 24
290, 320
iii. 7ff. .
¦ 397
v. 24, 25
. 321
iii. 12-18
169, 231
v. 25 .
• 339
iii. 17
¦ 337
vi. 13-16
321
iv.-v.
126
vi. 14
. 290
iv. 3
. 285
Eph. i. 3 ff.
150. 159, 207
iv. 4
»5
i- S.
. 197
iv. 4, 6 .
¦ 231
i. 7
. 292
iv. 5, 6 .
• 74
i. 13
"5. 3i5
iv. 7- v. 11
. 285
1. 14
. 198
iv. 11
¦ 139
i. 20
• 3"
v- 5
¦ 315
i. 22
. 191
v. 6-9 .
. 209
i. 23
. 191
V. IO
. 209
ii. 1-10 .
• 197
V. 11-21 .
284, 291
ii. 5
. 292
v. 14 ff. .
. 229
ii. 6, 8 .
• 377
v. 14, 15
174, 343
ii. 10
¦ 197. 339
v. 14, 15, 20,
21
. 286
ii. 11 ff. .
• 236
v. 16
21
ii. 18-22.
¦ 323
v. 19, 20
• 7°
ii. 20
. 382
V. 21
. 286
ii. 21
• 320
vi. 1
¦ 344
iii. 12
• 3i8
vi. 16
• 320
iii. 14 ff. .
¦ • 338
viii. 4
• 344
iii. 15 .
• 153
xii. 7
. 229
iii. 15 ff. .
292
xiii. 5 .
• 338
iv. 1-13 .
319
xiii. 14 .
346, 4°6
iv. 1-16 .
191
Gal. i. 8, 9
73
iv. 3, 4 .
• 319
Index of Texts

423

Eph. iv. 1;
iv. 17-19
iv. 25
iv. 26

iv. 27

iv. 30
iv. 32
v. 1, 2

v. 18-20

v. 25-27
vi. 1-3
vi. 11
vi. 12
vi. 14-16
vi. 15
vi. 18
Phil. i. 23
ii. 1, 2
«¦ 5
ii. 5 ff.
ii. I2f.
ii. 17, 18
iii. 2
iii. 7-17
iii. 8ff.
iii. 8, 9
iii. 8- 1 1
iii. 17
iii. 20
Col. i. 3
i. 15 ff.
i. 16
i. 20-22
i. 27
ii. 5
ii. 6, 7
ii. 9
ii. 12
ii. 14, 15
11. 30
iii. 1
iii. 1-4
iii. 3
"i- 3, 4
iii. 4
iii. 20
iii. 24
1 Thess. iv.
iv. 13 ff. .
1-
iv. 14
v. 8
2 Thess. ii.
ii. 13 .
ii. 13, 14
1 Tim. i. 5
i. 14, 16, 19
i. 15
iii. 8
iii. 14 f. .
vi. 3ff. .
• 123
2 Tim. i. 12
. 140
ii. 11-13
. 125
ii. 14 ff. .
¦ 149
iii.
• • 136
iv. 7
• 315. 326
iv. 8
• 294
Tit i. 5 ff. .
. 294
ii. .
• 317
ii. 13
. 207
iii. 4-7 .
• 155
iii. 4f. .
• - 136
iii. 8
• 3IQ
Heb. i. 1 ff.
207
i- 3
• 115
i. 8
• 323
ii- 3, 4 •
. 209
11. 4
• 344
ii. 9, 14 .
¦ 294
ii. 10
30, 232, 292
ii. 10-18
92, 345, 368
iv. 15
. 282
iv. 16
• 97
v. 7-10 .
• 367
v. 11-vi. p
. 292
vi. 1, 2 .
. 229
vi. 2 ff. .
• 337
vi. 4-10 .
367
vii. 9, 10
. 190
vii. 15, 16
• 15°
vii. 16 .
236
ix. 15
230
ix. 22
292
x. 12
338
x. 19-25 .
312
x. 29
338
x. 31
338
x- 38, 39
336
xi.
277
xi. 1
290
xii. 1-1 3
3"
xii. 2
338
xii. 5-8 .
338
xii. 12
197
xii. 18-24
339
xii. 22-24
155
xii. 25 ff.
198
xiii. 3ff. .
323
xiii. 12, 13
206
Jas. i. 3-8 .
366
i. 6, 7 .
207
i. 12
202
i. 15
3*9
i. 17, 18.
406
i. 23 ff. .
25
i. 26, 27 .
37°
i. 27
119
i. 28
25
ii. [
382
ii. 5
25
ii. 8-13 .
370344 25
25
370
210 25
25
239
406292 25
76, 225
231, 3H239406 319
297 127
224 2243iS
224 109
371
335 142 125
225 87
198, 297
275 3"37i320 143
400
176, 372
37237i
176, 297 155
37i
400 179
400 127
297363 133
127, 210 134
146, 196
396 325 166
152
124, 363 363396
424

Index of Texts

Jas. ii. io .

ii. 14 ff. .

ii. 14-26

ii. 15, 16

ii. 18

ii. 26

iv. 7

v. 13

v. 14-20.

I Pet. i. 4 .

i. 2

i- 3

1. 3-10 .

i. 3, 11, 20 .

i. 7

i. 8, 9 .

i. 11

i. 18, 19.

i. 18-22 .

i. 21

ii. 1-9 .

ii. 5

ii. 5, 9 .

ii. 7, 8 .

ii. 20

ii. 21

ii. 21-24

ii. 24

iii. 13-16

iii. 18 .

iii. 21

iii. 22

iv. 7, 8 .

iv. 10, II

v. 4

v. 8

I John i. 1

i. 1-4 .

i. 1-7

i- 3

i. 5

i. 6— ii. 2

i. 6

i. 6-10 .

i. 9

ii. 1

ii. 2

ii. 7 ff. .

ii. 16

ii. 18 .

ii. 18-23

ii. 22 f. .

ii. 28 .

