^ :•: ^^;«^^tir'::r'^:>¦^;';•:>:f:-;*¦-:-••^

'5»J>i» I hi' , ,{J
YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY Gift of
University of Chicago

THE DECENNIAL PUBLICATIONS OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

THE DECENNIAL PUBLICATIONS

ISSUED IN COMMEMORATION OP THE COMPLETION OP THE FIRST TEN
YEARS OP THE UNIVERSITY'S EXISTENCE

AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD OP TRUSTEES ON THE RECOMMENDATION
OP THE PRESIDENT AND SENATE

EDITED BY A COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE SENATE
EDWAKD CAPPS
STAKE WILLAED CDTTINQ KOLLIN D. SALISBnEY
JAMBS ROWLAND ANGELIi WILLIAM I. THOMAS SHAILEK MATHEWS
CAEL DARLING BUCK FEEDEHIC IVES CAEPENTEE OSKAK BOLZA
JULIDS STIEGLITZ JACQUES LOEB

THESE VOLUMES ARE DEDICATED
TO THE MEN AND WOMEN
OP OUR TIME AND COUNTRY WHO BY WISE AND GENEROUS GIVING
HAVE ENCOURAGED THE SEARCH APTER TRUTH
IN ALL DEPARTMENTS OP KNOWLEDGE

THE MESSIANIC HOPE IN THE NEW
TESTAMENT

THE MESSIANIC HOPE IN THE
NEW TESTAMENT

BY
SHAILER MATHEWS
OP THE DEPAETMENT OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

THE DECENNIAL PUBLICATIONS
SECOND SERIES VOLUME XH

CHICAGO
THE UNIVERSITY OP CHICAGO PRESS
1905

Copyright 1904
BY THE UNIVEESITY OF CHICAGO

TO ERNEST DEWITT BURTON

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Intboduotion. Historical Intei-pretation as a Precondition of
Theological Reconstruction xvii-xx
PART I. THE MESSIANISM OP JUDAISM
Chapter I. The Social and National Messianism of the
Prophets 1
The general character of the Hebrew hope before the Exile —
The hope of the Exile — The new idealism of the Return —
The elements of later messianism.
Chaptee II. The Politico- Social Program of Revolutionary
Messianism 11
The two messianic hopes — The political hope from Judas to
Herod I. — Zealotism and the fall of the Jewish state.
Chapter III. The Apocalyptic Messianism of the Pharisees 21
Section I. The Rise of Apocalyptic : The Day of Jehovah —
The origin of apocalyptic.
Section II. The Apocalypse as a Means of Transition from
Political to Transcendental Messianism : The Pharisees and
apocalyptic — The elements of the new literature — The new
transcendental nationalism.
Section III. The Messianism of the Earlier Apocalyptic:
Ethiopic Enoch — The Book of Jubilees — The Psalms of
Solomon.
Section IV. The Transcendental Messianism of Later Phari
saism : The Assumption of Moses — The Secrets of Enoch —
The Apocalypse of Baruch and 4 Esdras — Inconsistencies
in the literature — The Wisdom of Solomon — The eschato-
logical summum bonum of pharisaism.
Section V. The Essential Elements of Eschatologioal Mes
sianism : The seven messianic elements common to the
apocalyptic literature.
PART II. THE MESSIANISM OP JESUS
Chapteb I. Critical Presuppositions 57
The two classes of sources of the synoptic gospels — General
principles for use of sources — The Fourth Gospel.

xii Table of Contents
Chapter II. The Messianism of John the Baptist 62
Parallelism between the messianism of John and the Phari
sees — The new teachings of John — The non-social empha
sis of John.
Chapter III. The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus 67
I. The Two Aspects of this Teaching: (1) Non-eschatological
elements — (2) Survivals of pharisaic eschatologioal
messianism in the teaching of Jesus.
II. Both Conceptions Authentic : (1) Arguments intended to
show that the eschatology of Jesus is not authentic
— (2) Arguments intended to show that the non-
eschatological elements are not authentic.
III. The Harmonization of the Data : The apocalyptic ele
ment if authentic not merely figurative — The escha-
tological concept primary — The two senses in which
Jesus taught that the kingdom was present.
IV. Summary.
Chapter IV. Jesus' Conception of Himself as Messiah 84
I. The Arguments against Such a Self-Interpretation : The
failure to distinguish between the recognition of Jesus
as Christ and the recognition of his deeds as messianic
— The unjustifiable rejection of the Fourth Gospel.
II. The Data Establishing the Messianic Self-Interpretation
of Jesus : The Baptism — The messianic message and
the Pour — The testimony of the demoniacs — The
reply to John the Baptist — The address at Nazareth
— Caesarea Philippi — The later teaching— The tri
umphal entry — The apocalyptic discourses — The Last
Supper — The confession at the trials.
III. The Self -Designations of Jesus: "The Son of man"—
"Christ"— "Son of God."
Chapter V. The Content of the Messianic Self-Conscious
ness 108
I. The Modifications Made by Jesus in Pharisaic Mes
sianism : (1) His break with pharisaism as a system —
(2) His teaching concerning God as Father— (3) His
rejection of "the Son of David" as a messianic con
cept— (4) Messianic universalism — (5) The suffering
Christ — (6) The resurrection of the Christ.
II. In What Sense Did Jesus Regard Himself as Christ?
An eschatological Christ — His adjustment of this

Table of Contents xiii
self -interpretation to his historical career — The sig
nificance of his death — Messiahship as a concept for
expressing his self-consciousness.
Chapter VI. The Essential Elements in the Messianism of
Jesus 120
The Normative Value of Results Thus Far Obtained.
I. Not a Question between Inherited and Original Con
cepts : The permanent elements in eschatology — Life
in the light of an impending eternity.
II. Messianism Not the Fundamental Element in the Teach
ing of Jesus : His re-emphasis of prophetic ethics —
The Patherliness of God.
III. Messiahship as a Synonym of Incarnation : The life in
and by the Spirit — The messianic title a concept to
express a divine self -consciousness — The personality
of Jesus, thus interpreted, the ultimate fact in histori
cal Christianity.
IV. The Distinction between the Permanent and the Inter
pretive Elements in the History of Jesus : The
self-consciousness of Jesus seen through inherited
self -appellations.
V. Summary • The experience of Jesus the criterion of his
teaching.
PART III. THE MESSIANISM OF THE APOSTLES
Chapter I. The Messianism of Primitive Christianity - 137
Loose Definitions of the Term "Primitive Christianity."
I. Acts as a Source of Our Knowledge of Primitive Christi
anity: The survivals of Jewish messianism in the
teaching of Peter — The new elements in Christian
messianism : the Holy Spirit and the vicarious death
of the Christ.
II. The Messianic Hope in 1 Peter- The Judaistic survivals
and the new elements.
III. The Messianism of the Epistle of James.
IV. The Apocalypse of John : Its consonance with Jewish
apocalyptic messianism — Historical identifications —
Its similarities with primitive Christian hopes
Chapter II. The Eschatological Messianism of Paul 163
I. The Pauline Messianism Grounded in That of Judaism :
Comparison of material.

