Skip to main content

Full text of "The Biblical theology of the New Testament"

See other formats

11 ! ' 





till!! Hi .1 . f 

. j.iul' I 


, f (I'l I .11 I 
ill :,■ 11*1,!' '< 

' -'111 '! I 

lii] t 111 i' 
;M l''i 


^i-fi I 






)i<yi'U-^ ' ^^'Ci.^.' , 


■■Ui(,\''yiJ^ . 

Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive 

in 2007 witii funding from 

IVIicrosoft Corporation 


Neb) Testament f^antitjoolts 










All Hghtt rtttrved 



J. 8. Cuihing k Co. — Berwick li Smith 
Norwood Mtii. U.S.A. 


The author hereby makes his acknowledgments to 
the Editor for very important help in the preparation 
of this book, quite out of the line of his required work. 
Owing to the very severe illness of the author, the 
editor has prepared the bibliographical notes, which 
are not only difficult of preparation, but in this case 
extremely helpful. 

The material for the note on justification was very 
kindly contributed by Professor R. W. Micou, D.D., 
of Alexandria Theological Seminary, a former col- 
league of the author at the Protestant Episcopal 
Divinity School in Philadelphia, and by Dr. McGif- 
fert of Union Theological Seminary. 

This book is the result of studies in Introduction 
to the books of the New Testament pursued by the 
author with his classes in the Philadelphia Divinity 
School. In these lectures he undertook to find his way 
through the New Testament, just as the critics have 
found a way for us through the Old Testament. Their 
success in this work in the Old Testament has only 
made more conspicuous the failure to do satisfactory 

work of the same kind in the New Testament. 



The author sends out this small treatise with con- 
siderable diffidence, but also with some confidence 
that it may enable students to do what he set out 
to do ; viz. to find their way through the New 


St. Geobor's, Nbw York, 
June 20, 1900. 



Introduction 1 

•Presuppositions — Groups of New Testament books : 
Synoptic Gospels, teaching of our Lord ; early chap- 
ters of Acts, early teaching of the Twelve ; Paul's 
writings, including Galatians, Romans, 1 and 2 Cor- 
inthians, Philippians, Philemon, and possibly 1 and 2 
Thessalonians ; later writings of the Twelve, Synop- 
tics, James, 1 Peter, Pauline, and Apocalypse, Anti- 
Pauline ; Alexandrian writings, Colossians, Ephesians, 
Pastoral Epistles, Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, and Johan- 
nean writings. 



Introduction 7 

Source; Synoptics, not fourth Gospel — Origin of 
Synoptics apostolic, but not early apostolic — Subject 
of teaching, Kingdom of God — Jesus' transformation 
of the current idea. 


GoD 13 

Divine unity and righteousness taught by Judaism 
— Jesus adds Divine graciousness — God's Father- 
hood — A King who serves his people — The law of 
love — This law exacting as well as gracious, 




The Kingdom of Gtod 24 

Obedience condition of menoibership — Agents of its 
enforcement: the truth, self -propagating power of 
good, and the sense of God — Law liberalised, but 
made more exacting — Emancipating effect of this 
teaching — Jesus belongs in the line of prophets. 


Jesus' Estimate of Himself 34 

Jesus' authority representative — He seeks to estab- 
lish the Kingdom of God — His power derived from 
God — Titles : Son of Man and Son of God ; both 
Messianic titles, but derived from his consciousness 
of relation to man and God. 


Jesus' Conception of Man 40 

Man a sinner, but his capacity for righteousness 
the more important fact — Teaching of the parables. 


Doctrine of Last Things 44 

Prediction of the end of the age, not of the world 
— The destruction of Jerusalem predicted as one of a 
continuous series of judgments, and the coming of 
Jesus in connection with it also one of a series — The 
final end not judgment, but complete redemption. 





The Apostles 61 

Difference between early and later teaching — For- 
mer found in early chapters of Acts — Contents of 
teaching — Resurrection and exaltation of Jesus — 
Difference between present and final exaltation — 
Difficulty of his death removed by resurrection — Re- 
version to Jewish Messianism in this doctrine of 
final exaltation, and to Jewish ceremonialism in 
worship — Summary, 




Sin and the Law 68 

Revolutionary character of Paulinism — A new 
righteousness — Involves freedom from ceremonial 
law — This liberalism opposed by Jewish church — 
Argument against their narrowness involves freedom 
from entire law — New principle of righteousness, 
faith — Rendered necessary by sin — Sin universal, 
originates in primary sin of Adam, and located in the 
flesh — Man himself, the ego, not invaded by it. 


The Righteousness of Faith 66 

This righteousness not normal ; inferior to legal 
righteousness, but real — Justification not a judicial 



term — Faith the principle of righteousness because it 
connects man with Christ, or before Christ with God 

— This connection with the crucified Christ — His 
deatli both atoning and morally curative, but espe- 
cially the latter — Penalty of sin physical death, from 
which we are delivered through the death and resur- 
rection of Christ ; and spiritual death, from which we 
are delivered by the spiritual working of the same 


The Holt Spirit in the Work of Redemption . . 81 
Salvation completed with our Lord's reappearance 

— Pledge of this in this world the gift of the Holy 
Spirit — Its work the redemption of the spirit — Iden- 
tification of Christ with the Spirit, who is made the 
Divine emanation incarnate in Jesus. 


Completion op the Work of Salvation ... 86 
Salvation completed in the redemption of the body 
— Present body subject to decay and sin — New body 
incorruptible and fitted for man's higher spiritual 
part — New world as well as new body — This closes 
the Messianic reign, and Jesus becomes subject to the 
Father — This result to take place within that gen- 


The Pauline Christologt 92 

Paul emphasises the death and resurrection of Jesus, 
not his life — Our Lord becomes thus a mystical 
being, coming from previous heavenly life — The form 
of this heavenly existence the Holy Spirit — Jesua' 



power to save men due to his humanity, not to his 
preexistence — Doctrine of our Lord's person in Phil, 
ii. 5-11 develops, but does not change, the doctrine 
of the earlier epistles. 



Authenticity of James and 1 Peter .... 102 

Liberalism of both epistles inconsistent with earlier 
apostolic teaching, but provided for by the change in 
that teaching shown especially in the Synoptical 


The Teaching of James 110 

Christian characterised by possession of the word 
of truth — Doctrine contains answer to the question, 
what he shall do with this word — Its controversial 
use deprecated, and even hearing and believing, or 
confession, without obedience insufficient — True wor- 
ship consists in this obedience — Undue respect for 
the rich and the controversial spirit — Justification by 
faith and works, not by faith without works — Doc- 
trine of a law of freedom, not of freedom from law — 
This freedom derived from view of the Divine gra- 
ciousness — Jesus the object of a faith, the fruit of 
which is the works of the kingdom of God. 


The Teaching of 1 Peter 119 

Epistle addressed to the Gentiles — The general 
subject the hope of the early Church of the early reap- 



pearance of our Lord, based on his resurrection — 
Condition meantime that of sufferer in a hostile world 
— Appeal for righteousness drawn from present 
condition of suffering and the future hope — Warning 
against sin which will justify the world's hostility — 
The hope belongs only to those who endure suffering 
in the spirit of Christ — Redemption through the 
death of Christ from sin itself, not primarily from 
penalty — Redemption corporate, not merely indi- 
vidual — The new life, begotten and nourished by the 
word of God — Repetition of Pauline doctrine of Christ 
as an indwelling power, involving his exaltation. 

The Apocalypse 126 

The extreme Anti-Paulinism and general extemal- 
ism of the book — Difficulty of associating the book 
with the Apostle John or with the fourth Gospel — 
Contents — Messianism ; element of revenge ; uni- 
versalism ; Messianic salvation — Death of Christ em- 
phasised, but the expiatory element eliminated. Our 
Lord called the "Lamb," but given the cruel quali- 
ties of a lion — Traces of Paulinism and Alexandrian- 
ism indicate composite authorship. 




Ephesians akd Colossians 132 

Natural that Alexandrianism should replace Paulin- 
ism in the Gentile churches — Denial of Pauline 
authorship of Ephesians and Colossians makes them 
pseudonymous. Difference from Pauline writings, 



first, in style ; and second in speculative method — 
False gnosis subordinating Jesus to angels replaced 
with true gnosLs exalting Jesus — This gnosis Alexan- 
drian — Jesus appears in it as the fulness and recon- 
ciliation of all things — Faith in hira replaces asceticism 
of false gnosis — Ephesians subordinates controversial 
purpose of this doctrine, and emphasises the unity of 
all things secured by it — Due not to Christ's place 
in redemption, but in creation — These writings pre- 
suppose Paulinism and come next to that in develop- 
ment of New Testament thought — Emphasis of the 
Church idea. 


The Pastoral Epistles 142 

Emphasis of ecclesiastical authority — Beginning of 
creeds — Authority appealed to against the false gnos- 
ticism and legalism appearing in Ephesians and 
Colossians — Moral teaching urgent, but perfunctory 

— Christology simple — Doctrine of salvation ethical 

— Simplicity a reaction from_ doctrinal excess — Ad- 
vanced ecclesiasticism. 


2 Peter and Jude 161 

2 Peter not by the same author as 1 Peter — Em- 
phasis of knowledge — Knowledge has for its object 
Jesus Christ, and for its source the eye-witness of the 
apostles — Testimony of prophetic scriptures — Epis- 
tle a pseudonymous prophecy against antinomian 
heresy and against doubt of Lord's reappearance — 
Christology simple and doctrine of salvation ethical 

— Doctrine of authority the modified view of Origen 

— Indications of late date. 




Epistle to the Hebrews 100 

Pauline authorship discredited — Alexandrianism of 
epistle appears in its allegorical interpretation, its doc- 
trine of types, and the application of these to prove 
superiority of Christianity to Judaism — Object of the 
epistle to lead its readers to substitute sacrifice of 
Jesus for the Jewish sacrifices — Superiority of the 
Son over angels and Moses and the Jewish priesthood 
— Comparison between Christ's high priesthood and 
the Jewish priesthood — Contrast between the taber- 
nacles belonging to the two systems — Merging of the 
priestly in the prophetic idea — Rationale of the 



The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics . . . 174 
Contrast between the Synoptic and the Johannean 
representation of our Lord's teaching — Parallels be- 
tween the fourth Gospel and the Synoptics. 


The Johannean Teaching 182 

General subject our Lord himself ; particular sub- 
ject his Messianic position — Alexandrian meaning of 
"Son of God" — Incarnation involves humanising 
of the Logos — Supernaturalism in Jesus attributed 
not to the Logos, but to the Father, or the Spirit as 


the agent of the Father — Christ's memory of his 
preexistent state — Jesus' equality with God results 
from his Sonship — The work of our Lord his gift 
to men of eternal life proceeding from himself — 
Eternal life possible only to those who have an 
aflSnity for the truth — Their attitude to Jesus depend- 
ent on their previous attitude toward preceding truths 

— Jesus identified with the various elements which 
feed life — The moral and not the expiatory view of 
his sacrifice Involved in this — Faith in Jesus made to 
signify a belief in the eternal truth of things and a 
belief in God — Difference between the Synoptical 
emphasis of obedience as the work of God and the 
Johannean emphasis of faith as the work of God — 
No opposition of faith and works — Meagre list of 
virtues — The love commended is that of the brethren 

— Fourth Gospel the Gospel of the contemplative life 

— Its defectiveness — Fulness of statement about the 
Holy Spirit — Last things not emphasised, but brief 
statement of them coincides with general New Testa- 
ment statement including their nearness — The exalta- 
tion of our Lord's person in this book modified by its 
Alexandrianism — The Logos the principle of iacarna- 
tion in God and the Spirit the principle of immanence 

— Pessimistic view of the world. 


First Epistle op John 205 

Authorship that of the fourth Gospel — Subject of 
the epistle the revelation of God in Christ, and the 
obligation which this lays on the Christian — Christ's 
death purifying and propitiatory — Christians are not 
to love the world, which is hopelessly evil — Anti- 
christs — Heresy taught by them identified with Ce- 
rinthianism — Antinomianism as well as false belief 
of these heretics — Men origiually children of the 



flesh and pass from this into the state of sons either 
of God or of the devil — Bias, however, toward the 
latter — Love identified with God — The sin unto 
death — The insistence on a coiTect belief in regard 
to Jesus' person indicates an advanced stage of the 
gnostic faith and a late date. 

Sdhhart 213 

Index 219 





Biblical Theology does not deal with the teaching Biblical 
of the Bible as a whole, but with the doctrinal contents theology, 
of each book or set of books. It presupposes that the 
Bible is not a single book, but a collection of books, 
and that these books, while they have a certain very 
important unity, owing to the presence in them of a 
divine element, are yet different from each other in the 
details of their doctrinal teaching. This is quite the 
most important fact remaining to be learned in regard 
to the Bible, that it is not a homogeneous unit, but 
a collection of more or less heterogeneous units. 
Among the weighty results of modern biblical study, 
this is preeminent. 

Biblical Theology has for its foundations. Criticism Its founda- 
and Exegesis. Inasmuch as, for the purposes of this *^°"^' 
study, the Bible is divided into groups of books, the 
very first thing is to determine the group to which 
each book belongs. By ascribing to Paul books which 
do not belong to him, we enlarge the circle of his teach- 
ing unduly, and Pauliuism proper is not so much 
enlarged as debased. Then, there is no place where the 
difficulty of running before you are sent has. been 
shown so strikingly as in the attempts of men to 


Source of the 
variety of 
in N. T. 

1. The 
of Priest and 


2. The 
of Prophet 
and Scribe. 


teach Biblical Theology, who are not first and foremost 

The variety of the elements which enter into the 
New Testament teachings, is rooted in the older 
Jewish literature. We have in that preceding litera- 
ture a series of contrasts, which have passed over into 
the New Testament literature, and which help us to 
divide the books into their different classes. These 
contrasts are as follows : — 

1. TTie antagonism of Priest and Prophet. The 
priest in religion represents the attempt to win God's 
favour, or to avert his displeasure, by something be- 
sides obedience to his will, and especially by sacrifices 
and offerings, and various ceremonial forms. He rep- 
resents also the demand that these functions, being of 
the nature of mysteries, be performed by a sacred 
class. The prophet rejects the whole system, and 
insists that nothing is required of man, except right- 
eousness toward God and his fellow-man, and, if he is 
not living righteously, that he begin immediately. Man 
belongs to a spiritual order, and his obligations are 
inward, not external. Singularly enough, this antag- 
onism of two things lying almost beside each other in 
the Old Testament has been often overlooked, and 
they have been taken as coordinate parts of the one 
Judaism. In their transfer to the New Testament, 
there is the same apparent coordination, and the same 
real antagonism. 

2. TJie antagonism of Prophet and Scribe. This 
antagonism is so generally recognised in the Gospels 
as to need no argument here, only a statement of the 
character of the two contrasted forces in religion. The 
prophet is the man who sees the spiritual side of 
things, and has courage and utterance to impress it on 
his generation. He has these gifts because he has the 
vision of God, and hears his voice condemning the 


sins of the prophet's own generation. The scribe on 
the other hand represents the idea that God ceased to 
speak to men at some time in the past, and he therefore 
turns to the past for religious ideas. He is the tradi- 
tionalist, and like Lot's wife, ever looking back, is 
changed into a pillar of stone. His instrument, more- 
over, is a drag-net, and not a divining-rod. All canon- 
ical scripture is alike to him; the Levitical law as well 
as the prophets who condemn it, except that being 
himself without the prophetic spirit, he prefers 

3. The contrast of Prophet and Philosopher. These 3. The 
two are not exactly opposed, but occupy different p^ro^^^ife* ,^fi<j 
spheres. The prophet is concerned only with that Philosopher, 
side of divine or human being that eventuates in con- 
duct. For instance, he dwells on the spiritual side of 
man, but the incarnation of the spirit, and its origin, 
being only speculative in their interest, he leaves 
unsearched. The speculative side of Judaism is not 
Jewish, but comes only with the contact of Jew and 
Greek in Alexandrianism. And the new element which 
it introduces is a good example of the contrast of 
philosopher and prophet. The Jewish Scriptures 
reveal the fact of creation. Alexandrianism discusses 
the process, starting with Platonic dualism and intro- 
ducing the Logos as the agent of the otherwise impos- 
sible creation. Paul's discussion of the origin of sin is 
another example of the attempt to rationalise what the 
prophet treats merely as a tremendous spiritual fact. 
Now the note of inspiration, with its accompaniment 
of authority, belongs only to the prophetic side of 
Scripture. Paul's discussion of sin falls into two parts, 
a description of the consciousness of sin in a man of abso- 
lutely unique moral earnestness, and a rationale of sin 
as a universal fact. In the one, he interests me greatly, 
but only in the other does he speak with authority. 


i. The 
growth and 
contrasts of 
the Mes- 
sianic idea. 

The five 
groups of 
the N. T. 

1. The 


4. The growth and contrasts of the Messianic idea. 
The idea of which Messianism is the final form, is that 
of the coming greatness of the people of God. After 
the establishment of the Davidic dynasty, this destiny 
came to be identified with that of the Davidic line. 
After the exile, it took the form of deliverance from 
the different powers to which the Jews were succes- 
sively subject, and finally was expected at the hands of 
a mysterious heroic king in the Davidic line. This final 
form is that of the Jewish Messiah in the New Testa- 
ment time. These are the particulars : the general idea 
is that of material greatness as the privilege and destiny 
of the people of God. But meantime, the actual hard 
fortune of the people, and especially of its best class, 
was teaching a different ideal of national greatness, 
which finds expression in the Deutero-Isaiah. His 
Servant of Jehovah is just this pious remnant, this 
spiritual elite of the nation, and he suffers because he. 
is possessed of this superior goodness, and in order to 
deliver the sinful majority. There is here the glim- 
mering of a great truth, that to be the people of God 
is the distinctive greatness of the Jewish nation, and 
that to suffer in that character is the culmination of 
the greatness. 

This contrast is the final shape in which the spirit- 
ual form of the religious idea is brought into conflict 
with its various opposites. 

For the purpose of the historical study necessitated 
by Biblical Theology, the books of the New Testament 
are divisible into the following groups : — 

1.- The Synoptic Gospels, containing the teaching of 
our Lord. As we shall see hereafter, these writings 
have to be considered, not only with regard to the pur- 
pose of Jesus as the original source of this teaching, 
but also with regard to the purpose of the evangelists 
themselves. But their importance as a valid record of 


our Lerd's teaching is vastly greater than as a record 
of tlie purposes of their authors. 

2. The early teaching of the Twelve, of which the main 2. The early 
record is the discourses in the early chapters of the the^^wlive. 
Acts. These chapters show us a lapse on the part of 

the Twelve from our Lord's teaching into Jewish Mes- 
sianism, while Paul in Galatians shows us their lapse 
from our Lord's liberalised treatment of the law, back 
into Mosaism. 

3. Paul's writings, containing the earliest protest 3. Paul's 
against this lapse into Mosaism, but proclaiming also ^"^i^^^e*- 
freedom from law as such. These writings include 
Galatians, Komans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 

and Philemon, and perhaps 1 and 2 Thessalonians. 

4. The later writings of the Twelve, containing their 4. The later 
answer to Paul's announcement of freedom from law ^e Twelve, 
as such, and showing that the law itself, the real law 

as distinguished from Mosaism, is a law of freedom. 
This group includes the Synoptics, which are written 
to show Jesus' teaching about this matter, James, 
and 1 Peter. The Apocalypse is an anti-Pauline writing 
of the same period. 

6. Tlie writings of the Alexandrian period. Alexan- 5. The writ- 
drianism is Judaism modified by its contact with Hel- Alexandrian 
lenism. Christianity became under its influence, first, period. 
an angelology, involving a depreciation of our Lord's 
person: and secondly, a rehabilitation of the Logos 
doctrine, involving the exaltation of the person of 
Jesus by making him an incarnation of the Logos. 
These writings include (1) Colossians, Ephesians, the 
Pastoral Epistles, Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude ; and (2) the 
Johannean writings. 

The division thus made between these two groups 
of writings is one rather of author than of general 
philosophical spirit. In this the entire group is at 
one. The point of view, however, is markedly dif- 


ferent as regards doctrine and, in addition, the ecclesi- 
astical element is less evident in the Johannean than 
in most of the other Alexandrian writings of the canon. 
For this reason the Johannean literature is treated as 
a separate division. 





It may be asked why this teaching is sought in the 
Synoptics, and not also in the fourth Gospel. All of The 
them are Gospels, and all of them combine more or Synoptics as 

IT • 1 I • ■ mi sources of 

less actual discourse with sub3ective elements. The the teaching 
answer is, that in the Synoptics actual discourse pre- °* Jesus, 
dominates and subjective elements are minor and 
incidental, while in John the subjective element pre- 
dominates. Proof of this is to be found (a) in the 
close resemblance between the discourse of Jesus in 
the fourth Gospel and the other Johannean writings ; 
(6) in the difference between the Synoptics and John 
in important matters, such as the time of Jesus' 
announcement of himself as the Messiah, in which 
probability is with the Synoptics ; (c) in the supremacy 
and absoluteness of the teaching in the Synoptics. 

As to the origin of the Synoptic Gospels, tradition ^ 
tells us that Peter rehearsed the story of Jesus* life Origin of the 
to Mark, who put it into written form. Also that Synoptics. 
Matthew wrote the Logia, or Discourses of our Lord, 
in Hebrew (Aramaic). These are the two sources of 

1 See especially Eusebius, Church History, iii, 39, and vl, 14. 



our present Gospels, ISIark's account being identical 
with our Mark, and the main part, the trunk of the 
other two Gospels, while the Logia of Matthew is the 
source of the supplementary part of Matthew and 

But the notion that the Gospels are the product of 
tradition, or are the story frequently told by Peter 
in his preaching, and finally written out by Mark ; or, 
indeed, that this story was in any sense familiar to 
the primitive Church, is contradicted by what we know 
of the attitude of the Twelve, and of the church at 
Jerusalem toward the liberal notions of the Synoptics. 
The primitive Church was Judaistic in its belief; its 
Messiah was Jewish, and its legalism was not that of 
the Prophets ; not even of the written law, but of the 
traditional law — that is, was Pharisaic.^ Its attitude 
toward Paul on the one hand and James on the other, 
as well as the traditions of the extreme legalism of 
James, are a sufficient indication of this.' On the 
contrary, the Gospels are anti-Judaistic in their teach- 
ing, declaring the oral law, and parts of the written 

^ For a general discussion, see Bruce, in Expositor's Greek 
Testament; Stanton, Art. "Gospels," in Hastings' Dictionary 
of the Bible; Sanday, Arts, in Expositor 1891, on "A Survey 
of the Synoptic Question" ; Gould, Commentary on Mark, 
xliv-xlix ; Woods, Studia Biblica, II, 59-104. The oral tradition 
theory is set forth by Wright, Composition of the Four Gospels, 
and Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels; the 
two-document theory, by Holtzmann, Einleitung in das N.T., 
and Weiss, Manual of Introduction to the N. T. Other works 
covering the subject are Ililgenfeld, Einleitung in das N. T. ; 
Zahn, Einleitung in das N. T. ; Godet, Introduction to the N. T. ; 
Gospel Collection and St. Matthew; Badham, TTie Formation 
of the Gospels. For full discussion, see Bacon, Introduction, in 
this Series. 

2 See, for instance. Acts 21 : 20. 

* These traditions as to James as given by Hegesippus are 
to be found in Eusebius, Church History, ii, 23. 


law, to be human traditions. At the same time, they 
are very strict in their enforcement of the real law of 
God, insisting that obedience to that is the one condi- 
tion, in fact the real meaning of membership in the 
kingdom of heaven. Such teaching as this, or writ- 
ings embodying such teachings, could not have grown 
in the soil of a Judaistic Church, nor could that Church 
be nourished by such teaching. But Peter in the early 
period was Judaistic, not anti-Judaistic, and hence was 
not, in that period, the source of these anti-Judaistic 
writings. They are Pauline in their opposition to the 
Levitical law, and anti-Pauline in their insistence on 
obedience to the real law as the principle of righteous- 
ness and the condition of favour with God. The one 
position is as clearly marked as the other, and both are 
equally intentional, reflecting the status of the writer, 
as well as the Master whose teaching he records. 

On the other hand, so trustworthy and sympathetic 
a report must have come from the circle of the Twelve. 
The tradition of Petrine authorship is correct, but it 
is a later, a converted, Peter, who had been moved by 
what seemed to be the error in both the Jewish and 
the Pauline interpretation of the Gospel to recall the 
words of Jesus as the corrective of both. This is 
equally true of the Logia of Matthew, which is the 
supplementary source of our present Matthew and 
Luke. Matthew, as the only publican among the 
Twelve, would be specially fitted to report the parts 
of Jesus' teaching antagonistic to strict Pharisaism, 
and at the same time, his position among the Twelve 
would make the early publication of such a collection 
of sayings improbable. 

On the whole, this result of a careful induction of 
the New Testament facts is eminently satisfactory. 
It makes Paul the beginning of the movement in the 
New Testament Church toward a true understanding 

The Gospel 
of Mark not 
from the 

The Synop- 
tics not the 
products of 

Yet both 
Mark and 
the Logia 
are apos- 

Summary : 
the relative 
of Peter, 
Paul, and 


of Jesus' position, but by no means the end. He did 
not lead the Church back to that position, but he was 
the means of stirring up the original apostles to do 
that work. Secondarily, it is Peter, and not Paul, who 
restores to Christianity its proper balance ; and prima- 
rily it is neither Paul nor Peter, but Jesus himself, 
since Peter is able to accomplish it by a sympathetic 
report of our Lord's teaching ; i. e., our Gospel of Mark. 
The King- The central subject in the teaching of Jesus as it is 

dom of God. recorded in the Synoptic Gospels is the Kingdom of 
God. The importance of this term is shown (1) by 
the fact that whenever the teaching of Jesus is 
summed up in a single phrase, the phrase is the 
" Kingdom of God " ; ^ (2) by the readiness with 
which special subjects range themselves under this 
general head. It is assumed, evidently, that this sub- 
ject will be understood, that it is familiar to Jesus' 
audiences. It is necessary to consider this statement 
in some detail. Among the Jews'* the kingdom of 
The God meant (a) the supremacy of Israel as the people 

thou^ght*" of God; (6) the repentance of Israel, since their sin 
was what prevented their ascendency; (c) the inter- 
vention of God, since their fall was due to his with- 
drawal ; (d) the appearance of a king in the Davidic 
line, in whom the national hopes were to be realised ; 

1 Mat. 4 : 23 ; 9 : 35 ; 24 : 14 ; Mk. 1 : 14, 15 ; Lk. 4 : 43 ; 8:1; 
16 : 10. 

2 See Schiirer, Jewish People in the Time of Christ, Pt. II, 
II, 154-187 ; Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, I, 33-89 ; Mathews, 
New Testament Times in Palestine, Ch. 13 ; Weber, Judische 
Theologie; Schiiltz, 0. T. Theology, II, 197, sq., 354 sq. ; Issel, 
Eeich Gottes, 7-26 ; Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, 
3-99 ; Scnedermann, Die Israelitische Vorstelhmg vom Konig- 
reiche Gottes als Voraussetzung der Verkundigung und Lehre 
Jesu ; Goodspeed, Israel's Messianic Hope (which contains an 
admirable bibliography and is the best historical treatment of 
the subject). 



(e) the idealising of the Messiah, whose appearance 
was to be sudden and mysterious, and who would 
concentrate in himself the national glory; (/) the 
inclusion of other nations in the kingdom, partly by 
conversion, partly by conquest. Of these (a) and (d) 
are the generic and dominant elements. 

The kingdom of God is fundamental in the teaching 
of Jesus by virtue of his claim to be the Messianic king; 
involving as it does the announcement that the king- 
dom was about to be established.^ But it is only the 
essential idea that is retained by him, the elements 
that enter into it being all more or less transformed. 
It is this transformation which makes it necessary for 
him to occupy so much time over the subject. In 
place of the supremacy of the people of God is put 
the supremacy of God. In place of a national or 
racial people of God is put the people who possess 
certain qualities, such as humility, gentleness, poverty 
(of heart), and the like. That is, the kingdom is 
idealised and made ethical. It is those who are in- 
wardly subject to God who constitute his kingdom. 
It is in the interest of this spiritual kingdom that 
God intervenes, and his intervention is of the kind 
that the spirituality of the kingdom demands. The 
object is not to preserve its members, not even its 
king, from outward evil, or to subject hostile powers 
to them; but to procure in them, and eventually 
through them in the world, this inward obedience to 
God. Its members, including even its king, are, on 
the other hand, to suffer persecution, since only 
an intervention of physical force could save them. 
The spiritual means for the establishment of the king- 
dom are, first, the power of the truth to make its own 
way owing to its essential affinity with human nature ; 
and, secondly, the power of righteousness, or the 
1 Mat. 3:2; 4:17; 10 : 7, etc. 


embodied truth, to communicate itself, to spread from 
man to man. Jesus' own kingly power is of this 
spiritual kind. He rules within, controlling men by 
his absolute truth, his righteousness, and his love. 
Evidently, it came to be included in this programme 
that Israel was to be set aside. The absolute spiritu- 
ality of the kingdom meant its catholicity. "Accepted, 
not enforced," — this is its motto. Force can procure 
outward subjection and obedience, but only spiritual 
acceptance can procure inward obedience. The abso- 
lute elimination of external force is therefore demanded 
by the very terms of the problem, which render force 



Since the object of Jesus is to establish God's rule 
over men by persuasion, it is evident that the stress of 
his teaching must be upon the doctrine of God. He 
must set God before men in such a way as to draw 
them to him. But the real occasions of this teaching 
are to be found, not in its object, but in the facts of 
Jesus' own spiritual nature and experience. The 
source of his spiritual life was in his sense of God. 
No other fact stood out so strongly as this in his 
teeming consciousness. And he saw moreover that 
this is the normal condition of men, and that the thing 
which rendered the life of men abnormal and unsatis- 
factory was the absence of this consciousness of God, 
which he therefore set himself to produce. But he 
also saw that such ideas of God as men had, needed 
absolute revision in the light of that knowledge which 
his own perfect sense of God gave him. 

At the same time, Jesus found among the Jews ^ a 
comparative knowledge of God, which made them the 
nation from which his work of establishing the king- 
dom must start. The great contribution of Israel to 

The doctrine 
of God in the 
teaching of 

The contri- 
bution of the 
Jews to the 
doctrine of 

1 Otley, Aspects of the 0. T. , 161-205 ; Schiiltz, O. T. Theology, 
rr, 100-179 ; Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, I, 48 sq.; Kittel, 
History of the Hebreios, I, 242 sq., II, 157 sq. ; Montefiore, Ilib- 
bert Lectures, 1892, 415 sq., 539 sq. ; Smith, Religion of the 
Semites, 28-139 ; Budde, Beligion of Israel to the Exile ; 
Duhm, Theologie der Fropheten; Weber, Judische Theologie. 




religious thought was the unity and righteousness of 
God. Our Lord makes use of the former truth, the 
unity of the Divine Being, to enforce the concentra- 
tion of religious affection upon the One God, after the 
fashion of the Old Testament.^ And he uses the abso- 
luteness of the divine righteousness to enforce righteous- 
ness in man.^ But the noticeable thing about Jesus' 
doctrine of God is the absence of everything touching 
the mode of the Divine Being, and the concentration 
of attention upon his ethical qualities. There is in 
his teaching little or no contribution to the philosophy 
of the Divine Being, its whole effect being to increase 
our religious knowledge, and to excite our religious 

The most unique and instructive element in Jesus' 
presentation of God is the contribution made to it by 
his own activity. What he was, and did, is of more 
consequence than what he said. There is contained in 
that life more proof that God is, than in all other 
approach of God to man, or of man to God. Now, in 
the investigation of this side of the revelation through 
Christ, it is the miracles that attract our attention first, 
and paradoxical though it may seem, it is the miracles 
that afford us most valuable information. There are 
two facts about them which are alike interesting and 
apparently contradictory. First, their frequency — 
for they make the bulk of the Gospel story; and sec- 
ondly, our Lord's reticence about them.^ This fre- 
quency on the one hand means their importance, but 
the reticence means that we have mistaken their 
apologetic use. We say that the power by itself is 
proof of Jesus' divine mission. But this would not 
lead to reticence. Evidently the miracles had for their 

1 Mk. 12 : 29. 2 Mat. 5 : 48. » Mk. 1 : 44, 46 ; 6 : 43 ; 7 : 36 , 
8 : 26 ; Mat. 9 : 30. 

GOD 15 

object just what appears, when we approach them from, 
any other side than just their power. They are works 
of beneficence, performed to meet some need, or to 
alleviate some ill. And they are restricted to this. 
There is in them no show of judgment, of hostility to 
enemies, of protection against persecution, no external 
propagation of religion. All of these objects belong 
to miracles wherever else you find a miracle story, and 
their absence is the unique thing about Jesus' miracles. 
It is evidently just the effect of wonder produced by 
their supernatural power which Jesus deprecated, and 
which led him to enforce silence about them among Miracles had 
the people. And yet, we should be making a mistake *" apoio- 
about the miracles, if we said that they had no apolo- 
getic effect. No, Jesus' desire being to procure obe- 
dience to God among men, by showing above all what 
God is, nothing could have been more effective than 
the miracles. They show us in a picture what would 
be the effect of introducing God's presence and rule 
among men, on the side of our external ills. We can- 
not say exactly that they solve the problem of these 
evils, but they do show the divine pity, and, therefore, 
that to set up God's kingdom would mean the alle- 
viation of evils. It would mean the unhindered x>lay 
in the world of a Supreme Power actively interested 
in man's good, and untiring in the pursuit of it. 

We learn, moreover, what the kingdom of God would Miracles 
mean on the spiritual side. The reason that Jesus, liagdom. 
who, after all, was sent here principally for the amelio- 
ration of man's spiritual condition, was so shut up to 
this physical display of his beneficent power, was evi- 
dently the same lack of faith which in several cases 
prevented his miracles.* If he had found even the 
same amount of faith in the spiritual realm as in the 

1 Mat. 9 : 28, 29 ; 17 : 16, 19 ; Mk. 6 : 6. 


physical, he could have produced corresponding effects. 
For faith is the undoubted medium of spiritual gifts, 
■whereas its relations to physical miracles is yet await- 
ing a satisfactory explanation. The teaching of the 
miracles is therefore this, that, whatever may be the 
outward appearance, God's will toward men is con- 
sistently, and without exception, beneficent ; it is a good 
will. This is one. side of the revelation of the king- 
dom therefore, and it is a Gospel, a piece of good news, 
that God is about to establish his kingdom among 

The miracles show us the divine attitude toward 
the physical evils that infest the world. We have an 
equally decisive sign of God's attitude toward the 
spiritual evils, the sins of men, in Christ's treatment 
of men whom society cast out as socially and morally 
defiling. Prominent among these were the gatherers 
of the Koman taxes, the men called publicans in our 
Version. Their office was unpatriotic, and opened 
the way for exactions and frauds, of which it is 
evident that they were no ways loath to avail them- 
selves. Yet one of this despised class Jesus called 
to be an apostle, another he took pains to treat 
with distinction, and he was known as the friend of 
the whole class. With them he associated in the 
same treatment the women on whom society especially 
puts its ban. The story of one of these, and of our 
Lord's infinite tact and gentleness in responding to 
her penitence and shame-stricken love, is one of the 
most beautiful in even his shining record.^ It shows 
us what is God's heart toward a sinful world, that 

1 See Bruce, The Miraculous Element in the Gospels ; Trench, 
Miracles ; Burton, Chrisfs Acted Parables ; Gould, Interna- 
tional Grit. Com. on Mark, notes on 1 :45 ; Dods, "Jesus as 
Healer," Biblical World, March, 1900. 

a Lk. 7 : 36-60. 

GOD 17 

it is not his anger that is stirred up, nor his justice 
that is emphasised, in his contact with these outcasts 
of society, but a tireless and persistent love and pity. 
But as it would be inconsistent with the idea of the 
kingdom of God, to have it appear that God is any- 
way tolerant of sin, this friendliness of Christ toward 
sinners is exercised only in the interest of cure, and 
forgiveness is conditioned on repentance. 

There is another side, moreover, to this treatment of 
sin by our Lord. The sin which is acknowledged and 
confessed he treats with this clemency. The sin which 
masquerades as righteousness he treats with the sever- 
ity that it deserves. His condemnation of it, more- Thetheolog- 

over, he iustifies by a name which unfortunately our *^*^ signifi- 
, , ,. . , , , ,. .. cance of the 

translators have disguised by merely transliterating it. attitude of 

Sinners of this class he calls hypocrites, that is, play- ^f|"j ^cial 
actors, performers of a part. And the thing which he classes, 
condemns in them is this falseness, the unreality of 
their lives. His teaching is occupied largely with the 
exposure of this false righteousness, and with the 
exposition from one side and another of the nature 
of true righteousness. His association with tax- 
gatherers and harlots, therefore, is something more 
than mere pity, an unselfishness which goes where it 
is most needed. It is a readjustment of values, showing 
that the divine judgments are different in kind from 
human judgments. Men's judgments test a man by 
his respectability, or outward conformity to the man- 
ners and morals of society. God's judgments have 
regard always to motives, and are lenient or severe 

An extreme graciousness, coupled with an unex- Modifica- 
pected severity, seems then to be our Lord's spirit in !io|» ^^ o"'^ 
his dealings with the sin of men. There are three con- to the sever- 
siderations, however, to modify our judgment of this ^^^ °^ Jesus, 
severity. In the first place, the sin that is judged 


severely is the lack of this graeiousness in dealing 
with other men.* It was not so much that the Scribes 
and Pharisees were scrupulous about small and unim- 
portant matters, as that they were unscrupulous about 
really important matters, and especially about this 
mercy ^ which God displays so bountifully, but which 
2. His teach- he also exacts so rigorously. Secondly, the statement 
eradousneffi about the sun and rain, which God is said to send upon 
good and evil alike. This is given as a reason why 
men should forgive each other. When we come to 
analyse this statement, we find in it the restriction 
of God's judgments to the sphere of cause and effect. 
Some evil must result from evil upon the evil man 
himself; that is a matter of course. But what will 
that result be in a world like this, which is governed 
purely by law, that is, by natural sequence ? Evidently, 
results will be of the same kind as the cause. Moral 
evil will follow moral evil, intellectual and physical 
ills will result from causes of the same kind, and will 
be restricted to these. Now, the beauty of Jesus' 
announcement of this principle is that he makes it a 
matter of God's disposition. It is a matter of his grace, 
that he does not extend his necessary judgments against 
sin by adding to them pains and deprivations belonging 
to the physical sphere*^ Such sufferings as the result 
of sin could be ascribed only to God's vengeance, and 
the core of our Lord's doctrine of God is that he is 
not vengeful. Thirdly, there is the statement about 
the joy in heaven over one sinner that repents, and 
not only joy, but the endeavour to secure that joy which 
ceases not until its object is accomplished.* The 
upshot of the whole matter of God's severity is, thus, 

1 Mat. 23 : 23, 25, 29-36 ; Mk. 12 : 40. 

2 Lk. 11 : 42 ; Mat. 23 : 23. « Mat. 5 : 46. 
♦ Lk. 15; see especially vs. 4. The expression "imtil he 

finds it" is necessary to the completion of the picture, but 

GOD 19 

that it is confined within the necessary sphere of cause 
and effect ; that, even there, the effect does not outlive 
the cause ; and that God does not cease working over 
cause itself until it is quite removed. I do not see 
why this is not a perfect theodicy. 

It is another obvious sign of Jesus' sense of God's God a 
graciousness as the conspicuous thing about him, that ^**'^®'"- 
he calls him Father.^ It would seem more in harmony 
with his teaching about the kingdom, that he shoidd 
call God, King. And in order to a proper estimate 
of the term " Father," it is necessary to look at it in 
the light of this other fact of the kingdom. It means 
the same as when an earthly king is called the father 
of his people. Usually, the title of king implies a 
certain indifference to his subjects, or even oppression 
of them. It is even now considered an exceptional 
thing, which men regard with a certain incredulity, 
for a ruler to declare that "public office is a public 
trust." And when one is found, whose interest is the 
welfare of his people, who devotes himself to them, . 
and who makes sacrifices for them, instead of demand- j 
ing sacrifices of them, his care is signified by a title I 
taken from another sphere, in which the relation is / 
more intimate. It is simply, then, another way of say- 
ing that God is a beneficent ruler, whose people are 
enshrined in his heart, when Jesus calls him Father. 

let us thank God that it is there. Our Lord does not leave 
that picture without this final touch of splendour. 

1 Horton, The Teaching of Jesus, 53-65 ; Stevens, The 
Theology of the N. T., 65-75 ; Beyschlag, Nero Testament 
neology, I, 79-99 ; Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, I, 184-209 ; 
Bruce, The Kingdom of God, 109-127 ; Fairbaim, Christ in 
Modern TJieology, 360-440 ; Weiss, Theology of the iV. T., I, 
92 sq. ; Mathews, Social Teaching of Jesus, 62-69 ; Wright, 
Fatherhood of God; Mead, Am. Jour, of Theology, 1897, 
677-600 ; Bradford, " God — Interpreted by Fatherhood," Bib- 
lical World, October, 1898. 



God de- It is another sign of God's graciousness, that the 

oTas.^ ^"^^ claim that he makes upon us is for our love. What 
is the thing that he craves ? That tells the story of 
his nature. It has another aspect ; it tells us the law 
of the situation, what is normal to the relation, so 
that what God demands will be right in the absolute 
sense of the word. But if God is a being who is 
swayed by what we consider the emotional side of 
being, in whom the affections predominate, that will 
certainly be shown when he comes, not simply to 
make a claim on us, but to remonstrate, and plead, and 
show the eagerness of desire. And when, therefore, 
Jesus makes this the first command of the Law, that 
God is love, we love God wholly, it means nothing else, it can 
mean nothing else, than that God himself is love, that 
love is the key to his nature.^ 

This loving God demands that service be rendered 
first to himself, and then to man; but Jesus sometimes 
apparently reverses this order, because he subordinates 
those acts in which men appear to serve God directly 
to those in which the service is of men directly, and 
of God only indirectly. God desires mercy to men 
rather than sacrifice offered to himself.'' He requires 
honour of parents rather than any gift to himself.' He 
requires men to be at peace with each other before 
they come to the altar.* He regards judgment, mercy, 
and faith weightier matters than paying tithes to the 
treasury of the temple.* He scorns the idea that the 
Sabbath law can stand in the way of an act of mercy, 
and virtually transfers this law from the first table to 
the second, saying that the Sabbath was made for 
man.® The paradox of these various statements is 
easy to resolve. All of these contrasted acts are ser- 

1 Mat. 22 : 37 ; Lk. 7 : 42. 2 Mat. 9 : 13 ; 12 : 7. 

« Mk. 7 : 1 1-13. * Mat. 5 : 23, 24. 6 Mat. 23 : 23. 

« Mk. 2 : 27 ; Mat. 12 : 9-13. 

Service of 
God and 
man identi 

GOD 21 

vice of God, if done rightly. Only the acts of worship 
and homage are like all acts of that kind ; they belong 
to the conventions and forms of service. And in the 
case of God, it is only in these forms that he can 
be served directly. All the real service of him must 
be rendered indirectly through the service of man. 
And thus the real service of God and man become 

But while this demand of love shows God's nature Reverse 
to be love, while it is on this side the most gra- !Ll,® Jl^,*^" 
cious of commands, at the same time, it is the most ness. 
rigorous and exacting demand that could by any 
possibility be made of man. It is not only the sum 
of perfections, the ideal side of human nature, but it 
is for that reason the most difficult of achievement, 
the one against which human nature rebels. I do not 
mean to say that men would not accommodate them- 
selves to a system in which this was the ruling senti- 
ment. But under a system in which self-regard, a 
steady fight for one's own interest, is the acknow- 
ledged economic principle, love is so manifestly disad- 
vantageous, and selfishness has such overgrown prizes 
for the stronger and coarser natures, that love becomes 
the most difficult and despised of all virtues. For in 
such a condition of things it means self-abnegation. 
The only condition of obtaining what Jesus calls the 
world is that a man throw himself with all his might 
into the selfish conflict for its possession. And if, on 
the other hand, he prefers the luxury of righteousness 
and self-approval, and works for the common weal, 
the rough world pushes him aside, and he loses worldly 
good, with all that it means in the way of ease, leisure, 
position, and culture. And then, if it were only the 
man himself who has .to suffer ! But in any such loss 
a man drags down those dependent on himself as well. 
In other words, selfishness makes the social environ- 


ment, and is expounded as the indispensable condition 
of advancement and civilisation. Our Lord proposes 
to substitute for it the opposite principle of love. 
Those who join hands with him must count on the 
sharp hostility of the existing order. 
A God of We must add to this reverse side of God's gracious- 

]u gmen . ^ggg^ ^\^q^^ j^g jg q, God of judgment. This does not 
appear in his distribution of common goods, such as 
sun and rain, nor in the apportionment of this world's 
goods, which is governed at present by exactly that 
other principle of competition which disregards God's 
laws. These effects do not belong in the moral sphere, 
and so are not included in the results of moral action. 
The loss that the evil man incurs is in himself; it 
affects not what he has, but what he is. He loses his 
soul, or, as Luke puts it, he suffers the loss of him- 
self. Sin is self-destruction, and in this sense the 
Sin excludes man who sins sets the powers of the universe at work 
k-^^V'm against himself.^ But there is another judgment 
equally severe to a man who has vision. Sin shuts a 
man out of the kingdom of God, or in the more 
expressive phrase for this connection, out of the 
kingdom of heaven. That is, it prevents his member- 
ship in the order which obtains in the universe. 
Whatever meaning heaven may have aside from this, 
it is evident from our Lord's teaching that it is the 
place where this divine order does obtain.^ The only 
condition that our Lord makes for entrance into it is 
the doing of God's will, and this makes the character 
of the place as obvious as when one speaks of an 
artists' guild, or a manufacturers' club. The essential 
thing in each case is this character of the membership 
and not the luxury of the quarters in which the mem- 
bers are domiciled. 