31

335

160, 30

Ij2
400 363325 176
363 136137176
, 210 319 150
197
227370370
327294
406 37o 1 86
2933i9
294 127
294294294 127
29437o 3" 176
319210 136
237248 345345258
322 325 141
155129
1, 302 172 175
206
324
325 3i8

PAGE

1 John iii. 1 ff. .

. 197, 208

iii. 1-4 .

• 128, 196, 339

iii. 6

¦ 322

iii. 8

¦ 135

iii. 9

. 322

iii. 16-18 ,

. 166

iii. 17

¦ 172, 173, 325

iii. 20, 21

. 302

iv. 2

• 139

iv. 2ff. .

• 325

iv. 8, 20, 21 .

. 172

iv. 10

• 175. 302

iv. 12-19

¦ 175

iv. 13-15

. 406

iv. 18 .

• 174

iv. 20

173. 175. 325

v. 1

¦ 172, 373

v. 1-5 .

. 176

v- 4, 5 •

¦ 374

v. 7

• 325. 326

v. 13 .

• 372, 374

v. 14

¦ ¦ 318

v. 16

¦ 142, 173

v. 16, 17

. 176

v. 18-20

• 345

Rev. i. 4 .

¦ 319, 406

i. 6

¦ 319

i. 10

• 324

i. 13 .

. 222

ii. 7, 11

• 319

ii. 10

. 210

iii. 20

• 344

iv. 2

¦ 324

v. 10

• 319

vii. 14, 15

¦ 319

xi. 8

. 205

xii. 17 .

. 222

xiv. 6 . .

. 205

xiv. 12 .

. 222

xvii. 3 .

324

xvii. 14 .

¦ 223

xix. 8

¦ 3'9

xix. 10

¦ 75

xix. 13

• 223, 237

xix. 16 .

. 223

XX. 6

. 207

xxi. 2, 9, 10 .

. 207

xxi. 6 .

. 222

xxi. 10 .

• 324

xxii. 3 .

• 319

xxii. 13 .

. 222

xxii. 16 .

. 222

xxii. 20 .

72, 222

INDEX OF MATTERS AND OF NAMES

PAGE
Abbott, Lyman . . .169
Accommodation, a method of
Christ's teaching . . 97 ff.
Acts compared with Revelation . 308 ff.
Adam, first and second . . 230
relation of, to sin of race . 139
Adoption, what Paul means by 197, 365
Agreement as to the essence of
Christianity . . . 385
does not mean dead uni
formity .... 385
not invalidated by variety of
terminology . . .391
Alexander, W. .... 302
Amiel, H. F. . . . 132, 270
Analysis, the method of, inN.T.
study .... 3
Anthropomorphism ... 98
Antichrist ..... 324
Apocalyptic view of the future,
Christ's .... 200 f,
material element to be in-
preted by spiritual . . 200 f.
Apostles, authority of writings of 410 ff.
incredulity of, in reference
to Christ's death . . 263
Arnold, Matthew . 163, 387, 390
Ascension of Christ . . . 307 ff.
reason for visible . . 3 1 2 f.
Atonement, day of . . . 296 f.
Authorship, agreements as to, of
N.T. writings . . 5
bearing of date on 6
Autosoteric, is Christ's teach
ing? . . . .144
Back to Christ, the proper way . 2
Badham, F. P  20
Baldensperger, W. . . 88, 259
Balfour, A. J  128
Baptism of Christ . . .241
Baptism, Christian, instituted by
Christ .... 334
meaning of John's . . 330 I
425

PAGE
Baptism, relation of the rite of,
to the grace symbolised 335 f.,
367 f.
sense of term m Christ's
vocabulary . . . 333
the symbol of union with
Christ .... 334 f.
Baxter, Richard ... 25
Begetting and creating, distinc
tion between . . . 225
Bengel  363
Bernard of Clairvaux and John
compared ... 7
Bernard, T. 1). . . 207
Beyschlag, W. . 38, 210, 336
Birth, the new . . . .196
Blake, William . 399
Blasphemy . . 243, 316
Blass, F  41. 57
Body of Christ, the . . . igof.
Bousset, W. . . . 43
Bovon, J. . -173. 388
Brooke, Stopford . . 218
Brown, Dr. John . 173
Browning, E. B. . . 130, 191
Browning, R. 38, 51,62, 278, 380,381
Bruce, A. B. 19, 22, 74, 87, 144, 153,
IS8, 225, 297
Bruder  188
Building, the use ofthe figure of igof.
Burns, Robert .... 87

Caiaphas

120, 301

Caird, Dr. E. .

88, 166

Caird, Principal

• • 338

Calvinists

• 153

Campbell, Lewis

. 287

Caspari, C. E. .

6

Chapuis, P.

77, 353

Child of God, explains

demand

for faith .

361, 365

ideal relation of man to God 196 f. ,

36i

relation to son of God . 197 f.