Table op Contents

II. The Changes Made by the Apostle in His Inherited
Hopes : The significance of the death of the Christ —
As to the Parousia.
HI. Eschatology as a Controlling Factor of Paulinism.
Chapter III. Theological Aspects of Pauline Messianism 177
I. Universal Guilt : The Pauline doctrine of sin conditioned
by a psychology — <rdp^ and wcv/ia — Sin.
II. Death as the Punishment of Sin : Definition of the term.
III. Salvation as Related to the Entire Personality : The
insuflBciency of a merely ethical interpretation.
IV. The Pauline Christology : The pre-existence, incarnation,
and final position of the Christ.
V. Justification as Acquittal at the Coming Judgment : The
formal thought — The assurance born of Christian
experience.
VI. The Atonement Wrought by the Death of the Christ :
The death of Christ an historical rather than a meta
physical fact — As an aid to faith.
VII. Various Details of the Pauline Eschatology : As a whole
it is a generalization of the apostle's knowledge of the
risen Christ — Paul's reticence on certain points due to
the same knowledge.
VIII. Summary.
Chapter IV. The New Life in Christ according to Paul 206
I. Reconciliation and Sonship, Matters of Fact: Ethical
implications of faith in Jesus as Christ — The "gift of
the Spirit" in the Jerusalem church.
II. The Work of the Spirit: The gifts — The "Charismata"
— The new life in the Spirit conceived of (1) eschato-
logioally and (2) dynamically — Ethical autonomy in
Paulinism — Messianic formulas for the new life.
III. Summary.
Chapter V. The Messianism of Post-Pauline Christianity 224
I. The Editorial Element in the Synoptic Gospels: (1)
Tendencies toward messianic precision. (2) The
preference for the miraculous. (3) The messianic
interpretation of the Old Testament. (4) Eschatology.
(5) The vicarious interpretation of the death of Jesus.
(6) The miraculous birth of Jesus. (7) Variant stories
of resurrection.

Table of Contents

II. The Epistle to the Hebrews : General messianic schema
— The Christ as the High Priest — The reinterpreta-
tion of messiahship — Faith.
III. The Johannine Literature : (1) The authorship of the
Fourth Gospel — Eternal life — Jesus as the incarnate
logos. (2) The Epistles of John.
IV. 2 Peter and Jude.
V. Summary.
PART IV. CHRISTIAN MESSIANISM AND THE
CHRISTIAN RELIGION
Chapter I. The Messianic Fraternity 265
Early Christian History as a Corroboration of Results Thus Far
Obtained.
I. Judaism as the Forerunner of Christianity: The "Col
legia" and fraternities of the Roman Empire — The
dispersions — The influence of Judaism on the empire
— The first Christian communities.
II. The Church : The church in the teaching of Jesus — Its
character in early Christianity — Its development and
oflicers — The supremacy of the Holy Spirit.
III. The Church as the "Body of Christ."
IV. Society as Such Not to be Saved.
Chapter II. The Messianic Fraternity in an Evil Age 274
I. Non-Revolutionary Character of Apostolic Christianity:
The practical problem before the apostles— The
purpose of the apostolic ethics— Christian courage.
II. The Attitude of the Christian to the World : Not asceti
cism — The questions of social equality and social
customs — The supremacy of love.
III. Apostolic Ethics Limited to the Church : Reasons for its
indifference to social regeneration : (1) the chrismata ;
(2) eschatological expectations— The new life not to
be thus restrained.
Chapter III. The Family and the Age 289
I. The Problem of Marriage in the Early Church: The
morality of the empire— Marriage and "the end of
the age"— The apostolic elevation of the pure life.
II. The Family : The position of woman —Divorce —Parental
authority — Temporal character of the teaching.
III. Summary.

xvi Table of Contents
Chapter IV. The Economic and Political Bearing of the
New Life 301
The Commercial Environment of Early Christianity.
I. Concerning Wealth : The teaching of Jesus — Charity —
Suspicion of the rich — The influence of eschatology.
II. Concerning the State : The teaching of Jesus and the
practice of the early church — Temporal character of
apostolic political teaching — Eschatological expecta
tion versus Christian life.
Summary 317
Index of Subjects 325
Index of References 329

INTRODUCTION
Theological reconstruction that shall in any true
measure be based upon the New Testament is dependent,
not only upon strictly philological exegesis, but also upon
that larger historical exegetical process that endeavors to
separate the content of a correctly apprehended teaching
from the historical form in which it is cast. It is only
when this form is resolved that the content stands clear,
and it is in the content of biblical teaching alone that men
of today can feel more than an antiquarian interest. To
make the form co-ordinate with the content is to perpetuate
an outgrown method and vocabulary. Theological teachers
cannot hope to have modern significance if they force their
followers first of all to think as did men of the past and to
express truth as did men of the past. Theologians, of all
men, should not be anachronistic.
How generally recognized this view has become in
practical teaching may be seen in the abandonment of some
of the most explicit directions of the New Testament on the
ground that they were intended primarily and exclusively
for Christians in some city like Corinth. Thus, for instance,
few teachers would today assert that women should not
speak in meetings, or that there was any divine regulation
concerning the length of a Christian's hair. At the same
time, these same teachers would assert that the general
principles of orderly conduct and modest deportment which
found expression in the apostle's directions to Grseco-
Eoman Christians are as applicable to the Christians of
today as to those of nineteen hundred years ago. In a
much larger way the same statement applies to the Mosaic
legislation. The teacher of today must endeavor to main-

xviii Intboduotion

tain such of its underlying principles as are not outgrown
by a Christian civilization, while distinguishing and rejecting
their particular and historical embodiment.
All this, the outcome of the practical considerations of
Christian experience, is, however, but one phase of a very
inclusive matter, viz., such a treatment of the Scriptures,
and especially of the New Testament, as will enable one
easily and with reasonable accuracy to distinguish between
the truth and its biblical expression. Or, to put the matter
a little differently, the presupposition of all theological
reconstruction is the existence of criteria which shall enable
one to distinguish the concepts and processes which con
ditioned the biblical writers from the religious experience
and truth which admittedly constitute the real substance of
what we call revelation.
Such criteria will be foimd among the thoughts and con
cepts current in the biblical period. Not that all such
thoughts and concepts were consciously used as merely
formal. More probably many, if not all, of them were
believed to embody as well as to typify realities. There
can be no doubt, for instance, that the ancient world actually
believed that the earth is fiat, and that the sun actually
moves across the heavens. Such a cosmology has far-
reaching effects in biblical theology, and must be allowed for
in every case. There are many passages in both Testaments
which a man under the influence of today's cosmic truths
must have great difficulty in understanding. Similarly,
many religious concepts, which to later ages have seemed
very crude and naive, were regarded as essential truth
by the men of the first Christian century. The criterion is,
therefore, not the valuation accorded a given concept by
those who used it, but the actual existence of that concept.
If it be urged that such current concepts may be essentially
as well as formally true, the only reply for the historical inter-