1 Mat. 16 : 24-26 ; Mk. 8 : 34-37 ; Lk. 9 : 23-25. a Mat. 6 : 10. 

GOL 23 

Here, then, are two sides of judgment, which really 
comprise in themselves everything that is disastrous 
to the interests of men, the deterioration and destruc- 
tion of the man himself, and the disqualification for 
the order of things which has been ordained by God 
himself as containing within itself the only ultimate 

Yet it is at just this point that Jesus shows us the Ultimate 
ultimate meaning of God's grace. It has already qq^'s gfa«( 
appeared that this grace is manifested immediately in 
God's leniency toward those who transgress his law. 
But its final meaning is to be found, not in this leniency, 
but in God's persistent activity in the rescue and cure 
of lost and invalid souls. Seeking, saving, curing, 
finding, restoring, are its key-words, and meantime the 
sinner who recognises himself as such may know that 
God's treatment of him, whether lenient or severe, will 
be such as to secure this result. The passage. Mat. 7 : Wisdom in 
11, implies this discretion of God in the bestowment of ^o^nfj^.' 
his gifts. He will not give stones for bread; nor will 
he be lenient or lavish in his treatment of men, so that 
they will misjudge him and miss his best gifts. And 
he has not only the will but also the knowledge for 
such gracious as well as righteous ordering of his gifts.^ 

1 Lk. 15 ; Mat. 18 : 11 ; Mk. 2 : 16, 17. 



The king- SucH, then, is Christ's teaching as to God, the King 

°™ ° ' and Father, If now we turn directly to the considera- 
tion of the kingdom of God, an examination of Jesus' 
teachings ^ will show that here, as always, he dwells on 
the idea rather than the form of things. It is clear 
that it is the idea of the kingdom that he impresses on 
men's minds. But it is also equally evident that it is 
the kingdom in its idea, and not in any special form, that 
he seeks to establish. "What shape it shall assume, 
he leaves to time and circumstances to decide. But 
in defining the idea, he leaves nothing to chance. 
That idea is the establishment of God's will as the 
ruling power in this world by the free act of its inhab- 
Condition itants. The one condition of membership in the king- 
shio'^'"^^'" ^°™ ^^ *^® doing of that will. Nothing else can by 
any possibility be substituted for this obedience. The 

^ Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Theologie, I, 188-234 ; Hor- 
ton, The Teaching of Jesus, 25-S7 ; Stevens, The Theology of the 
N. T., 27-40 ; Gilbert, The Revelation of Jesus, 30-166 ; Bey- 
schlag, New Testament Theology, I, 41-64 ; Wendt, The Teach- 
ing of Jesus, I, 173-405 ; Mathews, The Social Teaching of 
Jesus, 40-78; Bruce, The Kingdom of God; Candlish, The 
Kingdom of God ; Issel, Die Lehre vom Reiche Gottes im N. T. ; 
SchmoUer, Die Lehre vom Reiche Gottes in Schriften des N, T. ; 
Liitgert, Das Reich Gottes; J. Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom 
Reiche Gottes; Paul, Die Vorstellungen vom Messias und vom 
Gottesreich bei den Synoptikern ; Krop, La Pensee de Jesus sur 
le Royaume de Dieu d'apres les Evangiles synoptiquea. 




confession of his lordship, that is, the saying of creeds, 
without this, is, of course, nil} To follow Jesus about, 
and listen to his words, — in modern phraseology, to go 
to church, — is vain without this.* It is like building 
on sand. The doing of mighty works in Christ's name, 
that is, the exhibition of faith, without this will end in 
banishment from him.' The paying of tithes, that is, 
liberality in gifts, without justice, mercy, and faith, is 
neglect of the weightier matters of the law.* 

But the free and imforced nature of the obedience is 
equally plain. It appears first from the predicted 
fate of its adherents. They are to be exposed, not 
incidentally and occasionally, but continually, and in 
the very nature of things to persecution and death. 
If we treat Jesus' own death, as so many do, as due 
to a special purpose of God, instead of to the ordinary 
passions of men, it tells nothing of the nature of the 
kingdom. But when we accept Jesus' own statement 
about it, that it is a fate to be shared by all who follow 
him, it can mean only one thing, that the idea of 
the kingdom is repugnant to men, and excites their 
deepest hostility, and that it is not the divine purpose 
to restrain them from the exercise of this by any 
divine intervention. Except for this, the Jewish idea 
of the kingdom and Messiah would obtain. If God 
ruled the nations with a rod of iron, it would not be his 
people who would have to suffer, but their enemies. 
There is no constraint, therefore, employed in the estab- 
lishment of the kingdom. The same thing appears 
from Jesus' description of the methods of the kingdom. 
These are given most fully in the parables,^ which 
compare the growth of the kingdom to the sowing and 
growth of seed. The fundamental reason for this 

Freedom in 

1. Member- 
ship in tiie 
kingdom is 
foretold to 
involve suf- 

2. Methods 
of the king- 

iMat. 7:21. 
* Mat. 23 : 23. 

2 Mat. 7 : 24-27. 
6 Mat. 13. 

8 Mat. 7 : 22, 23. 


growth is the fact, that at bottom seed and soil — the 
word of God and the mind of man, — are adapted to 
each other, so that, as Jesus says, the earth produces 
fruit of itself.^ But while this is the fundamental fact 
on which the sowing rests, the secondary fact is the dif- 
ferent kinds of soil, some of which obstruct the growth. 
Then, while God sows good seed (in this parable good 
men), the enemy sows tares, that is, bad men. But here 
again, the method of the kingdom appears in the injunc- 
tion not to root up the tares, since men are liable to pull 
up wheat also, but to let both grow together till the 
harvest. Further, in the nature of things, growth is 
a slow process, but not an unsure process. And then, 
changing the figure, Jesus compares the growth to the 
gradual leavening of a lump of dough. That is, it is 
a process of infusion, of influence. All of this describes 
the power of the word in the propagation of the king- 
dom. And it accords with this, that Jesus' office is 
prophetic, and that his relation to his followers is that 
of teacher to pupils. And when he is about to leave 
them, and commissions them to carry forward his work, 
the office into which he inducts them is the same office 
of teacher.^ The word in these passages which describe 
the growth of the kingdom, is the word of the king- 
dom, and the fruit which it produces is obedience to 
the law of the kingdom. 

Besides this power of the word, there is the power 
of good or evil in men to propagate itself. Jesus tells 
his disciples that they are the salt of the earth, the 
light of the world.^ And there are two conditions of 
the power which they exert. First, that they preserve 

1 Mk. 4 : 26-28. 

* Matt. 28 : 19, 20, and all passages in which our Lord is 
called Master, which is a mistranslation of the Greek word, 
which should be translated Teacher. See margin of K. V. 

» Matt. 6 : 13-16. 

THE Kingdom of god 27 

the quality itself, which is the seat of power. If the salt 
become saltless, with what will you salt it ? Secondly, 
that they not only preserve it, but show it. They 
are not to hide their light under a peck measure, but 
put it on the lampstand. It is easy to misunderstand 
this command, if we suppose the acts themselves to be 
the light which they are to diffuse, an injunction which 
would savour of ostentation. But the light is the 
inward light of character, which they are to let shine 
forth in acts, without which the light is unreal. But 
after all, the great proof of the free and unconstrained 
nature of this obedience is the inwardness of the law. 
A law of religious observances and ceremonials, even 
a law of external ethical conduct, admits of external 
enforcement. Man can be forced to keep the nine com- 
mandments, but a law of love is evidently a matter 
of motives and inward constraints. 

It is important to notice first, that Jesus insists on The law of 
the law.^ There is no hint in his teaching, that there ^om^*°^" 
is any sense whatever in which the law is repealed. On 
the contrary, he says that his purpose is to complete 
the law. Some things in the law he abrogates on the 
ground that they are not parts of the divine law. 
Thus he refuses to sanction the Mosaic permission for 
divorce ;^ he does not hesitate to break the Sabbath* — 
at least as far as Pharisaic rules were concerned, and* 
he is said by the evangelist to abrogate the Mosaic 
distinction between meats. But the law itseK he leaves 
more rigorous and exacting than ever. He substitutes 
in each case for the special enactment of the law, the 
principle, with whatever the principle comprehends. 

1 Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Theologie, I, 130-160 ; 
Stevens, The Theology of the N. T., 17-26 ; Bruce, The King- 
dom of God, 63-84 ; Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, II, 1-47 ; 
Mackintosh, Christ and the Jewish Laio. 

a Matt. 19 : 8. » Mk. 2 : 23 sq. * Mk. 7 : 19. 



The law 
made in- 

Teaching as 
to wealth. 

He therefore enlarges the range of law almost indefi- 
nitely. Then he carries it within, and makes it a matter 
of sentiments, affections, of pity, tolerance, humility, 
gentleness, purity, but especially of love. He dwells 
on two things in this connection : first, the necessity of 
the reqiiired affection as the motive of the action ; and 
secondly, the necessity of action expressing the affec- 
tion. And he thereby insists really on both sides of 
action, and makes evasion impossible. Jesus insists 
on a rare and fine spirit in men. They are not to look 
at a woman impurely ; ^ they are to go so far in the 
direction of truthfulness as to regard even an oath as 
an invention of the evil one, making something more 
sacred than a man's word.'' They are to love their 
enemies. Moreover, they must avoid ostentation, 
doing not even right things to be seen by men, lest 
pride should vitiate the good quality of the act.' 

But the most radical specification which Jesus 
makes in the matter of conduct is what he says about 
the pursuit of wealth.* It is contrasted with laying up 
treasure in heaven, that is, the inward wealth which 
is the only treasure there. He readjusts the whole 
scale of values, insisting that what a man is, is of con- 
sequence, and not what he has. And he says that 
these real values are to be pursued with singleness of 
heart. Men cannot combine the service of wealth and 
the service of God. So far is this true, that Jesus 
calls wealth unrighteous. This has a startling appear- 

1 Matt. 5 : 28. 2 Matt. 6 : 34 sq. 

8 Matt. 6 : 17, 18 ; Mk. 7 : 14-19 ; Matt. 5 : 21-32 ; 6 : 1-23 ; 
Mk. 12 : .30, 31 ; Matt. 5 : 13-16, 28, 33-37, 43-48. 

* Rogge, Der irdische Besitz im N. T., 1-48 ; Mathews, The 
Social Teaching of Jesus, 132-157 ; Horton, The Command- 
ments of Jesus, ch. 15; Nathusius, Die Mitarheit der Kirche an 
der Losung der Socialen Frage ; Root, The Profit of the Many : 
or the Biblical Doctrine and the Ethics of Wealth; Waffle, 
Christianity and Property: an Interpretation. 



ance ; in reality it so exactly accords with his teaching 
about the law of love, that it would eventually be 
received as a necessary inference from the principle, 
without the specific statement. Not that these goods 
which constitute material wealth are themselves evil, 
but that the qualities involved in the appropriation of 
these by the individual are obviously selfish.^ 

But no specification can possibly equal in difficulty 
and ideality the principle which is enunciated by Jesus 
as the embodiment of the law. Love is in certain 
limitations as easy as it is beautiful. Certain rela- 
tions, propinquities, affinities, awaken it, especially 
those of the family and of sex. But outside of these, 
the selfish interest so predominates as to make love 
nearly impossible. The love of power creates antago- 
nisms, business is a strife of individual interests. 
Nay, the very afiinities which create love in limited 
circles create repulsions and antagonisms outside, 
Anglo-Saxon ties mean Latin aversions. How strong 
this tendency of men to fly apart is, is nowhere so 
evident as in the Church, where the law of schism has 
been substituted for the law of love, and aroused the 
bitterest strifes. Moreover, the degree of love required 
is the most exacting part of the law. To love your 
neighbour when it does not conflict with your own inter- 
est, to love him except when you can make something 
out of him, is easy. But to love him as yourself 
means the elevation of love into a place where it 
changes all things. It is not only the individual, but 
society, that needs to be born again if one is to comply 
with this law.^ 

There is this to be said, however, about Jesus' atti- 
tude to the law, that in spite of the exacting nature 
of its demands, the effect produced is that of emanci- 

1 Matt. 6 : 24 ; Lk. 16 : 9-13 ; Mk. 10 : 23-26. 

2 Matt. 6 : 43-46 ; 22 : 37-39. 

The diffi- 
culties in 
the way of 
a law of 

tion the 
result of this 


pation. This note of freedom takes on different forms 
in the different books of the New Testament, but in 
one form or another, it is general, if not miiversal. 
In Paul, it is absolute freedom from the law. In 
James the law itself becomes a law of freedom. In 
Peter it is freedom from human law, owing to subjec- 
tion to the divine, the higher law. In John it is free- 
dom from sin. But the general fact is noticeable and 
undeniable, that the effect on the man who followed 
Jesus was not that of rigour, but of freedom. This 
was due to the fact that Jesus imposed nothing on men 
that was not demanded by the absolute law of right- 
eousness, which is recognised by men as belonging to 
the nature of things. On the other hand, it freed 
them from the arbitrary enactments of the Jewish 
law. The party of the law among the Jews was in 
constant conflict with Jesus because of this careless- 
ness of ceremonial enactment among his disciples. It 
was not his enforcement of a high standard of right- 
eousness that was the primary cause of his rejection 
at the hands of ecclesiastics who sought to substitute 
ceremonial strictness for ethical uprightness; it was 
his influence in emancipating men from the yoke of an 
oppressive ceremonial. This is one of the meanings 
of his easy yoke. In the meekness of his spirit, he 
imposed on men no self-willed commands ; he did not 
obtrude himself and his will on them, but sought only 
to enforce the commands of a righteousness having its 
seat in God, and which God had impressed on the very 
The freedom nature of men. The freedom of the kingdom there- 
dom.^ ^^°^' fore springs from the reasoned and principled nature 
of its law. In every department of knowledge men 
rest with confidence in the ultimate prevalence of the 
truth, because man is built that way. He believes that 
two and three are five, that the earth is round, that it 
took ages, instead of days, to create it, that truth and 


purity and justice are obligatory, because he is built 
that way. And when truth displaces error in any 
department of knowledge, man feels a corresponding 
emancipation of spirit. Jesus is the great liberator 
of the human spirit; it is freedom, and not fetters, 
that he puts on men when he enforces the absolute law. 

The profound graciousness of the law is another Thegra- 
source of this sense of freedom. A law having love t^eT^^a °' 
as its root, and flowering out into gentleness, mercy, source of 
purity of heart, peacemaking, forgiveness, though it "®®"°'"- 
may be difficult of attainment, makes an instant 
impression of its beauty, and attracts in the very 
statement of it. If a man does not obey such a law, 
he feels that he is in bondage to an alien power, and 
that to come under the spell of such a law would be 
emancipating in its effects. 

Finally, the sense of emancipation comes from the Obligation a 
source of obligation. Why must I obey ? Because l^ancipa- 
it is right, and to be constrained by this is no bondage, ^^^n. 
But why is it right ? It is the answer to this question 
which lands us at last in a sure place. The source of 
law and of obligation is in the nature of God. The 
content of the law corresponds exactly to what is 
revealed to us as the central thing in God. The com- 
mand is love, and God is love. Here, then, there is 
difficulty certainly, but no bondage. Jesus makes his 
appeal first to what he finds in men, and so his teach- 
ing convinces in the mere statement of it ; he speaks 
with authority. And secondly, he appeals to what he 
finds in God. He produces his effect by the sense of 
God which he creates. He brings God and man 

iMk. 2:18-3:6; 7:1-23; 10:17, 18, 42-45; 11:25; 12: 
28-34, 43, 44 ; Matt. 5 : 2-12, 45-48 ; also the passages in chs. 
6 and 7, in which the heavenly Father is spoken of ; 11 : 



In connection with this statement that Jesus eman- 
cipates men through teaching a spiritual instead of a 
positive law, it should be said that he belongs in the 
prophetic succession. There is the clearest line of 
demarcation between priest and prophet in the Old 
Testament ; and their two systems, instead of being in 
harmony as coordinate parts of the same teaching, are 
really antagonistic to each other. The various pas- 
sages in which the sacrificial system is deprecated 
might be taken as meaning simply that the moral law 
/is superior, and that the ritual system is nil without 
/obedience to that. But there is one passage in which 
even that possible interpretation is excluded ; the two 
are placed in absolute antagonism, and the one excludes 
the other. Jeremiah ^ says expressly, that in the day 
when God brought the Israelites out of Egypt, he gave 
them no command concerning burnt offerings or sacri- 
fices ; but only this one command, that they harken unto 
his voice, and walk in all the way that he commands 
them. That is, a right walk is to be substituted for 
the sacrifices by which men seek to rid themselves of 
the consequences of an evil walk. Isaiah'' adds to the 
sacrifices the observance of new moons and sabbaths, 
as things which God abhors. Jesus takes his place 
by the side of these prophets, not only afiirming the 
superiority of the moral law, but speaking of the ritual 
law as a command of men, which it is sin to put 
in the place of the divine command.^ This is a fact 
of the utmost importance, as it has been supposed that 
the sacrificial idea, the altar system, was a legitimate 
element of the Old Testament religion, and as such 
was to be incorporated in some way in the Christian 
thought. Whereas the fact is, that it was one of 
two antagonistic ideas, in constant, open conflict, 

1 7 : 22, 23. M : 11-17. 

« Mk. 7 : 3-33 ; Matt. 9 : 13 ; 12 : 7. 



among the Jews, as in fact among all religions, and 

that it was the one of the two which was deprecated 

by the spiritual leaders. It was in the line of these 

spiritual men, and of this antagonism, that Jesus stood. 

A study of the institution of the sacrament will show The 

that there is none of the priestly idea of sacrifice not^|crifi- 

contained in that. All that it teaches is that Jesus' ciai in the 

death is an example of self-sacrifice for the good of ^^^^q]^ 

others, not in any way a satisfaction to God for the 

sins of men. Possibly if Jesus taught this elsewhere, 

his words in the institution of the sacrament might be 

construed in accordance with that teaching. But as 

Jesus elsewhere makes his death simply an example 

of self-sacrifice, what he says in the institution of 

the sacrament is to be construed in the same way. 



The coining of the kingdom means the appearance 
of the Messianic king. In order to understand the 
meaning of this, we have to consider it in its relation 
to the term " Kingdom of God." The ultimate fact is, 
that God is king. Jesus' position is, therefore, that 
of vice-gerent. The authority that he represents, that 
he wields, is divine. He has authority to forgive sins, 
to regulate the Sabbath law, to impose his yoke on 
men, to judge men ; he is to come again at the right 
hand of power, and in the clouds of heaven. All of 
these acts are by virtue of his kingly power, but the 
kingdom is the kingdom of heaven, or of God,^ and all 
his appeal to men is in the name of God, or of the 
kingdom which enshrines his will. To possess the 
kingdom, to see God, to be sons of God, to glorify 
God, to be perfect as he is perfect, to be recompensed 
by him, to have his forgiveness, to receive his care, 
to seek his righteousness, to be confessed by Jesus 
before his Father in heaven; these are the appeals 

1 Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, I, 75-79, has made this identifi- 
cation of the two terms practically certain by an appeal to the 
rabbinical usage of the term malkuth shamayim (Aram, malku- 
tha' dhishmaya') kingdom of heaven, as a synonym of the king- 
dom of God. For the belief that Matthew substitutes rwv 
oiipavuv for toO Oeov, see J. Weiss, Der Predigt Jesu vom Reiche 
Gottes, 9 ; Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Theologie, I, 191 sq. 
See further Krop, La Pensee de Jesus sur le Boyaume de Dieu. 



that Jesus makes to men, and they mean that it is in 
reality the kingdom of God that he seeks to establish, 
the thought and love of God that he would make 
supreme among them.^ 

But a prime consideration in this matter is what His power as 
Jesus says about the power wielded by him in the ^^^s^*^- 
exercise of his Messianic office. We have seen 
already that owing to the circumstances of his earthly 
life, his chief outward activity, the thing to which he 
was confined in his great work of caring for the ills 
of the world, was his miracles. It is a question of 
first-rate importance, therefore, by what power he per- 
forms these. If it is a power back of him, that means 
his vice-gerency, and not his individual power.** Now, 
in Matt. 12:28, Jesus says that it is by the Spirit 
of God that he casts out demons,^ and that, therefore, 
to say that he casts them out by Beelzebub is to bias- The 
pheme not himself but the Spirit of God. In the flf^l 
passage from Isaiah which immediately precedes worked 
this,* God declares that he will put his Spirit upon power. ^ 
the servant of Jahweh, who is one of the Old Testament 
Messianic types.* In all of the Synoptics, Jesus is 
said to have entered upon his career as Messiah in the 
power of the Spirit.^ When it speaks of him, there- 
fore, as Lord of the Sabbath, and having power on 
earth to forgive sins, the authority is derived from the 
same divine source. And in what he says about his 
exercise of power after his ascension, he ascribes it to 
the same source. He is to sit, not in the seat of power 

1 Mk. 2 : 28 ; Matt. 9:6-8; 11 : 29, 30 ; 25 : 31-46 ; 24 : 30 ; 
16:27; 6:3, 8, 9, 16, 48; 6:1, 4, 6, 14, 15, 18, 25-33; 10: 
22, 23. 

2 Compare the words of Peter, Acts 2 : 22. 
8 Lk. 11 : 20, by the finger of God. 

4 Matt. 12 : 18-21 ; Is. 42 : 1-4. 

6 Compare, also, the words of Peter, Acts 10 : 38. 

* Lk. 4 : 14, 18 is most explicit in this statement. 


itself, but at the right hand of the power, and when 
he comes in the clouds of heaven, it is in the glory 
of the Father.^ In Mat. 7 : 21, Jesus defines very 
well his relation to the Father. It is not the man who 
calls him Lord who will enter the kingdom of heaven, 
but he who does the will of his Father who is in 
heaven. That is, the object of his own lordship is to 
secure obedience to the will of God. 
The self- The titles by which Jesus designates himself are Son 

ofjfsus:'""' of Man^ and Son of God. Both of them are Messianic 
1. The Son titles. The one by which he most frequently designates 
of Man. himself. Son of Man,^ is used in the original to denote 
the vision of a man who appeared to the prophet, repre- 
senting the kingdom of the saints as distinguished 
from the beasts which represent the kingdom of the 
world, which oppresses them. This came to be regarded 
as a Messianic passage, and consequently Son of Man 
as a Messianic title.* It seems to have been chosen 
by Jesus as a name which partly discovered and partly 

1 Matt. 26 : 64 ; Lk. 22 : 69. 

2 Mathews, History of the N. T. Times in Palestine^ 173 sq. ; 
Horton, The Teaching of Jesus, 39-51 ; Holtzmann, Neutesta- 
mentliche Theologie, I, 246-264 ; Stevens, The Theology of the 
N. r., 41-53 ; Gilbert, The Bevelation of Jesus, 18^189 ; Bey- 
schlag, New Testament Theology, I, 60 sq. ; Weiss, Theology 
of the N. T., I, 73-78; Nosgen, Christus der Menschen- und 
Qottessohn; Bruce, The Kingdom of God, ch. 7 ; Weiidt, 
The Teaching of Jesus, II, 139 S^. ; Baldensperger, Das 
Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, ch. 7 ; Grau, Das Sclbstbewusstsein 
Jesu, ch. 6 ; Stalker, The Christology of Jesus, 45-83 ; Appel, 
Die Selbstbezeichnung Jesu: Der Menschensohn ; Boehmer, 
Belch Gottes und Menschensohn im Buch Daniel ; Sieber, essay 
in Schnedermann'' s Jesu Verkundigung und Lehre vom Beich 
Gottes; Krop, Appendix in La Pensee de Jesus stcr le Royaume 
de Dieu ; Sanday, Art. " Jesus Christ " in Hastings' Diet. Bib. 

« Dan. 7 : 13. 

* Compare Enoch 46 : 1-4 ; 48 : 2 ; 62 : 5, 7, 9, 14 ; 63 : 11 ; 
69 : 20, 27 ; 70 : 1. 


veiled his Messianic claim, until the time should come 
at the close of his mission for the full disclosure of it. 
But to one who is accustomed to our Lord's habit of 
discourse and knows with what certainty his mind 
turns to the deeper meanings of common sayings, it is 
almost impossible to rest satisfied with this merely 
politic use of a term really conveying so much. Son Why the 
of Man is really only a more distinct affirmation of ^J^ 
manhood. That is the meaning of the passage in 
Daniel, and in the prophecy of Ezekiel.^ And while 
I do not think that Jesus would have accepted for 
himself any title that did not carry to his hearers an 
intimation at least of his Messianic claim, I still think 
that there is some reason beyond mere policy in the 
persistency with which he clings to this title. One 
thing is certain, those who love and understand him 
best, who speak with most authority and conviction of 
him, would find it hard to find another name which 
would tell them so much of his claim on our admira- 
tion and love. 

If I read rightly the inward consciousness of Jesus 
which disclosed so clearly to him his kingship, it 
was through the idea of manhood that he arrived at Manhood 

thp busis ox 

the idea of kingship, and it was by the same road that kingship, 
he knew man must come to the same glory. As he 
grew to manhood, he must have discovered in himself 
those qualities and gifts, which, while they made his 
life a sad and splendid isolation, yet peopled it with 
the sorrows and sins, and on the other hand with the 
ideals and possibilities of the race, and which made 
him thus the bearer of those burdens, and the splendid 

1 Ezek. 2 : 1, 3, 8 ; 3:1,4, etc. See in particular Lietzmann, 
Der Menschensohn ; Wellhausen, Israelitische und jMische 
Geschichte, 312 n. ; Schmidt, in Jour. Soc. Bib. Lit. and Ex. 
XV. 3G-53. As against these authorities see Dalmau, Die Worte 
Jesu, I, ch. 9. 


example and progenitor of these ideals. In other 
words, he discovered in himself what made him king 
of men, and what would lead ultimately to the rec- 
ognition of this, and so by a straight road to the 
attainment of humanity's goal. It was not external 
credentials, it was not miracles, it was not any audible 
word of God, that led to his claim, but only what he 
saw enfolded in his manhood. And the rule which 
he has actually exercised has been the sway of this 
same perfect manhood. When Peter made his confes- 
sion, it did not come from his belief in anything that 
he had been taught, but from the impression that this 
man, this man among men, had made on him. Now 
this is the ideal of kingship, of which others are poor 
travesties. There is hereditary kingship, there is 
elective rule, but both are imperfect attempts to dis- 
cover the man fit to rule. And when the true king 
of men came, he depended on the depth and truth 
and worth of his humanity to create for him power 
over man. 

And yet this is true only in the light of the supple- 
mentary title, Son of God.^ This again is a Messianic 
title.' The king or the prophet is in the Old Testa- 
ment Son of God.^ One, because he represents God in 
his rule over the people. The other, because he repre- 

1 Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Theologie, I, 265-277 ; 
Stevens, The Theology of the N. T, 54-64; Gilbert, The 
Bevelation of Jesus, 179-185 ; Beyschlag, New Testament The- 
ology, I, 67 sq.; Stalker, The Christology of Jesus, 87-123; 
Weiss, The Theology of the N. T., I, 78-82 ; Bovon, Theologie 
du Nouveau Testament, 4A2sq,; Nosgen, Christus der Menschen- 
und Gottessohn ; Grau, Das Selhstbewusstsein Jesu, ch. 8 ; 
Dalmaa, Die Worte Jesu, I, ch. 1 ; Gore, Bampton Lectures, 
1891 ; Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, II, 124 sq. ; Saiiday, 
Art. " Jesus Christ " in Hastings' Diet. 

a Enoch 105 : 2 ; 4 Esdras 7 : 28, 29 ; 13 : 32, 37, 52 ; 14 : 9. 

« 2 Sam. 7 : 14 ; Pa. 2 : 7. 


sents God in the more inward act of speech and reve- 
lation. But the name in its best meaning becomes a 
term of endearment, as among men. It designates one 
close to God. This progress of ideas we recognise in 
the Messianic use of the term. The Messiah repre- 
sents God in his office, his rule being a vice-gerency, 
and not an independent sovereignty. But he repre- 
sents him more intimately in his prophetic office, the 
truth that he reveals being a reflection of God. And 
finally, he represents God most fully in those gifts 
which betray intimate communion with God. In fact, 
all the way through, the secret of our Lord's life is 
his communion with God. But just here also is the Human 
perfection of his manhood. If man grew simply by ^g^ygj 
drawing on the resources of his limited being, the growth from God. 
would be correspondingly limited. But man lives on 
God, and there is no limit to God. To be the Son of 
Man, therefore, does not mean anything ideal, unless 
it involve the other term, "Son of God." Again, 
therefore, to go back to the consciousness by which 
Jesus grew into a sense of his kingship, this must 
have seemed to him the element in himself which gave 
him ascendency over man. It was on the one hand 
the great lack that he observed in men ; they had no 
sense of God ; and on the other hand, the conspicuous 
thing about himself, that which gave colour, solidity, 
meaning, depth, to his life, was his open vision of God, 
in which he lived and moved. This gave him author- 
ity, clothed him with power, because he became by 
the means a real representative of God, not merely 
an official bearer of his authority. 

Son of God and Son of Man are thus both of them 
Messianic titles, but both are evidently in our Lord's 
use of them made to express the facts of his self-con- 
sciousness, on which his Messianic claim is based. 



The view of 
man in- 
volved in 
the preach- 
ing of the 

This is apparent, first, from the fact that he came 
to establish the kingdom of God, and that he calls on 
men to repent.^ That is, their normal position is that 
of beings who realise God, and become subjects of his 
.universal law. But after centuries of man's existence 
on the earth, the kingdom has yet to be established, 
and for its purposes man has to change his mental 
attitude and outlook. Jesus' profoundly gracious 
ofi&ce, for which he was inspired by God, recognised 
man as poor, captive, and blind, but capable of release." 
His mission is to men as sinners, and his office is that 
of the physician.' He realises, moreover, not only that 
man needs a radical change before the kingdom can 
be established, but that the preaching of the kingdom 
will arouse the deepest antagonism, so that anyone 
who follows him will be subject to that hostility. 
And yet he expects that the kingdom will come, and 
that God's will will be done here as in heaven. It is 
important to remember in this connection that Jesus 
treats the virtues of the kingdom as natural virtues 
incident to the human condition, and not as the 
demands made of a superior class separated from their 
fellows. The Sermon on the Mouiit, we infer,* was 

1 Matt. 4:17. 2 Lk. 4 : 18-21. » Lk. 5 : 31, 32. 

* Matt. 7 : 28. The statement in the text is subject to pos- 
sible criticism from the fact that after Jesus went into the 
mountain " his disciples came unto him " (Matt. 5:1). In the 



addressed to the multitudes, and not to the disciples 
alone. And while there is every reason to believe 
that no such body of teaching was ever spoken by 
Jesus at any one time, this note is to be taken as a 
true condition of this teaching, whenever spoken. 
There is an esoteric teaching addressed to the dis- Duties of 
ciples alone in regard to the fortunes of the kingdom, ^ytjeg ^j 
and their own prospects in connection with it, but this membera 
does not include any of the teaching in regard to the kiugdom. 
law of the kingdom, which is a common matter. It is 
men, and not merely disciples, who are to love each 
other as themselves. Antagonisms among men, or 
even to repay antagonism with antagonism, is against 
the law of the kingdom, whereas to meet it with love 
makes men sons of God. Prayer becomes also a human 
duty, only it must be real, and especially when men pray 
to be forgiven, they must not forget to forgive. They 
are dwellers in this world, but since it is now an alien 
world, their affections are to be concentrated on the 
spiritual order toward which the world tends. Com- 
bine this with the prayer taught by our Lord, that 
God's kingdom may come, and his will be done here 
on earth as in heaven, and what does it mean, except 
that there is an ideal order not yet realised, but sure 
to come, because it is latent in humanity ? And the 
thing that he enjoins on men is, therefore, faith, that is, 
the spiritual sense which puts men in connection with 
this spiritual order, and clothes them with its powers.* 

And yet he is far from enjoining on men any estrange- 
light of this statement and of the composite character of the 
discourse, it may not be possible to regard Matt. 7 : 28 as more 
than a general statement derived from such a passage as Mk. 
1 : 22. It is, indeed, at this point that the teaching material in 
Matthew is added to the Mark source. But the view in the 
text is, on the whole, preferable. 

1 Matt. 5 : 1 f. ; 8 : 10 ; Lk. 18 : 1-8 ; Matt. 17 : 20. 



ment from the world which wears the appearance of 
asceticism.' The parables contain the deepest teach- 
ing about the kingdom, but this teaching is based on 
the doctrine of man contained in them. Humanity in 
the parables is the soil in which the word of the king- 
dom is sown. The first and most obvious truth about 
this soil is the variety of hindrance which it presents 
to the growth and fruitfulness of the seed. Spiritual 
dulness, superficiality, worldliness, are enemies within 
man to the truth.'' The second truth is that besides 
the children of truth planted by God, there are the 
children of the evil one.^ That is, both forces, both 
good and evil, are at work in the world. The third 
truth is, however, the fundamental one, that seed and 
soil are so adapted that the earth produces fruit of 
itself. There is at bottom an affinity between the 
spirit of man and the truth of God, so that humanity 
is the proper soil for the growth of the word.* Man 
is made to believe the truth, and this is the ultimate 
ground for believing in the establishment of the king- 
dom in the world. The essential truth in regard to 
human nature is thus optimistic, not pessimistic. 
Growing out of the two, however, the more obvious 
evil side of humanity and the hidden deeper side of 
good, we have finally the fourth truth, that the growth 
of the kingdom is slow but sure. It advances slowly 
toward its goal, but the end is surely reached at last. 
This truth about human nature, that it is superficially 
alien to the kingdom, but fimdamentally akin to it, is 
our Lord's undeniable teaching. And it is evident, 
too, that he proceeds on this supposition in his teach- 
ing, in which he appeals to what is in man, and devel- 
opes what he finds there. It is very true that man's 

1 Matt. 11 
a Matt. 13 ; 


« Matt. 13 : 24-30, 36-43. 
* Mk. 4 : 26-29. 


salvation depends on the implanting in him of a divine 
force, but the fact about man which is developed here 
is not so much his admitted sinfulness as his dormant 
capacity for receiving this divine force into his life.^ 

1 On Jesus' teaching as to man, see Bruce, The Kingdom of 
God, 128-147 ; Schmeid, Biblical Theology of the N. T., VOsq.; 
Stevens, The Theology of the N. T., 92-103 ; Beyschlag, New 
Testament Theology, I, 88-93 ; Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche 
Theologie, I, 113 sq.; 160 sq. ; Mathews, Social Teaching of 
Jesus, ch. 2 ; Laidlaw, The Bible Doctrine of Man. 



In the main, Jesus teaches about the last things just 
those elementary truths which are among the funda- 
mental facts of religion : — that men are immortal, and 
that their state hereafter depends on their conduct 
here,^ More particularly, it depends on the good or ill 
which they do their brethren, which Jesus represents 
as done to him.* He represents himself as the Judge, 
that being a part of his kingly office. 

Simple as are these teachings, Jesus has been sub- 
ject to the most singular misunderstanding from the 
very beginning. The last things of which he speaks 
are not the end of the world, but of the age. And 
the period so ended is not that of the world, but of 
the age.' More particularly, it is the end of the 
Jewish epoch in connection with the destruction of 
Jerusalem.* The passages in the eschatological dis- 
course which are supposed to point unmistakably to 
an actual return of Jesus at the end of the world, are 
really intended to teach something very different. 
They represent this return as ' immediately following 
" the tribulation of those days," and there can be no 
doubt that " the tribulation of those days " is the siege 
and destruction of Jerusalem (vs. 21). The whole 
passage gets its subject from the conversation about 

1 Matt. 22 : 23-53 ; Lk. 16 : 19-^1. 
» Matt. 13 : 39, 49 ; 24 : 3. 
* Matt. 24 : 29 sq.; Mk. 13 : 24. 

2 Matt. 25 : 31-46. 

6 Matt. 24 : 29. 


the destruction of the temple (vss. 1, 2). In Mk. 13/ 

the discourse takes precisely the same course, .except 
that the coming of the Lord is said to be in those days, 
after that tribulation. The first of these designations 
of time refers to the general period, that is, that of the 
destruction of Jerusalem, and the second specifies the 
time after the destruction of the city as the particular 
time of the coming. Then in both, after the entire 
statement is in, including both the destruction of Jeru- 
salem and the coming of the Lord which is to follow 
it, it is distinctly said that the generation was not to 
pass away until all these things are accomplished.' 
According to this, the coming of the Son of Man must 
be something other than a visible coming. There must 
be some prophetic use of language covering cases of 
this kind, in which the words have not their literal 
meaning, but an entirely allowable and reasonable rhe- 
torical meaning. And as a matter of fact, there is such 
a use frequent in the Old Testament prophecies, where 
any divine interference in human affairs, and especially 
in the destruction of dynasties, is represented under 
just this figure of God coming in the clouds of heaven, 
accompanied by his angels, and attended by all these 
portents, such as the falling of the stars, the darken- 
ing of sun and moon, the shaking of the powers of 
heaven, and the like.^ Finally there is one passage 

1 The attempt of Wendt, Lehre Jesu, I, to discover two 
apocalypses in this chapter of Mark is certainly ingenious 
though hardly beyond objections. Ilis first eschatological ele- 
ment, vss. 6 f,, 9, 11-13, 21-23, 28 f., he regards as coming from 
Jesus, while vss. 7-9a, 14-20, 24-27 f., 30, he holds to be an early 
Christian apocalypse which has been combined with these 
sayings of Jesus. 

2 Mk. 13 : 30 ; Matt. 24 : .34. 

8 See, for instance, Is. 13 : 9, 10 ; 24 : 21-23 ; Ezek. 32 : 7- 
10 ; Joel 2 : 10, 30, 31 ; Dan. 7 : 13. These figures are also 
frequent in the later Jewish literature. 



which shows conclusively how this language is to be 
taken. Matt. 26 : 64 says, " From this time on, you 
will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of 
power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." The 
point of this is to be found in the note of time, which 
does not make the coming of our Lord to be a single 
event occurring at some point of time, but a continuous 
happening, which is to characterise the period begin- 
ning then and there. There is a sense, then, in which 
he is to come within that generation, and another sense 
in which he will be seated at the right hand of power 
continuously from the time of his departure from this 
world, and be continually appearing here in the world 
during the same period. The coming at the time of 
the destruction of Jerusalem gives us the clew to the 
meaning of both. That, as we have seen, is analogous 
to Old Testament passages in which any interference 
by God in the affairs of nations is represented under 
this figure of a coming. Every such providential hap- 
pening in the history of the world, after our Lord's 
departure from it, is to be looked upon as a part of his 
administration of it. It is an interruption of the ordi- 
nary course of things, in which the slow process of the 
growth of the kingdom is hastened by some crisis, such 
as the breaking up of the Roman Empire, the Reform- 
ation, the American Revolution, and the like. But, 
meantime, Jesus is king just as much in the ordinary 
times that intervene. 

One important consequence of this is that the judg- 
ment which figures so conspicuously in the Advent 
is likewise a continuous process, and not a rounding 
up of things at the end of the world. The Jewish 
nation, and other nations, in which things have come 
to a like crisis, are subject to judgments which close 
up their affairs, but in the world at large it is the 
redemptive process which makes the splendid climax 


and not the judgment process, for this is merely pre- 
paratory.^ Single passages like these might not have 
much weight, if they were not a part of a great im- 
pression made by our Lord, that love is that attri- 
bute in God which not only outweighs but outlasts 
everything else. The teaching of the parables is the 
clearest teaching in the New Testament in regard to the 
manner of establishing the kingdom, and this teaching 
is clearly at variance with the supposition of a sudden Reversion to 
or early winding up of the world's affairs. Over programme'' 
against it stands the Jewish Messianic programme, fo' thecom- 
which sets up a victorious force in the world, instead kingdom, 
of a slow-working principle. Yet although this me- 
chanical and sudden social regeneration is foreign to 
the teaching of Jesus himself, after the short interval 
of a generation, instead of the insistence upon gro^vth, 
there is predicted a return to this Judaistic programme. 
The teaching of the parables was thereby made a tem- 
porary device, which was set aside after this short time, 
and a return made to the other medium of force, which 
all of Jesus' teachings controvert. The present gen- 
eral teaching of a visible return of Jesus, either shortly, 
or after an indefinitely deferred period, is clearly un- 
tenable. It leaves out of view the fact, that whatever 
was predicted by our Lord was to take place within 
the generation succeeding his death. There is a con- 
sensus of scholars about this, the only question being 
whether he made a mistake or not. And it is clearly 
against the supposition that he did make a mistake, 
that he sets forth in the parables a statement of the 
slow growth of the kingdom which clearly contradicts 
the idea of an early coming.'' Thus, in one sense, the 

1 Matt. 5 : 43-48 ; 6 : 9, 10 ; Lk. 15 : 4, 8 ; Matt. 13 : 33. 

* For a careful discussion of the critical aspects of the escha- 
tological passions in the teaching of Jesus, see Stevens, Theol- 
ogy of the N T., 150-166. 


coming of the Son of Man occurred at the destruction 
of the Jewish state, but in another sense it is con- 
tinually happening, the great crises in the history of 
the world being really comings of the Son of Man. 
These judgments of the nations are a part of the 
process for the final setting up of the kingdom. But 
this final act will not be a judgment process, but the 
final entire submission of the will of man to the will 
of God. 

Jesus, thus, claims for himself to be the fulfilment 
of the Messianic expectation of the Jews, — their hope 
Summary of for one anointed by God to rule his people and to deliver 
teachin**^ them from their enemies. But the idea in this which 
he seizes and holds fast is that it is the kingdom of 
God which he is to establish. In other words, it is 
the rule of righteousness which he is to establish. 
God and his righteousness were to be made the ruling 
powers in the world, not the Jews, nor even himself, 
except as he represented God and righteousness. 
The king- This glad tidings, that this kingdom was to be set up, 
dom. ^g^g proclaimed fii-st to the Jews because they were 

^ }/ I the only worshippers of the true God, by which is 
iAttr I meant the one and righteous God, and because as such 

the foundations of the new kingdom were to be laid 
y[f'^ in their race. But Jesus shows very early in his 

teaching that he does not expect the nation to be 
friendly to this kingdom, that in this new and ideal 
form in which alone it could take its place among the 
spiritual realities of this world, it was to meet nothing 
but the deadliest hostility of those who represented 
the idea in its older material form. In that form it 
promised selfish aggrandizement; in its new form it 
meant self-abnegation as the very root of all things. 
It meant the substitution of a rational spiritual right- 
eousness for the formal righteousness that obtained in 


the present form of the kingdom. This meant that 
the condition which Jesus was to meet and deal with 
in the establishment of the kingdom was a universal Sinfulness, 
sinfulness, from which the Jews were not to be 
excluded. And among the Jews the deadliest form of 
sin, which consists in bitter hostility to the kingdom, 
and yet plumes itself on its righteousness, was found 
among the professed righteous and not among the pro- 
fessed sinners. The first thing to which Jesus had to 
address himself in his teaching was the revision of 
the idea of righteousness and of God. Evidently, if 
the religious heads of the nation were the worst sin- 
ners of their times, so that their religion was a mere 
pretext, the whole religious idea would have to be 
reversed. In the matter of the law, this revision con- Righteous- 
sisted in the absolute rationalising and spiritualising f^^ *°** 
of it, so that it should stand as a statement of the 
obligation that the very nature and spirit of God 
would impose on man. It dealt with motives, there- 
fore, and principles, but above all, put love at the front 
as the complete statement of God's will in regard to 
man. In regard to God, it dwelt not on the mysteries God. 
of his being, but on the transparent depths of his ethical 
nature, and here, again, put love to the front as the very 
essence of what Jesus had to say about God as Father. 
Jesus proposed to himself, therefore, to conquer the 
world for God by teaching the world the truth about 
God and his will, Nothing could better show the 
spirituality and strangeness of his idea of the kingdom 
than this fact, that he, its king, was in his outward 
activity a teacher. He was a prophet, who expected, Jesus a 
like the rest of the prophets, to be persecuted to the P^^^P^®*- 
death. This fate was not prevented by his possession 
of miraculous power. Whether it was a power left at 
his disposal, or one restricted to certain uses, either 
in the one case on his part, or in the other case on the 




not judg- 
ment, the 
end of the 
world pro- 

part of God, there was a seK-restraint in the exercise 
of an unlimited power in the interest of human freedom. 
And now that he has ascended, the imrestricted power 
is limited in the same way and in the same interest, 
since he warns his disciples to expect the same fate as 
himself, until they can bring the world which perse- 
cutes into the same obedience as themselves. 

As to the goal to which the world tends, it is not 
judgment but salvation. The world process is not to 
be closed with an act of judgment but of triumph. 
Society is to be leavened, and the will of God is to be 
done on earth as in heaven. The judgment is inter- 
mediate, continuous, and contributory.^ 

In regard to himself, Jesus teaches that he is the 
being in earth and heaven set to bring all this about, 
and under God to act as king in this spiritual realm.' 

1 On his eschatology, see Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, II, 265- 
286 ; Bruce, The Kingdom of God, 311-328 ; Horton, The 
Teaching of Jesus, 139-153 ; Weiss, Biblical Theology of the 
N. T., 1, 143-158 ; Stevens, The Theology of the N. T., 150-lGG ; 
Beyschlag, New Teatament Theology, I, 187-215 ; Holtzmann, 
Neutestamentliche Theologie, I, 305-337 ; Bovon, Theologie du 
Nouv. Testament, I, 453-474 ; Stanton, The Jeioish and Chris- 
tian Messiah, 298-356; Salmon, TTie Christian Doctrine of 
Immortality, 2SS-298 ; Salmon, Art. "Eschatology," in Hast- 
ings' Diet. ; Gilbert, The Bevelation of Jesus, 284-361 ; Balden- 
sperger, Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, chs. 8, 9 ; Charles, Eschatology, 
Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian, oh. 9 ; Russel, The Parousia, 
Pt. I ; Haupt, Die eschatologischen Aussagen Jesu in den 
synoptischen Evangelien; Schwartzkopff, JTie Prophecies of 
Jesus Christ. 

2 On the Messianic self-consciousness of Jesus, see Balden- 
sperger. Das Selbstbeicusstsein Jesu; Adamson, TTie Mind in 
Christ; Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, II, 122-339; Schwai-tz- 
kopff, The Prophecies of Jesus Christ; Stalker, The Christol- 
ogy of Jcsv.k; Forrest, The Christ of History and Experience ; 
Burton, "The Personal Religion of Jesus," Biblical World, 
December, 1899. 



The sources of this early teaching are to be found The sources, 
in the history and discourses of the early chapters of ' 
Acts. These have to be studied in connection with 
the statements of the Pauline Epistles about the rela- 
tions of Paul and the Twelve. And if we accept the 
Petrine source of Mark, and the tradition that Mat- 
thew was the author of the Logia, the second source of 
i;he Synoptics, we have to distinguish between an 
earlier and a later teaching. Because, as we have seen, 
here is a body of teaching entirely in sympathy with 
Paul's opposition to the ceremonial part of the law, and 
therefore quite out of sympathy with the obvious atti- 
tude of the Church at Jerusalem toward Paul. When 
we speak of the Jerusalem Church in this connection, 
it is certainly impossible to leave out the leaders, 
although they may not have been quite so prejudiced 
as their followers. There must have been quite a 
change in the spirit of the Jerusalem Church, before 
so sympathetic a report of our Lord's teaching as that 
contained in Mark and Matthew could have come from 
two of the original apostles. Por, while that teaching 
is not in accord with Paul's peculiar doctrine of 
the law, it is quite in sympathy with his practical 
object to free men from bondage to the ceremonial 
part of the law. 