426

Index of Matters and of Names

PAGE
Christ, aim of, is religio-ethical . 162
antagonism to . . . 83
argument from analogy
applied to person of . 239 f.
associates His death with
resurrection . . . 267
attitude of, towards Old
Testament . . • . 43 f.
attitude of, towards title
Son of God . . .241
authority and originality of 85 ff.
consensus of apostolic view
as to the Person of . . 238
difficulty of self-revelation . 246
divinity of. . . 218 ff, 328
, , discussed by Him
self in John . . . 250 ff.
evidence from Temptation
of His view of His Person 240
expectations of His Presence
with His Church awak
ened by . . . . 310 ff.
how fulfilled _ 328, 333
growth of belief in divinity
of  220
Himself a revelation . . 89
homogeneity of conception
of Person of . . . 254 ff.
humanityof, in John's Gospel 248 f.
life and words of, in the
Epistles . . . . 29 ff.
names for His religio-ethical
ideal .... 179
objective reality of appear
ance of Risen . . 56 f. , 306
observance of the Jewish
law by . . . . 169
place of faith in life of 176 f., 213
popularity of, and its wane . 82 ff.
preincarnate existence of . 229 f.
qualifications of, as Saviour 261 f.
reasons for reserve of, in
reference to His own
death .... 262 f.
religio-ethical ideal of, is
social . . . . 177 f.
repudiation of blasphemy by 243
reserve in speaking of Him
self .... 213
self-consciousness of . 239
self-defence of . . 95 f.
sent by God . . . 145
spheres of activity . . 93
summary of the teaching of 80 f.
teaches by more than His
words 32f., 76f., 278f., 358f.
teaching of the Risen . 281, 334 f.'
the great Leveller . . 83 f.
unique position of, in
Hebrews . . . 225

PAGE
Christ, use of title Son of Man by 246
view of life, suffering, and
death .... 269 f.
was there development in
His view of His task ? . 105 f.
Christian community, as seen in
the Acts . . . 307 f.
its function for faith . . 381
its need of a name . . 185 ff.
not the object of justification 380
Christianity, agreement among
Christ and His apostles
as to essence of . . 385
independence of . 38, 215 f.
intended range of 67 f. , 155 ff.,
409 f.
is there a legal form of, in
the N.T. ? . . .398
popular character of . 41 f., 216
preparation for . . . 41
Christian truth a symmetrical
whole .... 392
Church, Christian community . 188 f.
Christ's use of . . . 187 f.
gradual adoption of the
name .... 185 ff.
how Paul reached his final
thought of the . 189,402
meaning of word . . l86f.
relation of Kingdom and . 192 f,
Clement of Alexandria . . 393
Clough, A. J. . . 82, 132, 283
Comforter, meaning of, as ap
plied to the Spirit . . 331
Communion with Christ . . 342 ff.
Cone, Orello . 159, 215, 223, 286
Corson, Professor ... 88
Cosmic significance of Christ's
mission . . . . H2f.
Covenant element in sacrifice . 274 f.
Creed and character, relation of 166,
174 ff-
Cremer, H. . . 187, 279, 302
Cup offered to Christ at cruci
fixion .... 269
Cyprian .... 382
Dale, R. W. . . 153, 403, 405
Dalman, G. . . 220, 244 f., 255
Date, agreements as to, of N.T.
writings .... 5
Date and place of composition of
Romans, etc. ; bearing of,
on teaching in Ephesians,
etc  291 f.
Davidson, George . . .271
Death, meaning of . . . 271
Death of Christ, a necessity, a
crime, an act of self-
surrender . . . 267 f.

Index of Matters and of Names

427

PAGE
Death of Christ, connected con
stantly with resurrection . 267
contrast in position of Christ
and the apostles in refer
ence to . . . . 263
crime of, the . . .281
how awaited by Christ . 265 ff.
light on Christ's view from
His view of life . . 269 f.
necessity for . . 283 ff, 350
Paul's view of, compared
with Christ's . . . 292 f.
predicted by Christ . . 263 ff.
reason of Christ's reserve in
reference to . . . 262 f.
representative character of . 27 1 f.
summary of Christ's view
of  279 f.
view of Hebrews of, com
pared with Christ's . . 298 f.
view of, in Gospels . . 280
„ in Hebrews . . 295 ff.
„ in John's writings . 299 ff.
,, in Paul's writings . 282 ff.
,, in the Acts . . 280
,, in 1 Peter . . 294
what gave value to the . 262
Demoniac possession . . 147
Denney, James . . .169
Depravity, total . . .140
Development in Christ's teach
ing, was it intentional ? . I05f.
its place in N.T. teaching . 402 ff.
Development, post-canonical . 405 ff.
what constitutes legitimate 404 f.,
408
Dillmann, A. . . .121, 348 f.
Discipleship . . . • 355 ff
Divinity of Christ . . . 218 ff.
as seen in Apocalypse 222
,, Hebrews . . 223 f.
growth of belief in . . 220
Dods, Marcus . . . 287, 301
Dogmatic theology, justification
of . ... 387 f.
Drummond, J. . . . . 237
Dynamic element in death for
men .... 278
Dynamic of Christian life, love
the 174, 343
Ecce Homo . . . 163, 387
Edwards, T. C. . . 112, 298
Erskine, T., of Linlathen . . 117
Eschatology of N.T. teachers . 24,
199 ff.
not non-ethical . . . 148
purpose of teaching of . 208
Eternal life. See Life.
Ethics, apostles' interest in . 163

PAGE
Ethics, apostles' interest in, seen
in motive of their Epistles 1 66
their place in N. T. teaching 162 ff. ,
208
Eunuchs, Christ's reference to . 168
Eusebius ..... 382
Evolution in Christ's teaching . 105
Expiatory element in death of
Christ .... 273 f.
Fairbairn, Principal A. . 263, 271
Faith, a faculty . . . 348
a growing principle 359 ff. , 374ff.
and obedience . . . 349
and repentance . . . 362
as desiderated in men by
Christ . . . 213, 241
Christ's call for, in Himself
and Plis message . . 352 ff.
„ „ re
produced in Paul . . 366
Christ's teaching as to faith
in John's Gospel . . 357 ff.
Christ's use of the term . 348 f.
explained by the call to
discipleship . . . 355 ff.
God the proper object of .351 ff.
how presented in Hebrews 371 f.
,, in James 15, 362 f.
,, in 1 Peter . 370
in what sense Christ de
mands faith in His words 358 f.
its development the purpose
of John's writings . . 372 f.
its moral value . 175, 362, 368 f.
its place in Christ's own life 176,
213, 351
of sole value for salvation . 364 ff.
relation of, to God's activity 376 ff.
the object of faith receives
special prominence in
John's writings . . 373
Father, God a . 151 ff, 196 fl
is a figurative idea . . 153
Father, the relation of the Son
to the . 226, 232, 247, 249 ff.
Features of N.T. writings . 9ff.
Fellowship with Christ, what it
means .... 343 f.
Field, F  86
Flesh, is it essentially sinful ? . 137
Forgiveness and justification 283
what is essential to . . 350
Forrest, D. W. . . 158
Forsyth, P. T. . . 153, 262, 409
Future, Christ's four certainties
as to the 203
Christ's twofold view of the 200 f.
effect of destruction of Jeru
salem on views of . . 206 f.