Intboduotion xix

preter can be an assent to the possibility. Such concepts
may be essential; they may be formal; they may con
ceivably be both. Yet periods which may care to reproduce
the truths embodied in these concepts cannot be content to
remain in such uncertainty, and will attempt, at least, to
distinguish between the two possible valuations of the
current beliefs of the past. The first step in the historical
process, however, is not this distinction, which in fact is
apologetic rather than historical, but is a formulation and an
exact estimate of the place any concept holds in a given
system of thought. After such an estimate is gained, one
may well decide as to its formal or essential character. By
that time the decision should have become reasonably easy.
If the concept appears to be wholly a priori, in no clear way
expressive of facts of experience, but is rather the outgrowth
of rhetoric, faith, hope, and other emotions ; and if it appears
chiefly as interpretative and appreciative of what is obviously
experience and personality ; and especially if the concept in
question be one that obviously is derived from a cosmogony
or a theology that does not square with historical and
scientific facts and processes ; it will not be difficult to give
it its true value and significance for the constructive and
systematizing processes. But the historical process can
never be overlooked. We must discover what a concept
actually was, and then discover whether it is present in the
documents under consideration.
Among all the concepts that appear in the New Testa
ment none is more frequently met than that of messianism.
Nor is there one more obviously local and ethnic. The
hope of a divine deliverance from misery was not a product
of classical religion or of Grseco-Roman eclecticism. In the
form current in the first century of our era it was not even
Hebrew. It was Jewish, and, in its most elaborate form,
pharisaic. That it should appear in New Testament litera-

Intboduotion

ture was inevitable, for it was the medium through which
his followers, looked at Jesus, the form in which they
expressed their appreciation of him, and the warp of all
their speculation as to his and their own future. What,
then, is its actual place in the teaching of the early church ?
How far is it formal, how far is it essential, Christianity ?
In attempting to answer these inquiries, the method
which will be followed will be that of historical exegesis.
We shall first of all attempt to discover and formulate the
elements of eschatological messianism as it is found in the
literature of Judaism ; in the second place, we shall examine
the New Testament to see how much or how little of this
element is to be found on its pages ; and, in the third place,
we shall attempt to determine the influence of such an
element in Christian thought, and as far as possible to dis
cover what would be the result upon historical Christianity
if it were removed or, more properly speaking, allowed for.

PART I
THE MESSIANISM OP JUDAISM

CHAPTER I
THE SOCIAL AND NATIONAL MESSIANISM OF THE
PROPHETS
Messianism — or, if only the expression has not assumed
the too distinct connotation of an expected personal Messiah,
the messianic hope — is that fixgd-social belief of the Jewish
people that Jehovah would deliver Israel and erect it into a
glorious empire to which a conquered world would be sub
ject. It sometimes, indeed frequently, involved the hope of
a personal king — the Messiah, the Anointed One of God —
but such an element is far les^ essential' than is implied by
the term itself or its synonyn^ "the messianic hope." The
central and ever-present element of the "messianic hope"
was that of a divinely established deliverance and king
dom. The king was but s/n accessory, and, as will appear
later, might not figure, except by implication, in one's hope
for the nation's future.^ jSTor, even with this limitation as to
its elements, was messianism any fixed concept. Rather it
was ever developing. The child of the prophet's faith in
Jehovah's care for an oppressed Israel, it soon ceased to
share in the peculiar spirit of its parent, and, like nomism,
the other great characteristic of Judaism, passed far beyond
1 A personal Messiah is lacking, or at the best very indistinct, for instance, in
Joel ; Wisdom of Sirach, chap. 33 ; Isaiah, chaps. 24-7 ; Daniel ; in much of Ethiopic
Enoch ; Boole of Jubilees ; Assumption of Moses. Other Jewish literature might be
quoted. The list given by Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im neutestament-
lichen Zeitalter, p. 209, possibly overemphasizes the absence of the personal element.
2 This discrimination is vital for an understanding of the r6le played by messi
anism as a socialized concept. The statement of Wendt (Teaching of Jesus. Vol. I,
p. 69) is true only with this modification : " The expectation of the Messiah was with
out doubt widely prevalent among the Jews in the time of Jesus, but it was not quite
universal and free from doubt." The remainder of the paragraph in question puts
the matter more precisely. So, too (ibid.^ p. 180), he says truly: ''The Messiah was
always conceived as the means whereby the kingdom of God was to be set up."
3

4 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
the limits set by precedent and experience. To understand
the original form taken by Christianity, it is necessary to
sketch this development and to distinguish between those
elements of faith common to all expressions of the hope, and
the fancies or teachings peculiar to the various writings in
which it has been preserved.
From the time that the first Hebrew dared to speak forth
in Jehovah's name and promise his doisTitrodden fellow-
countrymen divine deliverance from all their complaints, the
Jewish race mitigated political oppression with ideal utopias.
Primitive enough were these hopes in some of their aspects,
fit products of a cruel and barbarous age. A conquering
Israel, a Davidic king, a suppliant, terrorized, tortured
world — these were the dreams which Jehovah was to make
real. But, as prophecy advanced in its religious and ethical
content, there was associated with this elemental opti
mism an ever-growing sense of Israel's moral and religious
isolation. As a consequence, although barbarity still dis
played itself in all forecasts of the future of heathendom,
ethical ideals were infused into the hopes for the triumph of
Israel. As the Hebrew religion grew moral, so the Hebrew
Utopias grew religious. Compared with the hopes of New
Testament times, it is true, they were lacking in those tran
scendental elements that are commonly associated with mes
sianism, but they were none the less of the same general
nature. That they were full of social content is clear from
the Hebrew literature,' even if many elements in early litera
ture be attributed to the prophetic spirit of later editors.
The historical basis of the messianic ideal was the glorious
reign of David and Solomon, and in the pictures of the ideal
kings given in the "royal" psalms^ there beats the inextin-
1 For the collection of these sayings see GooDSPEED, Israel's Messianic Hope
(with good bibliography) ; Delitzsch, Messianic Prophecies ; HOhn, Die messior
nischen Weissagungen.
2Pss.2:2^;7-10; 45; 72; 110. C/. Goodspeed, op. cii., pp. 72, 73.