These discourses in the early chapters of Acts are 
not historical in the sense that they are verbatim 



reports of separate addresses, but in that they preserve 
for us a type of teaching that correctly represents the 
apostles at this time.^ They are historical, as the Ser- 
mon on the Mount was historical. They profess to 
give an account of the witness of the early disciples 
to the crucified, risen, and ascended Lord, and their 
prophecy of his early return to establish his kingdom. 
Of this office of witness the apostles speak constantly." 
Especially do they regard themselves as witnesses of 
the resurrection, which is the foundation of their faith.^ 
Indeed, they dwell as our Lord did not, on external 
signs, such as our Lord's miracles, the resurrection, 
and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.* Evidently, they 
distinguish between the earthly office of Jesus, which 
they regard as mainly prophetic,* while it is in his 
exaltation that he becomes Prince, Lord, and Messiah.* 
During his life, he is anointed by God with the Holy 

1 For different views as to these discourses, see Weizsacker, 
Apostolic Age, 1, 209 sq., 241 sq. ; Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar 
zum Neuen Testament, 307 sq. ; Jiilicher, Einleitung in d. Neue 
Testament, 259 sq. ; Blass, Studien und Kritiken, 1894, 86- 
119; Blass, Acta Apostolorum secundum formam Romanam 
(for a criticism of Blass, see Schmiedel, Art. "Acts," Encyclo- 
pedia Biblica) ; Lightfoot, Art. "Acts," Sraitii, Bib. Diet.; 
Headlam, Art. "Acts," Hastings' Diet.; McGiffert, The Apos- 
tolic Age, 234 sq., 436 sq.; Ramsay, St. Paul, the Traveller 
and Boman Citizen, 1-28, 383 sq. ; Mathews, "The Origin of 
Acts 9 : 1-19," Biblical World, October, 1898 ; Barde, Commen- 
taire sur les Actesdes Apotres, 574 sq.; Spitta, Die Apostelge- 
schichte, 285-380 ; Jiingst, Die Quellen der Apostelgeschichtc, 
191-221; J. Weiss, Ut,ber die Absicht undderiliterar. Character 
der Apostelgeschichten ; Hilgenfeld, Arts, in Z.fur W. Th., 1895. 

2 Acts 1 : 8, 11 ; 2 : 32 ; 3 : 15 ; 10 : 39 ; 4 : 33 ; 6 : 32. 

8 Acts 1 : 22 ; 4:2, 10 ; 4 : 33 ; 3 : 15 ; 6 : 30 ; 10 : 40-42. 

4 Acts 1:8; 4 : 8-12, 31 ; 5 : 30-32. 

' Acts 3 : 22 ; 7 : 37. He was the Messiah but had not per- 
formed strictly Messianic work. This was to be the purpose 
of his return . 

6 Acts 2 : 33, 36 ; 3 : 14-16 ; 4 : 29-31. 



Spirit and power. But now in his exaltation he sends 
the Holy Spirit.^ His title with them is commonly 
o Trais avTov (tov 6eov) Servant of Yahweh, the pro- 
phetic title of the elect Israel in Isaiah, which in the 
later usage is appropriated to Messianic use.^ In this 
exaltation, his office is principally that of Prince of 
life and Saviour to give repentance and remission of 
sins. It is a period of transition, therefore, from the 
merely prophetic work of the earthly life to the purely 
kingly office which is to characterise his return to the 
earth.^ It is necessary to keep these offices distin- 
guished in order to understand this teaching. Accord- 
ing to the addresses in Acts, during his life, Jesus was 
himself a prophet anointed by the Holy Spirit; during 
his temporary sojourn in heaven he sends the Spirit to 
inspire his apostles for the same work ; and on his 
return from heaven he is to be finally crowned as 
King, his enemies are to be subdued, and he is to be 
established as Judge.* Every person who shall not 
listen to the prophet sent by God is to be destroyed 
from among the people. The present office of the risen 
Jesus is therefore to turn them away from their 
iniquities, that so they may be preserved from that 

The death of Jesus is not regarded by the early 
disciples as atoning or vicarious. Indeed, they do 
not rationalise it in any way. It would be singular 
if they had, just because they had seen in it the great 
hindrance to his work and to their belief. It was 
enough for them that this stumbling-block had been 
removed by his resurrection. They recognised in him 
now the risen and ascended Lord, exercising the spiritual 

1 Acts 2 : 33. 

2 Is. 41 : 8 ; 42 : 19 ; 44 : 1 sq., 21, etc. 
» Acts 4 : 12 ; 5 : 31 ; 10 : 43. 

* Acts 3 : 19-21, and especially, 23, 26. 



powers of his kingdom in heaven at the right hand of 
God, and about to return to set up his kingdom here. 
It was enough for them to know that his death was 
by God's set plan, foretold in prophecy, and therefore 
the farthest possible from being a defeat.^ 

As to the person of our Lord, there is the same 
primitiveness, the mark of an early and unreflective 
period, as in the rest of their simple doctrine. He is 
to them the Messiah, back of whom stands the mighty 
power of God, attested by signs which God gives him 
to perform, by his own resurrection which God accom- 
plishes, by the gift of the Holy Spirit which has been 
promised him by the Father. In heaven as on earth, 
he is commissioned, attested, exalted, empowered by 
God, but there is no hint of a more intimate relation.' 
To be sure, miracles are performed in the name of 
Christ, and he gives the Holy Spirit, but both are 
traced back to God, who in them glorifies his servant 

Jesus was to the first Christians not only the Mes- 
siah ; he was the Jewish Messiah, We need not look 
for any specific proof of this within the discourses them- 
selves, as it was not a controverted point. There is 
evidently an expectation that his Messianic work and 
blessings will somehow transcend Israel, but the bless- 
ing must come first to the chosen people, and only 
through them to others.* But when the CorHelius 
event happened, they of the circumcision were amazed 
at the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles, and 
glorified God for the gift of repentance to the Gen- 
tiles.* More than this, Christianity was to them no 

1 Acts 2 : 2S-36 ; 3 : 18 ; 4 : 27, 28. 

a Acts 2 : 22, 24, 32-36 ; 3 : 13-16, 20, 26 ; 4 : 10, 30 ; 5 : 30-32. 

« Acts 3 : 13 ; 2 : 33. 

* Acts 3 : 25, 26. 

» Acts 10 : 46 ; 11 : 18. 


separate thing, it was genuine Judaism, and they 
joined, therefore, assiduously in the worship of the tem- 
ple.^ The significance of this lies not in the fact that 
they joined in this worship, but in the assiduousness of 
their attendance. Jesus was also a Jew, but the free- 
dom with which he moved among the Jewish customs 
and laws was the principal occasion of the hatred that 
he encountered. So far was this the case that to him 
Jerusalem was forbidden ground. But after his death, 
the disciples' assiduous following of the temple service 
gave them favour with all the people. And when 
Stephen was accused of repeating Jesus' prophecy of 
the destruction of the temple, and the passing of the 
Jewish cult, the strenuous opposition to him is in 
marked opposition to the previous peace of the 

In these discourses we have set forth, therefore, the Summary. 
very simple and reactionary faith of our Lord's early 
disciples after his final departure. His death had 
clouded their faith, but his resurrection had reestab- 
lished it, and their testimony to this fact was that on 
which they mainly relied to prove his Messiahship. 
That set the whole thing on its feet once more. The 
difficulty of his death once out of the way, they could 
go back to his miracles, and rehearse once more the 
wonders which had always seemed to them, as they 
never had to Jesus, the great thing in his life. But 

1 Acts 2: 46; 3:1; 21:20. 

2 On Primitive Christianity, see Bruce, Apologetics, 430-447 ; 
McGiffert, The Apostolic Age, chs. 2-4 ; Weizsacker, TTie 
Apostolic Age, I ; Lechler, T%e Apostolic and Post-Apos- 
tolic Times, I, 5-268 ; Thatcher, Tlie Apostolic Church, chs. 
1-8 ; Bartlett, The Apostolic Age, 1-203 ; Neander, Planting 
and Training, bk. I ; Wendt, Handbuch ilber die Apostel- 
geschichte (Meyer series) ; Baur, Church History, I, 1-43 ; 
Cone, The Gospel and its Earliest Interpretations, chs. 2-6 ; 
Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum. 



they not only had their confidence in his Messianic 
office restored, they had his Messianic career marked 
out for him. His sudden taking off had seemed to 
cut that career short, but now the knowledge that he 
had ascended to the right hand of God meant the 
exercise of his Messianic office there. This power 
committed into his hands by God was shown mainly 
in his sending upon them the Holy Spirit, which 
enabled them to speak the truth about him with a 
power which was a revelation to themselves, and to 
perform miracles such as had graced his own life. 
But even this heavenly sojourn was only temporary, 
and prepared the way for what was, after all, the 
culmination, indeed, the realisation, of his Messianic 
career, his return to the earth to assume here his real 
sovereignty. Meantime in heaven his principal office 
was the restoration of Israel to repentance for remis- 
sion of sins. It was the nation, the seed of Abraham, 
which he was thus to make a blessing to the world. 
This was the side of his Messianic office turned toward 
his own people, the Jews. Their sin as a people had 
culminated in their rejection of him, but they were to 
be restored to the old paths by the exercise of spiritual 
powers vested in him on his ascension. The other 
side was the subduing of his enemies, so that on his 
return to the earth he would reign over the whole 
world with the Jewish quarter as the court end of the 
town. That is, the Jewish Messianic programme is 
reestablished, with only the unexpected interlude of 
the spiritual reign in heaven, preparatory to the final 
setting up of the kingdom on the earth. This they 
look forward to within their generation, and liable to 
occur at any time, and this expectation constitutes the 
hope of the Church in the first century, and the secret 
of its buoyant life. Meantime, as their hope is the 
Messianic hope, they relax none of their Judaism; 


indeed, they become objects of favourable notice on 

account of their strictness, and the fervour of their 

devotion to the Jewish cult. The testimony of Acts 

21 : 20, 21, as to the zealous legality of the entire ,y 

Jewish Church is conclusive as to the attitude of the ^ * - V|*t 

Twelve, arid'as the spiritual work of the Messiah dur-^^,<^ , 'i^ 

ing his stay in heaven was to be the restoration of the J V 

Jews, and only through this restored Israel was to 

come the blessing of the other nations, the attention 

of the apostles was confined to the Jews, and there 

was no thought of any work among the Gentiles.^ 

1 It is, perhaps, significant that even the evangelisation of 
Samaria was the work of Philip, apparently a Hellenistic Jew, 
and certainly not one of the Twelve. 



What the early disciples effected was a reaction. 
What Paul effected in the midst of this reaction was 
a revolution, and it was due to his inside view of Juda- 
ism. He knew what it meant to try to be religious 
after the Jewish fashion. The righteousness of the 
law he had striven to attain, and he found himself a 
sinner, with unsatisfied longings, after it all. His con- 
fessions show that he had this conviction of sin as a 
Jew, before his contact with Christianity. And the 
circle was complete when he found in Christ what he 
had failed to find in law, an inspiration that lifted his 
endeavour after righteousness out of the dead level of 
rules into the high places of exalted motives.^ 

In order to understand his position, we have to begin 
with the practical question which he debates in both 
«pistles in which he discusses the law. The party 
of reaction had demanded that his Gentile converts be 
circumcised. And his difficulty with the law is that 
it contained those demands which became his reason 
for setting aside the law altogether. He argues the 

1 Rom. 7 : 7-26. 



case at times as Jesus would, contending that forms 
are not on the same footing as the moral requirements 
of the law. Circumcision is a sign of conformity to 
the law, the badge of the people of the law. And as 
such, it avails a man only if he has that inward quality 
which the sign stands for. And if he has that inward 
quality, it makes up for the absence of the outward 
sign.^ Paul argues the matter of eating food offered to 
idols, and all attempts to make the matter of eating 
this or that, one of moral discriminations, in the same 
rational, spiritual way.^ He felt the futility, therefore, 
of the apostolic position, according to which disciple- 
ship to Christ only increased one's devotion to the 
Jewish cult. But there was another thing in the 
Jerusalem programme which he could see was equally 
futile — the expectation that the Messianic purpose 
could be achieved through the conversion of the Jews 
that they might be used as a spiritual force for the 
conversion of the Gentiles. In the first place, he 
knew it had been only by a spiritual tour de force 
that he had been converted, and he evidently regarded prerequisite 
his as so far a representative case that it argued the Gentries! *^ 
extreme difficulty of any conversion of the nation 
without a supernatural intervention — something 
hardly to be expected on a national scale. Then he 
saw the clear alternative; either the Jews must be 
converted out of their Judaism — a result which the 
state of things in the Jewish Church showed to be 
entirely improbable; or supposing the state of things 0\ k-H' 
in the Jewish Church to be copied all over the nation, ' 
this would make the conversion of the Gentiles simply -' 
impossible. The only thing which could possibly 
supplant any specialised religion would be not an- 
other specialised faith, but only a universal religion, 

1 Rom. 2 : 26-29. 

a Rom. 14 ; 1 Cor. 8 ; 10 : 19-33. 



■which could appeal to the common humanity of all, 
and not to the religious bent of some one race or 
period. His call, therefore, to become the apostle to 
the Gentiles meant the definite setting aside of the 
Jewish-Christian programme, and the substitution for 
it of a direct work among the Gentiles. The impli- 
cation is distinctly drawn that it was not to be Jews 
first and then Gentiles, but Gentiles first and then 
Jews, after they have been stirred by jealousy of the 
Gentiles who had moved into their place.^ 

This move on the part of Paul, however, was not to 
go unchallenged. Certain men from the Jewish Church 
followed in his tracks, and began to teach his converts 
that they must be circumcised. This was the first in- 
vasion of the peace of the Church. Paul himself had been 
content to leave the Jewish Church to its own devices, 
so far as it did not interfere with him. But this attack 
on the religious liberty of his disciples aroused the slum- 
bering forces of a naturally combative mind, and he 
took up the weapons of debate, and forced the fighting 
along the entire line. And his main position marked a 
turning point in the debate, which was otherwise really 
the controversy of Jesus with the Pharisees, of prophet 
with priest, of spiritual religion with formalism. The 
new Pauline element is the attempt to do away with 
the law, and substitute faith as the principle of right- 
eousness. Our Lord, following in the line of the 
prophets, proceeded to idealise and spiritualise the 
law ; Paul proclaimed the abolition of law, that is, not 
merely the ceremonial requirements of Mosaism, but 
law in general.* That he did not stop short of this, 

1 Rom. 11. 

' The distinction between vb/jjoi and 6 vbfuo^ is not so vital as 
to vitiate this statement, vbfws it is true can hardly be equiva- 
lent to our idea of law in its cosmic sense, but it is as much of 
an approach to such a generalisation as was possible for a Jew. 


either at the ceremonial part of the law, or at the Jew- 
ish law itself, is proved by these facts. (1) He included 
the unwritten law of the Gentiles as well as the writ- 
ten law of the Jews in his argument. His attempt to 
prove the impossibility of righteousness under the law 
includes two parts ; the first directed against the Gen- 
tiles, and the second against the Jews.^ (2) He takes 
for an example of the fact, that the law brings death 
instead of life, the most spiritual command in the code.' 
(3) His argument was not against the imperfections of 
the law ; his contention being that the righteousness 
of the law is unattainable, not that it would not enti- 
tle men to be considered holy if attained. (4) It is 
also to be considered that the righteousness of the law 
comes to fulfilment through the Spirit, but not as law. 
The virtues of the Decalogue are reproduced in the 
Christian, but not under the constraint of law. This 
means that law, as a principle, is unavailing to procure 
obedience to its own provisions. But Jesus idealised 
the legal principle, as well as the contents of the law, 
and so overcame any supposed difficulty in this 
direction. He made law the obligation imposed upon 
men by the very nature of God. It may be that some- 
time it will become natural for us to love, as now it is 
to be selfish, but shall we ever lose the sense that it is 
right to love ? And that is what we mean by moral 
law ; the imperative sense that certain things are right. 

It is 6 vSfiOi so abstracted as practically to destroy the idea by 
cult-requirement. See Lightfoot, Galatians, p6/m)s ; Sanday and 
Headlam, Bomans, 58. In general, see Pfleiderer, Paulinism, 
I, 68-90 ; Bruce, St. PauVs Conception of Christianity, 293- 
309 ; Stevens, Pauline Theology, 160-198 ; Beyschlag, New Testa- 
ment Theology, II, 127 sq. ; Holtzmaun, Neutestamentliche The- 
ologie, II, 22-37 ; Cone, Paul, the Man, the Missionary, and the 
Teacher, 179-198 ; M^n^goz, Le Peche et la Eedemption d'apres 
St. Paul, 96-123 ; Grafe, Die Paulinische Lehre vom Gesetz. 
1 Rom. 1 : 18-32 ; 2 : 1-29. « Rom. 7 : 7-11. 


Faith. This, then, was the wide generalisation by which Paul 

reached his conclusion that circumcision was not bind- 
ing. It belonged to the law, and the law itself was 
abolished, and another principle of righteousness estab- 
lished in its stead. The principle was faith, which was 
as old as Abraham, but which had acquired the rein- 
forcement of a new object and inspiration in Christ. 
His proposition was, that we are made righteous by faith 
without the works of law. To prove this, he shows first 
the inefl&ciency of law to produce righteousness. In re- 
gard to the Gentiles, he had no difficulty in proving their 
sinfulness, but did feel it necessary to show that their 
sin was inexcusable by appealing to the fact that theirs 
was no venial ignorance of the law, but a deliberate 
suppressio veri. They knew God, not, to be sure, 
through revelation, but through his works ; and they 
knew the law, not as it was written out for them in a 

Unright- code, but as it was written within.^ Against the Jews, 
on the other hand, he charged that they were zealous 
upholders of the law, but careless in their observance 
of it, and that they prided themselves on their circum- 
cision, which was the outward sign of their covenant 
with God, while they transgressed the law, which 
constituted the inner contents of the covenant. If 
either Jew or Gentile, therefore, were to be made 
righteous, it must be by some other principle of right- 
eousness. But not content with these specifications, 
he shows the impossibility of legal righteousness 
conclusively, on his premises, by his citation of the 
statement, that every one is accursed who does not 
continue in all the things written in the law to do 
them. That is, the law requires the impossibility of 
a perfect obedience.* 
The apostle not only shows the fact of a universal sin, 

1 Rom. 1 : 18-32 ; 2 : 14-16. > Gal. 3 : 10. 




The effect of 
law on sin. 

he rationalises it.^ It is not by any mere chance that Sin as a 
men all go astray. Sin is to him not only the individual P""^'*?^® 
act, it is a principle of evil, which once introduced 
into the world, all, Jew and Gentile alike, share. He 
traces the sin of men back to Adam, whose individual act 
of sin became a race sin which was transmitted to all 
his descendants.* But they were not held accountable 
for this ; it was only as the race sin was turned into 
individual transgression that men were condemned.' 
And here was where the law came in ; it was added for 
the sake of transgressions, to produce them, or as it 
says in another place, to turn the original single sin 
into the multiplied sins of the individual. And it is 
right here, in this most sinister judgment of law, that 
Paul selects his example from the most spiritual part 
of the law. If it is the law against coveting,* which 
is identified with a law against evil desires in general, 
against which he brings this charge, it must be the 
very principle of law itself, as he understood it, and 
not any code, nor any part of the representative code, 
that he declares to be abolished. The law against 
these desires brought into activity the principle of sin, 
and slew him. This was not because of any defect in 
the law itself, but because of the principle of evil that 
had become the inheritance of the race. The law 
would have operated in the same way on an inherited 

1 On Paul's view of sin, see Pfleiderer, Paulinism, 35-47 ; 
Bruce, St. PauVs Conception of Christianity, 125-146 ; Stevens, 
Pauline Theology, 123-159 ; Weiss, Theology of the N. T., I, 
315-350; Beyschlag, Neio Testament Theology, II, 49-63; 
Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Theologie, II, 37-53 ; Cone, 
Paul, the Man, the Missionary, and the Teacher, 218-250 ; 
M^n^goz, Le Peche et la Bedemption d^apres St. Paul, 11-123 ; 
Werule, Der Christ und die Sunde bei Paulus. 

2 Rom. 5 : 12-21. 
8 Rom. 4:15; 5:13. 
* Rom. 7 : 7. Compare Gal. 6 : 19. 


principle of righteousness, turning the race righteous- 
ness into the individual acts of righteousness.^ 
The flesh. But it was not only this fact of race sin that accounted 

for its universality ; the apostle located sin in man, 
pointing out the weak spot in him, which was not evil, 
but vulnerable. The idea that the flesh ^ was itself 
evil, the principle of evil in the man, owing to the evil 
inherent in matter, would be impossible to the apostle, 
who, as a Palestinian Jew, had none of the Greek 
repugnance to the flesh, and himself revolted against 
any attempt to philosophise religion.^ A good test of 
this is found in the fact that the apostle held strongly 
to the Pharisaic doctrine of a bodily resurrection, not of 
a spiritual immortality.* The latter is the doctrine of 
the Alexandrians, who depreciated the flesh because 
of its materiality. No, the flesh was to Paul the seat 
of the appetites and passions, the residence of the 
psyche and not of the pneuma, of the lower and not 
of the higher spiritual part of the man, and as 
such was vulnerable and weak. It was the flesh 
upon which sin, as something almost personal, seized 

^ Rom. 5:20, which should be rendered, "And law came 
in as a side issue {not included in the original scheme of 
things) in order that the transgression might be multiplied." 
7 : 7-25. 

2 There are no terms in Paul whose meaning is more funda- 
mental than " flesh " and " spirit." See Laidlaw, Art. " Flesh," 
in Hastings' Diet. ; Pfleiderer, Paulinism, I, 47-67, 192-215 ; 
Cone, Paul, the Man, etc., 218-230 ; Bruce, St. PauVs Concep- 
tion of Christianity, 263-278 ; Beyschlag, Neio Testament Theol- 
ogy, II, 27-47 ; Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Theologie, II, 
19 sq. ; Stevens, Theology of the N. T., 338 sq. ; Wendt, Fleisch 
und Geist (for criticism of this work see Gunkel, Die Wirkungen 
der heiligen Geistes) ; Dickson, St. PauVs use of the terms Flesh 
and Spirit ; Holsten, ' ' Die Bedeutung des Wortes ir&p^ im 
Lehrbegriffe des Paulus," in Zum Evangelium des Paulus und 

» 1 Cor. 1 : 17-2 : 16. * 1 Cor. 16 : 38-49. 


and wrought man's downfall. The victory of the 
spiritual principle was to be complete only when sin 
was dispossessed here where it had its seat and strong- 
hold, a thing impossible, if matter itself was evil.^ It 
is essential to an understanding of Paul's position to 
remember that sin was not to him the essential thing 
in human nature. He identified man himself, the 
ego, the personal principle, with the higher part of 
man, which is not invaded by sin. Sin is to him an Sin not the 
alien thing which has usurped dominion over his ^^°' 
actions, but against which the higher part, the man 
himself, rebels. It is included in this view, that the 
flesh, the lower part, is also the executive part of the 
man. In the concrete, it is the body, the members, 
the very instruments of man's activity, in the midst of 
which sin has encamped, and as the ruling principle 
there it controls his actions. But it is powerless to 
take possession of the ego, to identify itself with the 
man, which remains in a state of perpetual revolt 
against it. The principle of righteousness in him 
therefore does not have to be created, only discovered, 
and freed from the domain of the flesh.^ 

^ Rom. 8 : 3 and the remarkable argument in ch. 7. 
2 Rom. 7 : 14-25. 



The nature 
of this right- 

Man is made 
not declared 

The righteousness of faith which the apostle substi- 
tutes for the righteousness of law is not the normal 
righteousness, which term can be applied only to a 
perfect legal righteousness. That perfect legal right- 
eousness would be attainable if it were not for the fact 
of the race sin, and of the weakness of the flesh. But 
the presence of these makes that righteousness impos- 
sible, and another righteousness necessary. But this 
substitute can never be anything more than an inferior 
righteousness, the acceptance of which on the part of 
God is an act of grace, not of justice, not demanded by 
man's merit, but freely bestowed by God's favour. And 
yet it is a real righteousness, not fictitious. This 
appears from the fact that the word translated 
"justify" in the English Version is construed with 
cases and prepositions which render the meaning 
"judge righteous" quite impossible. The man, for 
example, is said to be justified by faith, and through 
faith, whereas, if the act is one of judgment, the act 
of the man, whether works or faith, can be neither 
that by which or through which the judicial act is per- 
formed, but only that on account of which it is done. 
And yet this proper construction is not found with the 
verb. But the man is made righteous by and through 
his works, or faith. This is the fact in regard to the 
Pauline use of the verb Bikmovv, to justify, which makes 
the generally accepted meaning impossible. As long 
as it was translated "justify," and then this was 



explained to mean "judge righteous," the lack of 
adjustment between the verb and its construction was 
not seen. But when the assumed meaning is intro- 
duced into the translation, the incongruity becomes 
apparent. The cases and prepositions with which it 
is construed express agency, not cause, and the act of 
the man in the matter of judgment is cause, not agent.* 
But, inasmuch as the state of righteousness into 
which a man is introduced by the act of faith is differ- The right- 
ent from that into which he is introduced by works, fahifnol"* 
a righteousness which is plainly in some sense a quasi- fictitious, 
righteousness, it is necessary to carry the argument a 
step further, to show that the quasi-element does not 
involve the element of fictitiousness, but only of 
inferiority. To answer the question thus raised, we 
must examine the apostle's statements to find if faith 
is in his view a principle of righteousness really, or 
only by an act of grace which passes over the real 
state of the man, and assigns him a position, which 
really does not belong to him. The following facts 
will show how Paul regards faith ^ : (1) In the first place 

1 For further discussion, see my article in Am. Jour, of 
Theology, 1897, pp. 149-158 ; also, Pfleiderer, Paulinism, 160- 
191; Simon, Art. "Justification," in Hastings' Diet.; Bruce, 
St. PauVs Conception of Christianity, 147-164 ; Stevens, Paul- 
ine Theology, 259-291 ; Weiss, Theology of the N. T., I, 419- 
452 ; Beyschlag, New Testament Theology, II, 183-200 ; Holtz- 
mann, Neutestamentliche Theologie, II, 124 sq. ; Cone, Paul, 
the Man, the Missionary, and the Teacher, 342-369 ; Sabatier, 
Uapotre Paul, 318 sq. ; Sanday and Ileadlam, Romans, 28-31 ; 
Kaftan, Das Wesen der christlichen Religion, 300 sq. ; Ritschl, 
llechfertigung und Versohnung, Bd. Ill, 466 sq. ; Lipsius, Die 
Paulinische Rechtfertigungslehre ; Riggenbach, Die Rechtferti- 
gungnlehre des Apostels Paulus ; M6n6goz, Le Pechc et la 
Redemption d'apres St. Paul, 251-286. 

2 Warfield, Art. "Faith," in Hastings' Diet.; Weiss, Theology 
of the N. T, I, 437 sq. ; Beyschlag, Neio Testament Theology, 
II, 176-182 ; Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Theologie, II, 


it is to him one of the principles of the new life, in a 
certain sense the continuous principle of that life.* 

(2) Faith is commended as praiseworthy.'' (3) The 
relation of faith to repentance. This is a considera- 
tion of the greatest importance, because repentance is 
the act by which man passes from the state of disfavour 
with God, into that of favour. The Greek word which 
we have translated " repentance " denotes that inward 
change of the man from sin to righteousness which is 
the natural cause of God's change of attitude toward 
him. As far as the man's past is concerned, this 
involves pardon, but of the man's present state there 
can be nothing but approval, and these two necessary 
elements are included in the general Scriptural state- 
ment. Now the apostle does not use the word " repent- 
ance " in this connection, but in his discourse about 
justifying faith, he does introduce the act of repent- 
ance, though under another name. In Gal. 2 : 16 he 
says that he believed in Jesus Christ, that he might 
be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works 
of law. And in verse 19, he goes on to say that this 
death to law was in order that he might live to God. 
Then to clinch the matter, he says, verse 20, that it 
was with Christ that he was thus crucified to law, and 

121 sq. ; Stevens, Pauline Theology, 268 sq. ; Bruce, St. PauVs 
Conception of Christianity, 226 sq. ; Sanday and Headlam, 
Comm. on Bomans, 31 sq. ; Lightfoot, Galatians, 154 sq. ; 
Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, 83 sq. ; Schlatter, Der Glaube 
im N. T.; Schnedermann, De fidei ratione ethica Paulina. 
See further the note on p. 79 below. 

iRom. 15:13; 1 Cor. 14:22, 23; Rom. 1:8, 12; 5:2; 
11 : 20 ; 12 : 3, 6 ; 14 : 1 ; 1 Cor. 2:5; 12 : 9 ; 13 : 2, 13 ; 2 Cor. 
1 : 24 ; 4 : 13 ; 5 : 7 ; 8 : 7 ; 10 : 15 ; 13 : 5 ; Gal. 2 : 20 ; 3:2, 5 ; 
5:5, 6, 22 ; Phil. 1 : 25 ; 2 : 17. The statement among these 
in which this position of faith is directly affirmed, and not 
implied merely, is 1 Cor. 13 : 13. 

a Rom. 1 : 8, 12 ; 4 : 19, 20 ; 2 Cor. 8:7; 10 : 16 ; PhU. 1 : 26. 


that he lives no longer as the ego, but Christ lives in 
him, which explains how it is that his death to law 
became a life to God. But further, to connect this 
directly with the act of faith, he declares that the 
principle of this new life is his faith in the Son of 
God. Here is evidently the change from sin to right- 
eousness which is elsewhere called repentance, and the 
principle by which the change is effected is faith. 
(4) In Kom. 8 : 1-11, the apostle concludes what he has 
been saying about the deliverance through Christ with 
the statement that there is therefore no condemnation 
to those who are in Christ Jesus. This "therefore" 
connects the statement with the preceding passage 
in which he describes his bondage to sin and his deliv- of sin. 
erance from it. He is not under condemnation, because 
he is no longer under sin. That is the force of the 
"therefore." It establishes the man's acquittal in 
his deliverance from sin. But then he goes on to con- 
firm this by a rehearsal of this deliverance. He is set 
free from the law of sin and death by a new law set 
up in him by the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. God 
by the gift of his Son accomplished the dispossession 
of sin within the flesh where it had its seat, in order 
that the command of the law might be fulfilled in them 
who walk not according to flesh, but according to 
Spirit ; because those in the flesh cannot please God, 
only those in the Spirit. That is, the reason of the 
man's reception into the favour of God, is not what 
Christ has done for him ab extra, but what he has done 
within him in restoring him to a new life of righteous- 
ness. Now this passage it is simply impossible to 
adjust to what has preceded, if that has for its subject 
justification, not as an act of rectification morally, but 
as an act of judgment. For that would make two 
judgments, one being God's act in the free acquittal 
of men who believe in Christ as an expiatory sacrifice ; 



and the other being this judgment, which accepts 
believers because their faith leads up to a life accept- 
able to God. Whereas if the preceding subject has 
been justification considered as a moral rectification, 
this follows naturally as a statement of the acceptance 
of such morally rectified persons into the favour of 
God. In the one case, we have two incongruous judg- 
ments ; in the other, a statement first of God's act in 
providing for men a new righteousness through faith 
in Christ, and secondly of his acceptance of those 
who have "this new righteousness into his favour. 

(6) The passage, Gal. 5 : 4-6, in speaking of this 
very matter of justifying faith, defines it as a faith 
which works through love and purifies the heart. This 
is not merely a chance statement about faith, but is 
given as the reason why it avails with God, instead of 
circumcision. Qicod erat demonstrandum. We set out 
to ask whether Paul regards faith as a real principle 
of righteousness, or only the non-moral condition of 
God's acceptance of a man who is not righteous, but a 
sinner. But if faith works through love, which is the 
sum of all the virtues, and purifies the heart, then it 
is obviously a real principle of righteousness, and not 
the condition of God's acceptance of a man who is not 
made righteous by it. 

(6) Faith itself is the cause of justification and not 
the righteousness of Christ, or his expiatory sacrifice. 
This is a very important element in the discussion, 
because it is at the very root of the ordinary doctrine 
of justification, that it is not procured by anything in 
the man himself, but is the result of the expiatory death 
of our Lord, which purchases for man release from the 
penalty on the ground of Christ's own bearing of that 
penalty. It is this doctrine of atonement which in- 
cludes within itself as its human condition the faith 
which really does nothing more than bring the indi- 


vidual man into connection with the finished work of 
Christ. It is decisive against this view that Paul cites 
the faith of Abraham as the palmary case of justify- 
ing faith. The faith in this case is simply a faith in 
God in the matter of Abraham's posterity, a faith the 
merit of which was enhanced by the obstacles which 
it overcame in the matter of Sarah's over age, and of 
the command given him to sacrifice Isaac. Evidently 
in this case it was the faith itself that justified, and 
evidently also because of the principle of righteousness 
contained in it. 

It is here that one obtains the proper point of view 
for examining Paul's doctrine of election. It has been 
given to Paul to be more variously misunderstood than 
any other man except our Lord himself, but nowhere 
more grievously than on this subject. By his doctrine 
of election is meant Paul's exposition of the fact that 
his Gospel, as he calls it, involves the exclusion of the 
Jews from the kingdom, and the substitution of the 
Gentiles, and this in its turn means apparently 
the defeat of the divine purpose in making the Jews 
his chosen people. What has been supposed to be the 
apostle's ultimate thought about this is really only a 
preliminary step, and to treat it as ultimate is to throw 
the whole discussion out of relation, and leave the 
apostle with his main question unanswered. The 
answer has been supposed to be that God's choice is 
absolute, for which he is required to give no reason. 
But while this would answer the question why God 
chose any individual or nation, — namely, that there is 
no particular reason, and does not need to be any, — it 
would not in any way meet the question, how he could 
set aside a definite promise, expressly made irrevoca- 
ble in the first place. No, the answer is, that the 
ground of God's choice is the faith which Israel inher- 
ited from Abraham, but which the nation has by its 



The ground own act set aside, and substituted for it the self-right- 
choice ot ®o^s ground of legalism, while the Gentile on the other 
Jew or hand has succeeded to Israel's position and privilege 

of faith, and that the relations of the two are thus by 
the act of each reversed. And yet this does not give 
the Gentiles an independent claim on God nor a per- 
manent advantage over the Jew. The stock of God's 
people is still the Jews, and the Gentiles have been 
grafted into that stock. That is, they have inherited 
the Jewish Scriptures and the Jewish Messiah. And 
God's purpose in regard to Israel remains unchanged. 
When once the gathering of the Gentiles is complete, 
God means to stir up the Jews to jealousy, and ulti- 
mately to bring in all Israel. This is the answer, and 
the other, the absoluteness of election, is only a 
preliminary consideration, intended to rebuke the 
presumption with which ignorant men bring charges 
against God. 

Bid why is faith the principle of nghteousness? 

The answer to this question is obvious to any one who 

is conversant with the apostle's thought. At least, 

the most obvious answer is that faith justifies because 

it connects the man with Christ. Our Lord is himself 

ir the vital principle of the new life, and faith is what 

\ J^ brings the source and recipient of the life together, 

'lii^^ \\ as roots bring plant and soil together.^ And yet, as 

A/v we have seen, one will have to seek further than this 

to discover Paul's whole idea, because he ascribes 

Ofiie same power to the faith of Abraham. Faith is 

?« evidently in his view a principle of righteousness 

.because it has the power which the law has not, to 

implant life. Sin has destroyed the moral life of man 

1 Among the multitude of passages where St. Paul aflBrms 
this mystic relation of Christ to the believer, see especially 
Gal. 2 : 19, 20. See also Sanday and Headlam, Bomans, 

Why is faith 
the principle 
of righteous- 

basis of 


and something is needed to restore it. This power is 
lodged in faith because it establishes spiritual con- 
nection with God, it brings men into fellowship with 
God, either immediately, as in the case of Abraham, 
or through Christ. And Christ becomes the ground Christ as the 
and basis of faith not only through his death, but 
also through his resurrection.^ Anything in either 
God or Christ which is restoring and life-giving in 
its effect, may become the object of faith and the 
restorer of life. But as a general thing, just as 
it is Christ who is the usual object of faith, so it 
is the death of Christ, rather than the other aspects 
of his life. And we have here, therefore, the first 
attempt to rationalise the death of our Lord; not 
only to remove the difficulties attending it, but to show 
its place in the divine scheme of redemption. The 
passage in which this is set forth most fully is Eom. 
3:21-31. It is a passage which describes the new 
righteousness, and it is different from those passages 
which we have been examining, in which justification 
is by the act of the man himself, since God is intro- 
duced here as the justifier. But not even here does 
the word denote the judicial act directly, though it is 
involved in it. The word generally means to make 
righteous, and this may be either by the man's 
own act, in which case it denotes the quality or act 
which God recognises as constituting his righteous- 
ness, or it may be by the act of God, in which case it 
denotes the reinstatement of the man in the position of 
righteousness ; not the judicial act itself, but the effect 
of that in this reinstatement. The gratuitousness which 
is said to belong to the divine act here, shows that it 
is this reinstatement which is meant, since it is the 
incipient righteousness of faith which God accepts, 

1 Rom. 4 : 24 ; 10 : 9. 


not the accomplished righteousness of works. This 
reinstatement of man in the status of righteousness is 
said to be through the redemption in Christ Jesus, 
and this term again applies more naturally to an effect 
of the work of Christ in procuring the recognition of 
this righteousness, rather than in producing the right- 
eousness. Now what follows in Rom. 3 : 25, is evi- 
dently to show in what this redemption consisted. It 
says that God set Jesus forth as a propitiatory sacrifice 
in his blood (death), through faith. According to this, 
the sacrifice is the death of our Lord, which becomes 
the offering of the individual man through his faith, 
and propitiates God, as the sin offerings of the law 
propitiated him, wiping out guilt by a sacrifice, which 
in some sense takes the place of the man's own suf- 
fering.^ The death of our Lord becomes to Paul 
expiatory in this sense, that it is a general offering 
The death of appropriated by the individual man in the act of faith, 
and representing the cost of his own redemption, the 
suffering exacted somewhere of some one as an offset 
to his own freedom from penalty. Furthermore, it is 
for the exhibition of the divine righteousness, rendered 
necessary by the double fact that God passed over in 
his forbearance the previous sins of men, and that he 
now reinstates in the position of righteousness those 
who only believe in Jesus. There is evidently a con- 
nection in the apostle's thought between this righteous- 

1 On the Pauline position as regards the death of Jesus, see 
Stevens, Theology of the N. T., 403-416 ; Cone, Paul, the Man, 
the Missionary, and the Teacher, 261-279 ; Weiss, Theology of 
the N. T., I, 419 sq.; Beyschlag, New Testament Theology, II, 
133-103 ; Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Theologie, II, 97-121 ; 
Bovon, Theologie du N. T., II, 161 sq.; Pfleiderer, Pauliiiism, 
1,91-117 ; Bruce, St. PauVs Conception of Christianity, 321 sq., 
400 sq. ; Murray, Art. "Atonement," Hastings' Did.; Som- 
merville, St. PauVs Conception of Christ, 73 sq. ; Cave, The 
Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice and Atonement, 283 sq., 294 sq. 



ness of God, and the new righteousness provided by 
him for men. It means that in the setting up of this 
new righteousness, it must be not simply the divine 
grace that shall be shown, but preeminently the divine 
righteousness. Because if the effect of righteousness 
is to be produced in men, it must be the quality of 
righteousness in God that is emphasised. If in the 
very process, he seems to let down his righteousness 
somewhere, if he passes over sins, or counts an infe- 
rior righteousness as giving men title to be considered 
righteous, and does nothing to make up for this, he 
vitiates the process in its most vital part. But he does 
make up for this ; he makes up for it in the very way 
provided in the law ; he sets forth a propitiatory 
sacrifice, which represents, as the sacrifices all do, that 
something else beyond the restoration of the man -by 
which God is reconciled. It represents that side of 
the divine righteousness by which God, in some form 
or other, connects sin and suffering together, and 
himself provides something which shall emphasise 
this note in him, in the redemption of men. That is, 
to go back to the contrast which helped us understand 
the historical connections of our Lord's teaching, in 
the contest between priest and prophet, Paul is not so 
singly on the side of the prophets as our Lord himself is. 
He makes this concession to priestism. The remedy 
for this is in the definition of penalty as confined 
absolutely to the sphere of the act which it punishes. 
Sin has for its penalty the destruction of the man's 
moral nature, and the only way out of this is to stop 
sinning ; there is no substitution possible here ; no one 
can suffer for the man himself, and when the sin itself 
stops, the consequence stops. There is nothing here 
to render that something beyond, by which God is 
appeased, necessary, or even possible. There is noth- 
ing, and nothing is needed. 

The priestly 
element in 


On the other hand, the apostle's doctrine of the 
penalty of sin is that it consists in physical death, and 
it is the very item in this which the Greeks, together 
with some of their modern followers, regarded with 
joy, which he dreads. To him as a Pharisee, the 
separation of soul and body was to leave the soul a 
naked and shivering thing, deprived of its natural 
home. 2 Cor. 5 : 1-8 should be translated : " For we 
know that if our earthly habitation of the tent be 
destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not 
made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this 
(dwelling) we groan, longing to put on over it our 
dwelling from heaven, since also having put it on, we 
shall not be found naked. For even we who are in 
the tent groan, being burdened because we do not 
wish to be unclothed, but overclothed, in order that 
immortality may be swallowed up in life. And he who 
wrought us for this very thing is God, who also gave 
us the pledge of the spirit. Taking courage therefore 
always, and knowing that when we are present in the 
body we are absent from the Lord ; for we walk by 
faith not by sight ; but we take courage and are well 
pleased to be in exile from the body and to be at home 
with the Lord." The situation is this : Paul, with all 
his generation, is looking forward to the speedy com- 
ing of the Lord, and with it to the resurrection. And 
he groans while he is here at the thought that he may 
not live to see that time, and may have therefore to 
pass into the bodiless, naked state of the unrisen dead. 
Whereas, what he eagerly desires is to put on the 
resurrection body over the present body, that the mor- 
tal body may be swallowed (merged) in the life of the 
resurrection body, without having to pass through the 
nakedness of the intermediate state. The only thing 
that gives him any encouragement is that even that 
bodiless state introduces him into the presence of the 


Lord, which is preferable to the present condition 
with the body, but without the Lord, and so he takes 
courage even in facing that nakedness and chill of the 
disembodied state. The work of the Lord, therefore, 
consists in this, so far as the final redemption of man 
is concerned, that he passes through this state of The final re- 
death which sin has entailed upon man, and thereby chidesThe"^' 
expiates the sin which he himself does not share, but body, 
the penalty for which he suffers, and then by his own 
resurrection achieves for man the deliverance from 
death, and the entrance with him into the resurrection 
state. The thought which underlies the whole doc- 
trine is that Christ represents man, so that man dies 
with him, shares his death, instead of having to un- 
dergo the penalty in his own person, and then rises 
with him, a resurrection which is effected virtually in 
the resurrection of Christ, and finally actually in the 
resurrection of the man himself. We shall see later 
the other implications of this doctrine. For the pres- 
ent we have introduced it in order to show the place 
of our Lord's death, its effect in expiating the sin 
of men. And faith is the principle of righteousness 
because it appropriates to itself, makes its own, the 
sacrifice of Jesus by which he expiates the sin of 
men, and so vindicates the righteousness of God. 
This expiation of sin was to an orthodox Jew a part 
of the man's restoration to the status of righteousness, 
and Paul was in this respect an orthodox Jew. He 
represented in his doctrine both priestism and prophet- 
ism, a mixture which we do not find in the Synoptics. 
But we shall grievously misunderstand the apostle, 
if we think of him as fixing his attention upon this 
aspect of the death of Christ, to the exclusion of its 
more spiritual effect in restoring man to inward sym- 
pathy with God, as well as outward peace. In Rom. 6, 
he shows that through the death of our Lord we who 



believe die to sin, and rise to newness of life. And 
lest we should think that he is talking here of another 
part of the subject, and not of tbis special theme of 
justification, be says (vs. 7), that be who so died has 
been justified from sin. In Gal. 5 : 6, speaking of the 
faitb tbat justifies, be says that in Christ Jesus neither 
circumcision avails anytbing, nor uncircumcision, but 
faitb working through love. But love is understood 
by the apostle to be the principle of righteousness, 
the summing up of the law, and if faitb bas tbat for 
its effect, it is evident tbat it not only brings about 
tbe acceptance of the man as rigbteous, but actually 
makes him rigbteous (cf. vs. 14). In Gal. 1:4, be 
speaks of Christ as giving himself for our sins, that 
be migbt deliver us from tbe present evil age. And 
in Gal. 2 : 19, 20, be continues bis discourse on justifi- 
cation by faitb instead of works, in tbe statement tbat 
it was tbrougb law tbat be died to law, tbat be was 
crucified with Cbrist, and be lives no longer in propria 
persona, but Christ lives in bim ; and tbe life tbat be 
now lives in tbe flesh be lives in tbe faitb of tbe Son 
of God, wbo loved bim and gave bimself for bim. 
Here be evidently thinks of faitb as uniting bim to 
Cbrist not for tbe purposes of an outward justification, 
but of an inward renewal, which is the ground of the 
outward acceptance witb God. Tbe point of all tbese 
quotations is tbat tbey speak of this inward renewal 
as constituting tbe rigbteousness of faitb, and not as 
tbe basis of something whicb follows tbat, which 
tbeologians have called sanctification. They say tbat 
to put this inward renewal at the beginning of tbe 
Christian life is to confound justification and sancti- 
fication ; and tbat it is tbe former, tbe outward accept- 
ance witb God, whicb comes first, while tbe inward 
renewal follows it. But it is Paul bimself wbo thus 
identifies tbe inward renewal witb tbe rigbteousness 


of faith. And if anything, his emphasis is on the 
spiritual eifect of the death of our Lord, rather than its 
expiatory effect. But both belong to Paul's view of the 
righteousness of faith. He thinks of the believer as 
made righteous by his faith ; that is the first point. 
But then his faith appropriates also to itself the sacrifice 
of Christ, and secures for the man its expiatory effect, so 
that he is not only made righteous by it, but also 
inducted into the status of righteousness by the divine 
act. To miss either one of these is to miss an essential 
part of the Pauline doctrine of justification.^ 

1 It should be said in defence of the forensic view of the verb 
SiKaiovv, that, owing to Luther's building his whole structure on 
this interpretation, it is the common Protestant view. But a 
greater consideration is the agreement of the lexicographers that 
this is the invariable use in the LXX and in classic Greek. If 
this statement were true, it would afford a presumption against 
which any special view of St. Paul's use would find it difficult 
to make headway. But this view of the general use of the 
word needs restatement just as much as the forensic view of the 
Biblical use. E.g., there is at least one example in the LXX of 
St. Paul's statement that a man is justified by his own act. 
Our use of the word "justify" to denote the defence of an 
action or a person does not come strictly under the head of " ac- 
counting righteous." Among modem writers who have made 
departures more or less wide from the forensic view, are Light- 
foot, Epistles of Paul, 270 ; Biblical Essays, 230 ; Westcott, Bruce, 
Parrar, George Matheson, Fairbairn, Julius Hare, Maurice, Lias 
{Nicene Creed), McLeod Campbell, the Lux Mundi School ; 
among Americans, Kedney, Du Bose, and Harris. The difficulty 
is that many of these men are writing in regard to the true doc- 
trine of justification by faith, whereas we are treating St. Paul's 
doctrine. E.g., Dr. Harris {God, Creator and Lord of All, II, 
332) says: "The objection to the doctrine of justification by 
faith insists that justification must be conditioned, not on faith, 
but on right character. But justification by faith is itself the 
doctrine of a justification conditioned on right character, be- 
cause faith in God is the only possible beginning of right char- 
acter either in men or angels." This is true in itself, but St. 