428

Index of Matters and of Names

PAGE
Future, how apprehended by the
apostles .... 205
the locus classicus for Christ's
view of the . . . 203
where the perplexity of the
apostles arose as to the . 206
Galatians, Epistle to, purpose
of . . . .283 f.
Galilee ..... 37
Garvie, A. E. . . . 380
Gieseler ... . 382
Gifford, E. H  233
Gift of tongues . . . 3 1 7 f.
God  145 f.
Jesus the Christian argument
for .... 146
love the supreme element in
nature of 153
relation of Christianity to
previous views of . . 1 46
the author of salvation, and
the place of faith . . 379 f.
"the God and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ " . 150
wrath of . . . . 148 ff.
Godet, F. 142, 155, 159, 205, 251,
290, 393
Gore, C  95, 380
Gospel, joyfulness of . . 114
Gospels and Epistles, relative
authority of . . . 27 f.
significance of dates of, on
view of the person of
Christ .... 219 ff.
Grace . 153
Green, J. R. . . 295 f.
Gunkel . ... 319
Hall, F. J  233
Handel's Messiah . . . 300
Harnack, A. 5, 14, 17, 88, 219, 227,
235, 237, 306, 399
Harper, A  169
Haupt, Erich . 139, 206, 258, 373
Haussleiter, J. . . . 351
Hebrews, acquaintance with
Transfiguration implied
in . . . . . 75f.
bearing of its purpose on
meaning of faith . . 371
bearing of person of Christ
on purpose of . . 223 f.
date of Epistle to . . 17
humanity of Christ in . 224
in what sense an apology
for Christianity . . 223 f.
treatment of the law in . 397 f.
unique position ascribed to
Christ in 225

PAGE
Hegel  208
Heine ..... 208
Henley, W. E. ... 87
Herrmann, W. ... 387
Hetero-soteric, is Paul's view, and
at variance with Christ ? . 144
Hilgenfeld, A. . . . 275, 350
Holtzmann, H. J. 14, 88, 150, 177, 194,
200, 230, 259, 275, 337, 363, 378
Holtzmann, Oscar . . .158
Hort, F. A. J. . . . 188, 382
Horton, R. P. . 87, io6f., 165, 184
Huxley, T. .... 39
Ideal, Christ's religio-ethical, is
social . . . . 177 ff.
,, ,, names for . 179
,, „ realisation of 199 ff.
Incarnation, an accommodation 98
how viewed by Jews . . 220 f.
relation of humiliation to . 233
significance of narratives of
birth of Christ for . . 218
was it necessary apart from
redemption . 112, 409
"In Christ" . . . . 337 ff.
Influences in the Jewish world . 36
Inheritance of sons of God . 198
James, attitude towards the law 396
date of Epistle of . 15
sketch of . . . . 45 f.
Jerusalem, destruction of 1 7, 205 f. , 223
Jesus, humanity of, undisputed 216,
220, 223 f.
• "5

meaning of name
Jewish-Christian communities,
conception of Christ in
life in
Jewish communities, conditions
of . . .
Jews, the fate of the, according
to Paul .
John, date and authorship of
Gospel and Epistles of
method of looking at work
of Christ
sketch of .
John the Baptist, attitude
wards Christ of
contrasted with Christ
Jowett, B. . . .
Jude, Epistle of
Judgment, ethical interest
predictions of
the finality of the
Justification and adoption
and faith . . . 350.
and forgiveness .
Just One, the .

226 f.
46 f.
35
377 1-

159
49 ff
259 f.
39 f-
39i 6
210209365
364 ff.
283 129

Index of Matters and of Names

429

Kexosis .
Ker, John
Keswick School
' ' Keys, Power of the '
Kidd, James

PAGE
¦ 233
90, 374
407, 409
. 69
183

Kingdom of God or of heaven . 1 79 ff.
comparison of various aspects
treated .... 393
contrast between treatment
of idea of Christ and of . 2l4f.
gradual disappearance of
term .... 183 f.
meaning of . . . i8off.
meaning of return to, in
theology . . .192
O.T. origin of term . . 181 f.
present - day prominence
given to ... 408
policy in the use of the term
common to Christ and
apostles . . . . 1 84 f.
realisation of . . . 1 99 ff.
relation of Church to . . 192 f.
the usage . . . .180
vital processes illustrative
of  194 f.
Knowling, J. .5
Lamb of God . . . 300 f.
Lambert, J. C. . . . 313
Larger hope, straits of the up
holders of the . . . 209 f.
Law, as love, is a life . . 173
attitude of James toward . 396
distinction of ceremonial
and moral . . . 1 70
endorsed as standard of
conduct . . . . 168 ff.
in what sense rejected 170, 395
Paul's treatment of the . 396
the value of the . 168 ff, 394
transformation of the . . 171
Laying on of hands . . 335. 371
Leroy-Beaulieu . . 35
Letter and spirit . . 23 1
Lewis, F. W  265
Liberty of the sons of God . 320
Lidgett, J. S. . . 213, 283, 403
Life, eternal . . . . 193 ff.
Christ's view of . . . 269 ff.
relation to kingdom . . 193
terms cognate to . . 195 ff
Literary character of N.T. writ
ings . . ¦ 389 ff-
Locality of Luke x.-xiii. and
John ix. and x. . . 94
Locke ..... 41
Logos idea . . 224, 235 f., 403
Lord's Supper, a rite instituted
by Christ . . .34° f-