Messianism op the Peophets

guishable optimism of a nation's faith in a divinely assured
future. Early prophets, like Elijah and Elisha, saw in the
religious and political crises resulting from the division of
the kingdom of Solomon an opportunity to urge higher
national ideals upon both the masses and the court. The
calamities that threatened Israel, even during the brilliant
reign of Jeroboam II., served as texts, not only for the dark
forebodings of Amos, but for Hosea's prophecies of pros
perity and peace that would come to the remnant of the
nation when once it turned from idols and foreign alliances •
to a forgiving Jehovah.' In the disasters and miseries that
came to both kingdoms during the days of Tiglath-pileser III.,
Sargon, and Sennacherib, Isaiah unfolded to Judah a religio-
international policy that promised national deliverance and
prosperity under a divinely appointed king,^ and, as if to
guarantee the certainty of the new nation, he set about the
preparation of a "remnant" which should be its nucleus.'
Micah also promised an empire to a faithful nation.^ That
Judah refused to listen to the words of these prophets makes
all the more evident the social and political elements in their
discourses. In fact, even if one should overlook the elabo
rate social provisions of Deuteronomy, prophetism, as a
whole, was concerned with a regenerate Hebrew nation and
a righteous king. That against which it cried out was such
matters as the oppression of the poor, the formation of great
landed estates, luxury, avarice, international policies, and
national bad faith. Yet in denunciation there is the per
sistent trust in the nation's God. Even after the fading of
Isaiah's promised future, Jeremiah, convinced though he was
that Judah must certainly fall before the Chaldeans, yet
1 For instance, Hos. 2jj9-23 ; 14 : 1-8.
2Isa.2:2-4; 4:2-6; 9:2-7; 11:1-9; 19:19-25. a Isa. 8 : 16-18.
4 Mic. 4:1-5. The relevancy of these passages wiU depend upon one's acceptance
of them as pre-exilic. If they are post-exilic, the appropriate passages in the text
should naturally be expunged.

6 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament

looked beyond the approaching captivity to a restoration of
the nation. Jehovah had made a new covenant with his
people,' and his law was to be planted deep in their hearts as
an inward guide. While it is true that the prophet does not
describe in detail ideal institutions, it is clear from his
denunciation of economic oppression^ that just social condi
tions must have figured largely in his conception of the new
covenant and the restored state.
With the exile this religio-political messianic hope, thus
far so general and impersonal, passed into a new stage. The
misery suffered by the Jews deported to Babylon, and the
wonder that Jehovah could permit so great national and indi
vidual suffering, resulted in the formation of that pious
remnant which Isaiah and Jeremiah had foreseen. Out
from the misery there sprang fresh faith in a rapidly ap
proaching divine deliverance. Ezekiel in Babylon planned
a new commonwealth centered about a temple rebuilt with
extravagant splendor. Religious as the hope of the exile
was, and formally non-messianic as the Priestly Code un
doubtedly is,' each was none the less social,* and never more
so than when the sorrows of the good men of the nation
were distinctly made vicarious^ for the nation itself. In no
1 Jer. 31 : 31-34 ; 33 : 17-22. 3 Montefioee, Bibbert Lectures, p. 319.
2Jer.7:l-15. * Ezek. 11 : 14-20 ; 37 : 21-2«.
5 Isa. 52:13— 53:12. The interpretation of this passage, so generally considered
by Christians as applicable to Jesus, in Jewish literature is social; the sufferer is
not the Christ, but Israel, either a nation or the pious scribes (Bab. SiphT&. 486 ," Bab.
i3erac/i., 5a and 576; Sofa, lla; Jer. Shekualijn.iSc; Bereshith Rabba, 20, 1) in Israel
(cA Justin, Dial. Trypho., 122, 123 ; Oeigen, Ag. Celsus, I, 55) . The reference of San.,
986, according to Edeesheim (.Jesus the Messiah, Vol. II, p. 741), is to the Messiah as
the "leprous one of the house of Eabbi." But this is from the second or third cen
tury, and represents the opinion of only a school of rabbis. See Dalman, Der
leidcnde und der sterbende Messias, pp. 28 f. Cf. also Budde, " The So-called ' Ebed-
Yahweh Songs ' and the Meaning of the Term ' Servant of Yahweh ' in Isaiah, Chaps .
40-55," Amer. Journal of Theology, Vol. Ill, pp. 499 f. ; Montefioee, Hibbert Lec
tures, pp. 278 f. ; Chevne, Prophecies of Isaiah, Vol. II, Essays iii-v; Weight,
"Pre-Christian Jewish Interpretation of Isa. lii-liv," Expositor, June, 1888; Neu-
badbk-Deivee, Catena of Jewish Interpretations of Isa. liii. There is at present a
considerable tendency (e. g., Duhm, Sellin) toward an individualistic, or at least non-
social, interpretation. The Servant is the typical good man whose sufferings are
inexplicable from the point of view of nomism, unless they are vicarious. On the
other hand, Giesebeecht, Der Knecht Jahves des Deuterojesaia, holds that the
Servant is Israel as a nation.

Messianism of the Prophets

other literature has the problem of national and communal
suffering been more nobly faced and answered.
' Throughout this period of prophetic optimism there ran
a developing social theory that at last was to be incorporated
in an actual society. At the outset the prophets had thought
of the nation as a whole; Isaiah saw that the "remnant"
alone carried with it the future; Jeremiah, though still
hoping for the " remnant," saw also the religious and social
importance of the individual; Ezekiel, appreciating as per
haps no other Hebrew the value of the individual, began a
new process of national reconstruction. No longer looking
to the nation, or even the remnant, as the unit, he attempted
to bring all godly individuals into the godly remnant, and
this, in turn, into a glorious nation under holy priests and a
Davidic king. Thus the cycle of ideals was completed.
Nothing remained except to bring these ideals of Ezekiel
and the pious men of the exile into an actual commonwealth.
And that it attempted this is perhaps the greatest signifi
cance of the< event known as the Return.
When, through the favor of the Persian Cyrus, Judea
again took something like its old place in the world, it was
with the determination on the part of its reconstructors to
found a theocratic state in which a completed Thorah was to
regulate all matters of social life. But this was simply to
embody the formulation of prophetic ideals; and this is only
to say that the Return was an attempt to institutionalize pro
phetic messianism. Such an attempt was, in fact, all but
inevitable. The prophets had expected that the divine
deliverance would consist in the establishment of a Hebrew
nation as untranscendental as Assyria and Egypt, its con
federates,' and through the agency of no more miraculous
intervention than would be involved in any political read
justment like the triumph of Assyria' or of Cyrus.'
1 Isa. 19:19-25. 2 Isa. 10: 5. 3 Isa. 44: 28; 45:1.

8 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
The righteousness that was to characterize this new Israel
was that elaborated in the later code, and obviously was
thought of as involving all social relations. How else can
one estimate the appearance of the Levitical code, the cove
nant not only to maintain the temple and its worship, but
also to avoid mixed marriages, not to trade with " the people
of the land" on the sabbath or a holy day, to let the land
periodically lie fallow, to observe the sabbatical year, and
not to exact payment of certain debts?' Throughout the
entire course of this early legalism there runs the same
idealism in hope and practice.
But we are not limited to such evidence of an attempt to
institutionalize messianism. In the prophecies that may
reasonably be assigned to this period the significance of the
new commonwealth is described in messianic colors. In no
other prophets is the certainty of national deliverance and
prosperity through Jehovah's presence more emphasized.
The one prerequisite is the observance of the Thorah by the
individual and the maintenance of the temple by the nation.^
Then, too, appeared that hope which was to play so great a
rSle in early Christianity, that in those days so soon to
dawn Jehovah would send his spirit upon a pious Israel to
inspire new prophetic zeal and visions.' The coronation of
Zerubbabel seemed to Haggai and Zechariah the fulfilment
of the promise of a prince from the house of David,* and
thus one more feature in the messianic kingdom. The Judah
of the Return was to be the fulfilment of the prophets' prom
ises. A state was to be founded in which all social life was
to be regulated by the divine Thorah.
Of the history of the ineffectual ideal commonwealth
1 Neh. 10 : 29-31. Possibly this is also the thought of the Pharisee who wrote the
Assumption of Moses. See especially chaps. 3-5.
2 Hag. 1:13; 2:6-9; Zech. 2:1-5, 10-13; 8:1-8, 12, 20-23; and especially Isa. 60:
1-22. 3 Joel 2: 28, 29. * Hag. 2:23; Zech. 3:8; 4:6-10; see also 6 : 11, 12.