Paul's teaching is that the righteousness of faith is an inferior 
righteousness accepted by God only through grace. Among 
Germans who recognize the inner moral side of justification may 
be mentioned Schleiermacher, Lipsius (Z>je Paulinische Recht- 
fertigungslehre), Baur, Reuss, Beyschlag, and Martensen. 
These writers are strongly supported by the group of Neo- 
Hegelian writers who work on the lines of Kant's maxim, that 
the one truly good thing is a good will, such as Professor lloyce, 
the two Cairds, Bradley (Ethical Studies), Green (Justification 
by Faith, and Lay Sermon on " Faith "). Ethical writers, such 
9A Smythe, follow Kant in holding the "germinal theory" of 
justification, "the will for the deed," or the Hegelian theory. 
Examples of the latter are James (The Will to Believe), James 
Seth (Ethical Principles), and Paulsen (Ethics). But what- 
ever these men say in regard to justification by faith is subject 
to the criticism mentioned above that they are discussing the 
general doctrine, not the Pauline doctrine, and that therefore 
what they have to say has little bearing on the Pauline use of 
the verb 8tKaiodv. In addition to this statement of modifica- 
tions of the Protestant view of justification it is scarcely neces- 
sary to mention that the Roman Catholics since the Reformation 
have held the realistic view of the doctrine. But it is a matter 
of importance that before the Reformation, Church writers were 
divided in their opinion, the realistic view being held by the 
schoolmen, such as Lombard and Thomas and even by Augus- 



With the gift to men of this new righteousness, the The Spirit in 
work of redemption is only begun, however. Its com- redempdon' 
pletion is looked upon by the apostle as practically 
assured, but it has to wait for the event of our Lord's 
reappearance for its actual accomplishment. Mean- 
time, there is given to men a pledge of this final sal- 
vation in the gift of the Holy Spirit. The part of the 
work which has been practically accomplished is the 
redemption of the spirit, that remaining to be done is 
the redemption of the body. And it is in the redemp- 
tion of the spirit that the Holy Spirit plays its part. 
This is set forth best in Eom. 8. It appears there that he 
is the creator or inspirer of the new life, that by which 
sin is dispossessed in the man, and the righteousness 
of the law, impossible under the law itself, is real- 
ised. But now, in this discourse there is a continual 
interchange of offices between the Spirit and Christ 
himself. It is the law of the Spirit which sets him 
free from the law of sin and death, but it is by our 
Lord's taking on himself our flesh, the likeness of the 
flesh of sin, that sin is dispossessed, and the righteous- 
ness of the law is realised (vss. 2, 3). Men are in the 
Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God d^vells in them. 
But in the next clause, the Spirit of God becomes the The Spirit of 
Spirit of Christ, and in the next clause, Christ himself ^^'■^'*^- 
is substituted (vss. 9, JO). In 2 Cor. 3:17, the two 
are expressly identified, the statement being that the 
G 81 


Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord 
is, there is liberty. The explanation of this is the 
peculiar doctrine of Paul in regard to the relations of 
the Son and the Holy Spirit to each other, and of both 
to the Father. God himself dwells apart in some 
sense, and it is the office of the Son and the Spirit to 
bring him near. This approach of God to men is in 
two ways, revelation and indwelling. Or rather, both 
are revelations, the one inward, and the other objec- 
tive. The objective revelation, made to the senses, an 
object lesson so to speak, is through the Son. And it 
is this which constitutes the break in the process of 
revelation, the new thing by which the comparative 
vagueness and slowness of the ordinary method is set 
aside for the time, and there is substituted the definite- 
ness and immediateness of a human life embodying 
everything that men need to know about God. The 
substitution for this of the Spirit is not the setting up 
of a new principle of revelation, but the return to the 
old and normal principle, the subjective revelation 
within the spirit of man, of which the Holy Spirit is 
the agent. But this inward revelation is no longer 
what it has been, because meantime there has been the 
outward revelation which changes the whole aspect of 
things. It is now no longer the imperfectly revealed 
God who is slowly brought within the compass of 
human thought by the touch of the Divine Spirit ; it is 
the God revealed in Christ. In the incarnation we 
have God translated into the terms of human life ; in 
the Spirit after the incarnation, we have the Son trans- 
lated into the terms of the universal Spirit. The 
secret of it all is the absoluteness with which God has 
been revealed to us by the Son, so that he becomes to 
us the God made known to us in Christ. But the 
immediate touch upon man, that which imparts life to 
him rather than any knowledge, however perfect, is 


that of the Holy Spirit. Here is where the thought 
of Paul makes a distinct advance upon that of the 
Twelve. To them the Spirit is sent by the Son, who Difference 
has been exalted partly for this reason, that he may be between 
empowered to send to them this new power out of the Paul and the 
heavens. To Paul the thought of the Spirit is not 
that of one sent by Christ, though that is not excluded ; 
but the thing emphasised by him is that the Spirit 
brings to us the Christ. Through the Spirit the general 
fact that in him God dwells in us is translated into 
the more particular and revelatory fact that in him 
Christ dwells in us. 

Because of the lack of this thought, the Twelve The historic 
and Paul differ in another particular. In the thought ^^^^^^ h^fo"^ 
of the Twelve, Christ is withdrawn into the heavens, terms of uni- 
whence he is to return only at the second coming in ^^rsal spirit, 
glory. With Paul, he is again to return, but he is much 
more the indwelling Christ. The phrases most char- 
acteristic of him are " in Christ," and " Christ in him." 
This would be impossible to the Twelve, because they 
have been so accustomed to the thought of association 
with Christ in his earthly life, that it is not easy for 
them to pass over into the mystical thought of him. 
But the difference is due also quite as much to the 
genius of the man. The same thing which made it 
easy for Paul to break through his extreme Jewish 
environment, to grasp the prophetic and universal ele- 
ment in Christianity, made it impossible for him to 
confine himself to the Christ who dwelt merely histori- 
cally in the thoughts and memories of his disciples. 
It was a matter of necessity to him that the Christ 
should be translated into the terms of universal 
Spirit. The power indwelling in him was, as it had 
always been, God, but it was God in Christ. 

But we have not yet reached the most distinctive 
element in Paul's doctrine. In the other New Testa- 


ment. writings, Christ and the Spirit are distinct agents ; 
in his doctrine they are identified. The Divine In- 
dweller is to him alternately Christ and the Spirit. 
And this interchange is due to the fact that Paul thinks 
of the Spirit as the divine principle incarnate in 
Jesus, and explaining his preexistence.^ In the flesh 
he is the Son of God, and Son because of his identifi- 
cation with the Spirit But in the heavenly state, he 
is the Spirit. This is not a familiar idea to us, whose 
doctrine includes the Son as well as the Father and 
the Spirit in the Godhead. But to the Jews, whose 
doctrine included a personal God, and an impersonal 
Spirit emanating from him, incarnation would be 
restricted to these. And inasmuch as Paul identifies 
Son and Spirit, but never Son and Father, the princi- 
ple of incarnation is necessarily the Spirit.^ Alexan- 
drianism is the source of the doctrine of the incarnation 
of the Logos, and Paul was not an Alexandrian Jew. 

1 Seep. 92 sq. 'Rom. 1:4. 

8 For further discussion of the Pauline doctrine of the Spirit, 
see Stevens, Theology of the N. T., 431-445; Cone, Paul, the 
Man, the Missionary, and the Teacher, 311-341 ; Beyschlag, 
New Testament Theology, II, 204-216 ; Holtzmann, Neutesta- 
mentliche Theologie, II, 143 sq. ; Pfleiderer, Paulinism, I, 
192 sq. ; Bruce, St. PauVs Conception of Christianity, 242- 
256; Swete, Art. "Holy Spirit," Hastings' Diet.; Gunkel, 
Die Wirkungen des Heiligen Oeistes nach der populdren An- 
schauung der apostolischen Zeit und nach der Apostels Paulus ; 
Gloel, Der Heilige Geist in der Heilsverkundigung des Paulus ; 
Kahnis, Lehre voni h. Geiste, Bd. I ; Gaume, Traite du S. 
Esprit; Smeaton, Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. 



The beginning of the work of redemption is to the apos- Stages in the 
tie this bringing of the man into the state of righteous- proc^s**^'^ 
ness, making him inwardly righteous in the first place, 
and instating him in the position of the righteous man 
through the expiatory sacrifice of our Lord in the sec- 
ond place. Of this new life of righteousness the Holy 
Spirit is the divine agent, working in man an obedi- 
ence to the righteousness of the law which the law 
itself had been unable to accomplish. But now it is 
impossible, in the apostle's thought, that this should 
complete the work of redemption, considered even as 
the deliverance of the man from sin. For it is the 
deliverance of the spirit only, and not of the body. 
The body, he says, is dead because of sin, but the 
spirit is life because of righteousness.^ But the body, 
or the flesh, the two being interchangeable terms in 
this discussion, is the seat of sin, and therefore, imtil 
that is redeemed, the work of salvation is manifestly 
unfinished. What has been done so far is to free the 
spirit, the man himself, from the dominion of the flesh, 
but not to redeem the body.^ The sinful life is the 
life according to the flesh, and therefore, as long as 
that remains unchanged, man cannot be said to be free 
from sin. Moreover, what is equally important in this 
system, the power of death has been only partly 

1 Rom. 8 : 10. 2 Rom. 7 : 24, 25 ; 8 : 2-lL 




aspect of 

only by the 
of the body. 

broken, and it is the breaking of this power which is 
Paul's ultimate thought about salvation.* It is impor- 
tant to remember that Paul divides the articulum mor- 
tis into these two parts — the death of the spirit as 
well as of the body. He speaks more than once of the 
present life of believers as a state of newness of life, 
and argues from this that they ought not to yield to 
the impulses of the mortal body. It is a law of sin 
and death that rules them in their natural state, and 
it is a law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus which 
delivers them as a present fact from this state of death.^ 
The completion of the work of salvation is the rescue 
of body as well as spirit from sin and death. The 
difficulty with the present body is, that it is corrupti- 
ble, that is, subject to decay and vulnerable to sin. The 
two great enemies of man, sin and death, have it in 
subjection. And the redemption of man, therefore, 

1 1 Cor. 15 : 50-58 ; Rom. 8 : 23. 

2 The present state of the believer is one of bodily death 
because of sin, but of spiritual life because of righteousness. 
This would mean nothing, except as it implies a previous state 
of spiritual death, and a passage out of that into the present 
state of spiritual life. The believer is alive now, and was 
before dead ; and this is not a virtual death and life, by way 
of anticipation of the future, because they are states domi- 
nating the life of the man, — states of spiritual power. (Rom. 
6 : 12-14 ; 8 : 2-11.) Rom. 8 : 10, 11 is an exact statement of 
this division. The body of the believer is said to be dead 
because of sin, but the spirit is life because of righteousness. 
"But if the Spirit of him who raised up Jesus from the dead 
dwell in you, he who raised up Jesus from the dead will also 
qiucken your mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwells in 
you." Death is finally conquered, according to the apostle, 
only in the resurrection, and death is therefore to him what 
it means ordinarily — the destruction of the body. This is 
the consequence of sin. But this is not the whole of the 
story. There is a death of the spirit and also a resurrection, 
a quickening, of the spirit, which belongs to the present life. 


would be incomplete on both sides, without the resur- 
rection. Man's immortality has nothing to do with 
this ; the apostle seems to believe in that, irrespective 
of the resurrection. Before the resurrection, and irre- 
spective of it, man's spirit exists in the dreary disem- 
bodied state, and all alike, righteous and sinners, are to 
appear before the judgment seat. But the completion 
of the work of Christ is to provide those who believe 
in him with a new body. The work is not done, how- 
ever, with the reincarnation of the man ; it is complete 
only in the glorification of the body. Instead of the 
idea, which some literalists insist upon, that the 
materials of the old body are to be diligently gathered, 
and put together again,^ the very point of the apostle's 
statement is, that the body is to be of new material ; 
the old material, the flesh, being cast aside as worth- 
less. "Thou sowest not the body which shall be," the 
apostle says explicitly.^ It is sarkical, earthy, subject 
to decay, fit only for the lower part, the psyche; while The repre- 
the new body is to be incorruptible, and fit for the glpSiLnce 
abode of the higher part, the spirit of man. This is of Jesus, 
accomplished for man through the resurrection of 
Christ. He was provided with a body of this same 
sarkical stuff, subject to death like the rest of men. 
But he rose again, achieving the double victory over 
sin while in the vulnerable flesh, and over death by 
his own resurrection in the new body freed from the 
taint of the flesh. No wonder that, with Paul's idea 
of the original trouble as being in the flesh, the mate- 
rial of the body, he should not be satisfied with any 
temporary dominance of the spirit over the encumber- 
ing flesh, but only with the final act in which that 

1 Thus Jerome, the risen " habent dentes, ventrem, genitalia, i 
et tamen nee cibis nee uzoribus indigent.''* j 

2 1 Cor. 15 : 37. 



fleshly body is replaced by a new body of a new 

But the apostle's programme is not yet complete. 
Man's environment is as poor as his physical investi- 
ture. He is the inhabitant of a world that shares his 
fate. The whole creation is subject to the same decay 
as man himself, and cries to be delivered from it. 
The cause of this is to be found evidently in the state 
of its inhabitants, their mortality being shared by the 
rest of creation, and creation therefore waits for the 
freeing of the sous of God as a signal for its own 

This completes the apostle's splendid programme. 
But before we close our survey of it, we must see how 
at each step it grows out of the exigencies of his 
thought. In the first place, as we have seen, immor- 
tality is presupposed, not included in it. All men 
survive death and come to judgment, and immortality, 
that is, the persistence of the soul after death, is 
therefore natural, and is not included in the awards 
of the judgment. The d<f)6ap(rLav of Rom. 2 : 7 is not 
immortality, but incorruption, which is explained^ to 
be a quality of the body, not of the soul. No, the 
penalty of sin is the death of both soul and body. 
The death of the soul is that which comes with the 

1 Kom. 7 : 5, 18, 25 ; 8 : 3, 5-13 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 35-68 ; 2 Cor. 
6 : 1-10. It is worth noticing that Paul is here at one also with 
the teaching of Jesus in so far as we have it preserved. Over 
against the crass physical reanimation of the body taught by 
the author of the Apocalypse of Baruch (xlix, 2, 3) and the 
(possibly later) scribes (Charles, Eschatology, 280 sq. ; Weber, 
JUdische Theologie, 371 sq.), Jesus sets the clear statement 
(Lk. 20 : 35, 36) that in the resurrection animal qualities are at 
an end and men are to be like angels. But this is something 
other than being sexless. 

2 Rom. 8 : 19-22. 

8 1 Cor. 15 : 42, 50-54. 


first entrance of sin as a voluntary factor in the con- 
scious life of the man, and is replaced by the life of 
the spirit which comes with the setting up of right- 
eousness as the dominant principle instead of sin.^ Of 
this new life of the spirit, our Lord is the author, and 
the Holy Spirit is the agent.^ But this spiritual 
renewal leaves several demands unsatisfied. In the 
first place, there is the demand of the divine right- 
eousness that it be satisfied in some way corresponding 
to the sacrificial satisfaction of the law. In this part 
of his teaching, Paul is influenced by the priestly 
thought, of which the prophets denied the validity, 
that God demands other satisfaction than repentance. 
This demand is met by the sacrifice of our Lord.' 
Another lack of completeness is the continuance of 
the union of the renewed spirit with a body which is 
vulnerable to sin, which has been the chief source of 
man's moral weakness.* So that, on the side of man's 
spiritual renewal even, there is a call for something 
else than merely the restoration of the life of the 
spirit itself. Not even that will fortify it completely its logical 
against sin, as long as the fleshly body remains. It Qg^^^°^*" 
will be in a state of perpetual conflict, with the chances 
in favour of the spirit, which is now allied with the 
Spirit of God, but out of which the spirit cries to be 
delivered from this body of death.* But then, this 
renewal of the body is demanded not only for the 
completion of the emancipation of the spirit, but also 
for its own sake. In the first place, the soul is 
wretched without a body, and its earthly tabernacle is 
destroyed by death.® But then, the soul not only 
needs a body, it needs a body free from sin and death, 
made, therefore, of a new material ; and the resurrec- 

1 Rom. 7 : 7-13 ; 8 : 10. * Rom. 8 : .3. 

2 Rom. 8 : 2, 3. « Roiii. 7 : 24 ; Gal. 5:17. 
8 Rom. 3 : 25, 26. « 2 Cor. 6 : 1-8. 


tion is therefore not simply a resurrection, it is a 
change, a glorification of the body.^ And, finally, the 
renewed man wants a new home, as this world has 
been accommodated to the old man, and is subject to 
the same evil of mortality and futility as the man 
himself. For this purpose, the apostle provides in 
his thought not a heavenly abode, but a renewed and 
emancipated world, which is to be the domicile of the 
risen humanity. In this way, it will be seen how every 
part of the apostle's programme of redemption is 
occasioned by the exigencies of his thought; it is a 
reasoned process throughout. 

With the close of the work of redemption, the 
Messianic reign is to come to an end. In this matter, 
as in all the rest, the apostle is guided by the exigen- 
cies of his thought. He quotes from Ps. 8 : 6, that 
God put all things under the feet of the Son of Man. 
From this he argues that he must reign till all things 
have been subjected to him, the last enemy to be 
destroyed being death. But it is manifest that God 
himself must be excepted from this universal reign, 
that he is to become all in all. And so, when this 
purpose of the Messianic reign has been accomplished, 
this ultimate purpose of the divine sovereignty must 
replace even the temporary purpose of the Messianic 
reign, and Christ himself be included in this universal 
rule of God.* This is different from the programme of 
the Twelve, according to which even the work of the 
Messianic Prince in heaven is to be preliminary to his 
real reign, which is to begin with his return to this 
earth. But according to the apostle, that reign, 
instead of beginning then, is to end then. For with 
this return the resurrection is to take place, and with 
this that victory over the last enemy, death, which is 

1 1 Cor. 15 : 42-49. * 1 Cor. 16 : 24-28. 


to close the Messiah's reign, since it accomplishes the 
purpose for which the Messiah was appointed to 

As to when all this is to take place, Paul is careful Time of 
to say that he hopes for the resurrection within his ^ngof Christ 
own lifetime, but is certain of it within that of his 
contemporaries.^ Here is the secret of his own mis- 
sionary activity. The vast Eoman world is to be 
converted, and then at last the Jews are to be brought 
in, and all within this limited time. No wonder that 
the apathy of the Twelve and of the Jewish Church 
seemed something inexplicable, and that he threw 
himself into the breach with an unexampled activity.'' 

1 1 Cor. 15 : 51, 52 ; 2 Cor. 5 : IS. 

2 On the Pauline eschatology, see Stevens, Theology of the 
N. T., 470-482 ; Cone, Paul, the Man, the Missionary, and the 
Teacher, 423-457 ; Weiss, Theology of the N. T., II, 52-74 ; 
Beyschlag, New Testament Theology, II, 254-281 ; Holtzmann, 
Neutestamentliche Theologie, II, 187-203 ; Bovon, Theologie 
du N. T., II, 309-351; Pfleiderer, Paulinism, I, 259-276; 
Bruce, St.PauVs Conception of Christianity, 379-396 ; Salmond, 
Art. "Eschatology," Hastings' Diet. ; Kabisch, Die Eschatologie 
des Paulus ; Charles, Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish, and Chris- 
tian, 380^05. 



Office of 
our Lord 
rather than 

silence as to 
the life of 

The idea of the kingdom drops into a position of 
comparative insignificance in Paul's writings. Where 
it does appear, it is as the kingdom of God. Christ 
does not figure as the Messianic King, except in the 
passage quoted above about the end of his reign. This 
is not incompatible with his Messianic character, since 
the national idea of the Messiah was that of Prince 
and Saviour. He was to deliver his people from their 
enemies. But in that Messianic thought of the people 
this deliverance was always associated with his reign, 
and in the spiritual form in which this is presented in 
Christ's own teaching the note of authority is always 
preserved. The same is true of the teaching of the 
Twelve. But the office of our Lord, as Paul looked at 
it, was redemptive in such a sort as to obscure the 
sovereignty. Por the purposes of his doctrine we can 
practically leave out of sight everything in Jesus' 
life up to the time of his death ; for while Paul quotes 
sometimes from Jesus' teachings, he does not dwell in 
any way upon the life or work of our Lord, except as 
they are involved in his death and resurrection. But 
these events, though they lend themselves readily to 
discourse of our Lord's real sovereignty, are not used 
for the enforcement of that at all. They are occa- 
sioned by the sin and death of man, and are intended 
to effect man's deliverance from these evils. And 
these evils are always regarded not as an impairment 




of Jesus. 

of the divine sovereignty, but as a supreme loss to the 
man himself. And in Christ's heavenly office, it is 
his identity with the Spirit in his regenerating and 
renewing office that is emphasised. This is not to 
deny that the apostle's teaching can be brought to 
bear for the enforcements of the rule of the kingdom, 
but that he himself does not bring it to bear expressly, 
as he would if the thought of the kingdom had been 
prominent in his mind. 

Such a position as this implies a reconstruction of The person 
the idea of our Lord's person. He becomes a mystical 
being, endowed with a spiritual force, and this spir- 
itual force is not derived from the power of our 
Lord's life still living on in the world, and perpetu- 
ating itself in the minds and hearts of men, but is 
due to his own presence. But this influence in human 
affairs is possessed by the heavenly powers alone, and 
to attribute it to Jesus is to associate him with those 
heavenly powers. That is, this being who. during his 
life, and now after his death, wielded such a power 
over men, was not a mere man, but came into this 
world from another sphere. This is the first point in 
Paul's reconstructed Christology, his affirmation of 
our Lord's preexistence.^ But in what form was his 
heavenly life ? He was God, some say, not as an 
expression of their own opinion, but as interpreters of 
Paul's thought. They quote for this purpose Rom. 
9 : 5. But all that can be said in favour of this inter- 
pretation, according to which Jesus is here called God, 
is that it is a natural explanation, probably the natural 
explanation of the passage as it stands, supposing there 
is nothing against it. But on the other side is the fact 
that it stands absolutely alone in the apostle's writings. 
There is nothing else to be classed with it, and on the 

His preex- 
istence: not 
as God 

1 2 Cor. 8:9; Rom. 10 : G ; 1 Cor. 8 : 6. 


contrary, much that is simply incompatible with it.* 
The interpretation, therefore, which resolves this into 
a doxology, while not in itself so natural, is very pos- 
sible, and being possible, there is no doubt of its 
correspondence with Paul's thought.^ 

Another answer to the question that we have raised 
is, that the form of our Lord's heavenly existence was 
that of man, not of man in his present fleshly state, 
but of a heavenly man, the typical man of whom all 
individual men are but the images, a being identified 
with the Spirit of God. A statement like this, so 
strange in its implications, ought to be strongly sup- 
ported, but instead of this, there is only one passage 
which is cited, or can be cited as containing anything 
like this. 1 Cor. 15 : 47 says that "the first man was 
of the earth earthy; the second man was the Lord 
from heaven. The first man, Adam, became a living 
soul ; the second became a life-giving spirit." But the 
very thing which is needed to give this passage the 
required meaning is wanting. It does not affirm man- 
hood of the preexistent, heavenly state, but of the 
earthly state. Manhood was the acknowledged form 
of his existence here, and would be understood to refer 
to that in this passage, unless there were some direct 
statement to the contrary ; but the statement is that 
this being who lived here in the form of a man was not 
a man from heaven, but the Lord from heaven. This 
leaves unanswered, therefore, the question as to the 
form of his heavenly life. Further, the part of this 
interpretation which makes him the archetypal man 
of whom individual men are only the copies, is from 
the Jewish theology, to be sure, but from which part 
of that theology ? It is the Hellenistic, Alexandrian 
Judaism, from which that is taken, and Paul was not 

1 Rom. 8 : 34 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 24-28 ; 8 : 6. 

* " He who is God over all be blessed forever." 



an Alexandrian, he was distinctly a Pharisaic Jew.^ 
This passage, describing him as a zealot for the an- 
cestral traditions, would be an absurd statement from 
an Alexandrian Jew. 

The identification of this heavenly man with the 
Spirit is absurdly incongruous. It is evident that 
the life-giving spirit of this passage is not identi- 
fied with God, but with man rather. But can any- 
thing be more evident than that the Spirit of Paul's 
writings is to be identified with God, that it is a 
divinity working in the souls of men ? To say that it 
is a heavenly man is simply to forget all that the 
apostle says about it. Can it be everywhere present, a 
divine spirit dwelling in the hearts of man, and yet 
a heavenly man ? Man is a localised individual being, 
while the very essential attribute of the Spirit is this 
universal diffusion. Then the statement of Christ's 
change of state is that he became man, not that he 
passed from the state of a spiritual man into that of a 
fleshly man. If the latter had been meant, it must 
have been said somewhere definitely. 

There is one thing in which we must not misunder- 
stand Paul. To him it was not the preexistent Christ 
that explains the power and work of our Lord. It 
was not the different conditions of that heavenly life 

1 Gal. 1 : 14. On the Christology of Paul in general, see 
Stevens, Theology of the N. T., 389-402; Beysclilag, New 
Testament Theology, II, ch. 3 ; Weiss, Theology of the N. T., I, 
390-419 ; Iloltzmann, Neutestamentliche Tlieologie, II, Qo-'dl ; 
Bovon, Theologie du N. T, II, 253-308; Brace, St. PauVs 
Conception of Christianity, 327-343 ; Pfleiderer, Paulinism, 
I, 123-159 ; Cone, Paiil, the Man, the Missionary, and the 
Teacher, 280-310 ; Weizsacker, 77te Apostolic Age, I, 144 sq. ; 
M^u^goz, Le Peche et la Pklemption d'apres St. Paul, 157-209 ; 
Beet, Art. "Christology," Hastings' Diet.; Sommerville, St. 
PauVs Conception of Christ; Gifford, The Incarnation: a 
Study of Phil. 2 : 5-11. 

A preexist- 
ent man not 
the Spirit. 

The risen 
more than 
the preexist- 
ent Christ 



through which he achieved the salvation of men; it 
was his victory over the conditions of life which he 
shared with men, by which he saved them. His power 
to dispossess sin in the flesh, and replace it with a 
spirit of obedience, is due to his partaking of our 
fleshly nature. His death would be possible only to 
an incarnate man, not to an unfleshed spirit. His 
resurrection, carrying with it our victory over death, 
was his victory over the flesh, not only overbearing it 
by the spirit, as in his sinless life, but replacing it 
with a nobler body made of a different stuif. To be 
sure, it was the glorified Christ upon whom Paul gazed 
near Damascus, but it was not the glory of the pre- 
incarnate Christ, it was the brightness of the risen 
Christ. And it was the risen Christ who was the Son 
of God, the image of God, not the preexistent Christ.^ 
The most probable view is that Paul thought of the 
Spirit as the form of Christ's preexistent nature. This 
Spirit as the answer is advanced difiidently, as there are so few mate- 
Ctu-lstf ^" i'i3.1s for the determination of the question. But there 
is no question that our Lord and the Holy Spirit are 
identified in some sense in Paul's writings, and it seems 
as if this must be the sense intended.^ The direct 
statement of this identity is in 2 Cor. 3 : 17, 18. What 
it immediately suggests is the interchange of Christ 
and the Spirit as the indwelling powers in the regen- 
erate man. The ordinary explanation of this inter- 
change is, that the Spirit brings to men the things of 
Jesus Christ, makes his life, death, teachings, and res- 
urrection active influences in us. It would also be 
explained in part by the fact that the Spirit dwelt in 
Jesus during his earthly life, and was the source in 
him of his supernatural and gracious power. The first 

1 2 Cor. 4:4; Rom. 1 : 4 ; 5 : 10, 11 ; 8 : 3, 29, 32 ; 1 Cor. 
15 : 28 ; 2 Cor. 1:9; Gal. 1 : 16 ; 4:4. 

2 Rom. 8 : 9 ; 2 Cor. 3 : 17, 18 ; Gal. 4:6; also Rom. 1 : 4- 

Paul prob- 
ably re- 
garded the 


of these is emphasised by the fourth Gospel, and the 
second by all the Gospels. But while the fourth Gos- 
pel contrasts Christ's person with the Spirit who rep- 
resents the Father, saying that certain things in Jesus 
came not from himself, but from the Father or the 
Spirit, Paul seems to identify them, so that we get the 
idea, not that our Lord's spirit was reenforced by the 
Divine Spirit, but that the two were identical, in other 
words that Jesus was an incarnation of the Spirit of 
God.^ In Kom. 1 : 4, the spirit of holiness corresponds Passages 
to the flesh in the other part of the statement, and is ""Plying 
therefore a designation of the other side of Christ's 
own nature. But "the spirit of holiness" is the 
equivalent of the Holy Spirit, and is probably a 
designation of the spiritual nature of our Lord as 
identical with the Spirit, and not simply inhabited by 
the Holy Spirit. The same identity of the Spirit with 
the spirit of Christ throws light upon the expression, 
"the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus." ^ The identifica- 
tion of the Spirit with the mind of Christ^ does not 
require this for its explanation, but it is greatly illumi- 
nated by it. 

There are only two references to the preexistent 
state itself, all the rest being statements of Jesus' 
emergence from that into this world. These state- 
ments in regard to the state itself are, that it was a 
state of glory, contrasted with the poverty of man's 
present state ; * and that all things are through him.® 
The former is not decisive, but the latter corresponds 
to the Old Testament statement that the Spirit was 
the divine agent in creation. When we come to the 
earthly stage of our Lord's existence, this explains Nature of 
tlie statement of his souship. Men are sons of God sonshh'"'^ 
through the indwelling of the Spirit, but our Lord 

1 Jn. 1 : 32, 33 ; 3 : 34. 2 Rora. 8 : 2. 

« 1 Cor. 2 : 11-lG. * 2 Cor. 8:9. ^ Cur. 8 : 0. 



The influ- 
ence of 

is evidently called God's own Son in order to dis- 
tinguish him from the common mass of those bear- 
ing this title, because he has not only the Spirit 
indwelling with his spirit, but is himself identified 
with the Spirit. This does not identify him with 
humanity on the side of his spiritual nature, but 
neither does it put him out of sympathy with men, 
because the trouble with men is not so much, accord- 
ing to Paul, in their spiritual part, but in the alli- 
ance of that with the fleshly body. This Jesus shares 
with us, and it means that he shares what is man's 
distinctive weakness. In us there is a lower spiritual 
part inhabiting the body and subject to its weakness. 
But there is another part dwelling within, apart from 
the flesh and akin to the Spirit, which is not so subject. 
In regeneration partial victory is obtained over the flesh 
by the association with the spirit of man of the Spirit 
of God. Jesus' complete victory is due to the fact that 
the spiritual part is itself the Spirit. But now, freedom 
from the flesh is obtained by Christ at his resurrec- 
tion, when he becomes Son of God for the first time 
in the full sense. And this resurrection, with its free- 
dom from the flesh, he obtains, not only for himself, 
but for us. But this resurrection, in both his case and 
ours, is due to the Spirit. 

We must not forget the probabilities in this matter 
arising from Paul's theological antecedents. The idea 
of incarnation was not natural to a Jew, but there were 
two possible provisions for it in his thought. Nothing 
in Judaism itself would suggest it, but it would have 
to come from elsewhere, in this case from the actual 
unique greatness of Jesus, which seemed to the dis- 
ciples supernatural. The source of this might be 
angelic, an idea indeed which was exploited in the 
early stages of Christian Alexandrianism, and com- 
bated in the New Testament writings of that period. 


But with Paul this was no sooner conceived than set 
aside. Such greatness, to his mind, suggested some 
sort of identification with God. Some such identifi- 
cation was attributed by the Jews to kings and proph- 
ets, but the unique greatness of Jesus suggested a new 
form of it. He seemed to his disciples, not at first, 
but as he grew upon their thought as the source of 
their spiritual life, to be nothing short of an incarna- 
tion of the Divine. And there were two possible 
chances of such an incarnation. To a Palestinian 
Jew, the Spirit, who was the inspiration of human 
greatness, would be the divine principle of incarna- 
tion. And to a Hellenistic Jew, to whom the Logos 
was the life and light of men, the Logos would be the 
principle of incarnation. This explains, then, the 
thought of Paul. Jesus had become to him an in- 
dweller, and this could suggest to his mind nothing 
more nor less than an identification of the Lord with 
the Spirit. 

Of the other Pauline Epistles, Philippians and Phile- The Chris- 
mon belong in the same class as the earlier epistles in ^y^^^ "^ ^^^ 
both subject-matter, treatment, and style. There is Pauline 
only one doctrinal statement that makes any advance ^P^^"^^- 
on the earlier epistles, viz. the famous passage Phil. 
2 : 5-11. In the earlier epistles, the position of our 
Lord is assumed rather than stated, except in Eom. 1 : 
3, 4. In that passage the sonship to David is so con- 
trasted with the divine sonship as to leave little doubt 
that Paul means by the latter what would correspond 
to the former, a real sonship, involving kindred nature. 
But in this Philippian passage, the occasion leads up to 
a full statement which is important in arriving at an 
understanding of the apostle's position. He exhorts 
the Philippians to entertain the same mind in their re- 
lations to each other as characterised Christ Jesus in 
his voluntary descent from a divine to a human posi- 



The incarna- 
tion accord- 
ing to Phil. 

Exact force 
of this 

tion. The divine condition he describes in the phrase 
lxopfl>7} Weov, "the form of God," and the human condi- 
tion in the terms t^op^rj 8ovkov, "the form of a ser- 
vant," ofioiwfta Twv avOpwTTtov, "likeness of men," and 
iv (TxopjOLTi ws avOpiOTTo^, " in condition as a man." These 
phrases all of them denote divine and human condi- 
tions of existence. In the connection, they evidently 
denote divine nature on the one hand, and human 
nature on the other, so far as each is implied in the 
limitations imposed upon the divine nature by the 
confinement of it in a human body, and in the freedom 
from those limitations. As we have seen, this is to the 
apostle the essential weakness of human nature, in- 
volving, not its sinfulness, but its exposure to sin; 
and Christ, therefore, in assuming that, took upon 
himself not only the bodily restrictions of the flesh, 
but its spiritual limitations as well. But the spirit 
inhabiting the fleshly body was still the Divine Spirit, 
and hence its victory over sin, its obedience even 
unto death. On the other hand, the equality with 
God was something which he did not possess even 
in the heavenly state, something which it would have 
been apirayfio^ ^^ seizure" for him to assume. The 
verb from which this comes properly means to seize, 
not to retain, and so its object would not be something 
already in possession, but something to be possessed 
only by forcible appropriation. And so, the sover- 
eignty which comes to Jesus finally is not a resump- 
tion of what belonged to him originally, but a gift, 
BioprjfjLa, of God bestowed on him as a reward of his 
humiliation and obedience. The full statement would 
be, therefore, that Jesus, partaking as he did of the 
divine form of existence, did not regard equality with 
God as a thing for him to seize upon, but instead of 
taking this step in advance, took a leap downward, 
and divested himself of even that divine condition 


which he possessed, and took instead the form, in this 
case involving the nature, of a slave, and having thus 
come into human condition, became obedient even so 
far as to yield up his life by the humiliating death of 
the cross (the equivalent of our gallows). This 
humiliation led to his exaltation, not as the assumption 
on his part of an equality with God which would result 
from his original condition in the form of God, nor as 
the resumption of an original right, but as the gift of 
God, who glorified himself in bringing all men and 
angels to acknowledge the lordship of Christ. This 
passage is, therefore, in exact accordance with the 
Christology of the earlier epistles, and does not serve 
to put this epistle in a separate class.^ 

1 The resemblance of Philippians to the earlier epistles is 
seen especially in the characteristic style, which is full of 
the apostle's unconscious beauty of speech, — a beauty which 
reflects so spontaneously the grace and distinction of the man 
himself. This resemblance makes it difficult to ascribe the 
other epistles of this period to Paul ; for there are great 
differences between these and the eai'lier epistles, which the 
difference of period might account for if it were not for this 
epistle, which belongs to the period of the later epistles, but 
has the characteristic style and manner of the earlier epistles. 
The difference of time is, in any case, so slight that it ought 
not to be brought into the discussion of authorship. But this 
epistle goes to show that the apostle's manner had not changed, 
as a matter of fact. 




The epistles of James ^ and 1 Peter present some 
difficulties of a serious nature. The James of this 
epistle is not the James of tradition, or of the Pauline 
Epistles and the Acts. These all present him (though 
Acts somewhat modifies the picture) as a holy man 
after the Pharisaic sort, a strict legalist. At the same 
time he has breadth sufficient to tolerate Paulinism, 
but not sufficient to dispose him in any way to accept 

1 On introduction to James, see the volume of Professor Bacon 
in this series, and in general, Mayor, Art. "James," Hastings' 
Diet.; Mayor, The Epistle of James [has excellent bibliography, 
ccxiv] ; Spitta, Crit. Beview, 1896, 277 sq. ; Van Manen, 
Theol. Tijdschrift, July, 1897 ; Salmon, Introduction to the N. 
r., 448-468 ; "Weiss, Introduction to the N. T. ; Zahn, Einleitung 
in das N. T., I, 52-108 ; Huther, in the Meyer Series; Bassett, 
The Catholic Epistle of St. James; Gloag, Introduction to the 
Catholic Epistles. On the theology of the epistle see Stevens, 
Theology of the N. T., 276-292; Beyschlag, New Testament 
Theology, I, 337-377 ; Weiss, Theology of the X. T, I, 248-273 ; 
Holtzmann, JNeutestamentliche Theologie, II, 328-350 ; Bovon, 
Theologie du N. T., U, 447-462. 


its universalism for himself. But the writer of the 
Epistle of James has ethical insight, and spiritual free- 
dom in a marked degree. He misses Paul's greatness 
chiefly by his failure to come under the spell of the 
personal Christ in such a way that it becomes the 
secret of his life. But he has caught some of our Lord's His relation 
dominant conceptions with a rare sympathy, so that *° "^esus. 
the mind of Christ, but not his personal spell, is exhib- 
ited here in many essential matters. What we may 
call the two dominant notes in our Lord's teaching, that 
God's ultimate demand on us is obedience, and that the 
law to which this obedience is to be rendered is ration- 
alised and spiritualised — in other words, the ethicising 
of religion, and the spiritualising of ethics — are also 
the dominant notes of this epistle. The thing that it 
lacks is the presentation of Christ as the suflBcient 
reason, the powerful motive and inspiration of this 
obedience. However, this is replaced by a presenta- 
tion of the reasons for obedience drawn from the grace 
of God, which corresponds to our Lord's treatment of 
the same in the Gospels. But this return to the mind 
of our Lord in regard to his ultimate object and demand, 
after more or less divergent views, is the noticeable 
thing about this epistle. The word " kingdom " is not 
here, but the idea is prevalent. Where shall we place 
it then? It is not the early work of James, for this 
is not the James of the Acts and of the Pauline Epis- 
tles, who has not attained to the law of liberty but is 
distinctly a Jew of the circumcision, who tolerates the 
free Paul, but looks askance at him all the same. Nor 
is he a mere non-Christian Jew of a comparatively 
free type, who has abstracted from the Old Testament 
books the rational points, and eliminated the irration- 
ality. There is only one influence in that generation 
which could enable a man to pick his way through the 
Old Testament with so fine a spiritual touch. That is 



learned only in the school of Christ.^ But this hypothe- 
sis is wrecked upon the epistle's debate on justifica- 
tion by faith and justification by works ; for in this 
the phraseology is Pauline. 

The epistle evidently belongs to the debate between 
Paul and the Jewish Christians in regard to the terms 
of justification, but the Jewish side of the controversy 
has been modified by a change of view of the law. 
Paul's contention is against justification by works 
of the Jewish law, including circumcision and all the 
ceremonial parts of the Mosaic law, but his argument 
is directed against justification under any scheme of 
law; that is, it begins with reasoning which would 
allow justification under the moral law, but not under 
the ceremonial law ; but before he finishes, he directs 
his argument against justification under any scheme 
of law. Against him was arrayed a practice which 
insisted on obedience to the whole of Mosaism. But 
here we have the whole character of the discussion 
changed by substituting for Mosaism — that mixed 
law of morals and ceremonialism — the law of liberty 
which eliminates the ceremonial element, and insists 
that justification is by the ethical remainder. To 
whom is this change to be attributed ? To Paul and 
Peter in part, but most of all to the Gospel narrative 
of Jesus. 

In order to appreciate this answer to the question, it 
is necessary to examine the authorship of the other 
epistle which we have classed with James, and whose 

1 Spitta, who propounds this theory with great learning in 
his commentary, is obliged to refer the begetting with the 
word of truth (1 : 18) to the physical creation ; but this is 
a case of special pleading, the natural meaning of the words 
making them denote the spiritual begetting, the Christian doc- 
trine of the new birth. Here as in all similar cases, it it is im- 
peratively necessary to follow the natural interpretation. 


claim of authorship is so nearly akin to it. 1 Peter ^ is l Peter. 
attributed to the only other man who shares with 
James the honour of leading the Church of the circum- 
cision. James is the leader of the Church at Jerusa- 
lem; Peter is the apostle to the circumcision. Both 
of these positions are of great consequence, and the 
question of personal influence is equally well balanced 
between the two. As far as we can judge, James is 
the more natural leader of the conservatism which 
dominated the Church so absolutely at first; while 
Peter had whatever distinction belongs to the man of 
larger views, who is susceptible to the influences about 
him, but who is specially open to the changes in the 
currents of opinion which come from the breath of 
liberty in the air. He showed just this quality in the 
affair at Autioch. There he came under the influence 
of the liberty which- prevailed in the Church, showing 
how susceptible he was on that side. But when those 
from James came, he recanted. Of course, it was the 
first change which showed his real position, the other 
was the effect of fear. But to be the apostle of the cir- 
cumcision meant to be the leader of a narrow and reac- 
tionary party, and this epistle is not the production of 
such a leader, whatever his personal quality might be. 
For the doctrine of the epistle is a modified Paulinism. Pauliuism of 
It is Pauline entirely and without qualification in its ^^^ epistle. 

1 For introduction to 1 Peter see the volume of Professor 
Bacon in this series, and in general, Salmon, Introduction to 
the N. r., 433-447 ; Weiss, Introduction to the N. T. ; Zahn, 
Einleitung i7i das N. T., II, 1-41 ; Harnack, Chronologic, II, 
passim; Iluthor, in the Meyer Series; Beck, Briefe Petri; 
llort. The First Epistle of Peter; Iloltzmann, Art. "Petrus" 
in SchenkeVs Bibel-Lex. On the theology of the epistle see 
Stevens, Theology of the N. T"., 293-311 ; Beyschlag, Nexo Testa- 
ment Theology, I, 377-419 ; Weiss, Theology of the N. T., I, 
204-247 ; Holtzinann, JVeutestamentliche Theologie, II, 308-318 ; 
Bovon, Theologie du N. T., II, 463-478. 



universalism. It confers on the Gentiles, to whom it 
is addressed, the titles and privileges of the chosen 
people. Its mystical conception of our Lord is also 
distinctly Pauline. That the relation of Jesus to his 
people is that of an indwelling spirit is distinctly 
Pauline, and that one of the men who had been asso- 
ciated with him in the external relations of his early 
life should come to think of him in that way is a great 
change. The idea that this relation is with the cruci- 
fied Lord is also derived from Paul. The early disci- 
ples explained the death of our Lord so as to get rid 
of its difficulties, but they were very far from that 
view which made the crucified Christ the only Christ 
whom they knew, the only Christ possible. But, on 
the other hand, the one thing which would enable us 
to say that the epistle is Pauline is lacking. The doc- 
trine of justification by faith is not here, and is con- 
trary to the doctrine of the epistle. I think we can 
say with confidence that the apostle to the circumci- 
sion who is made known to us by a superficial com- 
parison of Acts and Galatians is not the author of this 

But this by no means proves that Peter was not its 
author. Does not Peter appear in another light than 
that of the apostle to the circumcision? Certainly 
the Peter who ate with the Gentiles at Antioch was 
another person from the Peter of other days. And 
this should make us hesitate about rejecting alto- 
gether the story of Cornelius and of the Council at 
Jerusalem which are given in the Acts. The hint in 
Galatians ^ is certainly capable of expansion into the 
detailed story of the Acts. It is the same man, im- 
pressionable on the noble side, who appears in both. 
The story has too much verisimilitude about it to 

1 2 : 12. 


be cast aside altogether; that, or something like it, 
accounts for the later Peter, who is certainly made 
known to us in the various writings which give us the 
material for our conception of him. And right here 
comes in the fact already ^ noticed that Peter is the 
source of the Synoptic Gospels. His story told to Peter and 
Mark is the basis of their entire structure, and while *^® Gospels, 
the apologetic strength of the second Gospel is due to 
its neutrality, there is one thing that appears very 
strongly, and that is, that it is told sympathetically. 
Whoever told that story, can be heard saying under 
his breath, after some of the parts that are especially 
well told, "Is not that great ? " It is no narrow apos- 
tle to the circumcision who tells with such zest the 
story of that great, free, broad life and teaching. 
And this means another thing; this original story 
could not have been told by Peter in his character of 
the apostle to the circumcision. No man could have 
told that story and remained playing that role, nor 
could the Church built on the foundation of that story 
have been the Church at Jerusalem as we know it. 
No, the teaching which made the foundation of that The conver- 
Church was primitive and Judaistic — the teaching of |J*'° °' 
the disciples in the early part of Acts. Then comes 
in Paulinism, with its freer air, but with the annex of 
justification by faith. And third in the great proces- 
sion comes in another little group of genuinely apos- 
tolic writings. James and Peter breathe the freer 
air of Paulinism, but setting aside, one expressly, and 
the other by an equally significant omission, that part 
of Paulinism which is distinctly not a return to the 
Lord, but a departure nearly as great as the substitu- 
tion for the law of Mosaism of the law of freedom pro- 
claimed by Christ. In other words, the history of 

1 See p. 9. 



this epoch is not complete, unless there be introduced 
into it the reappearance in historical narrative of 
our Lord. In the crisis of the great Pauline debate, 
Peter must have begun to tell the story of Jesus' life 
and teaching. And in all probability for this reason 
— he saw how exactly it fitted into the occasion, and 
met its difficulties. No other voice, less authoritative 
than his, could possibly have produced this balanced 
treatment of the debate between Paul and the Jewish 
Church. For this is precisely the significance of 
these epistles : in them the old debate over justifica- 
tion is finally adjudicated by a decision in favour of 
neither side, but of both. And the voice that decides 
it is no other than that of the reappearing Christ, who 
is brought to the minds of both parties by the story 
that Peter rehearses to Mark. I do not say that this 
makes it absolutely certain that James and Peter 
wrote these epistles, but certainly that supposition 
accounts for all the imdoubted facts in a way that 
no other does. On the other hand without this modi- 
fication in the attitude of the two apostles, the tradition 
which ascribes them to James and Peter will not stand 
for a moment. The epistles are too Pauline to be 
ascribed to distinctly im-Pauline men. 