PAGE
Lord's Supper, light from, on
meaning of death of Christ 274
symbolises communion with
Christ . . . 342
Love, as law . . . . 1 7 1 f.
its range, is John at one with
Christ ? . . . . 172 f.
the supreme element in the
nature of God . . 153 f.
Luke, sketch of -53
McGiffert, A. C. 237, 242, 262,
398 ff
M'Kail, J. W. . 33
Mackintosh, R. . . 395
Mackintosh, W. . . 144, 292
Mair, Alexander . . . 14
Man, carnal, natural, and spiritual 122
how the ideal of it is
attained. . . .127
immortality . . .126
N.T. view of, corresponds
to O.T. . . 121
solidarity of .125
the ideal . . 1 23
the soul in . 123
value of, to God 128
Mark, sketch of ... 52
Martineau, J. . . 155, 324, 337
Matheson, G. . . . . 259
Matthew, sketch of . . 5 1 f.
Mayor, J. B  364
Meinhold, J  395
Menegoz 17, 218, 225 f. , 296, 372
Messiah, Christ's claim to office
of, depends on divine
Sonship. . 241!'., 258 f.
no blasphemy in Christ's
claim to be . . 242
Milligan, W. . . . 159, 189
Miracles . . . 78, 116, 351
Missionary movements . . 409 f.
Moorhouse, Bishop . 153, 194, 217
Morals, difference in points
treated by Christ and by
His apostles . . . 167 f.
Murphy, J. J. . . .166
Murray, Andrew . . 179
Myers, F. W. H. . 355
Name for the Christian com
munity, attempts at . 185 f.
Nathanael . . . . 51
New Testament theology,
methods of 3
New Testament writings, as
sources of Christ's teaching 27 ff.
features of . . . . 9 ff.
order of . . 15 ff-
reliability of . . . iof.

43Q

Index of Matters and of Names

PAGE
Old Testament, influence of,
on Christianity . . 43 f.
Order of N.T. writings . . 15 ff.
significance of . 21 ff, 2i7ff.
Order of treatment of subject,
why adopted ... 8
Origen . . . . 382
Orr, James .... 380
Parable, Christ's use of . . 99
Parker, Joseph .... 270
Parousia, crude views of, how
explained . 202 f., 321, 402
Passover, time selected for His
death by Christ . . 276
Pastoral Epistles, authorship . 16
ethical interest in . 25, 167
Paul, acquaintance with facts of
Christ's life ... 29
Apostle of the Gentiles . 57
conception of Christ, how
reached and held by . 227 ff.
conversion of . . 56
formative influence of Cross
on  403 f.
fundamental agreement with
Christ as to Christ's death 286 f.
no divergence from Christ
in His view of the range
of God's interest . . 147
points of contact with Christ
in his view of Christ's
death .... 282
relation of his conversion to
his theology . . . 58 f.
relation of, to other apostolic
teachers . . . . 7 1
subjects of the preaching
of  29
treatment of the law by 170 f., 396
unique element in conversion
of  61
upbringing of . . . 35, 55
use of accommodation by . 103
was he a Perfectionist ? . 32 1 f.
was he a Ritualist ? . . 335 f.
Paul's Epistles, date of . 15
significance of the survival
of  13
Pentecost  313 ff.
Perfectionism without support in
Scripture . . . 321 f.
Person of Christ, development in
understanding of . . 402 f.
homogeneity of conception
of  254 ff.
variety in presentation of . 393
Peter, First Epistle of, date of . 17
Second Epistle ... 6
sketch of . . . . 47 ff.

PAGE
Pharisees, Christ's varying treat
ment of . . . . iooff.
Philo, contrasted with Christ . 39
his doctrine ofthe Logos 224, 235 f.
' ' Pillar " apostles . . . 71
Pope ... .102
Prayer in the Christian life . 176
Preincarnate existence of Christ. 229 f.,
253
Presence in absence of Christ
compared with Paul's . 312
Priest and victim, relation of . 295 f. ,
301
Priestly element in Christ's work,
origin of conception of 295 f. , 30 1
Progress, early, of Christianity
as seen in Acts and Re
velation .... 309 f.
Progress in Christ's teaching . 104
Prophecies, Christ's own 263 ff. ,
3» i-, 333
Prophecy, how to interpret . 199 f.
Propitiatory element in Christ's
death . 287 ff., 296 f., 301 f.
Ramsay, W. M. 15, 17, 18, 29, 41,
273, 287
Range of Christianity, intended,
as shown by training . 67
Ransom, death of Christ a . 272 ff.
Reconciliation with God, how
viewed by Paul . . 284 f.
Repentance and faith . 352, 362
Representative element in Christ's
death . 271, 284 ff., 301 f.
Repetitions in apostolic teaching 96 f.
in Christ's teaching . . 92 ff.
Resurrection of Christ . . 306 f.
of men .... 203
Reuss  12
Revelation, compared with Acts 308 f.
date and authorship of Book
of . . . .6, 16, 179
significance of survival of . 202 f.
Rewards, doctrine of . . 208
Righteousness, equivalent to
religion . . .' . 165 ff.
Risen Lord, influence of thought
of, on Christian community 308 f.
Ritschl, Albrecht 175, 274, 301, 380,
396, 401
Ritualist, was Paul a . . 335 f.
Robertson, James . . . 262
Robertson, William ... 98
Romanes, G. J. . . . 353
Ruskin  89
Rutherford, Samuel, and John
compared ... 7

Sabatier, A.