Messianism of the Prophets 9
which grew out of this hope it is not necessary to speak.
Nor indeed are we in a position to trace its career with
any certainty. Early Judaism is all but hidden in its own
literatureless career. The few facts preserved by Josephus
do not enable us to picture satisfactorily any of its phases,
and we are forced to be content with conjecture and ingen
ious reconstructions.' If we were to judge of the time
only by the "Wisdom" literature which may fairly be
ascribed to it, we should be led to believe that the Jewish
spirit had become philosophical, without enthusiasm for
revealed law, and, with all its moral earnestness, callous as
to religious idealism. Yet such a judgment would be one
sided. The transition from a renascent Hebraism to the
new Judaism was marked by tendencies quite other than
those toward philosophical Hellenism. These obscure years
were in truth critical, for in them were developed tendencies
that later were to result in the new Jewish world of the New
Testament epoch. It was then that the new Hellenizing
aristocracy of wealth, later to be known as the Sadducees,
was founded in the family of that extraordinary adventurer,
Joseph.^ Then, too, began that scrupulous devotion to che
Thorah which was later to give religious history one of its
most interesting figures, the Pharisee.
Yet, as regards materials for tracing the development of
messianism, these years are sadly deficient. Indeed, it is
hard to discover that there was any such hope in a glorious
future for Judea as would merit being called messianic.
Doubtless, if it were possible to picture the faith that survived
among the humble folk that afterward were known as the
Pious, it would appear that the idealism which brought about
the Return was by no means dead. It is impossible to
believe that the outburst of messianic literature that fol
lowed the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes would have
1 For instance, Chetne, Jewish Religious Life after the Exile. ''Ant., xii, 4.

10 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
been possible without some widespread religious hope. Cer
tainly, the new Judaism that rose when once the party of
the Pharisees had differentiated itself from the Pious and
the Sadducees, found ready to its hand all the elements of
later messianism. There were (1) the ineradicable belief
that Jehovah would re-establish the Jewish nation in inde
scribable glory, and (2) under a "legitimate" monarch, a
son of David; (3) the equally fixed belief that he would
judge the world and pimish with indescribable sufferings
the enemies of his chosen nation, and, though this is less
clear, the wicked generally, whether gentiles or Jews. (4)
A fourth element, the belief in a resurrection of the dead,
indistinctly associated with the establishment of a regener
ate Israel, can easily be overemphasized, but was undoubt
edly present, at first in a somewhat figurative sense — the
resurrection of a defimct state. It was this hope that later
was to develop into an entire eschatology.
Such a catalogue of elements subsequently synthesized it
would have been impossible to find in any other nation than
that of the Jews. The fact that none of them was novel in
the last pre-Christian century argues the persistence, so far
as Palestine itself is concerned, of the prophetic idealism
across these years of almost unbroken literary barrermess.
And this idealism was, in the New Testament period, to
follow two lines of development. There was, first, the revo
lutionary messianism of the masses ; and, second, the ecshato-
logical messianism of the literary classes, notably the
Pharisees. Both hopes were implicit in the prophetic mes
sianism of the pre-Maccabean age, but the former, alone
following more closely the spirit of earlier prophetism, con
stituted something like a genuinely religio-social movement.
The messianism of the Pharisees, on the other hand, follow
ing rather the apocalyptic tendency first really distinct in
the Maccabean period, grew scholastically religious and
milt A Ttn+Tionf cnnial r^rt-nia-n^

CHAPTER II
THE POLITICO-SOCIAL PROGRAM OF REVOLUTIONARY
MESSIANISM
While it is true that under the pressure of political mis
ery both transcendental and revolutionary messianism differ
entiated themselves simultaneously in Judaism, it was the
latter that remained the more conservative. Development
is limitless within the region of such speculation as went to
constitute the pseudepigraphic literature of apocalyptic, but
in social movements hopes are tempered by experience.
Further, the thoughts and hopes of the masses are always
difficult to trace, but doubly so when, as among the Jews,
they are all but unexpressed in literature and must generally
be inferred from references in an unfriendly historian like
Josephus. None the less, popular messianism deserves more
attention than could be accorded it as long as no distinction
was made between messianism as a regulative social concept
and as a hope for a personal Messiah, It is difficult to show
that the latter was universally cherished in the time of
Jesus, but the hope for a new Israel, delivered and ruled by
God, was always and everywhere in evidence. Throughout
the entire period from Judas Maccabaeus to the fall of
Jerusalem, this hope of a new Israel was never suppressed,
and at last became utterly uncontrollable. But revolution
was not in the program of the literati or the well-to-do
classes. It is, indeed, no unstriking parallelism that might
be drawn between the different effects produced by English
philosophy upon the literary circles and the masses of
France during the eighteenth century, and the two manifes
tations of messianism among the scribes and the despised
11

12 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
^am haarets of Judaism during New Testament times. In
both these pre-revolutionary epochs the radicalism of the liter
ary circles, quite content with a policy of laissez-faire, was
opposed to struggle, while the discontent of the masses, when
once it had appropriated the watchwords and philosophy of
the literary world, undertook to bring into actual existence
a future which the comfortable middle class was quite ready
to intrust to providence. Only, unlike the philosophers of
France, in Judea the Pharisees had no keen interest even in
reform, and the masses had no need to wait for the slow
infiltration of ideas which they, as well as the Pharisees,
had received as a common inheritance from their past.
It is commonly held that the messianic hope is wanting
in 1 Maccabees, and this is true if one looks only for distinct
references to an expected messianic king. The only approach
to such a hope is to be seen in expectation of the prophet who
was to come and solve riddles ; ' but, as is now pretty generally
held, this prophet is certainly not the Messiah, but one like
those of the old Hebrew days who was expected to appear
and give a perplexed people infallible directions for conduct.^
None the less, it is not improbable that the author of 1 Mac
cabees, like the authors of Judith, Tobit, and Baruch, expected
a divine deliverance of Israel as well as a punishment of the
heathen, and it is very probable that, in the spirit of the ap
proximately contemporary portions of the Sibylline Oracles,
though regarding David's dynasty as perpetual,' he saw in
the Asmonean house something more than a family of suc
cessful adventurers. In fact, he expressly gives them a mes
sianic significance in the general sense of playing a part
in the divine program for regenerating Israel, when he
1 For example, the disposition of the stones of the polluted altar of burnt-sacri-
flce (1 Mace. 4 : 46) and the adjustment of the new Asmonean priestly dynasty with
the claims of the house of Zadok (1 Mace. 14:41. Cf. also 1 Mace. 9:27).
2Cy. Mark 6:15; 8:28, where the prophet is sharply distinguished from the
Christ. 31Maoc. 2:57.