But whatever may be said about the authorship of 
these particular writings, their character is undoubted. 
They are an answer to Paul from the standpoint of 
prophetic Judaism, whereas his contest was against 
Pharisaic Judaism. They are a defence of justifica- 
tion by works of the law of liberty, which is the 
proper answer to the attempt to set up justification 
by the works of Mosaism. The appearance of this 
reply is coincident, moreover, with that of the Synop- 
tic Gospels, whose source is traced to Peter. Again, 
we say, not to Peter the apostle of the circumcision, but 
to an equally historical personage, the Peter of later 


years — a man reborn out of the controversies of the The new 
time, and coming finally to adopt the freedom and ^*^^^^- 
universalism which characterised Paulinism, though 
led by it, not to the feet of Paul, but to the Master 
himself, whose story he retold in such a way as 
to put the whole controversy on its proper footing. 
The teaching of our Lord in the Synoptics is paral- 
leled only by these writings, and it is significant that 
the source of the Synoptic story is the same apostle 
to whom one of these epistles is ascribed. That the 
other epistle should be the work of the other leader 
of the party of the circumcision, though not certain, 
should not seem strange, for it is not improbable that 
it, like 1 Peter, marks a change in the whole attitude of 
the party of the circumcision, of which this change in 
the leaders is the sign. 



The key to The key to the teaching of this epistle is the answer 
the epistle, ^^q ^j^q question, " What shall a man do with the word 
of truth, the possession of which characterises him 
among men ? " He is described as one who is begot- 
ten with that word, and who has the knowledge of di- 
vine things.^ What is he to do with this knowledge ? 
He is to be swift to hear it, slow to speak it, i.e. to as- 
sume authority over men because of it, and slow to the 
wrath engendered by the controversies over it.^ The 
epistle is largely taken up with discourse deprecating 
religious controversy, to which this exhortation to swift- 
ness of hearing and slowness of speech and wrath is 
introductory. The gentleness of the Beatitudes (A. V. 
meekness) is the spirit with which they are to re- 
ceive the word.^ But the writer passes immediately 
to the ultimate purpose and use of the word. And 
this is doing, and not merely hearing. This carries 
us back for the first time since the words of our Lord 
to his ultimatum in regard to the use to be made of his 
words. They are to be obeyed, and only he who 
hears and does, not he who hears and believes, or 
hears and confesses, is likened to the wise man who 
Its relation built his house on the rock. Between Matt. 7 : 21-27 

to the teach- ^nd Js. 1 : 22-27 is a tract of fundamental Christian 

ing of Jesus. ,,.,.,, . . . , 

debate, in which the conspicuous points are many and 

1 1 : 18, 19. 2 1 : 19 ; cf. 3 : 1-18. » 1 : 21 ; cf. Matt. 5 : 5. 


varied, but here we are back again on the familiar 
ground occupied by our Lord, and really differentiat- 
ing Christianity from all other religions. And the 
author goes on to state that if any one debates the truth 
with unbridled tongue, instead of obeying it, his pro- 
fession of religion is a vain one.^ This practice of the 
truth, moreover, is what characterises true worship, 
which consists in a beneficent and unspotted life.^ 
This faculty of going to the roots of things and dis- 
playing the unveiled truth in fitting words is possessed 
by James next to our Lord himself, among the New 
Testament writers. 

But there is another thing which interferes with the 
reception of the word. Besides nursing an evil spirit 
in religious debate, men are tempted to mix up their 
faith with an equally incongruous respect of persons, 
to pay respect to the rich in their assemblies, and to 
neglect the poor. James sees in this a violation of the 
king of commandments, that men shall love their 
neighbours as themselves, evidently because regard for 
the poor is essentially unselfish, while regard for the 
rich to the exclusion of the poor is essentially selfish.' 
In this connection he repeats the phrase which is 
enough to confer the distinction of seer on any teacher 
of religion, the Laio of Liberty, i.e. a law having in- 
ward, spiritual enforcement, not external. Paul's motto 
is freedom from law ; James's, the law of freedom.^ 

It is evident that this insistence on obedience as the james and 
ultimate demand made on men by the word of God ^*^^- 
brings James into conflict with Paul. As we have 
seen, the free and large treatment of law, the insist- 
ence on inward righteousness, instead of outward 
forms, is due to the intiuence of the great apostle. But 
whether the Twelve ever reached this position or not, 

U:20. 2 1:27. 8 2:1-13. * 2 : 12. 


they stopped there. A free and large treatment of the 
law, a discovery of its principles, which enabled them 
to set aside its rules and forms, there is evidence in 
these epistles, was learned within their circle before 
the end of the New Testament period. But having 
arrived there, they stopped. It would not be simply 
their Judaism with its tendency to magnify law 
that would lead to this, but their association with 
Jesus. Paul shows generally a power to enter into the 
mind of Christ superior to the Twelve, but his idea of 
a righteousness without works is one which could never 
The position have occurred to an immediate disciple. Nor is it nec- 
iVelve. essary to debate the paragraph, 2 : 14-26, by itself. 
The antecedent probability that the Twelve would 
make a stand right here is enough in itself to decide 
the question. Coupled with this is the certainty gath- 
ered from the study of the Acts and the Pauline Epis- 
tles, that there was a debate between the Twelve and 
Paul. That debate began with a stand made by Paul 
against the demand that his Gentile converts should 
conform to Jewish forms, especially circumcision, pre- 
cisely as we should now insist on baptism. This de- 
mand was made, not by a small section of the Church, 
but by the whole Church at Jerusalem, including, of 
course, its leaders. But before Paul gets through, he 
posits not only freedom from the ceremonial parts of 
the law, but from law itself as such. And when this 
word has once been uttered, it is evident that this 
would be the focus of that fight. All detached and 
subsidiary questions would be abandoned, and the 
forces would all gather right here. And when we find 
a document belonging to that time in which just that 
question is debated in good set terms, it is the very 
foolishness of traditionalism to deny the controversial 
aspect of it, and to insist on a uniformity of belief in 
the first century, and, above all things, that the one 


belief was the doctrine of Paul, the one dissenter from 
current opinion in that time. Such attempts obscure 
the only marks by which we can find our way through 
the New Testament, and cripple our historical sense. 
They substitute for the probabilities, which are the only 
legitimate objects of our search, bare possibilities, with 
which we have nothing to do. 

Coming now to the paragraph^ itself, its adoption of 
«the unique Pauline phraseology, its statement of the 
question in the very terms of the Pauline statement, 
its care to make the proposition the exact opposite of 
his, and the selection of Paul's test case as its own, 
resting the case on the palmary instance of Abraham's 
faith, are decisive. That man is justified by faith 
without works of law, and that a man is justified by 
works, and not by faith only, are contradictory state- 
ments. All that has ever been sho-\vn to the contrary 
amounts to this, that there is possibly a middle ground 
which was open to the authors, but not that they were 
not debating consciously adverse positions. 

The importance of this paragraph arises from its The case of 
presenting the case of Judaistic Christianity vs. cbrisUanity. 
Paulinism, not from the standpoint of Pharisaism, 
which emphasizes the formal parts of the law, but of 
liberal Judaism, which stands only for the ethical con- 
tents of the law. The importance of disentangling the 
question from the complications of Pharisaism, and pre- 
senting it simply as a matter of law or no law, is evident. 

The discussion which follows upon the dangers of 
religious controversy, which is the real point of the 
paragraph on the evils of the tongue, becomes inter- 
esting from the example of Christian courtesy fur- 
nished in this debate on both sides. It is enough to 
say that Paul, who was the party of the first part, is 

1 2 : 14-26. 


the defender of Christian unity, putting it on the true 
ground, that differences of opinion among Christians 
are ruinous only when they break np the unity of the 
Body of Christ, and that Paul is himself a master of 
courtesy in religious debate. And James precedes and 
follows his own discussion of the most vexed question 
in the first century with the stoutest condemnation of 
acrimony in debate, while he is himself a fine example 
of the gentleness and impersonality which belong to 
the discussion of high matters. 

The denunciation of wealth by James is the strongest 
in the New Testament, not even excepting our Lord's. 
It is wealth as such that is condemned by him, not ex- 
ceptional cases in which the wealth is ill-gotten. He 
takes the same position as our Lord, who pronounces a 
blessing on the poor, and a woe on the rich, and who calls 
riches unrighteous. The words employed by them are 
not moderate and cautious, as about a matter having so 
many sides that these qualities of moderation and cau- 
tion are demanded, but outspoken and severe. And in 
this matter they are the lineal descendants of the 
prophets, who make the Old Testament ring with dis- 
course about wealth as essentially an oppression. It 
is not the province of a treatise like this to defend 
these positions ; this is not a treatise on apologetics. 
But it is a legitimate part of our work to show what 
are the meanings and place of parts of the teaching in 
the whole body of New Testament thought. Great 
wealth is plainly the result of a conflict, and of the 
advantage which one man gets over another in the 
conflict. Now it is evident, whatever may be our 
judgment of the conflict and its result, that it is incon- 
sistent with the principle of equal love between man 
and man, which is the normal principle of the relation 
of men in the teaching of both James and our Lord.* 
1 f> : 1-6. 


But this statement is offset by the exhortation to The poor, 
long-suffering on the part of the poor, which breathes 
equally the peculiar spirit of the Gospel. Indeed, the 
position of Christianity cannot be understood, unless 
we consider that what it objects to is not so much the 
appropriation of an undue amount of this world's 
goods by one of its two classes, but that the whole 
policy is fraught with evil to both classes ; it is utterly 
inconsistent with the love that God has to both alike 
that he should allow it to continue. The word that 
the writer employs to denote the spirit with which the 
poor should meet the oppression of wealth is the same 
word that Jesus employs. It means long-suffering, 
and it denotes by this the mildness, the slowness to 
wrath, the patience in bearing injury, of which Jesus 
is himself the supreme example.^ 

The designation of the law as a law of liberty is one The law of 
of the clews that we need to follow in order to get at liberty, 
the secret of the teaching of this epistle. I have no 
doubt that it is chosen intentionally to offset Paul's 
teaching of freedom from the law. The writer prob- 
ably had in view the apparent justification for that 
Pauline idea, viz. the feeling of bondage engendered 
by the legalism of the Pharisees, and the necessity of 
supplying the place of the Pauline freedom with some- 
thing that should be consistent Avith the requirement 
of continued obedience. This he finds in the fact that 
the law of God is not an arbitrary code, but has its 
roots in the reason of things and in the love of God. 
And both these elements of freedom he presents after 
the manner learned in the school of Christ. He does 
not argue them ; but all that he enjoins upon men has 
this breadth and freedom about it. Everything en- 
joined here belongs to the class of ultimate principles 

1 5: 7-11. 



Its source. 

The person 
of Jesus. 

of conduct to which Jesus reduces the law. But the 
supreme fact which turns obedience into a matter of 
liberty instead of restraint, is the graciousness of God. 
Men are required to obey a law of love ; and the ques- 
tion which is always proper to ask of a law of freedom, 
Wfiy is this commanded ? is answered by the statement 
that the lawgiver is himself supremely gracious. God 
is represented as wanting the friendship of man, and 
as desiring with a craving amounting to jealousy * the 
spirit that he puts within man. And throughout the 
epistle, with one touch after another, God's spirit and 
disposition are so described that men are made to feel 
that the love which he craves he deserves. If men 
can only get to know him, love is the free movement 
of the soul, and no constraint. This is to be remem- 
bered when we speak of the rare reference to our Lord 
in the epistle. This freedom and breadth of its ethi- 
cal teaching, which sums itself up in the phrase, 
a law of liberty ; and this presentation of God in such 
way that men shall feel his graciousness and be drawn 
into a spontaneous, loving obedience, — has been learned 
from only one source. The tribute to our Lord is not 
much speech about him, but the reflection of his spirit.* 
The writer's answer to any question about the per- 
son of Jesus has to be inferred. We have to put 
together what is said about regeneration with the 
word of truth, about righteousness of works, and not 
of faith alone, and the designation of faith as that in 
our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus is the object of faith ; 
in man's attitude toward the word faith is the first 
thing, but it is incomplete without works of obedience. 
Jesus is the one, therefore, in whom men are required 
to believe, but this faith has obedience to God as its final 
raison d^itre. This means that the place of Jesus is con- 


2 1:5, 13, 17, 18, 27 ; 2 : 13 ; 4 : 4-10. 


ceived by the Avriter as in the kingdom of God, the one 
whose whole being, word, and work is such that to be- 
lieve in him leads by a straight path to that obedience to 
God which is the idea of the kingdom. In other words, 
he is the Messianic King in just the sense in which our 
Lord himself conceived himself to be. It only needs to 
couple this finally with the picture of the divine gra- 
ciousness drawn by the epistle to see that the writer 
conceives of our Lord as exhibiting in himself this 
grace which is the reason and inspiration of obedience. 

To sum up, the distinctive teaching of the Epistle Summary, 
of James is, that the word of truth by which we are 
regenerated is to be obeyed ; that nothing short of obe- 
dience, not intellectual acceptance, or controversial 
zeal, not even faith alone, satisfies God's demand on us, 
and the conditions of efficiency of that word. Further, 
that the supreme command of that word is love, which 
is the standard by which all actions are to be judged. 
In the matter of the Pauline controversy, it declares 
that the righteousness which God requires is a right- 
eousness of works, and not of faith alone. But these 
works are not those of a law which insists on circum- 
cision, nor any rite or form, but of a law of liberty, 
whose commands square always with reason and con- 
science. God is represented in it as the author of 
nothing evil, but of every good and perfect gift, of 
which the chief is the begetting with the word of truth. 
He is, besides, the jealous God of the Decalogue, who 
marries his people to himself, and has a craving for 
the spirit of man amounting even to envy.^ This cen- 
tral thought, that the royal law is the law of love, is 
developed into the specific commands against respect 
of persons, against a profession of charity unaccom- 
panied by its deeds, against the bitterness of religious 



controversy, against the selfishness of wealth, against 
those desires after the lower things which engender 
strife, and against impatience under wrong. Christ is 
the object of that faith which has obedience for its 
result, and is, therefore, the inspiration of the new 
life. He is the Messianic King in the sense imparted 
to the words by our Lord himself. And God is the 
gracious One whose desire for man's good makes the 
Messianic law a law of liberty. 


The address in the salutation of 1 Peter " to the Readers 
elect sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus," and other Jj^J^p'jstie j. 
places, taken by itself, would indicate that this epistle addressed, 
was addressed to Jewish Christians. But the contrast- 
ing of them with Gentiles^ is not what we should 
expect in that case ; Jewish Christians would be con- 
trasted with Jews. And the description of them in 
4 : 3, as having passed their pre-Christian life in doing 
the will of the Gentiles, specifying the sins of the 
Gentiles rather than of the Jews, is really conclusive on 
the point. One of the noticeable things about the 
epistle therefore is, that it does not argue, but assume, 
that the titles and prerogatives of the chosen people 
belong to the Gentiles. 

This address settles for us the question of the date, Date of the 
supposing the author to be Peter. Paul's statement ^P'***^®- 
in Gal. 2 : 9, that Peter and the rest of the twelve Avere 
to confine themselves to the Jews, while he was desig- 
nated as the apostle to the Gentiles, would clearly 
preclude an epistle to Gentile Christians in Paul's own 
bailiwick as long as he lived. After his death, this 
movement of the Twelve into his territory is quite pos- 
sible, — in fact, would be almost certain. 

The motto which is suggested as appropriate for 
this book is " Prisoners of Hope." The hope is that 

1 2 : 12. 



of the early Church in the reappearing of our Lord 
within the generation following his death ; the impris- 
onment is the life of the believer meantime in a hos- 
tile world. This hope was begotten in them by the 
resurrection, and it is in a reminiscent tone that the 
writer speaks of the renascence of their lost and be- 
clouded faith, when the brightness of the resurrection 
broke the darkness of our Lord's death, and of the 
way in which the faith grew immediately into a hope 
of his reappearing.^ But, meantime, they are suffer- 
ing the pains of those who live in a hostile world. 
Here, again, the tone becomes reminiscent, as of one 
who not only shared this fate of the believer, but re- 
membered what our Lord had said of these sufferings. 
We are reminded all the way through this epistle of 
our Lord's teaching of the necessity of suffering as a 
part of the condition of following him. But the writer 
insists that it is not the suffering that commends them, 
but the righteousness, and the patience with which 
the suffering is borne ; and this, again, is an echo of 
what our Lord says about the same matter. But the 
writer dwells upon one conception of suffering which 
comes from his view of the flesh as the seat of evil 
appetites and desires in man : it is a crucifixion of 
the flesh ; to suffer in the flesh is to cease from sin ; 
and this is made one of the meanings of our Lord's 

From both sides of this condition, the present suf- 
fering, and the future hope, the writer makes his 
appeal to the readers for the life of righteousness. 
It is the only possible meaning of life on both sides. 
Just as the ordinary life is inexplicable except as a 
pursuit of worldly things, so their life is meaningless 
except as an imremitting pursuit of righteousness. 

U : 3, 4. 

2 4:1-5. 


And this must be no ordinary goodness either, but Persecution, 
that peculiar excellence of self-sacrifice which char- 
acterised the Lord. The persecution will come to 
them anyway as followers of Christ ; what they need 
to achieve is a life which shall make their persecution 
not a part of the punishment which the world deals 
out to evil-doers, but of its hostility to the higher 
forms of righteousness. There is a contradiction in 
the treatment of this subject, of which this statement 
is the only explanation. He says at the same time 
that their suffering is on account of righteousness, 
and that no one will hurt them if they are followers 
of good,^ This comes from the view of govern- 
ment which the early Church was persistent in main- 
taining, that it is a divine ordinance, and is on the 
whole a conservator of the good side of things in the 
community. But it is only the mixed form of good- 
ness which prevails in society, while, on the other 
hand, the higher forms of goodness advocated by 
Christianity are rejected by the same society which 
condemns the more obvious forms of evil. On the 
side of hope, the appeal takes this obvious form, that 
righteousness is the only condition of the future glory. 
That they obtain only as followers of Christ, and to The con- 
follow him means to follow him, which is the same reward!* 
apparent truism that our Lord makes use of in this 
connection.^ They must be meek, humble, loving, 
deaf to the appeals of the world and the senses, and 
followers always of the good. One cannot help the 
feeling, that, while this epistle lacks the controversial 
aspect of James, its insistence on righteousness of this 
exalted type is intended to be an antidote against the 
well-meant encouragement of some substitute for this 
in Paul. Faith is taught here as the means of con- 

12:12; 4:3,4; 3:13. » Mk. 8:34. 



nection between the believer and Christ, but it is a 
faith which leads on to good Avorks. And this dis- 
crimination in a writing which is elsewhere so stamped 
with Paulinism, points to a definite result of the differ- 
ences between Paul and the Twelve, of which this 
epistle and James are the fruits. 

The death of Christ is given the same prominence 
in the Avork of redemption as in the Pauline doctrine. 
But the effect is rescue from sin itself, and not from 
the penalties of sin, no hint being found that it has 
an effect in reconciling men to God, other than this of 
removing the cause of estrangement in the sin of men. 
The blood of Christ is represented as redeeming them 
from the fruitless way of living inherited from their 
fathers.^ He died for us, leaving us an example that 
we should follow in his footsteps, the point of his 
example being that he did no sin, that he suffered 
uncomplainingly, and that he suffered for others, bear- 
ing their sins.'' Moreover, his suffering in the flesh is 
to lead us into the same mind, since he Avho suffers in 
the flesh has ceased from sin.' But his resurrection 
also does its part of the saving work, begetting in us 
a living hope, and becoming that through Avhich the 
appeal of the good conscience^ in baptism is made 
valid.* There is one aspect of this redemption Avhich 
is peculiar to this epistle. It is corporate, and not 
merely individual. On Christ as the corner-stone they 
are built into a spiritual temple and become a royal 

1 1 : 18, 19. 9 2: 21-25. « 4 : 1-5. 

♦ This seems to be the only valid translation of iirepdrTiixa 
in this passage. It is the appeal of the good conscience to 
the entrance on a new life signified by baptism. This is 
pointed out as the saving element in baptism. It is not the 
water, but the purified conscience, which cleanses the soul, 
and it is this to which the soul appeals. 

6 1:3-5; 3:21,22. 


pricstliood to offer spiritual sacrifices, and to show the 
excellence of him who called them out of darkness 
into his marvellous light.^ Evidently, here it is not 
merely the individual connection with Christ, but 
partnership in the people of God as well, which leads 
to this reflection in themselves of the glory of Christ. 

It is evident that the view of redemption set forth The new 
in this epistle is that of a new life, and regeneration is 
therefore one of its characteristic ideas. The marked 
thing about this new life is the Christian hope, of 
which God is the author, who begets it in them by the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ.^ The incorruptible seed 
of this new life is the word of God, which lives and 
abides forever, the word of the Gospel.' The food of 
this new life is the milk of the word.* Eaith is the 
principle of this life, but this faith is placed, not in 
the word, as might be expected, but in the person of 
either God or Christ." 

This conception of redemption as a deliverance from The person 
sin, and the implanting of a new life, both of which ^^ °"^" ^^*^ 
have their source in Christ as an indwelling power in 
men, creates an exalted view of our Lord's person, as 
in the case of Paul. But it does not lead to any state- 
ment of this exaltation, as involving divine origin or 
nature. All that is said about him concerns his office 
and ministration to men, jind not his person. He is 
called Lord, but it is in a statement that God is his 
God and Father.^ He is the Shepherd and Bishop of 
our souls ; he is to be sanctified in our hearts as Lord; 
he is at the right hand of God, which means that he 
occupies the place of power next to God.^ But it is in 
the statement that he is the inward source of our re- 
demption, creating in us the new life, that this epistle 

12:4-12. 2 1:3. 8 1:23-25. < 2 : 2. 

M:5, 7, 9, 21 ; 1 :8; 2:0, 7. 6 i : 3. ' 2 : 25 ; 3 : 15, 22. 


renders the most exalted homage to him. In this re- 
spect, as in others, this epistle stands midway between 
Paul and the earlier Jewish and apostolic Christianity. 
The common ground between this writer and Paid is 
of great importance in the development of the true 
spirit of Christianity, the difference between an inward 
and outward relation to Christ being capital and pri- 
mary in its importance. But the combination of this 
inward relation with the statement of obedience and 
righteousness as the object of that relation, is the su- 
preme excellence of this epistle. It does not ethicise 
and spiritualise the law after the manner of our Lord 
and of James, but it joins hands with Paul in famil- 
iarising us with the supreme motives and impulses 
that come to us from the cross of Christ. And it 
insists, as our Lord does, and as Paul does not, that 
doing the things commanded us is our life. , 



Of the ■writings belonging to the later apostolic The Apoca- 
teaching, the Synoptics, Peter, and James represent /aaUne!*^' 
a qualified opposition to Paul, accepting his universal- 
ism and his doctrine of freedom from Mosaism, but 
rejecting his statement of freedom from law as such. 
The Apocalypse, however, represents an unqualified 
opposition to Paul, which does not exist among the 
apostles themselves, but only among the extreme mem- 
bers of their party. It is not only extreme in its posi- 
tions, but violent in its language, and its Jewish 
Messianism is of the most pronounced type. But 
John, to whom it has been attributed, was not even a 
leader in the party of the circumcision, much less in 
the extreme section of that party, and the idea that it 
proceeds from the circle of the Twelve is therefore quite 

1 On authenticity, date, etc., of the Apocalypse see Bacon, 
Introduction to the N. T. ; Weiss, Introduction to the N. T., II, 
45-88; Salmon, Introduction to the N. T., 203-244; Zahn, 
Einleitung in das 2V. T., II, 582-626; Hilgenfeld, Einleitung in 
das N. T., 392-452 ; Holtzmann, Einleitung in das N. T., 407- 
427 ; McGiffert, Apostolic Age, 632 sq. ; Weizsacker, Apostolic 
Age, II, 161-205; Pfleiderer, The Influence of the Apostle Paul 
on Christianity, 124 sq. ; Briggs, The Messiah of the Apostles, 
284-461 ; Spitta, Die Offenbarung des Johannes untersucht; 
Vischer, Die Offenbarung Johannes eine jiidische Apocalypse 
in Christlicher Bearbeitung ; H. Holtzmann, Jahrbuch fiir pro- 
testantische Theologie, 1891 ; Volter, Die Offenbarung Johannes 
keine urspriinglich jiidische Apokalypse ; Milligan, The Bevela- 
tion of St. John : Baird Lecture, 1886 ; Plumptre, The Epistles 



Is not the In addition, the Apocalypse and the other Johan- 

Joim. "* nean writings stand at opposite poles of the New Tes- 
tament teaching. Everything about the person and 
work of our Lord is spiritualised in the one, and ex- 
ternalised in the other. The Apocalypse itself, as a lit- 
erary form, is at the lowest grade of Hebrew literature. 
It emerges, it is true, sometimes into a certain grandeur 
of statement, but it would not do to turn its word- , 
paintings into pictures. The peculiarly reflective and 
philosophical style of the fourth Gospel belongs to an 
entirely different order of mind. One feels, in reading 
this book, the departure from the spirit and thought 
of Jesus more than in any other New Testament writ- 
ing. And the supposition that it was written by one 
of the three who belonged to the inner circle of the 
disciples seems difl&cult to harmonise with both Jesus' 
influence over men and his knowledge of them.* 

to the Seven Churches in Asia, Expositor, 1st Series, II and III ; 
Simcox, ITie Bevelation of St. John; Sabatier, Les Origines 
litteraires et la Composition de V Apocalypse de St. Jean; 
Bousset, Die Offenbarung Jo. (Meyer series) ; also Art. "Reve- 
lation," in Hastings' Diet, of Bible. 

On the teaching of the book see Stevens, Theology of the N. 
T., 523-563 ; Beyschlag, New Testament Theology, II, 347-408 ; 
Weiss, Theology of the N. T, II, 248-283; Holtzmann, Neu- 
testamentliche Theologie, I, 463-476 ; Bovon, Theologie du N. 
T., II, 498-538. 

1 The Interpretation of the Beast helps us to a general 
position as to the time in which the Apocalypse was written 
(17:8-11). The Beast properly is the Roman Empire, the 
world kingdom. It is the incarnation of the spirit of the 
dragon, Satan. But the book points out one of the first seven 
emperors, really one of the first five, who himself incarnates 
the spirit of the Beast, and who goes by his name. This is 
the Beast who is pointed out in the book in such a way as 
to give us a clew to the date and meaning of the writing 
(13:3-8, 18). The statement about him is that he was and 
is not, having been smitten to death, and is about to come 
up out of the abyss and to go away again into perdition. He 


The contents of the Apocalypse may be said in gen- Contents, 
eral to be : — 

1. Letters to seven churches of Asia. 1 : 4-3 : 22. 

2. Visions preceding the destruction of Jerusalem. 
6 : 1-11 : 12. 

3. Destruction of Jerusalem. 11 : 13. 

4. Visions preceding destruction of Kome. 11 : 

6. Destruction of Rome. 18 : 1-24. 
6. Millennium. 20:1-6. 

is one of the seven horns of the Beast, by which are designated 
the Roman emperors ; and of these five are dead, the sixth is, 
the seventh is to come for a short time and then give place to 
an eighth, who is one of the seven, who was and is not and 
returns to go again into perdition. Then his number is given 
as 666. Now if the question were asked, Which of the first 
emperors embodied the evil spirit of the world kingdom, its 
opposition to the kingdom of God ? there could be scarcely 
any doubt that Nero is meant. And now that the number 
has been identified as that of this empei'or, this probability 
is confirmed. The method of this numbering is simple. The 
letters are numbered 1, 2, 3 up to ten, then by tens up to one 
hundred, and then by hundreds upward. The figuring is 
done in this case on the Hebrew lettering of the title and 
name, — jnj iDp, or Kaisar Neron. This settles the date of 
the book, at least within short limits. It belongs either to 
the reign of Galba, a.d. 68, or of Vespasian, a.d. 70. Galba 
was the sixth emperor de facto, but it is contended that Ves- 
pasian was sixth in line de jure, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, 
who came in between, being usurpers. It really makes no 
difference, as either date antedates the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem, and that is the deciding factor in this question. Domi- 
tian, to whose reign the book has been assigned, is out of 
the question for this reason, as this would make the prophecy 
come after the event, and the misstatement about the event 
of the siege makes that impossible. The city, and especially 
the temple, were entirely destroyed, whereas the prophecy is 
that the temple was saved, and only one-tenth of the city was 
destroyed, and seven thousand of the population. This makes 
a later revision equally improbable. 




of the 

7. Judgment. Setting up of kingdom. Descent 
of New Jerusalem. 20 : 7-22 : 21. 

But its main subject is the reappearance, the second 
advent, of the Messiah. And this Messianism is the 
key to its entire teaching. 

In order to understand this, we have to remember 
the change introduced into the doctrine by Jesus. 
According to the Jewish expectation, the Messiah 
was to be a conquering prince. His own people were 
to be prepared for his coming by repentance, but other 
nations were to be subdued by the sword, with such 
accompaniment of supernaturalism as the military 
situation required. But in our Lord's teaching, espe- 
cially in his passive acceptance of the fate awaiting 
any man of revolutionary ideas, he wrought by imper- 
ceptible touches an entire change in this programme. 
The essential element in this change is the substitu- 
tion of spiritual power for material force in the estab- 
lishment of God's kingdom. This change is absolute, 
forbidding any attempt to help on the spiritual pro- 
cess with an admixture of material force, to conquer 
nations preliminary to their conversion, or to put 
down heresies by any other means than argument. 

With our Lord's departure there came a reaction 
to the Jewish idea, and all the subsequent teachings 
are to be judged by the degree of this reaction. In 
general, we may say that all the later teaching limits 
the spiritual process to the short period of one gener- 
ation intervening between the end of our Lord's min- 
istry and his reappearance on the earth. To this 
shortening of the period of the spiritual work, the 
original apostles add the limitation of it to the chosen 
people. Paul, while adopting their limitation of time, 
extends the spiritual work during that time to the 
Gentiles. Both Paul and the Twelve are sympathetic 
and hopeful in regard to the ultimate result. By 

tht: apocalypse 129 

whatever process, they expect the result to be a gen- 
eral blessing. The gentleness and active pity of 
Jesus had so far penetrated them. The Johannean 
literature, written as was supposed at the end of things, 
is notably pessimistic, and quite despairs of the world. 
The Apocalypse adds another variation, and the great- 
est of them all. Persecution has engendered in the 
writer a desire of vengeance, not simply of justice, 
nor of forcible deliverance, but of unpitying revenge. Messianism 
And inasmuch as God is on the side of those perse- "e'^ngefui. 
cuted, this prayer becomes prophecy. The iron scep- 
tre and the river of blood of this book mark the final 
point of divergence from our Lord's Messianic idea.^ 

But, meantime, this writing extends the spiritual 
process while it lasts. The redeemed include men 
of all kindred and tongues, and are innumerable in 
multitude.^ On the other hand, their enemies include Universai- 
both Jews and Gentiles. The world power condemned Apocalypse, 
is the Roman Empire, but Jerusalem is called in the 
spiritual language Sodom and Egypt.' The difference 
between them is in the outcome of the double catas- 
trophe which overtakes them at the end. The Gentile 
world power is destroyed and cast into the pit;* but the 
effect of the judgment which overtakes Jerusalem and 
destroys seven thousand of the population is the repent- 
ance and salvation of the rest.* However, in the 
redeemed world which succeeds this old earth after the 
millennium, it is the kings of all the nations who bring 
their friendly gifts to the New Jerusalem.^ This 
fulfils the Jewish programme of a world blessed and 
dominated by the elect people, but it is the domination 
that is emphasised, as in the programme of imperi- 

The Messianic salvation, in itself, does not make 

112:5; 19:15; 14:17-20. 

8 11 : 8. 

6 11: 13, 

2 7 : 9-17. 

* 19 : 20. 

6 21 : 24. 




The process 
of salvation. 

The Messi- 
anic Prince 
and Saviour. 

Tlie Messi- 
anic Person. 

any part of the subject of the Apocalypse, and hence 
is slightly treated. But the incidental treatment of 
the spiritual process is definite, though slight. Men 
are redeemed by the blood of Christ, but his death is 
not expiatory, at least the expiatory element does not 
appear. The saints have washed their robes in the 
blood of the Lamb,^ but the white linen is the right- 
eousness of the saints.^ This is the combination of 
the prophetic and the priestly conception found in 
the Epistle to the Hebrews, It is the prophetic result 
of righteousness reached by the priestly means of 

The theology which emphasises the death of Christ 
in the saving process does not generally put his kingly 
office in the foreground. It is the peculiarity of the 
Apocalypse that it subordinates the saving process to 
the kingly office of our Lord absolutely, and yet attri- 
butes salvation to his death alone. And it does this 
in such a way as to bring out the contrast of the two, 
and the paradox of their combination. The Lamb 
slain is the constant title given him, even in those 
passages which most exalt him. He reaches supreme 
honour through his humiliation. This is all familiar 
enough, but it is not so much inward homage which 
is constrained, but an obtrusively external royalty 
which becomes his reward. In the last stage the 
Lamb is armed with a sword, and slays like any lion 
of them all.' 

But there is one passage above all others which 
defines for us the position of our Lord. It says of 
him who continues faithful to the end, that the Lord 
will give him power over the nations to rule them 
with a rod of iron and to break them like a potter's 
vessels, just as he received the same from his Father.'' 

17:14. M4:20; 19:11-21. 

2 19 : 8. * 2 ; 26, 27. 


If we keep this in mind, we shall be in position to 
understand the exalted terms ascribed to him. He 
wields a divine power and receives a divine homage, 
but both are viceregal. He is continually associated 
with God in a way distinct from all the rest about the 
throne. But it is always association, not identity. 
God is still his God.' But he is superhuman, the first 
and the last, the beginning of the creation of God, 
and so preexistent.^ 

This part assigned to him in creation and the title, 
" Word of God," ^ are probable indications of Alexan- 
drianism, as the doctrine of the place of his death in 
redemption is Pauline. But they occur in a writing 
distinctly anti-Pauline and alien to Alexandrianism, 
and are therefore indications of composite authorship. 

In saying that God is represented in the Apocalypse Doctrine of 
as a vengeful Being, we must remember at what ^'^^• 
stage of human history that character is assigned him. 
The closing words of the book predict our Lord's 
speedy coming, a return to the world after an era of 
grace and compassion beginning with his death for 
men, and continued in the preaching of his Gospel 
to all nations. And here, at the end of this, his peo- 
ple are the victims of a horrible persecution. This 
does not, perhaps, remove the strangeness of the fact, 
that one of his own followers should picture Jesus as 
ruling the nations with a rod of iron, and taking dire 
vengeance on his enemies; but the strangeness is 
removed when one perceives that this is only a strong 
statement of the ordinary doctrine that the era of 
grace ends with a final judgment, in which God's 
justice overrules his love. 

1 3 : 12. 2 3 : 14. » 19 : 13. 





The Alexandrian literature includes : (1) writings in 
which a false Alexandrianism, exalting angels above 
Jesus, is met with an orthodox Alexandrianism exalt- 
ing our Lord above all orders of beings : Ephesians, 
Colossians ; (2) epistles asserting the authority of the 
Church against this false Alexandrianism: the Pas- 

1 On authenticity, date, etc., of Ephesians and Colossians see 
Bacon, Introduction to the N. T.; Godet, Introduction to the 
N. T. : St. PauVs Epistles, 414-494 ; Gloag, Introduction to 
the Pauline Epistles, 264-336 ; Hilgenfeld, Einleitung in das 
N. r., 659-680; Zahn, Einleitung in das N. T., I, 310-368; 
Weiss, Introduction to the N. Z\, I, 323-358 ; Lightfoot, Biblical 
Essays, 375-396 ; Pfleiderer, Urchristenthum, 683 sq. ; Holtz- 
mann, Kritik der Eph. w. Colosserhriefe ; Weizsacker, Apos- 
tolic Age, II, 240-245 ; Macpherson, The Epistle to the Ephesians ; 
EUicott, The Epistle to the Ephesians; Hort, Prolegomena to 
the Romans and Ephesians; von Soden, Jahrb. f. prot. Theol. 
1895, 320 sq.; Schmidt, Handbuch iiber den Brief an die 
Epheser ; Haupt, Gefangenschaftsbriefe, in Meyer series ; Find- 
lay, Expositor'' s Bible series ; Abbott, Int. Crit. Comm. series. 

On the doctrines of the epistles see Pfleiderer, Pa^dinism, II, 
95 sq., 162 sq.; Weiss, Theology of the N. T, II, 75-124; 
Stevens, Pauline Theology, 78 sq., 213 sq. ; Holtzmann, Neu- 
testamentliche Theologie, II, 225-258 ; Bovon, ITieologie du 
N. T., II, 283-292. 



toral Epistles ; (3) the Epistle to the Hebrews, which 
uses the Alexandrian doctrine of ideas and the imper- 
fect copies of those ideas in earthly things, in defence 
of Christianity against Levitical Judaism ; (4) epistles 
rebuking sharply the principled licentiousness of a 
false gnosis: 2 Peter, Jude; (5) the Johannean 
Writings, which use Alexandrianism, not for contro- 
versial purposes, but simply for the exaltation of our 
Lord.^ Of these writings, Ephesians, Colossians, He- 
brews, and the Johannean Writings are in the front 
rank of the New Testament books, marked by distinc- 
tion of style and religious genius. They show the 
good side of that which Paul deprecated, the contact 
of Christianity with the very choicest of the Greek 
thought. For Alexandrianism is a Jewish form of 

The situation in these Alexandrian writings is quite Time and 
different from that in the Pauline Epistles. Paul writes §few Testa- 
to Gentile churches, but his contention is not against ment Aiex- 
these churches, but against what he considers a false *° "aiism. 
Judaistic instruction surreptitiously imposed on them. 
This false doctrine is drawn from Pharisaic Judaism, 
and Paul's contention against it is the reaction of a 
Pharisee against the bondage of that creed, which he 
has himself experienced, and from which he has been 
emancipated by his faith in Christ. The whole thing 
moves within the lines of Rabbinic and prophetic 
Judaism, and the scene is laid in Gentile churches. 
The situation is abnormal, for Palestinian Judaism is 
not the speech of the Hellenistic Jews, and Paul's 
work was carrying the controversies of that form of 
Judaism into the home of Hellenism. The situation 
could not last ; it was bound to pass with the disap- 
pearance of Paul. He was strong enough to keep it 

1 The Johannean Writings, because of their great importance, 
will be treated as Part VI. 


within the lines marked out by him during his life ; 
but with his death Hellenistic Judaism came to the 
front, just because this was its home, and Alexandrian- 
ism contributed to Christianity the enrichment of 
Greek thought. For this is the source of the peculiar 
intellectual idealism of the writings of this group. 
They are the product of Judaism modified by Plato- 
nism, and these mixed elements gave to Christian 
thought its final New Testament form. 

The epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians pur- 
port to be written by Paul, and any other authorship 
involves pseudonymity. However, the critical study 
of the Old Testament and of the uncanonical Jewish 
literature does not give us any strong impression of 
the improbability of this. They contain also Pauline 
traits, and references to Pauline personages and events. 
The practical parts are in the Pauline manner. But 
the un-Pauline doctrinal parts and the Pauline prac- 
tical matter suggest composite authorship, a thing 
by no means unique in Jewish literature. In fact, 
the difficulty that either side feels in pronouncing 
positively for or against the Pauline authorship is 
best met by this assumption of composite authorship.^ 

1 The difficulty, then, is with the doctrinal parts of the 
epistles. Here the trouble is, first, with the style. These 
long, breathless sentences, — in which participles, conjunc- 
tions, infinitives, relative and prepositional clauses follow each 
other endlessly, — are not in the Pauline style. One of these 
(Eph. 1 : 3-14) contains twelve verses, and this is followed 
immediately by one of nine and another of ten verses ; whereas 
Paul's style is marked by short sentences, distinct, but logi- 
cally connected. Another feature of the style, even more 
strongly marked and more incongruous, is the absence of 
clear statement of the controversial matter, and the substi- 
tution of mere hints. In Romans and Galatians the disputed 
points are stated, and then argued point by point, so that the 
whole matter is plain from the start. But in Ephesians and 
Colossians one has to look long before one comes to the mat- 


In both of these epistles, the central thought is the 
exaltation of our Lord. In Colossians it is used con- 

ter in controversy, and even then it is stated so vaguely that 
it is only by an acquaintance with outside literature that one 
learns the subject. The second difficulty is with the subject- 
matter itself, which is a Jewish form of Gnosticism. This 
difficulty is twofold : first, with the growth of this philosophy 
in these infant churches and among an uncultivated people ; 
and, secondly, with the mastery of the whole subject by Paul. 
These churches had been founded only some seven years, and, 
like the rest of the early churches, were probably recruited 
from the poor and uncultivated classes, Uttle given to specu- 
lation. But the difficulty with Paul was equally great, lie 
was, from his early training and from the evidence of his 
earlier epistles, unacquainted with Alexandrianism. He was, 
according to his own account, a Pharisee with a Rabbinical 
training ; and there is good reason to suppose that the philos- 
ophy which he encountered in Corinth was Alexandrianism, 
and there he meets it merely as philosophy, which he rejects 
as alien to Christianity, whether it be one philosophy or an- 
other (Gal. 1 : 14 ; 1 Cor. 1-4). The heresy against which he 
contends in this passage from Corinthians is the attempt to 
state Christianity in the terms of a secular philosophy ; and 
the only philosophy with which either Judaism or Christianity 
became so entangled in this early period was that form of Plato- 
nism which Philo had transplanted into Jewish soil, and which 
went by the name of Alexandrianism. And in the other pas- 
sage, from Galatians, the strict adherence to traditions is the 
mark of Pharisaism, which is incompatible with PhUonism. 
Whereas, in these epistles, the writer treats this philosophy, 
not ab extra, but from the inside view of an expert, opposing 
to a false Alexandrianism, which depreciates Christ, the true 
Platonism, which exalts Christ to a place by himself and 
enhances his glory. Only one familiarised with it in all its 
aspects could thus meet this insidious attack. But the point 
is not only that the true Paul could not meet this incursion 
on its own ground, but that he would not. He was averse to 
the whole method. It is probable that the whole subject of 
Gnosticism, with the wi'itiugs which deal with it, belongs to 
the otherwise obscure region which falls in the gap between 
Paul and the Johannean Writings. 



The exalta- 
tion of 


The central 
element in 

troversially, opposing to the gnostic idea, which sup- 
plements the work of Christ with that of angels, the 
exalted place of our Lord himself, who reigns not only- 
over worldly, but over heavenly beings ; liot only over 
men, but angels. In Ephesians, on the other hand, it 
is used positively and constructively, the exaltation 
of Jesus being affirmed in order that men may know 
what it means to be called into his fellowship, and 
what is the significance of his headship over the 
Church. Both the individual in fellowship with him 
and the Church shine with its reflected glory. It is 
the controversy evidently which furnishes the occa- 
sion for this advance in doctrine, the other applicar 
tion of it being evidently later and secondary. This 
makes Ephesians follow Colossians. 

Now, it is the Alexandrian philosophy which is at 
the root of both the heresy and its refutation. And 
it is necessary therefore to understand this, in order 
to comprehend the matters discussed in these epistles, 
and not only to understand these writings, but all the 
succeeding development of the thought of the Church. 
This philosophy is not the source of its faith, but it is 
the form in which its gnosis is cast. From this time 
on, the persuasion which rules Christian thought is 
that faith is only a rudimentary act, from which it is 
necessary to proceed to the fuller gnosis, or knowl- 
edge. Knowledge, moreover, is not only a more defi- 
nite mental attitude toward the same matters, but it 
is an advance into realms not included in faith. In 
this earliest form of it, it goes on from the place 
and work of Christ in redemption to his position in 

The starting-point in Alexandrianism is the duality 
of the universe, the essential opposition of matter and 
spirit, and the separation of the spiritual God from his 
material universe. It might be supposed that the idea 


of mediation and of the place of the Logos in this me- 
diation was used without going back into this dualism. 
But this dualism appears in the ascetic observances 
which make a part of the heresy attacked, and also in 
the spiritual substitutes which the writer proposes for 
them. This gulf is bridged by the Platonic ideas, or 
images of things in the divine mind. At the root of 
all orders of being, prior to them all, and existing from 
eternity, are the conceptions of them in the mind of 
God. Back of all trees, animals, and men, is the image 
of the oak or the pine, the horse, the man, in the Crea- 
tor. And these images are not simply thoughts, as in 
men, but are objectified, obtaining in one sense an 
existence separate from God, so that he can contem- 
plate them not simply as subject, but as object. The 
idea of a horse becomes the ideal horse, and in this 
form becomes an agent in the creation of actual horses. 
This key to the whole system must not be forgotten. 
Without this intervention of ideas which have become 
objects, and are possessed of creative power, God would 
be unable to bridge the gulf between himself and the 
material world. These ideas of Plato become in the 
Alexandrian philosophy angels. 

But Alexandrianism does not reach its final thought The Alexan- 
in these minor instruments of creation. There is in ^^^^°^ Logos. 
God not only this multitude of ideas, but there is his 
one idea of the universe as a whole, the Logos, the 
creative Word or Son of God. And the difficulty with 
the Jewish gnosis which we find attacked in the New 
Testament is that it appropriates just the form of this 
philosophy which furnishes its adherents with a sup- 
plement to their Christian faith. This faith embraces 
redemption through Christ, but no cosmogony, or phi- 
losophy of the universe, no mediating generative power. 
This lack Jewish Gnosticism supplements by intro- 
ducing the angels of Alexandrianism. Against this 


Paul, who was a Palestinian Jew, and not an Alexan- 
drian tinctured with its dualism, would have set up 
the God of the Jews, who creates directly, not needing 
any mediation. But these epistles, written by an 
Alexandrian Jew, find the answer within Alexan- 
drianism, seeing in Jesus the Alexandrian Logos, who 
is the medium of creation, to whom all others are sub- 
ordinated. He does not need to be supplemented 
therefore, but all fulness dwells in him.^ Nor do his 
followers need anything to supplement him, to do for 
them anything that he does not do, for they are com- 
plete in him.'' There is no philosophy even to be 
The work of sought elsewhere, since in him are hid all the treas- 


ures of wisdom and knowledge, not simply of faith.^ 
There is no divine power outside of him, for in him 
dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.* There 
is no power exalted above him, for he is the head of 
the heavenly hierarchies.® He is the reconciler, not 
only of earthly things, but of heavenly.® These 
heavenly beings of Alexandrianism are ranged in tiers 
• or circles, reaching up to heaven and down to the 
lower air next to the world, and those belonging to 
this lower air are seduced by the attractions of the 
world, and are drawn into human forms and pleasures. 
They are reconciled in Christ therefore, and he tri- 
umphs over them.'' This gnosis not only supplements 
Christ with angels, it supplements faith in him with 
observances which have familiar Jewish and Christian 
names, but new aspects and meanings. Circumcision 
and abstinences and baptism are mortifications of the 
flesh, which has in it the inherent evil of matter. But 
Christ put an end to all these rudimentary things of 
the world, making the faith in himself to include in 
itself whatever of spiritual meaning these contain.* 

1 Col. 1:19. 8 Col. 2:3. 6Col. 2:10. ' Col. 2 : 15. 

2 Col. 2 : 10. * Col. 2:9. 6 Col. 1 : 20. 8 Col. 2 : 20-23. 



Ephesians has the controversial purpose in subordi- 
nation. Instead of that, it seeks to secure the unity 
of the Church, and especially of Jews and Gentiles 
within the Church, on the basis of the fulness in 
Christ, who sums up all things in himself as the cos- 
mical principle. It is on this exalted ground that it 
places this Christian unity. God had this secret pur- 
pose from the beginning, to sum up all things in Christ, 
both Jews first, and then Gentiles, both earthly things 
and heavenly.^ He is given headship over the heavenly 
hierarchies, and all things are made subject to him in 
the interest of the one Church, which is his body, 
filled by him who fills all things.^ He is the peace of 
Jews and Gentiles, having broken down the wall of 
partition between them, the law which he describes as 
consisting of commands in fixed decrees. The Gentiles 
are built in with the Jews upon the one foundation of 
Christ and the prophets, Jesus Christ himself being 
the chief corner-stone.' This unity of the Spirit he 
exliorts them to keep in the bond of peace, as members 
of the one body, inspired by the one Spirit, and pro- 
fessing the one Lord, the one faith, and the one bap- 
tism.* The Christ who ascended far above all the 
heavens, that he might fill all things, gave them apos- 
tles, preachers, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, for 
the building of the body of Christ, that it may attain 
to his completeness, and the Christian man become 
the complete man.^ 

It will be seen that this statement carries back the 
idea of mediation between God and men from the 
work of redemption to the work of creation. This is 
one of the chief features that distinguish this Alex- 
andrian doctrine from everything that precedes it, and 
its effect on the doctrine of both God and Christ is 

1 Eph. 1 : 8-14. 
a Eph. 1 : 21-23. 

Eph. 2 : 14-22. 
Eph. 4 : 3-6. 