233

Index of Matters and of Names

431

PAGE
Sabatier, P. . . . . 337
Sacerdotalism . . 409
Sacramentarianism . . . 409
Sacrifice, salvation by . . 271 f.
Sacrificial element in Christ's
death .... 296!
,, ,, in ransom 273
Salmon, G. . ... 49
Salvation, the object of Christ's
mission . . . . 112
the range of 155 ff.
is there a legal way of, taught
in the N.T. ? . . . 399 ff.
,, „ origin
of idea that there is . . 401
Sanctification, how possible 320 f., 339 f.
Sanday and Headlam 70, 164, 287,
332, 336, 364, 380
Schmiedel, P. W. . . 273^,286
Schwartzkopf, P. . 157, 306, 313
Sermon on the Mount, structure
of . . . . 94
Serpent, meaning of brazen . 277
Shairp, Principal . 155, 165 f., 174
Silence on aspects of Christian
truth no proof of dissent . 392 ff.
Silence, the validity of the argu
ment from . . . 13, 29
Sin, as heart disobedience . 132
as unbelief. . . 133
cure more studied than
disease . . . . 131
difference between Christ
and others in treating . 130
in concrete more studied
than in abstract . . 131
in the regenerate man . 321 f.
not a matter of attention to
ritual . . . .132
origin of, do Christ and
apostles agree as to? . 134
rabbinical position . . 136
relation of temptation to . 135
universal . . . .143
unpardonable . . . 142 f.
vocabulary . . . 131
Sinfulness, degrees of . .140
Sinlessness .... 322 f.
Smith, W. Robertson . . 274
Soden, von . . . . II, 21
Solidarity of mankind 125, 141, 287
Somerville, D. . . 22, 219, 231
Son of God, Christ's attitude
toward title . . . 240
clues to the meaning of . 217 f.
danger of a priori viev/sheie 216 f.
fundamental thought in
Christ'sviewofHimself24i,259f. „ ,, in
Paul's view . . . 228 f.

PAGE
Son of God, how to be understood
as used by the apostles . 214 ff.
relation of sonship to
Messiahship . . 242, 258
subordination of, to Father 228,
232 ff.
Son of Man, Christ's use of . 244 ft'.
meaning of phrase, and why
adopted by Christ . . 245
Paul's equivalent for . . 230
Soul, supreme significance of . 123
Spirit, Holy, Christ not identi
fied with in 2 Cor. iii. 17 231
Christ's Alter Ego . 328,331!.
gift of, at Pentecost . 313 f.
,, ,, not an
isolated event . 314^
meaning of . . 3 1 5 f.
personality of the . 325 ff.
relation to human spirits . 326 f.
value of Synoptic teaching
about the . . . 328 f.
work of, as deliverer from
power of sin . . 323
,, author of holiness . 319 ff.
,, in the individual 319L , 331
,, source of know
ledge of truth 324 ff, 331
,, within the Church 318, 331
why not given during
Christ's earthly life . . 329
Stanton, V. H. . . 260, 263
Stephen, influence of, on Paul . 55 f,
Stevens, G. B. . . 227, 254
Stevenson, R. L. . . . 132
Suffering, use of . . 269 f.
Synoptics, problem of the . . i8ff.
link between their Christ-
ology and John's . . 247 f.
Synthesis, need of, in N.T.
study .... 4
Systematic view of Christian
truth consistent with
spirit of Christianity . 387 f.
Technical terms, absence of,
in N.T. teaching . . 389 f.
Temple, Paul's use of the figure
ofthe . . . 190, 320
Temptation, of Christ . . 240
value of . . . 127
Tennyson ... 132
Terminology, variety of, in N. T.
writings . . 388 ff.
Tolstoy, L. . . . 270
Tongues, gift of . . . 3 1 7 f-
Training of the New Testament
school . . . . 63 ff.
importance of spiritual
element in 65

432

Index of Matters and of Names

PAGE
Transfiguration 67, 75, 127, 241, 264 f.
Trinity, doctrine of, how reached 405 ff.

Truth, how best apprehended
how understood in Chris
tian circles
self-evidencing power of .
Types of N.T. teaching, diver
sity of . .
does not indicate deviation
from common truth

76
325
90 f.

392

Union in Christ and with Christ

210 f.

as taught by Christ .
from man's side

339 £
347

its bearing on Christ's

representative position in
His death

289 f.

its fundamental significance

211

its two sides

337

symbolised in baptism
Universalism of Christ

335 ff
156 ft.

Value of man to God

1 28

PAGE
Variety of type of Christian
teacher, value of . .60 ff.
Variety of types of teaching . 392
Vocation, Christ's Messianic 214ft.,
258 t, 402
Warfield, B. ... 363
Watson, John ... 86, 134
Weber, F  121
Weiss, Johannes 65, 213, 224, 307, 348
Weizsacker 4, 7, 18, 51, 57, 63, 74,
141, 168, 184, 204, 223,
231, 236, 292, 401
Wellhausen, J. ... 88
Wendt, H. H. 152, 201, 275, 278 f.,
3°7, 325, 331. 35°, 358, 378
Wernle, P  321
Westcott, B. F. 159, 237, 251, 279, 357
Wrath of God . . . .148 ft.
Christ's true attitude
towards . . . 150, 154
Wrede ..... 13
Wright, A. .... 20

PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED, EDINBURGH

T. & T. Clark's Publications.

THE NEW BIBLICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA.
' This "Dictionary seema likely to take its place as the standard authority for biblical students
Ofthe present generation.'— Times.
A DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE,
Dealing with its Language, Literature, and Contents,
including the Biblical Theology.
Edited by Jambs Hastings, M.A., D.D., with the assistance of J. A. Selbie,
M.A., and, chiefly in the Revision of the Proofs, of A. B. Davidson,
D.D., LL.D., Edinburgh; S. R Driver, D.D., Litt.D., Oxford; and
H. B. Swete, D.D., Litt.D., Cambridge.