Program of Revolutionary Messianism 13
explains the defeat of certain emulators of Judas. They
were "not of the seed of the men by whose hand deliverance
was given unto Israel." ' As has already been said, there is
certainly nothing improbable in the conjecture that the pre
suppositions lying back of such a comment are near akin
to that hope and faith that found expression in the con
temporary literature of Daniel and Enoch. Doubtless the
disappointment over the later Asmoneans felt by the pharisaic
author of the Psalms of Solomon' was due in no small
degree to the striking contrast between hopes cherished by
his party in its earlier stages and the actual history of the
descendants of John Hyrcanus. In this experience, as may
later appear, is one very probable explanation for the subse
quent refusal of the Pharisees to place confidence in any
thing less than superhuman catastrophic messianism. Cer
tainly this is the dominant teaching of 2 Maccabees, itself a
sort of pharisaic reply to the realism of 1 Maccabees. God
is sure to render judgment upon the oppressors of Israel,
and assures eternal life at least to pious Hebrews.'
The reign of Herod I. was not conducive to even apocalyp
tic messianic hopes, much less to any attempt to establish a
new kingdom, whether of man or God, in Judea. We are,
indeed, quite without any distinct literary reference to
messianism during his reign — a fact that argues, not only
repression, but also tolerable content on the part of the literary
classes.* Yet, possibly, revolutionary messianism is to be seen
in the robber bands which Herod was forced to reduce.
Such scanty evidence as exists concerning these men makes
it probable that they were akin to nationalists rather than to
llMace.5:62. 2C/. Pss. 1:5-9; 2:3,5,8; 4:5; 7:2; 8:9-14.
3 2 Mace. 7 : 9, 11, 14, 19, 23, 29, 35-37 ; 12 : 43, 44. The second of the two letters pre
fixed to 2 Maccabees has a hope of a re-established nation and cult.
i The plot of the Pharisees described in Ant., xvii, 2:4, can hardly be messianic,
since they are said to have promised the kingdom to Pheroras. Josephus's descrip
tion of this party is doubtless taken from Nicholas of Damascus. It hardly reads
like the opinion of one who was himself a Pharisee.

14 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
brigands.' The conspiracy of the ten men,^ and the revolt
of the people under the rabbis Judas and Mattathias,' were
also an exhibition of a nationalism which, though not to be
very clearly described, certainly had its origin in the reli
gious sensibilities of the masses.*
It was with the death of Herod that revolutionary messi
anism entered upon its uncontrollable career. From that
time it is possible to trace its history in a series of more or
less successful revolts, a succession of not always abortive
popular movements, and the formation of sects. Indeed,
the entire course of rebellion, which culminated in the
triumph of the Zealots and the war of 66-70 A. D., is best
understood as an ever-increasing revolutionary messianism —
an attempt on the part of popular leaders to hasten that
divine deliverance of their nation which the prophets had
foretold, and which every Jew believed was sure to come.
The words of Josephus^ describing the motive of the
rebellion give us the only true point of view: "What
most stirred them up to the war was an ambiguous oracle
that was found also in their sacred writings, that about
that time one from their country should become ruler of
the world." To adopt this point of view is, however, not
to say that all revolts were messianic. Several of them,
as, for instance, those that followed the death of Herod,
were clearly without any such significance. ° Nor is the
1 For example, Hezekiah and his band (Josephus, ^jit., xiv, 9:2), though this
case is less probable than the other (Ant., xiv, 15:4, 5). The robbers he restrained
in Trachonitis by settling colonists from Idumeea (4»it., xvi, 9:1, 2) were of quite
another type.
2 Ant., XV, 8 : 3, 4. a Ant., xvii, 6 : 2-4.
4 Josephus, Ant., xv, 10 :4, explains Herod's remission of a third of the taxes as
an effort to regain the good-will of an outraged people. Josephus also in this con
nection notes Herod's use of spies and his forbidding meetings of all sorts except
those of the Essenes.
5 War, vi, 5 ; 4. Cf. Tacitus, Hist., v, 13 ; Suetonius, Ccesars, Vespasian, 4.
6 For instance, that of the slave Simon and the shepherd Athrongseus ( War, ii,
4 : 2, 3), and various other outbreaks, as those of War, ii, 5 : 1 £E.

Program of Revolutionary Messianism 15
revolt of 66-70 to be unreservedly called messianic. Many
men, then, like Justus' were doubtless nothing more than
rebels of a purely political sort. Those disturbances alone
are to be considered messianic which are the work of a
peculiar religious sect or, in particular, are evidently con
nected with the great Zealot movement of the middle of
the century.
The emergence of this revolutionary messianism as a dis
tinct political factor was at the taxing which succeeded the
erection of Judea into a procuratorial province at the ban
ishment of Archelaus in 6 A. D. At that time Judas ^ of
Gamala in Gaulanitis and a Pharisee named Zadduk organ
ized a fourth sect, especially influential among the younger
Jews, co-ordinate with the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes,
and encouraged the people to revolt against the new for
eign ruler.' Its character is clearly set forth in the descrip
tion of Josephus: "Its disciples agree in all other things
with the pharisaic notions, but they have an inviolable
attachment to liberty, and say that God is their only ruler
and lord." The share of this sect, so clearly that of the
Zealots, with its "kingdom of God," in the downfall of the
Jewish state is emphatically declared by Josephus.* To
trace the rise of the Jewish revolt is hardly anything else
than to trace the growth of the messianic propaganda. Nor
was its spirit wholly confined to Judea. For, though any
thing like complete information is wanting, it is difficult not
to see something akin to Zealot fanaticism in the gathering
of armed Samaritans near Gerizim in order to discover the
1 Josephus, Life, 65.
2 A Galilean (War, ii, 8:1; Ant., xviii, 1:1,6). According to Guthe (art.
"Israel," £ncy. Bi6.), he was probably the son of the "robber" Ezekias executed
by Herod (Ant., xvii, 10:5; xiv, 9: 3 f.).
^Ant., xviii, 8:1,6. His sons, like those of Mattathias under Antiochus
Epiphanes, apparently continued the movement begun by their father, for they were
crucified by Alexander the procurator (Ant., xx, 5:2).
* Ant., xviii, 1 : 1, 6.