6 Eph. 4 : 9-lG. 


very great. In fact, if we want to put these epistles 
in their exact place, we must recognise that they are 
the next step in the development of Christian doctrine 
after the Pauline period. They presuppose Paulinism, 
retaining many of its ideas, and not by any means 
going back to the simpler doctrine of the Twelve, 
nor to the recorded teachings of Jesus. But these 
writings are a restatement of the Pauline themes 
in the terms of Alexandrianism. Freedom from the 
law is proclaimed, but not on thg ground of its being 
out of reach, unattainable by weak men, but on the 
ground of its attempting to attain victory over the 
flesh by denying to men the reasonable uses of 
the body, instead of by the crucifixion of its evil 
lusts. The weakness of the flesh is simply here a 
part of the general evil of matter. The Jewish ordi- 
nances of circumcision, of clean and unclean, of holy 
days, and the like, are not so much abolished as real- 
ised in the substance, the realities of Christianity, of 
which they are only the shadow. This is more fully 
stated in Hebrews, where this part of Alexandrianism 
is drawn out into definite statements. According to 
that philosophy, the individual copies of the divine 
ideas are always imperfect, and in the relation of 
Judaism to Christianity the former is the imperfect 
copy, and Christianity is the perfect idea. Hence the 
ordinances of Judaism are only shadows of the sub- 
stance, and are replaced by the Christian realities. 
But the great difference in the thought is not so much 
in these details, as in the general idea, which is, that 
in the Logos, and not in any individual members of 
the cosmos, whether those members belonged to the 
earthly sphere, or to the heavenly hierarchy of the 
divine ideas themselves, whether to men or to angels, 
is to be found the key to the divine purpose. The 
divine word, or thought, not of individual things, but 


of the universe, is unifying, bringing all scattered and 
opposed things together. The oppositions themselves 
come from the place of men in a great >yorld scheme, 
including the heavenly hierarchies, and their struggle 
is not with flesh and blood, not with anything in the 
man himself, but with the various orders of the heav- 
enly beings, among whom there is a discord, of which 
the discord here is only a reproduction.^ The salvation 
of men, therefore, is included in the carrying out of 
this original Logos idea, the summing up of all things 
in Christ, and through this union bringing to men 
whatever good they need. 

Ephesians, therefore, emphasises the church idea. The Church 
not individual salvation. The eternal purpose of God, gianf.''^" 
hidden before, but manifested now, is through the 
Church to make known to the heavenly hierarchies 
the manifold wisdom of God.^ The Church takes the 
place of the nation, being larger in its idea, including 
in itself all nations. But the collective idea is mani- 
fest in the one as in the other ; it is the purpose of 
the divine idea to unify men that is emphasised; — to 
bring together divided races, opinions, and interests, 
and find a potent and sufficient bond of union in 
Christ, the great reconciler. 

And finally, one object of these epistles is to depre- 
ciate all other mediators but Christ. Those specially 
contrasted with him are the angels. But he is the 
reconciler of them too, exalted far above them, leading 
in triumph those who set themselves against him, and 
it is through the Church that God makes known to 
the heavenly hierarchies his wisdom, not through the 
hierarchies to the Church. 

1 Eph. 6 : 12 ; Col. 1 : 20 ; 2 : 15. 2 Eph. 3:9, 10. 



The style of ^^ *^® Pastoral Epistles, Paul, supposing him to be 
the Pastoral the author, develops a third manner, still further 
pis es. removed from that of the Paid of the great epistles. 
In Ephesians and Colossians, he is still an argumenta- 
tive or intuitive person, reasoning things out to logical 
conclusions, or seeing them intuitively. To be sure, 
he is a Hellenist, which the earlier Paul with his 
Palestinian training never was; but all the more 
because he is addicted to philosophising does he use 
both argument and intuition. But the Paul of the 
Pastoral Epistles is a being who does not reason after 
either the Jewish or the Hellenistic fashion, but in- 

1 On authenticity, date, etc., in the Pastorals see Bacon, Intro- 
duction to the N. T. ; Weiss, Introd. to the N. T., 1, 374-420 ; Die 
Briefe P. an. Tim. u. Tit. (Meyer series) ; Am. Jour. Theol, 
1897, 392 sq. ; Godet, Introduction to the N. T. : St. FauVs 
Epistles, 529-611 ; Gloag, Introduction to the Pauline Epistles, 
369-436 ; Zahn, Einleitung in das N. T.,l, 398-489 ; Holtzmann, 
Einleitnng in das N. T., 272-292 ; Hilgenfeld, Einleitung in das 
JV. T., 744-765; Salmon, Introd. to the N. T, 397-413 ; Light- 
foot, Biblical Essays, 397-418 ; "Wiesinger, latid II Timothy and 
Titus; Findlay, Essay appended to translation of Sabatier's 
VApotre Paid ; Stevens, Paxdine Theology, 83 sq. ; McGiffert, 
The Apostolic Age, 398 sq.; Holtzmann, Pastoralbriefe ; 
Lemme, Das echte Ermahnungschreiben des Apostels Paulus 
an Timothens; Hesse, Die Entstehung der neutestamentlichen 

On the doctrines of the epistles see Beyschlag, New Testa- 
ment Theology, II, 501-517 ; Weiss, Theology of the N. T, II, 
125-149 ; Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Theologie, II, 259- 
281 ; Bovon, Theologie du N. T, II, 353-385. 



trenches himself in authority after the ecclesiastical 
sort. He has a fixed type of teaching, a standard to 
which he brings everything for weighing and test. 
There are various names for this ; such as healthful doc- 
trine/ healthful words/ doctrine according to godli- 
ness/ the pattern of healthful words/ the faithful word 
according to the teaching/ the good deposit.^ More- 
over, the authority invoked is that of the Church, 
which is styled the pillar and foundation of the truth.' 
And not only is the Church given this position, but the 
ecclesiastical method of preserving the truth is pointed 
out. It is a deposit to be guarded, and to be com- 
mitted to faithful men who shall be able to teach 
others.^ Moreover, we have here the first of those Beginning 
short, compressed statements in which the Church **^ creeds, 
embodied the faith for this purpose, the first creed 
statements of the Church. These are already in the 
shape which later became fixed, embodying those fun- 
damental facts in our Lord's life which the Church 
seized upon as the points of departure, finger-posts in 
its teaching. In 1 Tim. 3 : 16, it breaks abruptly into 
such a statement in a way possible only to a quota- 
tion. "He who was manifest in the flesh, seen of 
angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the 
world, received up into glory." In 2 Tim. 2:8, it 
reads, " Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, 
of the seed of David according to my Gospel." ^ 

1 1 Tim. 1 : 10 ; Tit. 1 : 9 ; 2 : 1 ; 2 Tim. 4 : 3. 

2 1 Tim. 6:3. » i Tim. 6:3. * 2 Tim. 1 : 13. 6 Tit. 1 : 9. 
« 2 Tim. 1 : 14. M Tim. 3 : 15. 8 2 Tim. 1 : 2, 14. 

• Now here is a situation worth studying as a specimen of the 
large, obvious marks by which to measure a Biblical writing and 
place it. Think of the situation at the close of Paul's life. He 
was the apostle to the Gentiles, and in that office he had founded 
churches in the principal cities of Asia and Greece, besides 
assuming practical oversight of Kome. But these were infant 
churches, drawn from the comparatively unlearned classes, and 



The hereti- 
cal occasions 
of the 

In general, these epistles are directed against 
the same Jewish Gnosticism which is attacked in 

without the background of Jewish inheritance and training 
which aloue furnishes the teaching class in the primitive Church. 
Everything belonging to the understanding of Christianity had 
to be brought in from the outside. And the situation was com- 
plicated by the fact that Paul had brought to them, not the 
authoritative type of Christian doctrine held by tlie Church at 
Jerusalem, but what was confessedly an innovation, which was 
tolerated, but not encouraged by the original disciples of our 
Lord. The situation was the same as if an English or American 
missionary should plant churches in India, which would have 
to be recruited from the poorer classes, and should put upon 
Christianity a new construction, striking for its novelty and for 
the power of its presentation, and commended by the zeal and 
success of the missionary, but which made no impression ex- 
cept that of surprise and doubt upon the Church at home. Then 
imagine him delivering a closing charge to these churches, in 
which the dominant note is the authority of the Church ! The 
difference in the situation is that Paul, being the one founder of 
the Gentile churches, had been able by that means to put his 
teaching on the same level as that of the Jewish Church. Gen- 
tile Christianity stood over against Jewish Christianity, and he 
had stamped his teaching on this one of the two great divisions 
of the Christian world. But this division of the Church into 
two camps, with differing opinions, is not the mark of that 
Catholic Church which teaches with authority. We have not 
here the marks of the Catholic Church in either the unity or 
authority of its teaching. It was not ready yet to formulate its 
teaching, nor to give it the stamp of authority. And yet the 
Catholic Church, the Church teaching with authority, is the 
only home of these epistles, for it furnishes the situation that 
makes them possible. In them the Church is the pillar and 
foundation of the truth, and the pattern of healthful words has 
already been furnished for its utterance. Such a state of things 
is produced only by a compromise, and above all things Paul 
was no compromiser. The attitude of these epistles is also very 
different from that of Ephesians and Colossians. The latter set 
over against the false philosophy of Gnosticism the true Alexan- 
drianism, with its Logos doctrine. The Pastoral Epistles depre- 
cate all philosophy, and put over against it these simplest of all 
confessions, the earliest creeds of the Church, 


Ephesians and Colossians. This led to asceticism in 
the matter of the marriage relation, and of meats.^ It 
produced also a belief that the resurrection was past 
already, by which is meant without doubt a spiritual 
resurrection, inasmuch as Gnostic dualism precludes 
bodily resurrection.^ By a singular turn also, its ascet- 
icism was offset by a principled licentiousness, probably 
coming from the idea that bodily indulgences do not 
affect the spirit.^ But they deal not only with these 
offshoots of the system, but with Gnosticism itself, Gnosticism, 
which is a method of explaining this imperfect world, 
and its relation to the perfect God. God comes into 
manifestation and creative activity only through the » 
mediation of a progressive series of powers called 
"aeons," which steadily degenerate as they become 
separated from the original source. The discredited 
genealogies of 1 Tim. 1 : 4, Tit. 3 : 9, are the registers, 
so to speak, of these successive emanations, by which 
seon succeeds aeon. And the source of them all, the 
ocean of the Divine Being from which they spring, is 
the TrX'^poifjuL. 

Then there is a false legalism, which evidently con- False 
sists in zeal for those parts of the law which fall in legalism, 
with the purposes of the dualistic philosophy which 
is at the root of Gnosticism.^ In all these passages 
this zeal for the mortification of the body is accom- 
panied by a neglect of the real commands of the law. 

These matters are not reasoned out, they are not 
traced to their roots, and answered by an exposure of 
the errors involved ; the answer is, instead, an appeal 
to the simplicity of the Gospel, and especially by 
pointing out its practical ends. Legalism is met by the 
statement that the law is not intended for the right- 
eous, but for sinners ; it is intended to act as a check 

M Tim. 4:3. 2 2 Tim. 2: 18. » 2 Tim. 3 : 1-3. 

* 1 Tim. 1 : 6, 7 ; 4 : 3, 7, 8 ; 2 Tim. 3:5; Tit. 3 : 9. 



upon the violators of the law. This is the exact 
opposite of the statement of Paul, that the law is 
unattainable because of the sins of men. The false 
legalism which dwells upon the external commands of 
the law, its bodily restraints and disciplines, is con- 
trasted with the practical morality of the law, which 
is reenforced by the grace of the Gospel.^ Asceticism 
is met by the very simple statement that every crea- 
ture of God is good. Kesurrection of the spirit instead 
of the body is simply labelled as abhorrent, not argued 
at all. Jewish fables and genealogies are ridiculed as 
unpractical. In fact, here is the contention against 
the Gnostic error generally, that it does not conform 
to the practical teachings of the Gospel, but draws 
men's attention away to useless questions and contro- 
Moral teach- But the moral teaching, though so insistent, is not 
mgof the ygpy \iig]x in its spiritual tone. It is about the level 
of the catechism in the hands of an ordinary minister, 
instead of reflecting the insight of the Sermon on the 
Mount, or the inspiration of the epistles of Paul. 
Much is said about the healthful teaching according to 
godliness, but both the teaching and the piety to which 
it is conformed are taken for granted, and must be 
therefore of the simplest kind. Neither Jesus nor 
Paul take the new ethics for granted ; mere exhortations 
to righteousness, without definitions of righteousness, 
are out of place in their thorough teaching. Paul, for 
example, seeks the foundation of the Gospel in a care- 
fully analysed statement of things divine and human, 
and of the office of Christ in their adjustment, and 
this he makes the motive power of a new life. 

It would be unjust, however, to leave this part of our 

1 1 Tim. 1:3-5; 6 r3-6 ; 2 Tim. 2 : 22, 23 ; Tit. 1 : 10-16 ; 
3 : 8, 9. 

3 1 Tim. 1:4: 4:7: 6:4. 


subject without calling attention to the consonance of Their 
this teaching with the peculiar spirit of Christianity. Christianity. 
Among the world religions its chief excellence is this 
emphasis of the ethical aim of religion, that men 
know God only when they recognise in him the Being 
who cares first and last for the ethical good of mankind, 
and who for this one end will sacrifice anything, and 
seeks by all means to imbue them with the same spirit. 
A writing, therefore, which insists on this same sine 
qua non, whose one word is " be careful to maintain 
good works," since this is the object of the grace of 
God, has this distinction, that it keeps before us the 
main thing. These epistles may be overweighted on 
the practical side, and their morals may lack inspira- 
tion, but they are a necessary antidote against doctri- 
nal excess. 

This same simplicity extends to the doctrine of our Doctrine of 
Lord's person in these epistles. He is the manifesta- ""jgi^'^*^'^ 
tion of God in the flesh, of whom the record is that he 
was justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached 
among the nations, believed on in the world, received 
up into glory .^ He is the one for whose appearance 
all things wait, who while here, witnessed a good con- 
fession before Pontius Pilate.^ He is the Saviour who 
abolished death and brought immortality to light 
through the Gospel.' He is the one to whom the 
believer commits himself, and who is able to keep that 
which is committed to him.* But he sustains some 
inward relation to the believer, who lives and dies 
with him, who reigns and endures with him.'' This is 
not the mysticism of Paul, his " in Christ," but it does 
resemble his idea that the acts and fortunes of our 
Lord's life the believer shares, owing to the represen- 
tative character of those acts. The abolishing of 

1 1 Tim. 3 : 16. ^ 1 Tim. 6 : 13-15. » 2 Tim. 1 : 10. 

* 2 Tim. 1 : 12. 6 2 Tim. 2 : 11, 12. 



Doctrine of 

The simplic- 
ity belongs 
to late 
period of 

death, and bringing to light of life and incorruption, 
is also a Pauline statement. Altogether, it is an 
eclectic teaching, containing within itself some Pauline 
and some pre-Pauline statements, but not a teaching 
from which one can formulate anything more than 
a general definition of the nature or source of our 
Lord's person. 

The simplicity and practical nature of the teaching 
of the Pastoral Epistles appears also in their state- 
ment of the doctrine of salvation. The grace of God 
in Christ is shown in the deliverance of men from sin 
itself. This accords with the aim of the epistles, to 
fix the attention upon the ethical purpose of the Gos- 
pel. This is true of what is said about the work of 
our Lord, and of the Holy Spirit. Redemption from 
sin and the purification of a people zealous of good 
works is the purpose of our Lord's death.* And the 
Holy Spirit is the agent through whom this salvation 
is effectually worked in men's souls.'^ 

This particular kind of simplicity follows, instead 
of preceding, a period of doctrinal elaboration and 
development. It is that simplicity, in the first place, 
which comes as a reaction from doctrinal excess. 
Gnosticism is professedly an advance from faith to 
knowledge ; it is an attempt to rationalise the contents 
of the faith. And the method is that of a definite 
system, an attempt to state Christianity, just as Philo 
had restated Judaism, in the terms of a Gentile phi- 
losophy. Against this the writer protests, not simply 
as a false philosophy, but as a philosophy. But where 
Paul uses the weapons of inspiration and intuition, 
and the writer of Ephesians and Colossians makes use 
of his knowledge of the philosophy applied to the 
statement of Christianity to show that its real teach- 
ing exalts Christ, instead of putting him to one side, 
1 Tit. 2 : 14. 2 Tit. 3 : 4, 7. 


these epistles reduce everything to the brevity of creed 
statements. The simplicity of tRe early faith was 
that of the intuitions, the things seen, not reasoned 
out by the soul ; this simplicity comes after an inter- 
mediate process of rationalising, and by a process of 
elimination reduces everything to a series of state- 
ments to be packed away and kept for ready use. 

Another sign that we are in the first stages of the Doctrine of 
Catholic Church, and therefore in a later period than *^® Church, 
that of the Jewish controversy against Paul, a period 
in which the unity of the Church is asserting itself 
against these divisions, is the doctrine of the Church 
itself. Church officers in the early period were men 
who had certain gifts conferred on them by the Holy 
Spirit, and who occupied the positions involved in the 
exercise of these gifts, and not conferred by appoint- 
ment or election. When we emerge into the period 
of elective officers, they are bishops, elders, and dea- 
cons. And of these, all three appear in the Pastoral 
Epistles by name. Not only by name, but their gen- 
eral functions are those exercised by the same officers 
in the later period of full organisation. Administra- 
tion is a chief mark of these offices in both periods, 
and the teaching office, which figures so largely in the 
work of these officers in the later organisation, appears 
here for the first time, though in a rudimentary and 
subordinate form.^ But the differences between the 
later and earlier offices are quite as marked. In the 
first place, bishop and elder are interchangeable terms. 
In Tit. 1 : 6, 7, the argumentative " For " of verse 7 is 
quite out of place unless bishops and elders are iden- 
tical. Secondly, all these officers, bishops as well as 
deacons, are confined to the local church in their juris- 
diction. The charge of a bishop is not a diocese, but 
a church. Thirdly, there are several bishops, or elders, 
1 1 Tim. 3:2: Tit. 1 : 9. 


in each church.^ Fourthly, the functions are mostly 
administrative, the teaching office being subordinated, 
and a distinction being made between teaching elders 
and others, implying, of course, that the teaching func- 
tion is not common to them all.* Timothy and Titus 
themselves are regarded as the responsible teachers, 
and probably the teaching continued to be done by 
men like them, who possessed the gift, instead of being 
officially designated, and whose office pertained to the 
general Church, not to a local church. With the ex- 
ception of this occasional teaching, the offices are lay 
functions, not spiritual, and so not clerical. It is the 
administration of affairs which is intrusted to them, 
not the cure of souls. 

The great step forward in the constitution of the 
Church is that the Church itself is described as a teach- 
ing body.' And the standard to which opinions are 
referred, the pattern of healthful words, is such a 
formulation of beliefs as arises in the attempt to im- 
press its beliefs on its members. The importance of 
this change is obvious, when we consider that the 
Church had been, in the nature of the case, not a teach- 
ing Church, but one requiring instruction. The Gen- 
tile part of the Church, at least, had been converted to 
Christianity out of religions which contributed nothing 
to the understanding of Christianity, and their teach- 
ing could come, therefore, from Jewish sources only, 
and not from within. For such a Church, years must 
pass before a public opinion shall be formed within 
itself by which individual vagaries and growths of 
opinion can be tested. Especially is this the case 
when the churches are recruited out of the un in- 
structed classes, out of men who held simply the 
pagan and idolatrous beliefs, and had not thought 
themselves out into purer beliefs or doubts. 

1 Tit. 1:5. 2 1 Tim. 6:17. «1 Tim. 3:15. 



We can speak with some probability of the author- Author, 
ship of 1 Peter, but of 2 Peter we can say with all 
reasonable certainty, that it is not by the author of 1 
Peter. The key- word of this epistle is knowledge. It 
is by the knowledge of God and of Christ, that believ- 
ers obtain all things belonging to life and godliness, 
and this word is dwelt upon in chapter 1 with a fre- 
quency that is quite distinguishing. It is a knowledge 
brought to them by the preaching of Christ, and by 
the Old Testament prophecies, and it is contrasted 
with the false teaching of the later times.* But while 
this use of gnosis points probably to a personal differ- 
ence, a habit of mind distinguished from 1 Peter, and 

1 On authenticity, date, etc., of 2 Peter and Jude see Bacon, 
Introduction to the iV. T.; Weiss, Introduction to the N. T., II, 
118-128, 154-174 ; Salmon, Introduction to the N. T., 469-508 ; 
Hilgenfeld, Einleitung in das N. T., 739-744, 7G5-770 ; Holtz- 
mann, Einleitung in das N. T., 321 sq. ; Zahn, Einleitung in 
das N. T., II, 42-110 ; Spitta, Der zioeite Brief des Fetrus und der 
Brief des Judas : eine geschichtliche Untersuchung ; McGiffert, 
The Apostolic Age, 600 sq. ; Keil, The Epistles of Peter and 
Jude; Kiihl, Comm. in the Meyer series ; Lumby, Speaker's 

On the doctrines of the epistles see Stevens, Theology of the 
N. T, 312-324 ; Beyschlag, New Testament Theology, II, 490- 
501; Weiss, Theology of the N. T, II, 234-248; Holtzmann, 
Neutestamentliche Theologie, II, 318-328; Bovon, Theologie du 
N. T., II, 479-488. 

a Chapter 2. 





with other 
N. T. books. 

with some certainty to an anachronism, gnosis being 
the mark of a later time ; the antinomianism in chap- 
ter 2 is certainly out of place within the lifetime of 
any apostle except John. The seeds of antinomianism 
in the first century were very slight, and the checks 
were constant, so that such a growth as is pictured 
here of a principled licentiousness actually inculcated 
by those claiming to be Christian teachers would be 
almost impossible until late in the century. But there 
is another anachronism even more evident. The ex- 
pectation of our Lord's coming was one of the ele- 
ments and motifs of that generation, and the delay in 
the event caused some questioning. But there is never 
any indication that it may be indefinitely postponed. 
The early Church never had to face the difficulty forced 
upon the Church to-day, of belief in his second com- 
ing, founded upon a prophecy of his coming during 
the lifetime of a generation long since dead. And 
until this epistle, we do not find any traces of such ex- 
egetical legerdemain as such a situation would require. 
But here we have it full-grown ; just such a specimen 
of harmonistic device as orthodox interpretation famil- 
iarises us with. The definite statement that the ad- 
vent is to be within that generation is met with the 
general principle that " one day is with the Lord as a 
thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." ^ 

Then the comparison of this epistle with 1 Peter 
reveals a linguistic difference which shares with the 
appendix to Mark the distinction of being the only 
cases of their kind. There are in 1 and 2 Peter 120 
words not found elsewhere in the New Testament ; 63 
in 1 Peter, and 57 in 2 Peter, and there is only one 
such word common to the two epistles. This creates 
an impossibility like that of dropping the requisite 

1 2 Pet. 3 : 8. 


letters in a box, and having them come out in the order 
of a line of Shakespeare. The law of chance is against 
not only the probability of such a result, but the pos- 
sibility of it. 

On the other hand, the affinity between this epistle Judo, the 
and Jude is such as to make it certain that one or the 2'1^'ter. ^ 
other borrowed. Which did the borrowing is uncer- 
tain, but the principles for deciding such cases point 
with some certainty to Jude as the original. The ad- 
vantage of vigour, conciseness, boldness of treatment, 
is plainly with this writer. But the fact of affinity is 
undoubted. The warning examples of the fallen 
angels, and of Sodom and Gomorrah,^ the reviling of 
angels, and the citation of Balaam,^ are conspicuous 
examples of this borrowing. But the most conspicuous 
proof of it is in a certain extravagance of language, 
quite unexampled in the New Testament. This affinity 
makes it unnecessary to deal with Jude separately, as 
everything in it is contained in 2 Peter. That epistle 
is simply Jude with such enlargements as suited the 
more extended purpose of its writer. The part of 2 
Peter Avhich is taken from Jude is the second chapter. 

The distinction between knowledge (gnosis) and The gnosis 
faith (pistis) in 2 Peter is interesting, because both 
the distinction itself and the ascription of superiority 
to gnosis are distinct marks of a time later than 
would consist with Petrine authorship. Like Gnosti- 
cism, which is a false gnosis, the developed form of 
it belongs to the second century, but there is a ger- 
minal form of both which is found in the first century, 
though only in the last decades of the century. The 
word is not lightly substituted for faith ; it is evident 
that, while it is made interchangeable with faith, 
it is yet used with a sense of difference, and with an 

1 2 Pet. 2:4-6; Jude 6, 7. ^2 Pet. 2 : 16 ; Jude 11. 

of 2 Peter. 


emphasis of these differentiating qualities. It is the 
difference conveyed, e.g., by a man who hears another 
say that he believes a thing to be so, and puts in the 
word, " I know it is so." 

It is implied here distinctly that faith is the 
starting point in the Christian life, but that it must 
grow into knowledge before it is completed. Faith 
and knowledge are, however, not essentially differen- 
tiated from each other in this first chapter; one is 
treated as being of the same general sort as the other, 
but knowledge being the completer of the two, the 
writer plainly indicates his preference for the word 
" knowledge." So he begins with faith, verse 1, but 
passes quickly on to knowledge, verse 2, and after 
that uses knowledge constantly, except in verse 5, 
where he shows his reason for the preference, since 
knowledge is the step beyond faith, and so the sign of 
Christian growth. So, he says, since without this you 
are blind, shortsighted, you must go on to make your 
calling and election sure. If you do not make this 
progress, you will come to forget even the cleansing 
from sin which accompanied your faith. In fact, the 
course of thought, which is complicated by the double 
use of the word "knowledge," identifying it on the one 
side with faith, and on the other with the more ad- 
vanced cognition to which the author gives the name, 
is intended to show the necessity of advance, not only 
from faith to the more perfect form of knowledge, 
but also from faith to virtue, and in virtue itself from 
the more elementary form which has its roots in 
faith, to the advanced stage which has its source in 
knowledge. It reads something like this : " In your 
faith supply yourself with virtue, do not stop with 
mere faith. But this is not all ; in your virtue sup- 
ply yourselves with knowledge; do not stop in the 
rudimentary stage of virtue which has its roots in 


faith; and having gained knowledge, go on to self- 
control, steadfastness, piety, brotherly love, and that 
highest form of love which includes not only brothers, 
but humanity." It is through this knowledge, he 
says, that they become partakers of the divine nature, 
that they receive all things pertaining to life and 
piety, and that they escape the corruption of the 
world.^ It is as man becomes conscious of containing 
within himself a knowledge which seeks completion 
and sees the other side of itself in virtue, a virtue 
which begins with self-restraint, and goes on through 
steadfastness to brotherly love, and finally to imiver- 
sal love, that he comes to possess that affinity with 
God which is his normal state, the true glory of his 

This knowledge is a knowledge of the Lord and Source of 
Saviour, Jesus Christ.^ It is said ^ to be a knowledge g^ge. °°^ " 
of God as well, and the two parts of this knowledge 
are related to each other by the mediatorial office of 
our Lord : he is the source of our knowledge of God. 
And in speaking to them of this knowledge of our 
Lord, the author is not following sophists' fables, but 
the testimony of his own senses, having been an eye- 
witness of the glory of the Lord on the mountain of 
transfiguration, and having heard with his own ears 
the words of God, " Thou art my beloved Son, in 
whom I came to take pleasure." And this is only a 
representative case, the testimony in general being 
that of the apostles. Then, besides this, they have 
the testimony of the prophets in regard to the same 
things, confirmed as they have been by the fulfilment 
in the life of our Lord. Only these prophecies are 
not the product of the individual knowledge of the 
prophets, but of the Spirit of God which inspired 

1 1 : 3, 4 a 3 : 18 ; 1 : 8. « 1 : 2. 


them, and they are to be interpreted in the same way, 
not by an application to them of individual acumen, 
but through the same Spirit by which they were given 
originally.^ He represents himself, therefore, as un- 
wearied in his endeavour to bring to them this word 
which has so inestimable results, and the lack of 
which is so equally disastrous.^ 

The second chapter makes it clear to what class of 
writings this epistle belongs. In the extra-canonical 
Jewish literature, and in the book of Daniel in the 
Old Testament canon, we have a peculiar sort of 
writing, in which great men of the past are raised 
up to foretell the sins of the present and to castigate 
them. Daniel, e.g., is made by the writer to foretell 
the events between the captivity and the Syrian 
oppression of the Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes, 
in order to confirm the prophecy of deliverance from 
that oppression. The device becomes evident when 
we discover by indubitable proof that the writer of 
the book belonged to the later time himself, and 
has therefore turned history into prophecy in order 
to enforce the religious lessons of his own times. 
Whether this is a legitimate device or not, is not a 
question which concerns us ; it is enough that it is a 
characteristic Jewish device. Now the writer of 
this epistle, who is shown to belong to a later age 
than Peter, impersonates Peter, in order that his 
warnings to his generation may receive the added 
force which would be given them if they were 
prophecies of that apostle of the evils which belong 
to the writer's time. The writer himself exposes his 
innocent device, since in his description of the dangers 
threatening them, the futures become presents.' 

The danger with which his readers are threatened is 

11:20,21. 2 1:12-15. 

• Compare 2: 1, 2, 3 ; 3:3 with 2 : 10-22 j 3 : 5, 9. 


one which constantly awaits religious teaching — the Warning 
danger of counterfeits. There have been false prophets hfresfes 
always, and such will come again, and befoul the waters 
of Christian truth, as they have other springs of knowl- 
edge. The particular heresy of which these men are 
guilty is the antinomian heresy. They deny the con- 
nection on which the epistle insists, between knowl- 
edge and virtue, and propagate instead a knowledge 
which looses the bonds of virtue, and becomes a prin- 
cipled licentiousness. This warning is the part of the 
epistle which coincides with Jude, and of which the 
language is so extravagant. But the extravagant lan- 
guage only indicates an extreme danger, a state of 
things which comes not only from a falling away from 
early purity, but a license which justifies itself as a 
legitimate outgrowth of religious teaching. A part of 
this justification is contained in the railing against 
angels, for which they are sharply rebuked. The 
reference is difficult to trace, but the close connection 
with their own going after strange flesh,^ suggests an 
explanation. Their licentiousness is a principled 
license, and among the ways in which they seek to 
justify it is by an appeal to the Alexandrian" doctrine 
of commerce between angels and men. Angels in this 
philosophy occupy all the aerial and heavenly spaces, 
and those in the upper spheres are drawn still further 
up, while those below, living near the earth, gravitate 
downward, drawn by the seductions of material and 
sensual things, and people human bodies. The rail- 
ing at angels, therefore, would consist in a more or 
less cynical appeal to their roving propensities as jus- 
tifying the sensual indulgence of men. The answer 
to this ^ is that these angels who kept not their first 
principality, but left their proper habitation, God has 

12:14, 18; Jude 7, 8. « Jude 6. 



As to the 
second com- 
inu of Jesus. 


cast down into hell to be reserved for judgment. 
Their actions, therefore, are scarcely to be attributed to 
the class of angels, and ought not to be used as a railing 
accusation against the whole angelic race. 

Besides this heresy, the writer warns them against 
a doubt, which is growing among them, of the Lord's 
second coming. It must be remembered that the ful- 
filment of this prophecy was to take place within our 
Lord's own generation, and that the delay is explained 
by the principle that one day is with the Lord as a 
thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 
This explanation cuts two ways ; in the first place, it 
implies that a hope which is disappointed by a delay 
of two or more generations could not have been origi- 
nally created by a promise which itself allows indefi- 
nite postponement, like that upon which the Church 
bases its present doctrine. Evidently a difficulty 
which requires such a device as this for its removal 
presupposes just the expectation a sound exegesis 
finds throughout the New Testament, of a coming 
within the generation following the death of Jesus. 
Then, in the second place, the postponement must be 
long to create the necessity for such an explanation as 
this. There is also a new form given to the prophecy 
itself. We have portents in the Apocalypse, and a 
renovation of nature in Paul, but to these is added here 
a destruction of the heavens and the earth by fire, to 
be replaced by new heavens and an earth in which 
dwelleth righteousness.^ 

There is nothing to indicate the special view taken 
of the person of our Lord. He is given two titles 
throughout the epistle. Lord and Saviour. His lord- 
ship is evidently the Messianic rule which is to be 
established at his coming, And the salvation is 

1 1 : 1-13. 


the process of redemption from their old sins. The 
knowledge which is brought to them by the apostles 
of the Lord is of his great power and glory, of which 
the transfiguration is the chosen manifestation. But 
the glory and honour are here, as everywhere in the 
New Testament, received from the Father.^ The sal- 
vation is cleansing simply, not expiatory. And it is 
mediated through the knowledge of Christ. It is a 
purely subjective and spiritual process. Then we 
have a doctrine of Scripture, which is defined to be a 
book which derives a divine authority from the inspi- 
ration of those who spoke in it.^ This authority, more- 
over, requires a like authority in its interpretation. 
The interpretation cannot be individual, any more 
than the original utterance was individual. This 
doctrine of authority, derived from inspiration, rather 
than ecclesiastical position, is the modified doctrine 
of authority held by Origen, rather than Irenseus, but 
the note of authority itself, of whatever sort, indicates 
a late date, ranking the epistle in this respect with the 
Pastoral Epistles, which it resembles, also, in its pic- 
ture of an extreme antinomianism. 

11:16-18. n; 19-21. 



Authorship The tradition which ascribes this epistle to Paul is 
'^^'^tf quite discredited now.^ Its consistent Alexandrianism, 

its careful writing, belonging to a literary stylist, are 
so evidently un-Pauline, that they preclude argument. 
The Alexandrianism of this epistle belongs not only to 
its doctrine, but to its reasoning, and especially to its 
interpretation of Scripture. The allegorical method 
of interpretation is common to both l*alestinian and 
Hellenistic Judaism, and its purpose is the same in 
both, to extract from Scripture improper and illegiti- 
mate meanings. There is a double necessity of finding 
received opinion in Scripture; first, for the sake of 

1 On the author, date, etc., of Hebrews see McGiffert, Apos- 
tolic Age, 463-482; Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews; 
Bendall, The Epistle to the Hebrews ; Vaughn, The Epistle to 
the Hebrews; Davidson, Handbooks for Bible Classes; von 
Soden, Handkommentar ; Bleek, Der Brief an die Hebrder ; 
Salmon, Introduction to the N. T., 414-433 ; Weiss, Introduction 
to the N. T., II, 17-44 ; Bacon, Introduction to the N. T. ; 
Holtzmann, Einleitung in das N. T., 292-309 ; Zahn, Einleitung 
in das N. T., II, 110-158; Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, II, 155 
sq. On the teaching of the epistle see also Stevens, Theology 
of the N. r., 483-522; Weiss, Theology of the N. T, II, 166- 
234 ; Beyschlag, iV. T. Theology, II, 282-347 ; Holtzmann, Neu- 
testamentliche Theologie, II, 281-308 ; Bovon, Theologie du 
N. T., II, 387-435 ; Kendall, The Theology of the Hebrew Chris- 
tians (appended essay); Riehm, Der Lehrbegriff des Hebraer- 
briefs; M^n^goz, La Theologie de UEpltre aux Hebreux; 
Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebreios. 



the opinion, and secondly, for the sake of Scripture. 
The Bible is supposed to be the repository of truth, all of 
it, and of nothing else. And consequently, its support 
is necessary for any opinion, and on the other hand it 
discredits Scripture that any received opinion is not 
to be found in it. Hence both Palestinian and Hel- 
lenistic Judaism, having beliefs, such, for example, as 
the resurrection, not to be found in the Old Testament, 
resorted to the legerdemain called allegory to supply 
the deficiency. But Hellenistic Judaism, having the 
larger task on its hands, viz. to find Mosaism in Greek 
philosophy, found it necessary not only to resort to 
fanciful methods of interpretation, but to reduce 
allegory to a system, and elevate it to a science. This 
mark of Hellenism characterises this epistle through- 
out, but Paul for the most part reasons soberly. The 
first chapter, for example, merely assumes the iden- 
tity of the Son with the Old Testament Yahweh, and 
so quotes numerous Yahwistic passages to show the use of Old 
superiority of the Son to the angels. The play upon Testament, 
the different meanings of the word " rest "in 3 : 11 to 
4 : 11 ; the general treatment of the Melchizedek narra- 
tive, and especially the use of his mysterious entrance 
and exit from the history, to prove his divine origin 
and timeless existence, 7 : 1-3 ; and the play upon the 
two meanings of Siadi^Kr], 9 : 15-18 ; are good examples 
of this Alexandrian habit of allegorising. It is not 
the dualism of Alexandrianism that we find utilised 
in this epistle, but its doctrine of types, or patterns. 
It goes back to the Platonic statement that all things 
originate in the divine ideas or images of things, and 
that these patterns of things in the divine mind are 
superior always to the specialised copies or reproduc- 
tions in individual things. Among these images in 
the divine mind is one of the universe, embracing all 
others. These ideas become objectified, that is, they 


not only exist as ideas in the mind of God, but obtain 
a quasi-objectivity, by which they become object, and 
not merely subject, to God, and acqviire creative force. 
They are the organs of creation. In the Jewish ter- 
minology, the inferior ideas become angels, and the 
superior and universal idea becomes the Son of God, 
or the Word. This philosophy is used by the writer 
to justify his exaltation of Christianity over Judaism. 
Judaism is the imperfect copy of the divine idea, 
while Christianity is itself the perfect idea. 
The purpose The object of the epistle, about which all we know 
epistle. ^s ^^^^ ^* ^^^ meant for Hebrew Christians, probably 

outside of Palestine, is to save its hearers from a 
lapse into Judaism. It differs from the Pauline situa- 
tion in that the danger threatens from the priestly 
side of Judaism, not from its Rabbinical or Pharisaic 
side. It is priestly expiation of sin, not a doctrine 
of works, against which the writer argues.^ To meet 
this danger, the epistle asserts the superiority of the 
Son, which is its title for our Lord, over angels 
through whom the message of Judaism was spoken, 
over Moses who was its principal figure, and over the 
priesthood who form its sacrificial class.^ In demon- 
Superiority strating the superiority of the Son over angels, the 
of the Son. Alexandrian doctrine of his mediatorial office in crea- 

1 This fact gives us a hint as to the place of its composition. 
This would not originate in Palestine, but in some place where 
a different type of Judaism flourished. Moreover, the argu- 
ment is addressed to Hellenists, and would be understood by no 
others. Positively, therefore, the location would be some cen- 
tre of Hellenism, possibly Alexandria. To travel still further 
afield in the region of conjecture, where you find blazings but 
not paths, ApoUos is the one N. T. personage who is identified 
with Hellenism by Paul's description in 1 Cor., and the con- 
jecture that he is the author has at least this support. But see 
Harnack's brilliant essay in Zeits. N. T. Wiss. h. 1. 1900, 
favouring Priscilla. * Heb. chs. 1-6. 


tion and his manifestation of the divine substance 
and glory is utilised. Old Testament passages, more- 
over, which contain statements about Yahweh are 
applied to him. But it is a curious evidence of the 
sense in which the divine name is applied to him, that 
in the next verse God is called his God.^ This juxta- 
position of apparently incongruous ideas is exactly 
parallel to " The Word was God," and " was with 
God" of Jn. 1:1. It is explained only by the Alex- 
andrian philosophy, which makes the Word to be both 
subject and object to God, one whose objectivity 
has this necessity, that it alone makes a cosmogony 

This superiority to angels appears also on the side The human- 
of our Lord's humanity. He is identified with the ity of Jesus. 
Son of man of Ps. 8, who is for a short time made 
less than the angels, but ultimately crowned with 
glory and honour, and set over the works of God, even 
over all things. This identification of the genus hio- 
maniim of the Psalms with the Messianic Son of man 
is a good example of the ingenious way in which the 
author treats Scripture. But the reasons which are 
given for the incarnation are interesting, first, as the 
emergence into Scripture of a rationale of the incarna- 
tion ; and secondly, for the spirituality and thought- 
fulness of the treatment. The central thought is that 
God became incarnate that he might share the nature 
of those whose spiritual deliverance he was to effect. 
They were to become his spiritual children, and as 
father and child must be of the same nature, he took 
the nature which belonged already to the children. 
The reasoning here in its logical form is strange, but 
in its underlying thought, contains the essence of the 
incarnation.^ But, for the performance of his priestly 

11:9. a Heb. 2 : 14. 



The purpose 
of the sac- 
rifice of 

office, the likeness between himself and those for 
whom he was to mediate with God is also necessary. 
]\Ien were to be perfected in the peculiar sense which 
belongs to the priestly view of this epistle ; that is, 
the defect in them caused by sin was to be made up 
by means over and above the amendment of their 
moral condition ; the condition of moral completeness 
was to be restored, and this could be done only through 
the suffering of him who was to be the author of their 
salvation. This suffering, however, was not to be vica- 
rious in the crude sense; it was the suffering of one 
upon whom God sends trials of various kinds, in order 
to test and establish his moral stability.^ 

This is a remarkable variation of the sacrificial and 
priestly view of redemption. It merges the sacrificial 
with the moral view of salvation. There is something 
in God which needs to be satisfied besides the satis- 
faction which he has in the return of the sinner to 
righteousness ; that is the root of the sacrificial view. 
According to Paul, this is his righteousness. God 
has overlooked sin in the previous life of the accepted 
sinner, and now he accepts an inferior righteousness, 
so that something must be provided which shall em- 
phasise his own righteousness, something which shall 
represent his anger against sin ; and this is found in 
the sacrifice of our Lord. But in this epistle, the 
necessity is not in God ; it is in man, who needs to be 

1 'Apxvy(>^i 2 : 10, is a very good word here to describe 
Christ's authorship of our salvation. He became the author of 
our restored moral condition by leading the way in the path 
which we have to take. I remember a sermon of Bishop Brooks 
on this subject, in which he called our Lord the Arnold Wink- 
elried of our salvation. He who would help those who are 
tempted must himself undergo temptation, and be perfected 
through it. This is the meaning given to the external suffering 
of death undergone by him (2 : 9-18). 


perfectly restored ; but perfect restoration can be accom- 
plished only through the perfecting of some one placed 
in the same condition as himself, exposed to the same 
temptations, and having to undergo the same suffering 
which makes up so large a part of the trial to which 
the sinner on his way to a restored moral state is 
exposed. Really, then, the priestly element in sal- 
vation is merely formal, and passes over into the 
moral, which is thus the only reality in the process. 