7b be completed in Four Volumes, imperial 8uo (of nearly 900 pages each).
Price per Volume: in cloth, 28s.; in half-morocco, 34s.
{subject to the usual discount).

The Guardian says: (Vol. I.)— "We offer Dr. Hastings our sincere congratulations on tl>«
publication of the first instalment of this great enterprise. ... A work was urgently needed which
should present the student with the approved results of modern inquiry, and which should also
acquaint him with the methods by which theological problems are now approached by the most
learned and devout of our theologians.' (Vol. II.)— 'Dr. Hastings has brought out the second
volumeof his great Dictionary in good time. . . . The critical articles seem to us to maintain the
same high level of excellence which we naturally expect from their distinguished writers. . . .
Dr. Sanday's article "Jesus Christ" will take rank as of the first importance for students of
theology.' 'We welcome with the utmost cordiality the first volume of Messrs. Clark's great enterprise,
"A Dictionary of the Bible." That there was room and need for such a book is unquestionable.
. . . We have here all that the student can desire, a work of remarkable fulness, well up to date,
and yet at the same time conservative in its general tendency, almost faultlessly accurate, and
produced by the publishers in a most excellent and convenient style. We can thoroughly recom
mend it to our readers as a book which should fully satisfy their anticipations. . . . This new
Dictionary is one of the most important aids that have recently been furnished to a true under
standing of Scripture, and, properly used, will "brighten and enrich the pulpit work of every
minister who possesses it. . . . We are greatly struck by the excellence of the short articles. They
are better done than in any other work of the kind. We have compared several of them with their
sources, and this shows at once the unpretentious labour that is behind them. . . . Dr. A. B. Davidson
is a tower of strength, and he shows at his best in the articles on Angels, on Covenant (a masterpiece,
full of illumination), and on Eschatology of the Old Testament. His contributions are the chief
ornaments and treasure-stores of the Dictionary. . . . We are very conscious of having done most
inadequate justice to this very valuable book. Perhaps, however, enough has been said to show
our great sense of its worth. It is a book that one is sure to be turning to again and again with
increased confidence and gratitude. It will be an evil omen for the Church if ministers do not come
forward to make the best ofthe opportunity now presented them.'— Editor, British Weekly,
'Without question the most important contribution to the second volume is Dr. Sanday's
article on " Jesus Christ." There is nothing in English so full (it takes up fifty pages in double
column), so trustworthy, or so modern, and it makes the volume which contains it indispensable
to students. '—Journal of Theological Studies.
' Will give widespread satisfaction. Every person consulting it mi y rely upon its trustworthi
ness. . . . Far away in advance of any other Bible Dictionary that has ever been published in real
usefulness for preachers, Bible students, and teachers.'— Methodist Recorder.

Full Prospectus, with Specimen Pages, from all Booksellers, or from the Publishers.

T. & T. Clark's Publications.

C|w !tttmratx0n.al Critical Cnmmmlarjr.
UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF
The Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D., Oxford; the Rev. A. PLUMMER, M.A., D.D., Durham;
and the Rev. C. A. BRIGGS, D.D., New York.
' The publication of this series marks an epoch in English exegesis.' — British Weekly.
The First Nine Volumes are now ready, viz. : —
(1) Deuteronomy. By Professor S. E. Driver, D.D., Oxford.
Second Edition. Price 12s.
(2) Judges. By Professor G. F. Moore, D.D., Andover, U.S.A.
Second Edition. Price 12s.
(3) The Books of Samuel. By Professor Henry P. Smith,
D.D., Cincinnati. Price 12s.
(4) Proverbs. By Professor C. H. Tot, D.D., Harvard. Price 12s.
(5) Romans. By Professor W. Sanday, D.D., LL.D., and Eev.
A. C. Headlam, B.D., Oxford. Third Edition. Price 12s.
(6) St. Mark. By Professor E. P. Gould, D.D., Philadelphia.
Price 10s. 6d.
(7) St. Luke. By A. Plummer, D.D., Master of University College,
Durham. Second Edition. Price 12s.
(8) Philippians and Philemon. By Professor Marvin E.
Vincent, D.D., New York. Price 8s. 6d.
(9) Ephesians and Colossians. By T. K. Abbott, D.Lit.,
Trinity College, Dublin. Price 10s. 6d.
(1) Prof. G. A. Smith (in The Critical Review, says : ' The series could have had no
better introduction than this volume from its Old Testament editor. . . . Dr.
Driver has achieved a commentary of rare learning and still more rare candour and
sobriety of judgment. . . It is everywhere based on an independent study of
the text and history ... it has a large number of new details : its treatment of
the religious value of the Book is beyond praised
(2) Professor H. E. Kyle, D.D., says: ' I think it may safely be averred that so full
and scientific a commentary upon the text and subject-matter of the Book of Judges
has never been produced in the English language.'
(5) Principal P. H. Chase, D.D., Cambridge, says: 'We welcome it as an epoch-
making contribution to the study of St. Paul.'
(6) The Baptist Magazine says : ' As luminously suggestive as it is concise and sober.
The commentary proper is thoughtful, judicious, and erudite — the work of a master
in hermeneutics.1
(7) The Record says : ' Dr. Plummer's work is, it need hardly be said, admirably
done, both in the introduction and in the commentary. Readers will peruse
with pleasure his treatment of the leading characteristics of the Gospel. The
linguistic analysis leaves nothing to be desired.'
(8) The Scotsman says : ' In every way worthy of the series which was so well com
menced [in the New Testament] with the admirable commentary on the Romans
by Dr. Sanday and Mr. Headlam.'
(9) The Expository Times says: ' There is no work in all the "International" series
that is more faithful or more felicitous. . . . Dr. Abbott understands these Epistles
— we had almost said as if he had written them.'