16 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
sacred vessels buried in the mountains by Moses.' But it
was in Judea and Galilee that the leaven worked most effect
ively. The prophet Theudas, who, in 45 or 46 A. D., induced
a great multitude to follow him toward Jordan, which, like
another Moses, he promised to divide, evidently appealed to
the messianic hopes of the masses. That his career pro
duced no results was due to the promptness of the procurator
Fadus.^ Under Felix, Judea and Galilee were alive with
robbers and impostors, some of whom, like Eleazar, who for
twenty years had led a band of outlaws,' the procurator exe
cuted ; and some of whom, like the newly appearing Sicarii,
he seems to have used to further his own plans.* Along
with the Sicarii were men like Theudas urging the masses
to follow them into the wilderness, there to see miracles.
One of these impostors — if it is fair to use quite so harsh
a term — was an Egyptian who promised his followers
from the ^am haarets to stand on the Mount of Olives
and cause the walls of Jerusalem to fall.^ More sig
nificant, however, are the obscure words of Josephus ° in
which he describes a body of "wicked men, cleaner in their
hands, but more wicked in their intentions, who destroyed
the peace of the city no less than did these murderers [the
Sicarii]. For they were deceivers and deluders of the
people, and under pretense of divine illumination were for
1 Ant., xviii, 4:1. If this should have been by any chance connected also with
the work of John and Jesus in the vicinity, it would have been one element in a piece
of poetic justice. For it was his dispersion of this gathering that brought Pilate
into exile.
^Ant, XX, 5:1; c/. Mark 13:22; Matt. 24:11,24. The disturbances under
Cumanus (Ant., xx, 5 : 3, 4 ; War, ii, 12 : 1, 2) were due to religious fanaticism, though
hardly to messianic currents.
3 Ant., XX, 8 : 5 ; War, ii, 13 : 2, 3.
4 These Sicarii were a group of fanatical Zealots, and hence messianists (cf. Ant.,
xviii, 1:1), who turned to assassination as a means of hurrying in the kingdom of
God. Their share in the revolt of 66-70 A. D. was not considerable, but they held
Masada, and perished there by their own hands (War, Ii, 17:6: iv 7-2 9-5-
vii,8:lf., 10:1, 11:1). , . , . ,
5 Ant., XX, 8:6; War, ii, 13:5; cf. Acts 21:38. ^War, ii, 13:4.

Program of Revolutionary Messianism 17
innovations and changes." It is not difficult to see in these
men a body of fanatics bound upon assisting God' to bring
in the deliverance for which their nation was passionately
hoping.^ Under Felix there began to appear in this seething mes
sianism of the masses elements of social as well as political
revolution. Several of the bodies of fanatics who were
urging the masses to revolt were also plundering and burning
the houses of the well-to-do people and killing their owners.'
How far the "innovating party at Jerusalem," which,
according to Josephus,* under Albinus became a combination
of " arch -robbers," and their "satellites" is to be identified
with these emulators of the early Maccabeans it is impossible
to say. The times were breeding anarchy quite as much as
revolutionary idealism. Yet one cannot doubt that the mes
sianism of the Zealots included some wild schemes for reor
ganizing the Jewish state. Peasant utopias are always hard
to reconstruct, so completely is one at the mercy of hostile
chroniclers and historians ; but if one comes to the history
of the Zealots from that of the German and English Peas
ant Wars, and especially from the strikingly analogous
movements among the French peasantry and proletarians
just before and during the Revolution of 1789, it will be
easy to see, back of the violence Josephus delights in char-
1 They believed that " God would show them signs of liberty " in the desert.
2 This hope of the Zealots has also been seen (e. g., ScHttEEB, Vol. Ills, p. 219;
Mathews New Testament Times in Palestine, p. 168) in Assumption of Moses, 10:8,
which has sometimes been translated, "Thou shalt tread upon the neck and the
wing of the eagle," the reference certainly suggesting Rome, and breathing thus the
spirit of Zealotism. The translation, however, of the evidently mutilated verse
should probably be, " Thou shalt mount up on the neck and the wings of the eagle,"
i. e toward heaven, a thought immediately expressed in 10:9, 10. The entire frag
ment seems to express quietism and the non-resistance of the Chasidim as well as
theunwarlike transcendentalism of early pharisaism. See especially 9:4-7, with
which compare 1 Mace. 1:53; 2:31-38; 2 Mace. 6:U; 10:6; ^n«.,xii,6:2 Thatthe
author was a Pharisee is now held by Chaeles, Assumption of Moses ; Clemen, in
KAUTZSOH, Apokrypheu und Pseudepigraphen, Vol. II, pp. 314 f. The fragment was
probably written during the first quarter of the first Christian century.
3Trar,ii,13:6. iWar,n,U:l.

18 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
ging upon them, a determined effort on the part of men like
John of Gischala and Eleazar to establish a new Jewish
state in which there should be not only liberty,' but also
equality. This purpose it is that explains, at least partially,
that cleavage between the wealthy, learned, and official
classes and the masses, which characterized the entire revo
lutionary period. Such cleavage was no new phenomenon, for
the ^am haarets had always been despised by the Pharisees
and high-priests,^ but with the first resistance to the procura
tor Gessius Florus it became a source of civil war. From
the outset the Pharisees and high-priests as a class opposed
the revolt. Singularly enough, however, the radical who
first proposed that the sacrifices for the emperor cease was
Eleazar, the son of the high-priest Ananias, at that time
governor of the temple ; and, despite the opposition of the
class to which he belonged, he was able to carry his plan
into action.' The conservative element in Jerusalem was,
indeed, with the greatest difficulty induced to abandon the
non-political* attitude of apocalyptic messianism. It under
took the organization of the revolt only as the less of two
evils, and doubtless with the purpose of making peace as
soon as possible with Rome^ — a fact that gives special sig
nificance to the labors of that enemy of dilettante revolution
ists, John of Gischala.^ But even such adjustment of the
"classes" and "masses" was short-lived. The moment the
Zealots and their sympathizers among the masses gained
IC/. TFar, iv, 4:1, 5; 5:5.
2 That this contempt should have grown under the later rabbis is very likely due
in part to the events of the civil war, 66-70 A. D. For illustration of what this feeling
was, see quotations inSoHttEEE, Jeroisft People, eic.,Div.II,ii, 8(5), especially Demat",
ii, 3. On some more shocking expressions (e. g., "a member of the 'am haarets may
be slit up," Pesachim, 496) see some very sensible words in Lazaeus, Ethics of Juda
ism, Vol. I, pp. 258 f.
3 War, ii, 17:2. *Ant., xvii, 11:1, 2.
5 Josephus, Life, 7 ; War, ii, 17 : 4 ; iv, 5 : 2. See also War, ii, 20 : 1-3.
6 War, ii, 21 : 1, 2 ; Life, 13.