Christ's superiority to Moses is shown further in Christ's 
another fanciful comparison, in which Jesus appears t" Mose"*^ 
as the builder of the house, and Moses as the house, 
or a constituent part of it. House is used here in the 
double sense characteristic of the epistle, to denote 
both house and household, in order to introduce Christ 
as the builder and Moses as the servant in the same 
house. Christ is builder of the house in a struc- 
tural sense, and son in the household sense. Moses is 
built into the house structurally, and is servant in the 
household. Moreover, Christ appears as the builder 
of the Jewish system and church, a bold conception 
which could only originate in the Alexandrian idea of 
concepts and copies, applied here to Christ as the 
perfect idea in the divine mind of which Mosaism 
was the imperfect copy, the idea in Christ becoming 
objective and creative.^ 

This argument of completeness vs. incompleteness is The prom, 
carried on in the discussion of the rest promised to ^^^'^ '"*'^^" 
Israel, which is fulfilled only imperfectly in anything 
preceding Christianity. And there is the same play 
upon words as elsewhere. The rest is originally the 
rest from their enemies which was supposed to be 
awaiting them in the promised land, the escape from 
the dangers of the- wilderness into the security of the 




The superi- 
ority oi 
to the Jewish 

land of promise. Then it becomes the Sabbatic rest, 
the rest of God from the creative -work, into which 
men are to enter, but from which they are kept by 
their unbelief and disobedience. Joshua was not able 
to give them that rest in the promised land, nor were 
they able to enter into the Sabbatic rest. The two 
ideas of rest from danger and rest from toil are 
mingled and confused in a way impossible to inter- 
pretation now, but easy enough then.^ 

But the epistle comes to its real subject, for which 
everything else is preliminary, in the demonstration of 
the superiority of Christ's priesthood to the Je-nHsh 
priesthood in the same general line of the superiority 
of type to copy. The idea of the high-priesthood must 
appear in Christ. He must be divinely appointed, not 
self-appointed ; he must partake of the incompleteness 
of those to whom he ministers, and reach complete- 
ness only through the way of trial and testing ; he 
must moreover have something to offer, and since it is 
the divine appointment that only through shedding of 
blood is there remission of sins, it must be through 
death that he makes propitiation for sins. But the 
idea of high-priesthood must be perfectly carried out 
in him, not in the imperfect manner of the Aaronic 
priesthood. He must not, like them, abide in his in- 
completeness, but pass through that to completeness, 
so that his offering being made after reaching this 
completeness, will not need to be for his own sins, as 
well as for those of the people. He is a priest forever, 
and his priesthood therefore does not need to pass 
over from him to others, in order to keep up the suc- 
cession. Nor does the offering have to be repeated, 
having been offered once for all. Moreover, his offer- 
ing is not of bulls and goats, which could never take 

1 Heb. 4 : 1-16. 


away sins, but the offering of himself to do and bear 
all God's perfect will, which takes the place of the 
burnt offerings and offerings for sin of the law. It 
really does its work of expiating and removing sins, 
and so-does not have to be repeated after the manner 
of these ineffectual sacrifices. By this sacrifice he Christ the 
becomes the mediator of a new covenant, the essence "mediator. 
of which is found in Jer. 31 : 31-34, of a new law 
written, not on tables of stone, but on the hearts and 
minds of men.^ This is really the fittest and pro- 
foundest statement of the place of Christ's death in 
redemption to be found in the New Testament, far 
beyond anything in Paul. Christ's death, the means of 
writing God's perfect law upon the soul of men — this 
may be approached through an allegorical treatment of 
sacrifice : it may have the defect of disregarding the 
human conditions under which that death becomes 
inevitable, irrespective of any divine purpose of it, a 
point of view absolutely necessary to a rational under- 
standing of it ; but within this sphere of the divine 
purpose, outside of the human conditions, it is com- 

But this comparison culminates in the thoroughly Christ and 
characteristic paragraph about the priesthood of Mel- Melchizcdek. 
chizedek. Every point of this story which can be 
used for allegorical purposes is turned to account. His 
name Melchizedek, meaning King of Righteousness, and 
his royal city Salem, meaning peace, are both pointed 
to as signalising his greatness. He blessed Abraham, 
to whom were made the promises on which Israel's 
claim to be the people of God was based, and as the 
blesser is greater than the blessed, he is greater than 
Abraham. His exacting tithes of Abraham is another 
sign of his superiority, and as Levi was in the loins of 

1 Heb. 5 : 1-10 ; 8 : 10. 


his ancestor when the payment was made, construc- 
tively he paid tithes also, showing the superiority of 
the Melchizedek priesthood to the Levitical priest- 
hood. Up to this point the comparison has been 
between Melchizedek and Abraham, but as the point 
to be made is the superiority of the priesthood of 
Jesus to the Levitical priesthood, a priest after 
the order of Melchizedek, Christ himself is intro-* 
duced at this point.^ But the allegory culmi- 
nates in the statement that Melchizedek is without 
father or mother, having neither beginning of days 
nor end of years, meaning that he is self-existent and 
eternal. All this is based merely on the fact that he 
emerges into the history without any statement of his 
birth or parentage, and disappears in the same mys- 
terious way. But this superiority of Christ's priest- 
hood means also the replacing of the law which was 
given with the sanctions of the Levitical priesthood, 
with another law, under the sanctions of this superior 
priesthood. This substitution would not have been 
made, if the sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood had 
been able to remove the moral defects caused by vio- 
lations of the law. But Jesus, as the Mediator of a 
new covenant, the law of which is written on the 
heart, is able to save utterly those who draw near to 
God through him.' 
Contrast But this contrast is not only between the priesthood 

tabrraacles* ^^ Jesus and that of the old covenant, but also between 
the first tabernacle and the new and more perfect taber- 
nacle. Here the contrast between reality and figure, 
which characterises the philosophy of this book, leads 
up to the highest conclusions. The true Holy of 
Holies is the presence of God in the heavenly places, 
and of this the earthly tabernacle is the poor copy or 

17:11-22; Ps. 110:4. 8 6:1-10:19. 


shadow. To show this, the author makes use of Scrip- 
ture after the allegorical manner again, quoting from 
Ex. 25:40, 26:30, 27:8, "See thou make all things 
after the pattern shown in the mount." The pattern 
is here the directions given for the building of the 
tabernacle, which are to be followed literally, like an 
architect's plan; but in the allegorical rendering, it 
becomes the idea in God's mind, the heavenly reality, 
of which the earthly tabernacle is, in the nature of 
things, only a poor reproduction. The point of this 
is found in the statement that access to God was 
impossible. In the Holy place, which constituted the 
entrance into the Holy of Holies, the priests offered 
the daily sacrifices, but their ineffectiveness is shown 
by the fact that they had to be repeated, and that the 
high priest only entered the Holy of Holies once a 
year, making offerings still for himself and the people. 
So that neither priest nor people were clean, and the 
priest was never able to bring the people into the 
presence. But now a real offering having been made, 
and Jesus having entered, not the earthly tabernacle, 
but the true tabernacle, where he sat down at the right 
hand of God, access to God becomes open to all. There The superi- 

is no more sacrifice ; Jesus himself is the one priest °"*y °' *^** 

1 • 1 1 j> 1 ^^ Jesus, 

beside whom there is no other, and therefore they are 

bidden draw nigh to God with full confidence, not for- 
saking the assembling of themselves together. More- 
over, the presence of God is not a local presence, into 
which one can penetrate only after death, but the 
spiritual presence, into which men can come continu- 
ally. But the passage culminates in the description 
of the substitute for the different sacrifices provided 
in the death of Christ. Quoting from Ps. 40 : 6-8, it 
shows that God did not desire sacrifice, and that the 
man of God makes, instead, an offering of his obedience 
to God. And it is in this aspect that Christ's death 



becomes a purifier of human sin. It is by Christ 
thus carrying out the will of God, by the moral and 
spiritual character of his death, that he is able to 
perfect others in the doing of the same will. The 
author here puts himself squarely on the prophetic 
platform, which insists on moral perfection, and 
abrogates Levitical, priestly perfecting. It is not 
only that Christ substitutes the real sacrifice for the 
figurative, but that he revolutionises the idea of sacri- 
fice, doing away with it in the old sense, and retaining 
it in a sense scarcely recognisable.^ 

In a system like this, it is evident what is the human 
virtue to be emphasised. For religion becomes in it 
the reality, the heavenly reality, of which earthly 
things are only the shadow, and the requisite in man 
is faith, which reverses the ordinary standard, and 
makes the invisible real, and vice versa. Here is 
another of om- debts to this religious genius ; he gives 
us a definition which rationalises and idealises the 
place of faith in Christianity. It is that by which we 
make invisible things real, and satisfy ourselves of 
their substantive existence. And it is this faith in 
things remote from probability, and secured only 
by divine promise, which constituted the heroism 
and inspired the righteousness of the Old Testament 
saints.^ And yet what these men received was only a 
foreshadowing of the real promise underlying and out- 
reaching all other promises. Of this perfect faith 
Jesus is the author and completer, he having made 
the perfect sacrifice in view of the perfect joy. 

The point of the epistle is thus the substitution of 
the sacrifice of Christ for the sacrifice provided in the 
law, and of the higli-priesthood of Christ for the Jew- 
ish priesthood. The object of sacrifice is to restore to 

1 9 : 1-10 : 26. 

a Heb. ch. 11. 


man the completeness impaired by sin. But this object 
the sacrifices provided in the law did not accomplish, 
being intended only to meet the case of sins against the 
Levitical law, not against the moral law. In the 
nature of things, they could not cleanse from sins 
against the moral law, being only the blood of bulls 
and goats, material things which could not cleanse 
spiritual entities ex hypothesi. Hence, too, also ex 
hypothesi, it is only on the spiritual side of it that the 
sacrifice of Christ can produce this spiritual effect. 
When the writer states in what way our Lord's death 
becomes the reality of which the Levitical sacrifices 
were the mere shadow, it is in the words of the Psalm, 
which substitutes obedience to the divine will for the 
sacrifice of the law. His death is the supreme act of 
obedience by which he himself is perfected, and so is 
able to perfect those who come to him. This is to the The ration- 
author the rationale of the incarnation. The perfect- fncarnatk)n. 
ing of the imperfect children of men is to him possible 
for one who shares their human imperfection, but not 
their sin, and who achieves for himself, and eventu- 
ally for them, completeness out of this incompleteness. 
But this sifting of the Son of man must include, also, 
the suffering which comes from the opposition of sin- 
ners, and persecution even to the death, since without 
shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. The 
rationale of the incarnation becomes thus, also, that of 
the suffering of our Lord. Human suffering, the oppo- 
sition of men, human endurance and victory, he must 
share to the uttermost, if he would achieve that com- 
pleteness out of incompleteness which makes him the 
purifier of sinful men. 

This view of the atonement is different from Paul's. Contrast 
Paul thinks of it as a vindication of the Divine right- pau^nn^^doc- 
eousness, by which that righteousness is enabled to trine of the 
accomplish its purpose of effecting a righteousness in 



men that God can accept. The sacrifice of our Lord 
becomes the manifestation of the Divine care for 
righteousness by which the appearance of laxness and 
indifference in his treatment of sinners is removed. 
But in this epistle, it becomes the act of obedience 
which takes the place of sacrifice in restoring to man 
his lost completeness. An expiatory sacrifice is the 
provision for this in the law. But the prophetic pro- 
vision, and this is the only one that will hold in the 
writer's spiritual philosophy, is not a material sacri- 
fice, but a real restoration of spiritual completeness, 
a restored obedience. And to this end there is given 
to men in the sacrifice of Christ an example of such 
complete obedience as will marshal the way for men 
to the same achievement. Christ takes hold of the 
work of restoration just where the priest does ; both 
suppose the attempt to return on the part of man ; 
but the priest says, " The return is not enough, there 
must be an expiation of man's sin." Christ says: 
" The return is the thing wanted, but it must be com- 
pleted, and I come in to perfect man's imperfect work. 
For this purpose, I imdertake the task of achieving 
that righteousness in myself under the same condi- 
tions of incompleteness, and temptation, and suffering 
for righteousness' sake as make the human conditions 
of this undertaking, and by bringing completeness 
out of this incompleteness I open the way for men to 
achieve the same." 
Contrast We have spoken of this as the prophetic view ; and 

^etic teach- ^* ^°®^ come out there eventually. But there is this 
ing. difference. The prophets held that there never was 

a divine provision for sacrifice.^ And our Lord 
quotes this passage from Hosea as his protest against 
ceremonialism.* This epistle, however, considers it 

1 Jer. 7 : 22 ; Ps. 61 : 16 ; Hos. 6:6. 
a Matt. 9 : 13 ; 12 : 7. 

common ele- 
ment in the 


necessary to set up an elaborate argument to show 
that the provision of sacrifice in the old covenant, 
by the ultimate divine enactment, has been exchanged 
for the only real sacrifice. It is interesting, in this The 
connection, to notice the permanent and common ele 
ment in the New Testament writings. In Jesus we N. T. : — the 
have the prophet, the culmination of the line. In P'^P**®^'^- 
the Twelve, there is the simplicity that characterises 
our Lord, but mixed with an apocalyptic view of the 
future, which comes of their misunderstanding of 
him. In Paul we have prophet and rabbi. In the 
writer of Hebrews we have the most complete exam- 
ple of the prophet and philosopher. Thus the con- 
stant factor, and the source of power everywhere, is 
the prophetic element, the power of spiritual vision 
that pervades them all. 





The real The question in regard to these writings is not so 

tionTsto^^ mucli the author of the writings themselves, as the 

tiiese writ- authorship of the sayings attributed to our Lord in 

'"^^' the fourth Gospel.^ Compared with the discourses 

1 On the authenticity, date, etc., of this gospel, see : (1) The 
Johannean authorship is maintained by Godet, Comm. on Gos- 
pel of John; Dodds, " Introduction," in Uxpositor^s Ghrk. Test. ; 
Weiss, Gospel of John (Meyer series); Reynolds, Art. "Gospel 
of John," Hastings' Diet. ; Weiss, Introduction to the N. T., 
II, 355-401 ; Salmon, Introduction to the N. T., 191-293 ; Zahn, 
Einleitung in das N. T., II, 445-564 : Gloag, Introduction to 
the Johannean Writings; Hutton, "The Historical Problems 
of the Fourth Gospel," Theological Essays, 166-240 ; Watkins, 
" Modern Criticism and the Fourth Gospel," Bampton Lectures, 
1890 ; Abbot, Peabody, and Lightfoot, The Fourth Gospel ; 
Sanday, Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth 
Gospel; Beyschlag, Zur Johanneischen Frage; P. Ewald, Das 
Hauptproblem der Evengelienfrage. (2) The Johannean author- 
ship is denied by H. Holtzmann, Einleitung in das N. T. ; O. 
Holtzmann, Das Johannesevangelium untersucht und erkliirt ; 
Martineau, The Seat of Authority in Belig., 189-243; Super- 
natural Beligion, II, 251-492 ; Thoma, Die Genesis Joh. 
Evangel., 171-302. (3) Mediating hypotheses are maintained 
by Renan, Vie de Jesus; Reuss, Hist, of the Christ. Theol. 
in the Ap. Age, II, 381-375 ; Sabatier, Essai sur lea Sources de 

Fourth gospel ANh syi^optics 175 

of Jesus in the Synoptical Gospels, there is certainly 
a note of strangeness and unfamiliarity that requires 

1. In the first place, the discourse in the fourth 
Gospel is almost wholly of our Lord himself, a dis- 
cussion of his claims, and a defence of himself for 
making these claims, involving, as it does, self-witness. 

2. It is, more particularly, a statement and defence 
of his Messianic claims, which are in evidence from 
the beginning, whereas Jesus is specially reticent 
about these in the Synoptics, only opening the sub- 
ject in the inner circle of his disciples in the last few 
months of his life, and making the public claim only 
in the last week. This particular reticence is har- 
monious with the general impression of the Synoptic 
account, e.g. with the silence which Jesus imposes on 
men about his miracles, indicating a fine reserve, and 
a disposition on his part to pursue his ends as silently, 
and with as little ostentation and self-display as pos- 
sible. It is the intention that a large part of the 
impression made by Jesus should be the result of his 
personality, and that men shall be brought to the 
acceptance of his teachings largely as a part of the 
homage paid to himself ; but the whole effect depends 
upon the homage being entirely unforced. To call 
Jesus Messiah as your own discovery, so to speak, 
is a tribute which the mere repetition of a claim made 
by himself never equals. 

3. The abstract quality of the style is in noticeable 

between the 
and the 
records of 
the sayings 
of Jesus. 

la Vie de Jesus, les trois premiers Evangiles et le quatrieme ; 
Weizsacker, Apostolic Age, II, 206-236 ; "Wendt, Die Lehre 
Jesu, I, 215-342 ; Schiirer, Contemporary Review, Sept. 1891 ; 
Burton, "The Purpose and Plan of the Gospel of John," Bibli- 
cal World, Jan.-Mch. 1899. On transpositions in the gospel, 
see Bacon, Jour, of Bib. Lit., 1894, pp. 64-76; Spitta, Zur 
Geschichte und Litteratur des Urchristentums, I, 157-204. 


contrast with the concreteness of the Synoptical dis- 
course. The personal element in Jesus is resolved 
into abstractions, such as life, light, or elements, such 
as water and food. The concreteness of personality 
is resolved into these abstractions. 

4. These conceptions are dwelt upon with a con- 
tinual iteration which is very different from the light 
touch, the tendency to suggestiveness rather than 
fulness of statement, which characterises the Synop- 
tical discourse. 

5. This difference is especially noticeable in the 
treatment of the parable in the fourth Gospel and the 
Synoptics. The parable is always in the Synoptics 
an analogy suggested by something in Jesus' dis- 
course, and after it has served the purpose of this 
illustration, it is dropped, while in the fourth Gospel 
it is explored to find in it anything in which the 
spiritual and material facts are alike. 

6. The same style of discourse is kept up in the 
Gospel, whoever is talking, or whoever is addressed. 
It is useless to allege difference of auditors in the 
Synoptics and the fourth Gospel, as a reason for the 
difference of discourse. For Jesus in this Gospel 
uses the same style of discourse in talking with the 
Samaritan woman as with the scribe. And in the 
Synoptics he never falls into the Johannean style. 
Moreover, when John the Baptist is talking in the 
fourth Gospel, he even repeats verbatim the discourse 
of Jesus.^ 

7. The style of Jesus in the fourth Gospel is iden- 
tical with that of the first epistle. And when I 
speak of style, I mean the mental peculiarities, the 
way of looking at things, and not simply some trick 
of manner. 

»Jn.3:ll, 82-36, 18; 8:26; 13:8. 


On the other hand, certain important parallels Parallels 
between Jesus' discourse in the fourth Gospel and two^ecords. 
the Synoptics are to be noted. 

1. The prediction of our Lord's resurrection after 
three days.^ This is a case in which the Synoptical 
discourse and the Johannean can be not only identi- 
fied, but differentiated. The prediction is the same 
in both, but in the one it comes when the pressure of 
events at the end of Christ's ministry led naturally 
to the prophecy, while in John it comes at the very 
beginning of the ministry. 

2. The doctrine of the new birth.* This teaching, 
so evidently figurative in this passage, has been so 
literalised in Christian dogma that its connection 
with our Lord's teaching has been quite obscured. 
But we find in the Synoptics the same teaching of 
the necessity of a radical change to fit a man for the 
kingdom of heaven.^ The difference is, that in John 
the change is carried back so far as to make it no 
longer the act of man, but of God. This is quite in 
accordance with the Johannean teaching of the radical 
defect of human nature, contrasted with the Synoptic 
view of the fundamental fitness of humanity for the 
truth, and the superficial nature of the obstacles. The 
hidden character of the process by which this change 
is accomplished is also common to both records.* The 
seat of the evil which necessitates the change is the 
same in both the Synoptics and the fourth Gospel. 
But the flesh in the Synoptics is simply the physical 
part of man, with its observed tendency to temptation 
on the side of its appetites and passions, while in the 
fourth Gospel it is characterised by the radical evil of 

1 2 : 19-22. 2 3:3-8. « Matt. 18 : 2-4. 

« Jn.3:8; Mk.4:27. «Mk.l4:38; Jn. 3:6. 



3. The spirituality of true worship.^ This passage 
has no exact parallel in the Synoptics. But the pro- 
test against unspirituality, the elevation of spirit above 
form, pervades all the Synoptic teaching.^ 

4. The change from light to darkness in men.' The 
idea is in both that originally man is made receptive 
of the truth, but that his spiritual faculty may be 
changed, so that he shall dwell in darkness rather 
than light. The difference is that in the Synoptics 
this change is never predicted of the world at large, 
which remains susceptible to the truth for the most 
part ; while in the fourth Gospel this change remains 
the ultimate fact about mankind. 

5. Jesus' treatment of the Sabbath is evidently free 
in this Gospel, as in the Synoptics. The statement 
in the latter is that the Son of man is Lord of the 
Sabbath. This is the teaching also of Jn. 5, where 
Jesus claims the same liberty to work continuously, 
without the interruption of the Sabbath, as the Father 
undoubtedly exercises. 

6. Jesus claims to be the judge of men in John, as 
in the Synoptics. Only here this claim is rationalised, 
while in the other Gospels it is simply stated. It is 
here a part of the general teaching in regard to the 
relation between himself and the Father, claiming 
authority not to act for himself, which he never does, 
but to represent the Father in such divine functions, 
because he knows the Father's will so perfectly.'* 

7. That Jesus is the bread of life, his flesh true 
food, and his blood what we must drink for eternal 
life, is to be identified with the words of institution 
of the Lord's Supper, " This is my body, and this is 

1 4 : 23, 24. 

2 Matt. 6 : 1-18 ; 9 : 13 ; 12 : l-« ; 15 : 1-20 ; 23 : 1-33 ; Mk. 
2 : 18-3 : 5 ; Lk. 10 : 29-37 ; 11 : 37-42 ; 13 : 24-30. 

» Matt. 6 : 22, 23. * Jn. 6 : 27-30. 


my blood." Only, the fact figured in the Sacrament 
is that Jesus is the food of the soul by virtue of his 
death simply, whereas in the passage in John this 
significance of his death is made a part of the general 
fact, that as a teacher and revealer of God he is the 
living bread.^ 

8. It is not stated in the Synoptics, that Jesus is 
the light of men, but he does tell his disciples that 
they are the light of the world, the salt of the earth,'^ 
establishing the general fact that grace is communi- 
cated from man to man, that this is the method by 
which the kingdom of God grows and advances. And 
this fact once established, of course Jesus becomes 
the example of it, par excellence. 

9. Both the Synoptics and John contain teaching 
to the effect that misfortunes of one kind and another 
are not necessarily the result of the sufferer's sin.^ In 
fact, both teach that in an evil world it is the good 
who suffer, that this suffering is the condition of the 
triumph of their cause, and that hating the present 
life is the way to gain the life eternal.* 

10. Jesus' teaching in this Gospel, that blindness 
excuses sin, and that knowledge creates responsibility, 
is paralleled in the Synoptics by the comparison be- 
tween the men of Jesus' generation and the Ninevites, 
and the denunciations of the cities in which Jesus did 
his miracles.* 

11. Jesus' use of the shepherd's care of the sheep 
to illustrate the watchfulness and self-sacrifice with 
which lost men are sought, and the members of the 
kingdom of God are cared for, is substantially the 
same in the Synoptics and John.^ 

1 Jn. 6 : 48-51. » Jn. 9 : 1-3 ; Lk. 13 : 1-5. 

2 Matt. 5 : 13, 14. * Jn. 12 : 20-32 ; Mk. 8 : 31-38. 
6 Mt. 9 : 41, 42 ; 11 : 20-24 ; Ju. 9 : 39-41. 

6 Jn. 10 : 11-18 ; Lk. 15 : 1-7. 


12. Jesus' teaching in connection with his washing 
the feet of his disciples has an interesting parallel in 
Lk. 12 : 37. But in general, this is one of the most 
distinct lines of separation between the Synoptics and 
the fourth Gospel. In the latter Jesus uses the most 
solemn occasion to impress on his disciples love to each 
other as their most sacred duty, while in the Synoptics 
he dwells on their love to all men, but especially their 
enemies, and even expressly belittles love of each 
other compared to this.^ 

13. Jesus' teaching in regard to the identification 
of himself with his disciples on the one hand, and 
with God on the other, is paralleled in the Synop- 
tics.'^ The identification is the same in both cases, an 
identity of interests, which leads a person to regard a 
favour done to a friend as done to him. 

14. Jesus' teaching in regard to his death, that it is 
the inevitable result of the opposition of the world, 
and that his followers, therefore, need expect nothing 
different, is common to all four Gospels. It is the 
necessary condition of his glorification, being the 
crowning evidence of the spirit of meekness and self- 
sacrifice which he makes the special mark of the 

15. Jesus' doctrine of the Holy Spirit, that it is the 
divine illuminator of both himself and his disciples, 
and the communicator of the divine power to them 
both, is developed at greater length in the fourth 
Gospel, but is found also in the Synoptics.* 

16. There is a broad line of distinction between the 
Synoptics and John in the matter of faith and works, 

1 Matt. 5 : 46, 47. * Jn. 13 : 26 ; Mk. 9 : 37. 

» Jn. 13 : 31, 32 ; 15 : 18-21 ; 16 : 1-3 ; 18 : 36 ; Mk. 8 : 29-38 ; 
9:33-37; 10:33-45. 

* Jn. 14 : 16-21, 26 ; 15 : 26 ; 16 : 7-16 ; Matt. 3 : 11, 16 ; 4 : 1 ; 
10:20; 12:18,28,31,32. 


the one insisting on obedience as the final qualification 
for discipleship, or membership in the kingdom, while 
the other dwells more on faith in Jesus. But neyer- 
theless, both hold that the profession of discipleship 
is attested only by keeping our Lord's commands.^ 

1 Jn. 15 : 9, 10 ; Matt. 7 : 21-23. 



It is needless to say that the principal subject of 
discourse in this Gospel ^ is our Lord himself, and the 
object is evidently to prove his Messiahship. This is 
definitely stated in 20 : 31, and it is meant in several 
places where it is not definitely stated. Wherever 
Jesus says, " I am he," the reference is of course to 
something understood between himself and his hearers, 
and what this is, is indicated in the verse above quoted. 
It is quite after the style of this Gospel to impart a 
certain mystery to its discourse by the use of the more 
or less vague pronoun, instead of the intelligible noun. 
But when the verse quoted adds to " Christ " the " Son 
of God," that has a meaning different from the same 

1 See in addition : Stevens, Theology of the N. T., 564-592 ; 
Stevens, Johannine Theology , Beyschlag, New Testament The- 
ology, II, 408-475 ; Weiss, Theology of the N. T, II, 311-421 ; 
Holtzmann, Netitestamentliche Theologie, II, 351-521 ; Bovon, 
Theologie du N. T., II, 639-588 ; Reuss, Hist, of the Christ. 
Theol. in Ap. Age., II, 375-505 ; Horton, Bevelation and Bible, 
369-402 ; Horton, The Teaching of Jesus, 155-282 ; Caird, 
Evolution of Religion, II, 217-243 ; Alexander, Leading Ideas 
of the Gospels, 182-236 ; Van Oosterzee, Theology of the N. T., 
129-176, 372-405; Wendt, Teaching of Jesus (see index); 
Gilbert, Bevelation of Jesus (see index) ; Baldensperger, Der 
Prolog des vierten Evangeliums ; Harnack, " Ueber das Verhalt- 
niss des Prologs des vierten Evangeliums ziiin ganzen Werk," 
Zeit.f Th. u. Kirche, 1892, 189-231 ; Holtzmann, "Der Logos 
und der eingeborene Gottessohn im vierten Evangelium," Zeit. 
/. wissen. Theol, 1893, 386-407. 



term in the Synoptics and the Acts. The two are en- 
tirely synonymous in these writings, but in this Gospel 
the term " Son of God " has the additional meaning 
given to it by Alexandrianism. The Son of God is an 
incarnation of the Alexandrian Logos. It is in the The Logos. 
Prologue that we find Alexandrianism proper, but there 
is also there the statement of the incarnation of the 
Logos, which is the Christian addition to Alexandrian- 
ism.^ The Gospel itself says nothing further about 
the Alexandrian philosopy, but the divinity of the Son 
of God in the Gospel is that of the incarnate Logos. 
The proof that the Logos of the Prologue is the Alex- 
andrian Logos is that the Word is here hypostatised, 
whereas, in the passages of the Old Testament where 
creation is said to be by the Word of God, or where 
Wisdom is represented as speaking, the nearest ap- 
proach to this is personification, a mere figure of 
speech. But in Alexandrianism the thought of God 
is made the actual agent in creation, and is hyposta- 
tised, not personified. The statement of this in the 
Prologue combines exactness with poetical elevation 
of expression.' " In the beginning," of course means 
before creation, as creation is attributed to the agency 
of the Word. The two statements, that the Word 
was with God, and was God, are reconciled by the dif- 
ferentiation of 6eos in the two. In the " with God " 
6'eos is written with the article, and in the " was God," 
without the article. This specialises the first as the 
one to whom the name belongs by preeminence, and 
generalises the second as belonging in the same class 
as God, partaking of his nature. This is quite in 
keeping Avith the philosophy, the terms of which are 
used in this statement. The statement about creation, 
especially, identifies this book with Alexandrianism, 

1 Jn. 1 : 14. a 1 : 1-14. 



The Logos 
aud crea- 

The incarna- 
tion of the 

as it is principally in creation that the agency of the 
Logos is employed, and that he becomes identified 
with God. But it is in what follows that the thought 
changes from the general Alexandrianism which it 
shares with other writings, to the peculiar elevation of 
thought characteristic of this Gospel. The creative 
agency of the Logos is here characterised as vital, not 
mechanical. If we insert the connecting thought, it 
reads : This agency in creation is due to the fact that 
the Logos has life in himself. The thought mounts 
still higher in the next clause, which states that what 
was life in the rest of creation becomes light in the 
case of men. That is, life in general becomes here 
the special life which belongs to man, intelligence and 
spiritual nature. 

But as we have seen, the peculiarity of Christian 
Alexandrianism is the incarnation of the Logos. " The 
Word became flesh." This does not denote enshrine- 
ment of the Logos in a human body, but the humanis- 
ing of the Logos. And it is evident that this includes 
the shrinkage of the Logos to the spiritual dimensions 
of humanity. For wherever supernaturalism is attrib- 
uted to our Lord, it is said to be due, not to the Logos 
with which he is identified, but to the Father or Spirit, 
as in the case of other men. At the beginning of his 
ministry this Gospel, like the Synoptics, represents the 
Spirit as abiding on him.^ He that receives his testi- 
mony has put his seal on this, that God is true, be- 
cause God gives not the Spirit by measure.^ So he 
is incessant in his declaration that his teaching was 
not his own, but his who sent him.^ His authority 
to lay down life and take it again is a Commandment 
received from his Father.* The Son does what the 
Father shows him,* and what the Father commands.* 

M : 32, 33. 
2 3:34. 

« 7 : 16 ; 8 : 26 ; 12 : 49, 60. 
4 10 : 18. 

6 5 : 19, 20. 
6 14: 31. 


He has life in himself, by which is meant power to 
impart life, but it comes from the Father, with whom 
this power originally rests.^ This involves judgment, 
but this also comes from the Father ; the Son judges 
as he hears.^ When he announces that his flesh 
is true food, he bases it on the fact that the living 
Father sent him, and he lives because of the Father.' 
The proof that he is the Son of God is the works of 
the Father, which show the Father in him.* At the 
resurrection of Lazarus, he thanks the Father for 
hearing him.* 

But there is one element in this human life which The pre- 
is entirely peculiar to this Gospel. While the life is human^iife 
thus human, owing its peculiar qualities to divine 
reenforcements that are not part of itself, at the same 
time our Lord has a memory of his heavenly exist- 
ence. His knowledge of heavenly things is not an 
intuition, but a memory. There is no veil between 
the two lives ; the consciousness is continuous.^ John 
the Baptist makes this the difference between himself 
and Jesus. His origin was earthly, and as such he 
speaks from the earth. That is, his knowledge of 
heavenly things would be due to inspiration, or intui- 
tion, like the astronomer's knowledge of Saturn when 
he had calculated its existence. But Jesus' knowledge 
was what he had seen and heard, the knowledge of 
the planet given him by the telescope.^ At the same 
time, this is connected with the other knowledge. It 
is in this very passage that his knowledge of the 
things of God is attributed to the unstinted gift of 
the Spirit.* 

This means that man, qua man, even supposing that 
he is the incarnate Logos, would have no such memory ; 
the veil would be there ; else there would be no incar- 

15:21-29. 86:57. 6 11: 41. 73.31,32. 

2 5:21,22,30. * 10: 37, 38. 63.13. 83:34, 


nation. But the Spirit would bring to him the knowl- 
edge of heavenly things, as to other inspired men. 
And he would recognise it' as something he had 
known before, which other men would not. Omni- 
science would not result, therefore, but such verification 
of his intuitions as would come from his recognition 
of them as parts of a previous consciousness. 

The equality This writing claims for Jesus equality with God. 

with^God!^ This claim rests on his calling God tov Trarcpa iStov, that 
is. Father in the proper sense, involving divinity, as 
paternity always involves transmission of generic 
quality.^ Animal begets animal, man begets man, 
God begets a divine Son. But it must be remembered 
that this sonship rests on an incarnation, and that this 
involves modification of the general thought. 

1. It is not the Father, primary source of all things, 
who is incarnated, but the Logos, who becomes the 
divine agent in creation, the One through whom all 
things came to be, and who is himself derived from 
God, an hypostatising of the divine thought. 

2. In the incarnation the Logos is humanised, so 
that his representation of the Father in being, spirit, 
and act, is not attributed to the incarnation of the 
Logos, but to the indwelling of Father and Spirit, as 
in the case of other inspired men. But now, inasmuch 
as this capacity for God is characteristic of men as 
such, the incarnation procures for Jesus the perfec- 
tion of his humanity. 

Therefore, when he is charged with making himself 
God, his answer does not justify the assertion of divin- 
ity in the unqualified sense in which his enemies 
attributed it to him, but is to the effect that he asserts 
it of himself only in the qualified sense in which it is 
not blasphemy. The Old Testament calls the rulers 

1 5 : 18. 


of the people gods, on the ground that they, being 
rulers under a theocracy, represented God ; they were 
men to whom the word of God came, making them 
administrators of a divine law.^ Jesus, on the con- 
trary, had been consecrated and sent into the world, . 
and represented God, therefore, in a sense which they 
did not. They were ofB.cial members of a theocracy 
and represented God as the administrators of a divine 
law: he was personally consecrated to his work by 
God himself, and commissioned by him. And yet he 
had called himself only Son of God, whereas they, 
with their merely official claim to divine authority 
were called gods. The thing that he claims for him- Jesus as the 
self here, as justifying himself to be God's own Son, ^^^ ^^ ^*^^" 
was this fact, that he represented God. He stood to 
men for God. This is essential to an understanding 
of his position, for this is not an isolated statement, 
but is insisted on wherever this matter of his claim 
comes up. There is no mention of the Logos as the 
source of his divinity, but of the fact that the in- 
dwelling of the Father in his humanity made what- 
ever he did and was divine.^ This makes the seeing 
of him and of the Father to be one and the same 
thing. It is not a concession, but a claim, that his 
teaching is not his own, but the Father's. Indepen- 
dence is what has been claimed for him here, but he 
considers that any approach to this would derogate 
from his claim, instead of enhancing it.^ 

The comprehensive answer of this Gospel to the The work of 
question as to what Jesus does for men, is that he °^^ ^'^*^' 
gives them life. This is in accordance with the state- 
ment of his creative work, which is attributed to the 
life which he has in himself.* This life is both spirit- 
ual and physical. The main statement of it is in 5 : 

110:33-38. « 7 : 16; 8 :26 ; 12:49-60. 

2 10 : 33-38. * 1 : 4. 



Eternal life 
vs. immor- 

Sonship as 
the condi- 
tion of faith. 

21-30, and in this passage verses 21-26, inasmucli as 
they make the bestowment of this life depend on an act 
of judgment, refer to the spiritual life; but verses 
27-28 denote a universal resurrection, which is evi- 
dently physical, because indiscriminate. But in other 
passages, the rising up at the last day is treated as 
the fiual step in the bestowment of eternal life, and is 
restricted to believers.^ 

This conferring of life after death upon all, while 
resurrection and the eternal life are restricted to 
believers, is coincident with the Pauline statement. 
But in order to understand the predominance of the 
spiritual element in this life bestowed by Jesus, we 
have to recur to the statement of the Prologue, that 
the life-giving power resident in the Logos was the 
light of men, meaning the source of the higher life 
which distinguishes man from the brute, the faculties 
of reason, judgment, intuition, moral sense, apprehen- 
sion of God, and the like. That Jesus is the life of men 
means, therefore, that he has the power of quickening 
these dormant faculties. 

This statement, that the process is one of spiritual 
renovation, implying the death or dormancy of the 
previous state, is the meaning of the passage in regard 
to the new birth,^ and of the passage which treats of 
Jesus as having life in himself.^ But owing to the 
peculiar philosophy of this book, this doctrine, so 
radical if we take it at its face value, becomes very 
much modified. According to this philosophy, Jesus 
becomes a test of man's affinity for the truth, and 
belief in him, which is the condition of eternal life 
bestowed by him, is possible only in those who are 
already children of light. There are various names 
for these contrasted states which produce belief or 


« 3-: 3-9. 

« 6 : 21-27. 


unbelief. Men are, for example, children either of 
God or the devil ; of light or darkness. Or more con- 
cretely, they are doers of good or evil.^ This is pre- 
cisely the opposite of the ordinary Christian truth, 
that belief in Jesus makes men sons of light or dark- 
ness. The doctrine of this Gospel is that the sonship 
produces the belief, instead of the belief the sonship. 
In like manner, the Spirit of truth, part of whose 
work is to convince the world, the world cannot 
receive, because it does not behold or know him.^ 
Men who are of the truth hear his voice. All this 
might be taken as meaning that men must be changed 
before they believe. But the passage which makes 
the condition of belief doing ill or doing truth, 
removes this possibility. No, the evident teaching Pre-Chris- 
is that previous to Christ's coming there were other eJfc°g"or " 
like agencies, such, for example, as the law, or the good. 
Greek philosophy, which divided men into classes, 
disclosing in them affinities either for good or evil, 
and that when Christ came with the fulness of light, 
men were drawn to him, or repelled from him, accord- 
ing to their previous attitude toward the dimmer 
light that preceded him. This is very different 
from the anthropology of the parables, according to 
which human nature as such has this affinity for the 
truth. It is another reading of the parable of the 
sower and of the tares, which deals with the second- 
ary truth that there are differences among men which 
determine their present attitude toward the truth. 
The difference between the two is that the one goes 
on to the ultimate fact of the essential aptitude of 
humanity for the truth which the other denies. 

Under this general head, that the gift which Jesus 
has to bestow is life, come those passages which com- 

1 8 : 19-21 ; 8 : 38-47. » 14 : 17. 



Jesus the 
ment of 
eternal life. 

pare him to the various elements which feed life. He 
is the bread of life/ the light of life.' He is the vine, 
of which the disciples are the branches.' It is a curi- 
ous turn which is given to the statement that he is 
the bread of life, that, instead of allowing this to 
remain as a general figurative statement of his min- 
istering to the spiritual life of men, he explains it of 
his flesh, which he will give for the life of the world. 
In all probability this refers to the sacrament of the 
Lord's Supper. Its relation to the words of institution, 
" This is my body," and " This is the new covenant in 
my blood," is too obvious to be set aside. And this 
being the case, there are two parts of its exposition 
of the sacrament which command attention. The 
first is the emphasis of the fact that the sacrament 
is a ritual embodiment of the general truth that Jesus 
is, especially in his death, the food of the spirit. His 
death is not, according to this, a sacrificial appease- 
ment, a satisfaction for sin, in which case the eating 
and drinking would be out of place. But, as the 
supreme good of life is to be found in self-sacrifice,* 
Jesus becomes, by this supreme act of self-sacrifice, 
the inspiration of the spiritual life, to which this 
gives the key. The second fact is brought out in the 
statement which translates the eating and drinking 
into faith." There is, therefore, nothing magical 
about the elements, which makes the mere eating a 
means of grace, but the benefit depends on the faith 
of which the eating and drinking are signs. As when 
we speak of drinking in beauty or truth, or say of 
anything satisfying that it is meat and drink, so we 
speak of eating and drinking of our Lord's self-sac- 
This accords strictly with everything that is said 

1 6 : 32-69. 

2 8 : 12. 

» 15 : 1-8. 
« 12 : 24, 26. 

6 6:35. 


in this book regarding the death of our Lord. There The death of 
is absolutely nothing implying divine appeasement, *'^^"^- 
while there is much which places the death of Jesus 
among the things which contribute to the spiritual 
life of man. For example, in the passage just 
quoted, the reason alleged why the flesh of the Son 
of man is true food, is that he has life in himself, 
just as the Father has life in himself, that is, a crea- 
tive life, and in the case of man a life which is light. ^ 
So, when Jesus sees in the application of the Greeks 
to see him a sign that the time has come for his glori- 
fication, and that the glorification is to be through 
his death, the fact is put on the same general ground 
as in the Synoptical discussion, viz. that to lose one's 
life is the only way to save it.* It becomes thus a 
general principle, which brings his death under the 
common laws affecting human life, and not into a class 
by itself. He makes his cross, not that by which 
God is to be appeased, but by which men are to be 

The condition of this spiritual life is faith. This Faith the 
is, primarily, belief in Jesus himself.* But the reason ^^Jg'^/j'/e ° '*' 
alleged for this belief, and other statements about it, 
are such as to emphasise the correspondence of Jesus 
with the eternal truth of things, and so make faith a 
spiritual act, drawn forth by the power of truth to 
command belief. The result of abiding in his word, 
by which is meant a persistent belief in him, is knowl- 
edge of the truth, and the truth sets free.* He that 
is of the truth hears his voice.® On the other hand, 
because he speaks the truth men do not believe him, 
and they are of the devil, who is a liar from the 
beginning.^ Spiritual affinities decide both ways. 
The same thing is expressed figuratively when belief 

11:3,4. 8 12:32. 6 8:31-36. '8:43-45. 

2 12 : 23-26. * 3 : 16-21. « 18 : 37. 


in Jesus is identified with coming to the light.* They 
are exhorted, while they have light to believe in the 
light ; and he has come, a light, that they who believe 
may not walk in darkness.* On still another side, 
belief is identified with appropriation of spiritual 
food.^ All this connects together not only belief and 
reason, but also faith and its results. The effect of 
faith is almost invariably eternal life.* But this con- 
nection between faith and light, spiritual food and 
the like, means that it introduces them to those agen- 
cies which produce and sustain this life. On still 
another side, faith recognises a representative side of 
our Lord's manifestation. Belief in him is belief in 
God. He who believes in him has put his seal on 
this, that God is true, because he whom God has sent 
speaks the words of God." It is the one who hears 
his word and believes on him who sent him, who has 
eternal life." The work of God is to believe on him 
whom he sent.^ 
Faith the It is an indication of the difference between the 

work of Synoptical and the Johannean point of view, that the 
fourth Gospel declares that the work of God is to 
believe on him whom he has sent.* It is the difference 
between the personal and impersonal bent of the one 
and the other. The subject of the one is the kingdom 
of God, and of the other our Lord himself. Whenever 
belief is spoken of in the Synoptics, it is belief in the 
glad tidings of the kingdom of God. But the spiritual 
act which harmonises best with the idea of the king- 
dom is not faith, but obedience. To be subjects of the 
kingdom is the idea that it presents of human life. 
And this is what the Synoptics emphasise. It is, to 


6 3 : 31-56. 

« 12 : 36, 46. 

6 5 : 24 ; 17 : 8. 

» 6 : 26 sq. 

T 6 : 29. 

♦3:15, 16,36; 6:40,47. 

8 6 : 29. 


be sure, an obedience which is both inward and out- 
ward, but primarily inward; but the essential idea is 
obedience ; the standard is law. 

On the other hand, with the personal subject of the The natural- 
fourth Gospel, faith becomes the equally natural de- ^^^^^ *"^"- 
mand. Jesus appears making a claim, which is in 
debate from beginning to end of the book, and his 
demand is therefore belief. There can be no doubt of 
the relative importance of the two. Belief is the in- 
spiration of goodness, and when it is complete, its sure 
fruit is goodness. But it is not itself goodness. It 
needs to add to itself other qualities before it eventuates 
in goodness. And it is the goodness itself that is the 
real goal, the ultimate divine command. This is ap- 
parent from the relative position of faith and love in 
the Christian scheme, even as expounded by Paul. 
Faith, hope, and love are to him the things that abide, 
and the greatest of these is love. But love, Jesus 
says, is law. 

But while there is this emphasis on faith, there is Faith and 
no opposition of faith and works. When our Lord ^°'^^^- 
declares that his flesh is the food of the Christian life, 
and that faith is the real partaking of it, he makes his 
self-sacrifice to be the thing which imparts life, and 
thereby gives the highest ethical quality to faith. And 
everything the book says about the eternal life, and 
about the faith which is the condition of it, empha- 
sises the same high ethical note. But besides this 
ethical quality of faith itself, there are passages which 
make obedience, rather than faith, the condition of 
blessing. In one place obedience and faith are used 
interchangeably, obedience in the second clause being 
substituted for faith in the first clause.^ In another 
passage, eternal life is conditioned, not on belief, but 

o 1 3 : 36. 



The virtues 
in this 

on keeping his word.^ In another passage, this con- 
dition is not the merely general one of keeping his 
word, but the hardest command of all, that a man hate 
his life.^ And service of Jesus is made identical with 
following him in his path of self-sacrifice. In the 
last discourse of Jesus with his disciples, love of him 
is emphasised rather than faith, and obedience is made 
the test of love.^ 

The virtues selected for mention and emphasis in 
this Gospel are self-sacrifice,* humility,* and love,® the 
test of which is again self-sacrifice,' We note in this 
enumeration, first, its emphasis of self-sacrifice. It 
makes this the source of our Lord's spiritual power, 
and imitation of it the condition of his blessing. Sec- 
ondly, we notice the comparative meagreness of the 
list. The great excellence of this book is the magni- 
fying of the inner life, a life that has its roots in be- 
lief of the highest things. Is there any possible flaw 
in this conception ? Yes, there is a subtle danger, 
and it is the danger from which Christianity has suf- 
fered from the beginning. There may be so much 
attention given to the roots ot things as to miss the 
fruits. It is a great thing to be told that what Christ 
bestows on us is life, and that this life has its roots in 
faith in Christ. But if the revelation does not go on 
to tell us the meaning of this in terms of human rela- 
tions and conduct, if life and faith do not turn their 
light upon our lives, and show us the things to do, this 
great thing is after all defective. The meagre list of 
virtues in this book reveals just this defect. Thirdly, 
the love enjoined here is love of Christ's disciples for 
each other. It is enjoined, too, as the new command- 

18": 51. 

a 12 : 24. 

« 14 : 15 ; 15 : 10, 14. 

* 6 : 61-58 ; 12 : 24 sq. 

6 13 : 1 sq. 

« 13:34, 35; 15 .12 sq. 

f 15 : 13. 


ment, the hitherto undiscovered duty which our Lord 
brings out of the treasure house of his thought just as 
he is about to leave them, and when the flowering out 
of his own life into its perfect beauty enables him to 
sum up its lesson in a single word. And this is one 
side of that beauty. The love of God and his Christ 
begets in us love of everything like them. It makes 
us love beauty, goodness, truth, and every one in whom 
these things dwell. But if this is Jesus' last word, 
then his last word is not the last word, and we shall 
have to seek for ultimate truth elsewhere. No, the 
one word which the Christ-life has to utter is love, 
unlimited love, and its highest manifestation is not 
love of like things, but of unlike, the love of the right- 
eous God for sinful men. This Gospel says, " Greater 
love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his 
life for his friends." Jesus says. Far greater love is 
mine — for I lay down my life for enemies. 

Can we not see at last where this comparative study The suprem 
of the New Testament books is leading us? The ^^rdso?^ 
supremacy of those books which contain the words Jesus, 
of Jesus himself is that they incorporate with the 
other elements of the religious life the regulative 
will. Here, for instance, is the Gospel of the contem- 
plative life, which, beholding as in a mirror the glory 
of God, is changed into the same image from glory 
to glory. The belief is that, with this beholding, life 
will take care of itself. Life will never take care 
of itself. Among other things, after the most perfect 
vision, it has to ask what aspirations, principles, af- 
fections, belong to life, and then to cultivate the will to 
embody these things. Here is the common defect of 
all religions. They fail to marry religion to the com- 
mon life. Christ did not stop short of this final word, 
but if we leave him for even the greatest of his disci- 
ples, we are in danger of missing it. 


This Gospel contains the fullest statement about 
the Holy Spirit to be found in the New Testament. 
In these writings throughout, he figures in the same 
general way as the immediate source of divine gifts, 
of revelations and miracles, especially of those mani- 
festations of the divine in our Lord, and of that grace 
in the regenerate man by which he resists the law of 
sin, and brings forth the fruit of love, joy, and peace. 
In the book of Acts, Pentecost is introductory to the 
whole history, as the descent of the Spirit at the bap- 
tism of our Lord is in the Gospels. The special part 
of the Johannean exposition, as we should expect, is 
the relation of the Spirit to Christ, showing how the 
transfer of the centre of gravity from our Lord to the 
Spirit is justified in a writing in which Jesus has 
been the central figure. He takes the place of Jesus 
as a helper to his disciples, and has this advantage 
over him, that he is permanent whereas Jesus is only 
temporary.^ Owing to this fact, he will guide them 
into all truth, while Jesus at the last has many things 
to say which they cannot bear.* It is by Jesus' own 
act, and to subserve his purposes, that the Spirit is 
sent.' He represents not himself, but the Son, as the 
Son in his turn represents the Father. He takes of 
the things of Christ, to reveal to us, and he speaks 
only what he hears.* The coming of the Spirit is 
really Jesus' own return to his disciples, so complete 
is this identification of the two.* 

The eschatology of the fourth Gospel is very slight. 
What there is of it is of the same pattern as the New 
Testament eschatology generally. But it is quite 
characteristic that this book, with its tendency to 
rationalise everything, should have little to say about 
a subject so prominent in other books of the New 

1 14 : 16. 2 16 : 12, 13. « 16 : 7. 

* 15 : 26 ; 16 ; 13-15. » 14 : 16-24 ; 16 : 13-24. 