A Prospectus giving full details of the Series, mth list of Contributors, post free.

T. & T. Clark's Publications.

Cfr* International ff^kgical fibrarg.
EDITED BY
Peincipal S. D. F. SALMOND, D.D., and Professor C. A. BRIGGS, D.D.

' A valuable and much needed addition to the theological literature of the English-
speaking nations.' — Academy.
The First Eight Volumes of the Series are now ready, viz. :—
(1) An Introduction to the Literature of the Old
Testament. By Professor S. E. Driver, D.D., Oxford.
Seventh Edition. Post 8vo, price 12s.
(2) Christian Ethics. By Newman Smyth, D.D., Author of ' Old
Eaiths in New Light,' etc. Third Edition. 10s. 6d.
(3) Apologetics ; or, Christianity Defensively Stated. By Professor
A. B. Bruce, D.D., Glasgow. Third Edition. 10s. 6d.
(4) History of Christian Doctrine. By Professor G. P.
Fisher, D.D., LL.D., Yale University. Second Edition. 12s.
(5) A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age.
By Professor A. C. McGifpert, D.D., New York. 12s.
(6) Christian Institutions. By A. V. G. Allen, D.D., Pro
fessor of Ecclesiastical History, Cambridge, Mass. 12s.
(7) The Christian Pastor and The Working Church.
By Washington Gladden, D.D., LL.D. 10s. 6d.
(8) The Theology of the New Testament. By Professor
George B. Stevens, D.D., Yale University. 12s.
(1) The Guardian says : ' By far the best account of the great critical problems con
nected with the Old Testament that has yet been written. ... It is a perfect
marvel of compression and lucidity combined. A monument of learning and well-
balanced judgment.'
(2) The Bookman says: 'It is the work of a wise, well-informed, independent, and
thoroughly competent writer. It is sure to become the text-book in Christian
Ethics.'
(3) The Expository Times says : ' The force and the freshness of all the writings that
Dr. Bruce has hitherto published have doubtless led many to look forward with
eager hope to this work ; and there need not be any fear of disappointment. It
has all the characteristics of the author's personality. ... It will render an
inestimable service.'
(4) The Critical Review says : ' A clear, readable, well-proportioned, and, regarding
it as a whole, remarkably just and accurate account of what the course and
development of doctrine throughout the ages, and in different countries, has been.'
(5) The Literary World says : ' A reverent and eminently candid treatment of the
Apostolic Age in the light of research.'
(6) The Christian World says : ' Unquestionably Professor Allen's most solid perform
ance ; and that, in view of what he has already accomplished, is saying a great deal. '
(7) The Baptist Magazine says : ' We know of no treatise so comprehensive as this.
... In fact, there is scarcely a phase of pastoral duty which is not touched
upon luminously and to good purpose.'
(8) The Bookman says : ' We are surprised by the strength and brilliance of this book.

*»* Prospectus, giving full details of the Series, with list of Contributors, post free.

T. & T. Clark's Publications.

The Guardian says : 'These volumes certainly must be said to answer their descrip
tions admirably. The reader will find in them studies in the history of the Church in
a series of short chapters which are always interesting and often very picturesque.'
Eras of tbe Christian Cburcb.
EDITED BY
JOHN FULTON, D.D., LL.D.
The SERIES will be Completed ih TEN VOLUMES.
Nine Volumes are now ready, price 6s. each,
The Age of Hildebrand. By Professor M. E. Vincent, D.D.
The Great "Western Schism. By Clinton Locke, D.D.
The Age of the Crusades. By James M. Ludlow, D.D.
The Ecumenical Councils. By Professor W. P. Du Bose, D.D.
The Age of the Renascence. By Henry Van Dyke, D.D.,
and Paul Van Dyke.
The Anglican Reformation. By Professor W. E. Clark,
LL.D., D.C.L., Trinity College, Toronto. (Editor and Translator
of Bishop Hefele's Councils of the Church.)
The Age of Charlemagne. By Professor Charles L. Wells.
The Post-Apostolic Age. By Lucius Waterman, D.D.,
with Introduction by the Eight Eev. H. C. Potter, D.D., LL.D.,
Bishop of New York.
The Apostolic Age. By J. Vernon Bartlet, M.A., Oxford.
'These "EnAs"are histories that will be enjoyably read and easily remembered. . . .
Professor Vincent had a great subject allotted to him, and " The Age of Hildebrand "
is an altogether worthy treatment of it. . . . In " The Age of the Crusades" we have
the prose version of a story familiar to most of us in the trappings of romance.
Dr. Ludlow holds the attention of his readers. . . . "The Great Western Schism" is
a bright and popular resumed' — Literary World.
In preparation (completing the Series),
The Protestant Reformation. By Professor W. Walker,
Ph.D., D.D, Hartford.
Zhe JEypo8itor\> tlimee.
Edited by the Eev. James Hastings, M.A., D.D.,
EDITOR, OF THE NEW 'DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE.'
The purpose of THE EXPOSITORY TIMES is to record the results ofthe best study of the
Bible in the present day, in an interesting and practically useful form ; and to stimulate and
guide both Ministers and Laymen towards a fuller, more accurate, more fruitful study of the
same inexhaustibly precious library.
PUBLISHED MONTHLY, PRICE 6d. ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION, 6s.
Complete Volumes, In cloth binding, price Ts. 6d.
' This yearly volume is as welcome as ever. The Expository Times is worthy of all
support. No student can afford to neglect it.' — Spectator.
' Dr. Hastings has made The Expository Times the best preacher's monthly magazine
we have. . . . The scholar and the ordinary pastor will find rich material here.' — London
Quarterly Review.
*»* A Specimen Copy of the Magazine will be sent free on application to the Publishers.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 9286