Testament. The general teaching of the book is that 
the final award is life. But life is not a thing for 
which one has to wait ; he who believes has it already. 
And on the other hand, he who does not believe is 
condemned already, because he has not believed. As 
these two awards are made in this life, so the judg- 
ment on which they are based belongs to the same 
time, the impressive present of this book.^ Yet there 
is a last day, and at that time Jesus consummates 
his gift of eternal life by raising up those who be- 
lieve.^ He raises all men alike also,^ but there must 
be some special sense in which he raises only believers. 
While the essential thing which he bestows is im- 
mediate, the future contains what the present does 
not. And while the word is not used, it is evident 
enough that this future reward is, as usual, heaven. 
That is the meaning of the " many mansions," * and 
of the prayer, that his disciples might be with him.* 

It is a good lesson in the art of discriminating Paul and the 
between the different writers, to notice how Paul puts ^^^^ ^^^ 
the essential salvation into the future, and calls the 
present gift of the Holy Spirit simply a pledge, while 
this book dwells only slightly on the future, and 
emphasises the immediateness with which whatever is 
essential in salvation follows belief. Only one thing 
is said about Jesus' own coming, except what has 
already been pointed out as identifying his coming 
with the Holy Spirit. And while this one thing — 
the possible tarrying of the beloved disciple until the 
coming of Jesus — is enigmatical, it agrees with the 
teaching of the New Testament generally as to his 
coming in the near future.® 

The attraction of this book, which leads many 
theologians to put it at the head of the list of New 

1 3 : 16-21. 8 5 : 29. « 17 : 22-26. 

a 6 : 39, 40. * 14 : 1 sg. « 21 : 22, 23. 


The " spirit- Testament books, is its exaltation of the person of our 
the^fourth^ Lord on the one hand, and its spirituality on the other. 
Gospel. But it needs to be clearly understood just what gives 

it this character. Both its doctrinal treatment of 
Christology and its spiritual method have their roots 
in Alexandrianism. And Alexandrianism is a very 
specialised scheme of thought, no mere general spir- 
itual attitude of mind, but a very definite philosophy. 
For example, in this philosophy, the essential thought 
underlying everything else, but especially its doctrine 
of the Logos, is the transcendence of God. He not 
only transcends the universe, but he necessarily trans- 
cends it. Hence the essential thing, next to this 
transcendence, is mediation. Something must bridge 
over this gap, and the mediating agency must on the 
one hand be an emanation from God, not a creation, 
since the agent of creation must be outside of it ; and 
on the other hand it cannot be God himself, since the 
old difficulty of transcendence and incommunicability 
would return. Again, while God is himself trans- 
cendent, it is equally necessary that the mediating 
Logos be immanent. The difficulty with which we 
start does not belong to a purely transcendent scheme, 
in which God fashions his material like a carpenter, 
or a sculptor, but the creative agency must be life, and 
life of course, as a matter of observation, sits within, is 
no external artificer. It is just because creation is an 
immanent process that a transcendent God cannot be 
the immediate agent of it. Immanence as the actual 
process of creation is one of the dicta of this philoso- 
phy, and its first problem, therefore, is the reconcilia- 
tion of this with the transcendence of God. Of course 
incarnation involves immanence, as well as creation, 
and therefore it is the Logos that becomes incarnate 
in the Messiah. For this is where Alexandrianism 
and Christianity come together. Christianity was not 


in search of a philosophy of creation, when it adopted 
Alexandrianism, it was looking for a philosophy of 
incarnation. There was no doubt that Jesus was 
object to God ; his praying, and his title. Son of God, 
show this. Was there any way in which he could 
become subject ? Alexandrianism becomes contribu- 
tory to Christian thought because its hypothesis of the 
divine idea, or word, of creation met this need. 

But the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the fourth The Son and 
Gospel is not, directly at any rate, the product of the fourth ^° 
Alexandrianism. The Logos is himself the immanent Gospel, 
principle in God. He indwells in man, as well as in 
creation. The life is the light of men. But it is 
evident that the Spirit is in the last analysis the 
immanent principle in Christianity. The reason for 
Christ's statement that the coming of the Spirit 
would more than make up for his own departure is 
probably, from the whole spirit and character of the 
book, that he compares the indwelling of the Spirit 
with his own companionship. He dwelt with the 
disciples; the Spirit dwells in them. There are two ^, 

considerations which will help us to clarify this some- 
what diflEicult matter of the relations of the Son and 
Spirit in a book in which they are drawn out as they 
are here. (1.) The Logos is in its very idea a principle 
of incarnation, rather than immanence. It is, in its 
original meaning, act, rather than part, in God. It is 
the divine thought, not the divine mind, that is hypos- 
tatised. And the property of thought in the process 
of creation is incarnation strictly, rather than imma- 
nence. The Logos is hypostatised, and endowed with 
creative life, but it is thought, rather than mind, that 
is so hypostatised. The incarnation is thus not an 
isolated fact. It is really the process of creation, 
which is a continual incarnation of the divine thought, 
and it is this which culminates in the Messianic incar- 



nation. The Spirit, on the other hand, is strictly the 
principle of immanence in the Divine Being. Human- 
ity is, in this system an incarnation, as are trees and 
animals on the one hand, and our Lord on the other. 
But, besides the incarnation, which is the beginning 
of life in both man and the Son of man, the represen- 
tation of this book is that there is a continual indwell- 
ing of God, and the principle of this indwelling is the 
Spirit. It is this distinction of incarnation and 
immanence which differentiates Christian Alexandri- 
anism, as represented in this book, from Alexandrian- 
ism proper, and it is this also which enables us to 
differentiate the functions of the Son and the Holy 
Spirit. (2.) The second consideration is, that our Lord 
himself becomes identified in the fourth Gospel with 
the Logos of which he is the incarnation, as he is 
nowhere else. He speaks the things which he has 
heard in heaven, he prays the Father that he may 
be restored to the glory that he had with him before 
the world was, and he promises to send the Spirit. 
Owing to this identification, the two are identified in 
the thought of men, so that it is the incarnate Logos, 
the Christ, of whom men inevitably think in this con- 
nection. He becomes the object lesson, the Deus in 
petto, through whom the unknown God becomes known 
to us.^ It is thus not the principle of incarnation, the 
incarnating Logos, but the incarnate Logos himself, 
who comes to us in the Christ, and it is properly not 
immanence but incarnation that we associate with him. 
But while this philosophy of the Divine Being is 
thus speculative in its main interest, its occasions are 
intensely practical. Jesus dwelt in the thought of his 
first disciples as one with whom they had associated 
here, and who ruled things in this world after his 

U : 18. 


departure into heaven, — on both sides an objective 
relation. To Paul, who had not this association, he 
became a mysterious being, who dwelt in the Christian, 
and the Christian in him, but one in whom the incar- 
nation of the divine figured only slightly. The human 
life of Jesus, in which he embodied the divine, and 
revealed to men finally what God is, is only now 
beginning to occupy the place in Christian thought 
which belongs to it, because that thought has been so 
largely Pauline. The Johannean thought has this 
distinction, that it combines the two. Jesus is to 
men life, light, food, drink, things which involve both 
incarnation and immanence, since it is only by his 
embodiment of essential divine qualities, that he can 
possibly fulfil these supreme spiritual offices for men, 
and on the other hand, a personal indwelling is the 
divine method of communicating these gifts. But 
the actual indweller is the Holy Spirit, who takes of 
the things of Christ and reveals them to us. This 
text on the one hand, and the statement, "He who 
has seen me has seen the Father," sum up for us the 
theology of the fourth Gospel, giving us its three 
constituent parts : transcendence in the Father, incar- 
nation in the Son, and immanence in the Holy Spirit. 

But the vague impression of spirituality left by the The doctrine 
book needs to be replaced by definite ideas still more °jq" ®™^ 
in regard to its doctrine of men and redemption. The 
feeling that New Testament theology has its culmi- 
nation in this book, is so far from the book's own 
depressing view of human nature that it shows better 
than anything else could the need of clear and definite 
views of the progress of doctrine in the different parts 
of Scripture. The world in this book is essentially 
evil. Moreover, it is finally evil, it is an impracticable 
world. And yet we shall miss the true value of this 
book, if we see in this pessimism anything peculiar, 


rather than something in a sense common to the 
situation. The situation was depressing for a lover 
of his kind, and election, not universalism, was the 
only inference possible. The time given to do all that 
could be done for the world was already past at the 
writing of this book. The end had not come yet, but 
in the First Epistle the writer speaks of this as " the 
last time."^ And although Paul had skimmed over 
the Mediterranean world, and the intervening period 
had added some little to this result, the coming of 
the Lord, now expected at any time, would find a 
practically unconverted world. 
Pessimism This would not disturb so much a person holding the 

as to the Jewish Messianic view, but to one who regarded the 
Messiah and his work in the spiritual light of this 
Gospel, the higher ideal only darkened the reality. 
As at the present time, when the externals of the 
Church tell so different a story from its effects on 
society, its results in the actual bettering of human 
affairs ; so at that time, if the work of the Messiah 
was spiritual in the absolute sense of this book, it 
was evidently a work, not for the world, but for an 
elect people whom the Messiah chose out of the world. 
* To make the situation still worse, the essential feature 
of this winding up was a final judgment, in which 
the question was, not what the Messiah had been 
able to accomplish for men, but what the attitude 
of the world toward him revealed about the world. 
And the only answer possible was, that it was an 
impracticable world. If only the time could be 
extended, either here or beyond, there would be no 
incompatibility between the great work that Christi- 
anity proposed for itself, and the time allotted to it. 
But, as it was, the situation itself is furnished by the 

1 IJn. 2 : 18. 


facts, and this book attempts to find a place for it in 
a reasonable world. And since the possibility of any- 
thing but extreme grace in God disappears with the 
advent of our Lord, the only explanation is an irre- 
deemable world. This is, therefore, the view which 
this book necessarily takes of humanity. As such, it 
is hopeless, and there is hope for only a few chosen 
out from it. But why chosen ? Ultimately of course, 
because of their faith in Christ. It is only this which 
finally makes them sons of God.^ But men are already 
classified before this. They have aptitude for this 
belief, or, on the other hand, a general inaptitude for 
truth, which makes this belief impossible to them.^ It 
is men already classified as good or evil, who come to 
the light or refuse to be put to the test by it. It is 
because men are already Christ's sheep that they hear 
his voice, while those who are not his sheep cannot 
hear. Even when the Spirit comes, whose office it is 
to convince the world, the world cannot receive him. 
Finally, bad men are children of the devil, who was a 
liar from the beginning, and how can they be expected 
to receive the truth ? It is only necessary to finish 
this picture by adding that this is true of mankind 
generally, to make it a gloomy showing for humanity. 
But this, or something like this, was necessary to 
rationalise the situation to one thinking that he stood 
on the confines of this world, immediately facing a 
judgment which disposed of men finally. The writer justification 
justifies it by the presence in the world, first of our ?*fu*P*^^j'' 
Lord himself, and then of the Spirit. His idea is, evi- 
dently, that in them God is giving the world its last 
chance. The Logos before his incarnation has been in 
the world, the light shining in the darkness, but the 

1 1 : 12 ; 3:15 s?.; 12 : 36. 

* 3 : 19-21 ; 6 : 65 ; 7 : 17 ; 8 : 44 ; 10 : 26 s?. ,• 14 : 17 ; 17 : 9, 


darkness apprehended it not. Then comes the incar- 
nation, revealing to men, as the law and the immanent 
Logos could not, the graciousness and truth of God. 
But they did not receive the incarnate Word. Finally 
came the Spirit, whose office was to convince the 
world, but the world could not receive him. And now 
the writer stands at the end of things ; and for the 
world at large, the end is as the beginning. The 
world's treatment of the creative Word is simply a 
prophecy of its treatment of the incarnate Word, and 
of the Spirit, and the result of the whole process is 
the condemnation of the world. It could not be 
helped, it was self-condemned from the beginning. 
It is an impracticable world. 

This result was not imexpected to a Jew. The idea 
of a divine election, not of a world redemption, was 
not new to him. Christianity had changed the terms 
of the election from nationality to the spiritual condi- 
tion for which the elect nation stood. The elect were 
no longer Jews, but believers out of every nation. 
But the idea of election stood as the divine programme 
of the world. An elect few were the final vindication 
of the theocracy. 
The three In affixing the values of this New Testament book, 

acterist^cs'of ^^^^e three things are to be especially remembered : 
the Gospel. (1.) That it insists on transcendence, incarnation, and 
immanence, as three steps in the self-revelation of 
God ; or rather, on incarnation and immanence as two 
steps in the self-revelation of the otherwise transcen- 
dent and incommunicable God. (2.) That it dwells on 
the spiritual office of Christ and the spiritual meaning 
of redemption. (3.) That it is forced, by the universal 
belief of the first century in the coming of the final 
judgment before the death of all of Christ's coutem- 
pories, to despair of the world's salvation. 



There would have been little necessity to treat this The author- 
epistle separately from the fourth Gospel, if it were the^'fourth ^ 
not one of the absurdities of criticism to deny their Gospel, 
common authorship.^ For while there may be a possi- 
bility that two writings so different as Galatians and 
1 Timothy should come from the same person, there is 
no psychological possibility that two writings so alike 
in their unique doctrine and style as the First Epistle 
and the Gospel of John should come from two persons. 
The peculiarity of the style is as marked, for example, 
as that of George Meredith. Nobody else in the whole 
history of literature ever wrote after this unexampled 
fashion. A style in which there is absolutely no prog- 
ress, but a continual recurrence of theme, and com- 
bining this peculiarity with a very marked distinction 
and elevation of thought, and beyond this, a peculiar 
way of combining these and other characteristics, is 
inimitable. Then, too, this likeness of theme and 

1 On the authenticity, date, etc. , of First John, see : Salmond, 
Art. "Epistles of John," Hastings' Diet.; Weiss, Introduction 
to the N. T., II, 174-197 ; Holtzraann, Einleitung in das N. T., 
475-481; Zahn, Einleitung in das N. T., II, 604-676; Gloag, 
Introduction to the Johannine Writings, 215-263 ; Westcott, 
The Epistles of John ; Weiss, Die Briefe des Apostels Johannes, 
(Meyer series) ; Liicke, Kommentar iihcr die Schriften des Eoan- 
gelisten Johannes ; Ilaupt, The First Epistle of John ; Bacon, 
Introduction, etc., in this series. On the teaching of the Epistle, 
see bibliography under " Gospel of John." 


phraseology is unmistakable. The Word which was 
from the beginning with the Father, whose essential 
quality is life, and which was manifested unto us, is 
the starting point of both writings.^ The manifes- 
tation is a coming in the flesh in both.'' Christ is not 
only life but light. Only, in the epistle, his office as 
such is not only to become the light of men, but to 
show that God is light.^ The irreconcilableness of 
the world in what is recognised as the last time, and 
the resulting doctrine of election instead of a world 
redemption, is coincident with the pessimism of the 
Gospel.* The emphasis on love, and the title given it 
of a new commandment, and on the other hand the 
restriction of this to love of the brother are the same 
in both writings.* The emphasis of the spiritual 
meaning of redemption is the same. The incompati- 
bility of belief in Christ with sin, and the identiflca- 
tion of the love of God with the keeping of his 
commandments, is the dominant note of this book. 
The witness of the Spirit, the gift of the Spirit, and 
the inward anointing with the Spirit, are the same in 
both writings.* Throughout, this is no mere harmony 
of teaching, but the constant recurrence of the same 
phraseology, — a phraseology which is unique among 
the books of the New Testament. 

The subject of the epistle is the revelation of God 
in Christ, and the obligation which this lays on the 
Christian. The agent of the revelation is not simply 
the historical Christ, but the Word which was from 
the beginning, and was manifested to us.^ The sub- 
stance of the revelation is that God is light, unmixed 

1 Jn. 1 : 1-14 ; IJn. 1 : 1-4. 

« Jn. 1 : 14 ; 1 Jn. 4 : 2, 3. « 1 Jn. 1 : 6-7. 

*lJn. 2:15-17; 3: 1, 13 ; 4 : 4, 5 ; 5 : 4, 6, 17. 

« IJn. 1 : 15-17. 

» 3 : 24 ; 4 : 13 ; 5 : 6 sg. ; 2 : 20, 27. M : 1-4. 


light, and the obligation that this lays on the believer 
is, that he walk in the light.* The effect of this is to 
create a fellowship of children of the light, this note 
of fellowship being emphasised throughout the epistle. 
But this does not mean the absence of sin : the effect 
is rather the forgiveness of sin, and the purification of 
the believer, through the death of Christ. He is the Propitiation, 
propitiation for our sins, a propitiation which is not 
confined to us, but extended over the world. But the 
writer evidently sees that the forgiveness and expia- 
tion of which he speaks may be taken unspiritually, 
as if God could be rendered propitious to any one 
whose conduct does not please him, but who pleads 
merely an objective expiation. No, the propitiator 
comes with commandments in his hands, and it is use- 
less for any one to plead a knowledge of him which 
does not involve keeping these commands.^ 

But the propitiator brings not only commands, but Ethics, 
an example for men to follow.^ Moreover, these gen- 
eral ideas of command and example need specialising. 
There is one commandment which stands to the front, 
the command to love, not the strange world, but 
the brethren.* There is room for a little doubt here 
whether "brother" is confined to the members of the 
Christian community, but the use of the collective 
term, " the brethren " removes this small doubt.* Also 
the use of the reciprocal pronoun which evidently 
includes only those who exercised the faith of the first 
clause.*' Another passage limits the terms still more 
explicitly, making love of God, who begets in us a new 
life, show itself in loving others who are also begotten 
of him." With these is contrasted the world, which 
they are bidden not to love.^ 

11:5,6. 8 2:6. 6 3 . i4_i6. 75.1. 

2 1:7-2:6. * 2 : 15-17 ; 2 : 7-11. 6 3:23. 8 2:15-17. 



and the 


The situation is a peculiar one, and requires careful 
statement. The quality which distinguishes believers 
from the world is love, and, therefore, the love which 
they have for each other is the love of lovers, and the 
repugnance which they have to the world is repug- 
nance against haters. This is all a legitimate mani- 
festation of the Christian spirit. But there is another 
sense in which they are to love the world, and the 
difl&culty with this epistle, as of the fourth Gospel, 
is that, when it comes to emphasise the thing in man 
which manifests the light, it is not this love of human- 
ity as such, but the love only of those possessing the 
same spirit as themselves. Like the same limitation 
in the fourth Gospel, this is a result of the supposed 
situation at the end of the world, and of regarding 
that as the end of the human probation. It does not 
result from any limitation in the love and grace of 
God, but from the incorrigible evil of the world. 
Love, certainly as an active principle, ceases with 
this finality anywhere. For example, we are not sup- 
posed to love the devil, and this book and the fourth 
Gospel both regai-d the world, with the slight excep- 
tion of the little company of believers, as children of 
the devil. 

The sign that it is the last hour is the existence of 
antichrists. These are men who incarnate the spirit 
of hostility to Christ, while professing Christianity. 
The writer refers to the prophecy of one whose coming 
is the sign of the very last time. These antichrists 
are inferior incarnations of the same spirit whose 
presence in the world is a sign of the immediate com- 
ing of the Antichrist, of whom they are the fore- 
runners. These are the first heretics, that is, men 
professing Christianity, but denying what are regarded 
as its essential features. The point of their heresy is 
a denial that Jesus is the Messiah. Of course, in its 


ordinary sense, this would make them not heretics, 
but unbelievers. It is a constructive unbelief, a belief 
which is a virtual unbelief. Moreover, this unbelief 
in the Son constitutes a virtual denial of the Father.^ 
It is easy to identify this heresy by the statement, The heresy 
that this is he who came not by water only, but by attacked, 
water and blood. Cerinthus maintained that the man 
Jesus and the heavenly Christ were two persons, of 
whom the latter descended on the former at his bap- 
tism, and left him before his crucifixion, since it was 
impossible that the Christ should suffer. Over against 
this, the writer makes the statement that Christ was 
manifested in the death, as in any part of the life 
of Jesus. Moreover, this error eliminates from the 
account the agency of the Spirit in the life of Jesus, 
since it substitutes the Christ for the Spirit at the 
baptism. This occasions the statement that there are 
three witnesses to the identity of the man Jesus with 
the eternal Christ, viz. the Spirit, and the Water, and 
the Blood.^ These heretics were characterised not 
only by this specific error, but by practical and prin- 
cipled antinomianism, which allowed men to neglect 
works of the law, and yet to contend that they were 
without sin, since they believed. Hence the appar- 
ently needless statement, that sin is lawlessness,^ and 
the persistent return throughout the epistle to the 
elemental truth, that for a man to profess fellowship 
with God, and yet walk in darkness, is to constitute 
himself a liar. The same opposition to antinomian- 
ism appears in the seeming truism, that he who doeth 
righteousness is righteous, after the example of Christ's 
righteousness.* The statement which follows, that 
whoever is begotten of God doeth not sin, is to be 
taken of the general conduct of the children of God, 

1 2 : 18-23. 83.4. 

2 3 : 7, 8, R. V. * 3 : 7. 


not as a statement of their absolute sinlessness.^ Nei- 
ther the birth from God, nor from the devil, which 
are given as the roots of this righteousness on the one 
hand, and of this unrighteousness on the other, is an 
original state. In the Johannean theology, men are 
by birth children of neither God nor the devil, but of 
the flesh, a natural state capable of transition into 
either. In this state, men become subject to these 
supernatural influences of good or evil, and pass into 
one or the other fixed state. But while the flesh is 
not a fixed state, it has a bias toward evil, so that the 
world as such comes into the fixed state of evil, and 
only a small company pass into the fixed state of good 
as the children of God. Men are represented as pass- 
ing out of death into life, out of sin into righteousness, 
but faith becomes impossible to him who once is be- 
gotten of the father of lies, and on' the other hand, a 
life of sin, not single acts of sin, becomes impossible 
to the children of God. 
Love as the The epistle passes now from righteousness in gen- 
""i^rk ofthe eral to love in particular, as the mark of the son of 
God. This love is limited as we have seen, but it 
remains true that the characteristic of the Christian 
community is love, and of the outside world, hatred. 
Moreover, this love is no fruitless sentiment, but in- 
tensely practical. Just as he who is righteous doeth 
righteousness, so he who loves does loving acts. He 
must be ready, like Christ, to lay down his life for the 
brethren, and any one who professes love to God and 
looks with indifference on his brother's needs is a liar.* 
Faith, But righteousness consists not only in love but in 

faith, a faith which brings the believer into mystical 
union with Christ, but which has its practical test once 
more in keeping his commandments.* This belief is 

» 3 : 9 ; compare 1:8. 2 3: 10-24. » 3 : 23, 24. 


something which has to be discriminated. There is a 
spirit of error as well as of truth abroad in the world, 
and some of those who profess to teach the faith are 
possessed of the one, some of the other.^ The test is the 
belief in Jesus as the Messiah come in the flesh, not in 
the man Jesus who was in the flesh, and upon whom 
descended the eternal Christ between his baptism and 
crucifixion. This spirit of error is that of the Anti- 
christ^ who is already in the world, not in projiria per- 
sona, but constructively, in these inferior embodiments 
of the same heretical spirit. Here, therefore, is another 
limitation of the love which is to characterise them. 
They are to discriminate in this love, not only between 
believers and unbelievers, but between true and false 
believers.^ This leads up to the most radical statement Religion and 
of the identity of the religious and ethical principle to ^*'^^<^^- 
be found in the New Testament. Love is the ethical 
principle of Christianity, and commonly the statement 
of its relation to the religious principle, the dwelling 
of the soul in God, is that the possession of the reli- 
gious principle necessarily involves the possession of 
the ethical principle. But here we have the reverse 
statement, that to dwell in love is to dwell in God. A 
man may seem to himself and to others a disbeliever, 
but if he has love for the law of his conduct, he is 
really no disbeliever, but a true dweller in God.^ 

The only important remaining teaching is in regard The sin unto 
to the sin unto death, for which men are not bidden to ^^^'''^• 
pray. Really, this is more puzzling than important. 
The writer is talking of the sins to which believers 
are subject, and distinguishes betAveen those which are 
mortal and those which are venial. Evidently, the 
sin that is mortal is the sin by which believers actually 
pass out of spiritual life into spiritual death, a lapse 

1 4 : 1-6. a 4 : G, 7. » 4 : IG. 


back into the world. But inasmuch as life comes 
through the faith or knowledge of God in Christ, the 
sin unto death is conscious or constructive loss of that 

This insistence on a correct belief in regard to the 
superhuman side of Jesus' nature and origin places 
this book among those in the New Testament in which 
pistis has been developed into gnosis, belief into 
knowledge. And especially the identification of sav- 
ing faith with this gnosis, making error in regard to 
this matter a constructive unbelief, a lapse from faith, 
and the men who teach it an incarnation of the spirit 
of hostility to Christ, forerunners of the Antichrist, 
indicates an advanced stage in the development of the 
Gnostic f aith.^ 


The date of the Johannean writings, which has bee^^ a matter of 
the convergence of a number of more or less convincing signs, 
all of which leave the matter more or less in doubt, owing to 
the absence of any one sure sign, is fixed by the allusion to Ce- 
rinthianism in the First Epistle. As long as the heresy spoken of 
was treated in a vague way as a sort of Gnosticism, or with 
slightly more definiteness as Docetism, no special value was 
attached to it as a chronological datum (4.1-3; 5:6-8). But 
Cerinthianism is definite in both its marks and date, being 
associated with the one person whose name it bears. His 
period marks the very close of the century, from 97 a.d., on. 
This would make the time of the opposing Johannean writings 
probably the beginning of the second century. K John himself 
is their author, therefore, it would constitute a remarkable 
literary phenomenon, standing quite by itself in the history of 
letters, being no more nor less than the production of writings 
which are in the front rank of New Testament books by a cen- 
tenarian. The association of them with John is not unwar- 
ranted probably, owing to the presence in them of his influence 
and teaching. But probably their Alexandrianism is due, not 
to John, but to the writer himself, who put the apostle's actual 
teaching into this speculative form. 


The books of the New Testament are divided into 
the following groups : — 

1. The Synoptic Gospels, giving the teaching of 

2. The early teaching of the Twelve, given in the 
first twelve chapters of the took of Acts. 

3. The Pauline Epistles, including Galatians, 1 and 
2 Corinthians, Eomans, Philippians, Philemon, and 
possibly 1 and 2 Thessalonians. 

4. The later teaching of the Twelve, including 
the Synoptical Gospels, James, 1 Peter, and the 

5. The Alexandrian Group, including (1) Ephesians, 
Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 
Jude, and (2) the Johannean Writings. 

The Synoptic Gospels belong to the later teaching Justification 
of the apostles, not to the earlier teaching. This is ciassifica- 
proved by the liberal attitude of these Gospels toward ^^°^' 
the ceremonial parts of the Mosaic code, a liberalism 
from which the apostles reacted in their early teach- 
ing. Ephesians and Colossians are not included in 
the Pauline writings because they are distinctly 
Alexandrian in their teaching, whereas Paul was not 
an Alexandrian, but a Pharisee in his theological 
thought. (See 1 Cor. 1 : 17-3 : 23.) The wisdom 
against which the apostle contends in this passage, 
means an attempt to interpret Christianity in the 
terms of a secular philosophy j and the only secular 



philosophy applied to this use was Alexandrianism, 
See also Gal. 1 : 14, where Paul describes himself as a 
zealous Pharisee. 

The Pastoral Epistles are classed as un-Pauline, 
partly because of their Alexandrianism, but especially 
because of their appeal to authority. The authority 
appealed to is that of the Church, which implies a 
united Church, teaching one doctrine, whereas the 
Jewish and Gentile churches were divided in their 
doctrinal teaching. 

2 Peter and Jude belong, by the character of their 
teaching, to the Alexandrian group of writings, rather 
than the apostolic teaching. Their minute resem- 
blance shows their interdependence, with the proba- 
bility that Jude is the earlier of the two. 1 and 2 
Peter are separated from each other by a verbal dis- 
sonance which makes it impossible to refer them to 
the same author. 

The Johannean writings are all so persistently 
connected with the name of the Apostle John as to 
make it improbable that the connection means nothing. 
Probably they were written by some disciple of John, 
who put his teaching, in regard to the Master, in its 
present Alexandrian form. The reference to Coriuthi- 
anism in the first epistle makes the probable date of 
this and the fourth Gospel in the beginning of the 
second century (1 John 5:6-8). 
The teach- The teaching of Jesus has for its subject the king- 
ing of Jesus, dom of God. This kingdom, which to the Jews 
meant their national independence and greatness as 
the favoured people of God, Jesus spiritualised. To 
him it meant the spiritual rule of God in the hearts of 
all men. This kingdom he came to establish, without 
force, by the persuasions of truth. 

The law of the kingdom, which in the Jewish view 
was a mixture of ethical principles and ceremonial 



rules, he spiritualised, eliminating all the ceremonial- 
ism. The ethical principles he reduced to two: the 
supreme love of God and the equal love of your neigh- 
bour and yourself. This law he enforced by showing 
love to be supreme in God, so that he makes it his 
supreme requirement of men. 

This spiritual teaching of Jesus the early apostles The teach- 
materialised, reverting to the Jewish view of the "afiy^ ***° 
kingdom. They set up again the ceremonialism of disciples, 
the Mosaic code; they substituted force for persua- 
sion, as the means of establishing the kingdom ; and 
they narrowed the scope of the kingdom, making it 
Jewish, instead of universal. 

Paul revolutionised this materialistic teaching of Theteach- 
the Twelve, revoking again the ceremonialism taught ^"^ ^^ ^*"*' 
by them. In fact, he insisted that salvation was 
impossible under the law which had the effect of 
making all men alike, Jews and Gentiles, sinners. 
He therefore substituted for the righteousness of the 
law, the righteousness of faith. This faith, under 
the old dispensation, he made to be faith in God, and 
under the new dispensation the faith in Christ, espe- 
cially in the sacrificial death of Jesus, which is the 
distinctive element in the Pauline teaching. He made 
the Gospel universal, and himself set out to convert 
the Gentile world. 

The universal sin of men he rationalised, tracing it 
back to the sin of Adam, whose individual sin became 
a race sin. He also located sin in the body or flesh 
of man, making it necessary to rehabilitate not only 
man's spirit, but his bodily part as well. The restora- 
tion of man's spirit he accomplished through the Holy 
Spirit, and the restoration of the body he accomplishes 
through the resurrection, which is not merely a rais- 
ing of the body, but its change and glorification. 

The element in this Pauline teaching which did 



and the 

and the 

away with the ceremonialism of the law the early- 
apostles adopted as their own; but the rejection of 
the law as a whole they steadily opposed. The Sy- 
noptical Gospels, which came from the circle of the 
Twelve, had their origin in this controversy, and were 
intended to show by the authority of Jesus that obedi- 
ence to the law of God was not only a condition of his 
favour but, in the last analysis, the only condition of 
that favour. At the same time it was shown, also on 
the authority of Jesus, that the law was liberalised 
and spiritualised, becoming a law of freedom. 

The Epistle of James, which belongs to the same 
group of writings, though its authorship is uncertain, 
takes up the debate against Paul's doctrine of justifi- 
cation by faith without the works of the law, and 
shows that justification is by faith and works, with 
the emphasis on works. The Apocalypse, which is 
also of an uncertain authorship, engages in the same 
controversy, and denounces, without any delicacy of 
speech, Paul's doctrine of liberty in regard to eating 
meat offered in sacrifice to idols. 

Alexandrianism, which is a philosophy of the uni- 
verse, teaches that creation is impossible to God, since 
he is spirit and the universe is material, and in the 
Greek philosophy spirit and matter cannot mix. Crea- 
tion, therefore, is through the agency of divine emana- 
tions, which are God's creative ideas become personal, 
and possessed of creative power. A lower order of 
these emanations is the angels who represent the 
ideas of individual things. In the early period of 
Christian Alexandrianism, this lower order of divine 
emanations was given a quasi-superiority to Christ, 
as he is the agent of redemption, while they are the 
agents of the higher work of creation. But in the 
later writings of this group, Jesus himself becomes 
the incarnation of the Logos, the supreme divine 


emanation, who represents, not the ideas of individual 
things, but of the universe itself. 

It thus appears that the purely spiritual teaching of Conclusion. 
Jesus becomes in the hands of the Twelve a material- 
ised Jewish Messianism, in the hands of Paul, a return 
in part to the spiritualism and catholicity of our Lord's 
teaching, but, on the other hand, a mixture of theolo- 
gising and priestism with that spiritual element; that 
in the debate between Paul and the Twelve, the early 
Apostles went back to the teaching of our Lord, writ- 
ing the Synoptic Gospels to show his view in regard 
to the matters under controversy ; and, finally, that in 
Alexandrianism the Gospel underwent its last trans- 
formation into a system of speculative philosophy. 

Almost everywhere in the writings of the New 
Testament, however, no matter what their doctrinal 
peculiarities may be, there is present a dominant ethi- 
cal and spiritual note, derived from the teaching and 
influence of Jesus, which was not able to keep out 
elements of change and deterioration, but was able to 
keep everything in subjection to itself. 


Acts, early chapters, 51-57. 

Alexandrian Period, N. T., 132- 

AWandrianism. Colcssians and 
Epliesians, 136-138; Hebrews, 
1G2, 163; fourth Gospel, 198- 

Antichrists, 1 John , 208-213. 

Antinomiauism, 1 John, 209-210; 
2 Peter, 157. 

Apocalypse, 125-131; anti-Paul- 
inism of, 125; autlwr, 126; 
contents, 127, 128; Jewish 
Messianism of, 128, 129; Uni- 
versalisni of, 129; atonement, 
ethical in, 130; composite 
authorship, 131. 

Atonement, Apocalypse, 130; 
Hebrews, 171, 172. 

Beelzebub, 35. 

Bible, differences between books, 

Biblical Theology, definition, 1. 

Christology, of Synoptics, 34-39 : 
early teaching of Twelve, 52, 
53; Paul, 91-100; Philippiaus, 
98-100; James, 115-116; 1 
Peter, 122-123; Colossians, 13(>- 
138; Ephesians, 139; Pastoral 
Epistles, 149, 150; 2 Peter, 1158- 
159; Hebrews, 163-164, 166; 
fourth Gospel, 183-187. 

Church idea, Ephesians, 141. 

Colossians, anthorship, 134 ; her- 
esy controverted, 135, 136; re- 
ply, 13f)-138; Alexandrianism 
of both, 136-138. 

Deutero-Isaiah, 4. 

Ecclesiasticism, in Pastoral Epis- 
tles, 145, 150, 152. 

Ephesians. Christology, 139 ; 
unity in Christ, 139; ChrLst, 
head of creation, universal 
reconciler, 139-141 ; church 
idea, 141. 

Eschatology. Synoptics, 44-48 ; 
early teaching of Twelve, 56; 
Paul, 84-90; 2 Peter, 157, 158. 

Eucharist, original idea, 33. 

Faith, Synoptics, 16, 17; James, 
110-112 ; 2 Peter, 154-156 ; He- 
brews, 170; fourth Gospel, 
191-194 ; 1 John, 210, 211 ; faith 
and works, Paul, 58-65 ; James, 

Fourth Gospel, 193, 194; date, 
212; contrast with Synoptics, 
174-176 ; parallels between 
fourth Gospel and Synoptics, 
177-181; subject, 182; Logos 
doctrine, 18.'5-185; Christology, 
184-187; work of Jesus, 187- 
191; faith, 191-193; faith and 
works, 193, 194; Holy Spirit, 
196; Alexandrianism, 198-201; 
pessimism, 201-207. 




Gnosis. Pastoral Epistles, 146- 

148 ; 2 Peter, 154-156. 
God, doctrine of, in Synoptics, 

13-23; Jewish contribution to 

doctrine, 14; Fatherhood, 19; 

judgments, 22 ; grace, 23; law 

of love, 20. 
Gospels, doctrine of Synoptic, 1- 


Hebrews, epistle to, 160-173 ; au- 
thorship, 160; allegorism, 160- 
162; object of epistle, 162; 
Alezandrianism, 162, 163; 
Christ's superiority to angels, 
162-164; to Moses, 105; to Le- 
vitical priestliood, 166-168 ; sec- 
ond tabernacle vs. first, 168- 
170; definition of faith, 170; 
the incarnation, 171 ; the atone- 
ment, 171-172. 

Heresy, Colossians, 135, 136 ; Pas- 
toral Epistles, 146-148 ; 2 Peter, 
157, 158 ; 1 John, 209, 210. 

Holy Spirit, Paul, 80-83 ; fourth 
Gospel, 196. 

Hope, 1 Peter, 118-121. 

Incarnation, Hebrews, 171. 

James, epistle, authorship, 101- 
103; teaching, 109-117 ; relation 
to Jesus' teaching, 109, 110 ; re- 
lation to Paul's teaching, 110- 
112 ; law of liberty, 114, 115 ; 
Christology, 115, 116. 

Jesus' teaching, 1-50 ; doctrine of 
God, 1-23; Christology, 34-39; 
Messianic kingship, 37, 38; 
Messianic titles, 36 ; conception 
of man, 40-43; eschatology, 

Jesus, works of, in fourth Gos- 
pel, 187-191; effect of death, 
early teaching of Twelve, 53 ; 
Paul, 74-79; 1 Peter, 121. 

Jewish literature, uncanonical, 2. 

Johannean writings, 174-213; 
fourth Gospel, contrast with 
Synoptics, 174-176 ; parallels 
between John and Synoptics, 
177-181. See Fourth Gospel, etc. 

John, first epistle, authorship, 
205-206; subject, 206; ethical 
emphasis, 207; Antichrists, 
208-213: Cerinthianism, 209; 
Antinomianism, 209-210; sin 
unto death, 211, 212. 

Kingdom of God, Jesus' teaching, 
10-12, 24-33; idea and form, 
24; condition of membership, 
24; obedience unforced, 25; 
methods of, parables, 25 ; law 
of, 27-33; spiritual interpreta- 
tion of law, 27-32. 

Law of liberty, 114, 115; of love, 

Levitical priesthood, Hebrews, 

Logia of Matthew, 7, 8. 

Messianic idea. 4. 

Messianism, Jewish, early teach- 
ing of Twelve, 54, 55 ; Apoca- 
lypse, 128-131 

Miracles of Jesus, significance, 
14-16; relation of faith to, 

New Testament books, groups of, 

Pastoral Epistles, authorship, 
144, 145; appeal to authority, 
145; ecclesiasticisra, 145, 151, 
152; heresy attacked, 146-148; 
teaching ethical, 148, 149; 
Christology, 149, 150; doctrine 
of salvation, 150; doctrinal 
simplicity, 150, 151. 

Paul, writings, 5; teaching of, 
58-60 ; sin and law, 58-65 ; law 



abolished, 5&-62; substitution 
of faith, 62; universal sin, 
rationale, 63, 64; sin super- 
ficial, 65; righteousness of 
faith, 66-79; election, 71, 72; 
Jesus' death, doctrine, 74-79; 
Holy Spirit, 80-83; salvation, 
completion of, 84-90; Chris- 
tology, 91-100; in Philippians, 

Peter, authorship of first epistle, 
103-107 ; address and date, 118 ; 
teaching, 118-124; general sub- 
ject, 118-121; contrast with 
Pavflinism, 120, 121 ; redemp- 
tion, 121, 122; Christology, 
122, 123. 

Peter, second epistle, 153-159; 
authorship, 153, 154 ; gnosis, 
154-156 ; a pseudonymous 
prophecy, 156 ; heresies at- 
tacked, 157, 158; Christology, 
158, 159. 

Righteousness of faith, Paul, 66- 


Salvation, Pastoral Epistles, 150. 

Servant of Jehovah (Yahweh), 4. 

Sin, doctrine of, in Synoptics, 40- 

Sin and law, Paul, 58-65. 

Sin unto death, 1 John, 211, 212. 

Son of God, 36. 

Son of man, 36. 

Synoptics, origin, 7-11; anti- 
Judaism, 7; belong to later 
apostolic writings, 9. 

Twelve, early teaching, 5, 51, 57 ; 
later teaching, 5, 101-131 ; early 
teaching, sources, 51 ; histo- 
ricity, 51, 52; Jesus, ofiice and 
work, on earth, in heaven, on 
his return, 52, 53; his death, 
53 ; his person, 54 ; Jewish Mes- 
sianism, 54, 55; emphasis of 
second coming, 56; Jewish 
legalism, 56-57. 

Wealth, Jesus' hostility to, 28, 



Professor in the Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge, Mass. 


Crown 8vo. Cloth. $1.50 

New Unity : 

" The book is a novelty. It is an interesting experiment. It is worth 
writing and therefore worth the reading. Professor Nash undertakes to 
demonstrate the moral thread in history. He follows this moral line alone. 
It is in order to show the rise and growth of the social conscience. 
The style of the book is crisp ; but it is never dull." 

The Critic : 

" The pages glitter with bright sayings ; there are many attractive 
passages. The book is more than a tacit protest against the materialistic 
explanation of history." 


i2mo. Cloth. $1.50 

Nashville Banner : 

"The author goes into the work with an earnestness, breadth, and 
intelligence that gives great interest to what he has to say." 

Charleston News and Courier : 

"The value and significance of Professor Nash's lectures lie chiefly 
in the advanced ground which he takes up with regard to the authority of 
the Bible and the Church in the matter of religious and social ethics. He 
begins by the assertion that the Bible marks out the road along which 
conscience must travel if it would treat our life on earth with abiding 
seriousness. But he is careful to show that the Bible should be seen and 
regarded in the light of history." 



New Testament Handbooks 



Professor of New Testament History and Interpretation, 
University of Chicago 

Arrangements are made for the following volumes, and the publishers 
will, on request, send notice of the issue of each volume as it appears and 
each descriptive circular sent out later; such requests for information 
should state whether address is permanent or not : — 

The History of the Textual Criticism of the 

New Testament 

Prof. Marvin R. Vincent, Professor of New Testament Exegesis, 
Union Theological Seminary. \^Now reaify. 

Professor Vincent's contributions to the study of the New Testament rank him 
among the first American exegetes. His most recent publication is " A Critical 
and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon " 
(Internatinnal Critical Commentary), which was preceded by a " Students' 
New Testament Handbook," " Word Studies in the New Testament," and 

The History of the Higher Criticism of the 

New Testament 

Prof. Henry S. Nash, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, 
Cambridge Divinity School. 

Of Professor Nash's "Genesis of the Social Conscience," The Outlook safd: " The 
results of Professor Nash's ripe thought are presented in a luminous, compact, 
and often epigrammatic style. The treatment is at once masterful and helpful, 
and the book ought to be a quickening influence of the highest kind; it surely 
will establish the fame of its author as a profound thinker, one from whom we 
have a right to expect future inspiration of a kindred sort." 

Introduction to the Boolcs of the New Testament 

Prof. B. Wisner Bacon, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, 
Yale University. 

Professor Bacon's works in the field of Old Testament criticism include " The 
Triple Tradition of Exodus," and " The Genesis of Genesis," a study of the 
documentary sources of the books of Moses. In the field of New Testament 
study he has published a number of brilliant papers, the most recent of which is 
" The Autobiography of Jesus," in the American journal of Theology. 

The History of New Testament Times in Palestine 

'Prof. Shailer Mathews, Professor of New Testament History and 
Interpretation, The University of Chicago. \^Noav ready. 

The Congregationalist says of Prof. Shailer Mathews's recent work, "The Social 
Teaching of Jesus" : " Re-reading deepens the impression that the author is 
scholarly, devout, awake to all modern thought, and yet conservative and pre- 
eminently sane. If, after reading the chapters dealing with Jesus' attitude 
toward man, society, the family, the state, and wealth, the reader will not agree 
with us in this opinion, we greatly err as prophets." 

The Life of Paul 

Prof. Rush Riiees, President of the University of Rochester. 

Professor Rhees is well known from his series of " Inductive Lessons " contributed 
to the Sunday School Times. His " Outline of the Life of Paul," privately 
printed, has had a flattering reception from New Testament scholars. 

The History of the Apostolic Age 

Dr. C. W. VoTAW, Instructor in New Testament Literature, The 
University of Chicago. 

Of Dr. Votaw's " Inductive Study of the Founding of the Christian Church," Modern 
Ckurck, Edinburgh, says: "No fuller analysis of the later books of the New 
Testament could be desired, and no better programme could be offered for their 
study, than that afforded in the scheme of fifty lessons on the Founding of the 
Christian Church, by Clyde W. Votaw. It is well adapted alike for practical 
and more scholarly students of the Bible." 

The Teaching of Jesus 

Prof. George B. Stevens, Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale 

Professor Stevens's volumes upon " The Johannine Theology," " The Pauline The- 
ology," as well as his recent volume on " The Theology of the New Testament," . 
have made him probably the most prominent writer on biblical theology in 
America. His new volume will be among the most important of his works. 

The Biblical Theology of the New Testament 

Prof. E. P. Gould, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Prot- 
estant Episcopal Divinity School, Philadelphia. 

Professor Gould's Commentaries on the Gospel of Mark (in the International Criti- 
cal Commentary) and the Epistles to the Corinthians (in the American Com- 
mentary) are critical and exeeetical attempts to supply those elements which 
are lacking in existing works of the same general aim and scope. \In prepara- 

The Teaching of Jesus and Modern Social Problems 

Prof. Francis G. Peabody, Professor of Christian Ethics, Harvard 

Professor Peabody's public lectures, as well as his addresses to the students of 
Harvard University, touch a wide range of modem problems. The many read- 
ers of his "Mornings in the College Chapel " and his published studies upon 
social and religious topics, will welcome this new work. 

The History of Christian Literature until Eusebius 

Prof. J. W. PI.ATNER, Professor of Early Church History, Harvard 

Professor Platner's work will not only treat the writings of the early Christian 
writers, but will also treat of the history of the New Testament Canon. 




The Social Teachings of Jesus 

An Essay in Christian Sociology 



Professor of New Testament History and Interpretation in 
the University of Chicago 

i2nio. Cloth. $1.50 

Outlook : 

" Such a study is sure to be useful, and if the reader sometimes feels 
that the Jesus here presented has the spirit of which the world for the 
most part approves rather than that which brings its persecution, he 
will with renewed interest turn to the words of Jesus as narrated in the 
four Gospels." 

Christian Index : 

" We commend Professor Mathews's book to all interested in matters 
sociological, exegetical, and to all Christians who desire to know the 
will of their Lord and Master." 

Congregationalist : 

" The author is scholarly, devout, awake to all modern thought, and 
yet conservative and preeminently sane." 

The Evangel : 

♦' Professor Mathews gives the thoughtful reader a veritable feast in 
this essay in Christian Sociology. It is well thought out and carefully 
written. ... It is surely an able book, worthy of careful perusal, and 
gives promise of exerting a permanent influence upon Christian thought 
and life." 



3 2-,f 2" ^2 • 

<''^:': ' M. . 


Santa Barbara 


Series 9482 


II mill II Pill III I III! iji mill 

A 001 

024 254 3 


ii 1,11 i< ih , , i' > I , ii I'l <ii III iij I 

1"' I'll I .! 1. >.,, II M 1 ' ' 1 (i, ' 1 , !, 
■ 'll l||V'i|''.il l-i" Mil I I' 


, ;;iiit;,.i|, d i-;';"!'' 

llliil!;! ' 

1 1 ' i I 

III I'" f; I; 

I I 'i II I "'I 

, In ' h I ' lilt 

' 1 lli I "I 'I i I