Program of Revolutionary Messiaisnm 19
any advantage, their policy of economic as well as political
revolution emerged. Thus in the first excitement of the
attempt to establish the ideal state they set fire to the
public archives,' burned all records of indebtedness, and
massacred the high-priest Ananias.^ This anti-aristocratic
spirit developed rapidly after the collapse of the attempt of
the bourgeois party to organize a successful revolt in Galilee,
and, thanks to the enthusiasm of the younger Jews, through
out the fearful days of civil war it grew even more extreme.
A band of fanatical Idumean patriots was introduced as the
means of establishing a veritable reign of terror, in the
midst of which many wealthy men were killed, including the
noble high-priest Ananus.' The effort to force the hand of
Jehovah and to compel him to hasten the deliverance of an
abortive messianic state had become, like so many a later
revolution, a carnival of blood. Yet through all this struggle
one can see the persistent, though ever-diminishing, idealism
of the Zealots. They would have a peasant high-priest, a
new state, a new people, and no king but God.* The ancient
prophets in whose words they trusted could not be seen to
foretell anything but triumph for such an ambition,^ and
during the miseries of the last days of the capital the later
prophets were urging the people to await deliverance from
God.'^ Their mad hope of deliverance included, as has already
been said, a conqueror, whose appearance was assured by the
"ambiguous oracle" (xPV'^f^o'^ kfu^i^oXo'i) of which Josephus
speaks, and which can be no other than that of Daniel.'
1 Yet, e/. War, vi, 6:3.
2 War, ii, 17:6, 9. That they were seeking after some ideal state is clear from
Eleazar's execution of the would-be tyrant Menahem.
3W^ar,iv,5:l-3. 4 C/. ITar, iv, 3:6-8; 5:4, 5; 6:1. 6 T^ar, iv, 6 : 3.
6 War, vi, 5 : 2. Many portents are described by Josephus, War, vi, 5 : 3.
7 That' Josephus himself regarded this prophecy as foretelling the destruction of
Rome seems impKed by his refusal to interpret the " stone of Dan. 2 : 45 in Anl., .,
10:4.

20 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
Here in this hope the motif of the entire Zealot movement
may be seen: its members believed that, if once they could
organize an independent republic, during its struggle with
Rome the Messiah himself would come to its aid.' It is
even possible to see in the desperate faith of the Jerusalem
prophets^ a faith born of Dan. 9 : 25, that the very destruc
tion of Jerusalem would in God's own time — "seven weeks
and three score and two weeks" — be followed by the
appearance of the Messiah.'
In very truth, the Jews who had rejected Jesus as Messiah
paid terribly for their rejection of "the things that pertained
to peace" and their choice of another hope. The Je'wish
state fell, the victim of an ever-developing fanaticism, born
of a faith in a coming kingdom and king. In the attempt
made by the Zealots to hasten God's time there is to be seen
a hope for an actual commonwealth, which, however we may
admit our lack of information, was clearly to embrace new
social institutions. How vain was their dream is apparent,
but it was no less dreamed. Nor did messianism of this
type perish with the temple. A half-century later it again
blazed out, but with its champions no longer separated from
the party of the Pharisees. In its new form revolutionary
messianism was guided and inspired by no less a person than
the great rabbi Akiba.
1 The rOle played by the prophecies of Daniel throughout this period of the
Jewish state is great. Chief reliance was undoubtedly laid upon the vision of the
"stone cut without hands from the mountain" (Dan. 2:45) and the vision of the
"Son of man" (7:13), the Messiah (9:25), sind the apocalypse of chaps. 11 and 12.
The " ambiguity " in these oracles can have been only whether the new prince was
to be a native Jew of Palestine or a foreigner. Josephus interprets it in the latter
sense (so Geelaoh, Die Weissagungen d. A. T. in den Schriften d, Fl. Jo., p. 73),
apparently thereby giving up all further expectation of a coming Messiah— a con
clusion, however, hard to accept in the light of Ant., x, 10 : 4, and his treatment of
the prophecy of Balaam (Ant., iv, 6:5). It is perhaps worth noticing that this
familiarity of the people at large with the prophecies of Daniel is an important
element in judging the meaning Jesus conveyed by speaking of himself as 6 vibs
TOO al'dpUTTOV, 2 War, vi, 5 : 2. 3 Gbel ACH, p. 84.

CHAPTER III
THE APOCALYPTIC MESSIANISM OF THE PHARISEES
SECTION I. THE RISE OF APOCALYPTIC
As THE legalism of pharisaism was the outgrowth of the
Codes, so the idealism of its apocalyptic was the outgrowth
of prophetism. The forerunner of apocalyptic must be
sought in what had been a regulative thought of the prophets,
the Day of Jehovah — that time when the God of Israel
would exercise his right and inflict terrible punishment upon
all those who had not kept his law. What this Day had
been to Israel before Amos may be conjectured from the
national belief in Jehovah as a God certain to defeat all
rivals; it was to be a day of joy and peace for a conquering
Hebrew nation.' With Amos and the great prophets who
succeeded him the Day became one in which Israel was to be
punished by Jehovah for its sins. Instead of glory there
was to be frightful suffering. The luxury of the nation,
springing as it did from economic oppression, had grown
hateful to the prophet and his God,^ and the degenerate
people was to be destroyed as a vindication of Jehovah's
righteousness. Ever after Amos the Day had the same religious color
ing. Yet it was no longer to be a punishment merely of a
wicked Isuael, but of a wicked world. Zephaniah saw an
all but universal judgment day, for Jews as well as heathen.'
1 See the discussion by J. M. P. Smith, " The Day of Yahweh," American Journal
of Theology, July, 1901, pp. 505 f.
2Am6s 2:6-8; 3:9-15; 5:10-13; 6:4-8. Haepek, "The Prophecies of Amos
Strophically 'Arranged," Biblical World, 1898. Cf. McCuedt, History, Prophecy and
the Monuments, Vol. I, pp. 308 f .
3 Zeph. 3 : 8, 14-20, however, argue the exception of Judah. If this is late, 1 : 2-18 ;
2:4-15, present the Day with suifioient distinctness. 21

22 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
Ezekiel conceived of it as a day of battle in which Jehovah
would conquer all of Israel's foes.' Later prophets, like
Malachi, foretold the fearful punishment to be then meted out
upon the wicked, Jew and gentile alike. Whatever hope of
deliverance the Day might contain was for the pious remnant.
After the exile this thought of deliverance from their
enemies naturally grew stronger among a people con
sciously striving to keep Jehovah's law, and thus the Day
became assimilated with the new messianic hope. All its
terrors were believed to be reserved for the enemies of the
new Judah.^ Religious faith lost itself in visions, and
revenge found earthly warfare insufficient for its purposes.
A new rhetoric was demanded, in which the extremes of
pessimism as to the present and the wildest optimism for the
future might be properly exhibited. And then arose the
apocalypse. '
One cannot be far from the truth if he considers the
apocalypse the exposition of the Day of Jehovah in a literary
form resulting from the Hellenistic influences under which
the Jews lived even from before the days of Alexander. This
influence was both philosophical and aesthetic. Of philoso
phy was born Wisdom, and of aesthetics was bom apocalyptic.
Greek influence always prompted a people to some form of
aesthetic expression, but the new art, in so far as it was not
simply imitative, was determined by a people's past. As the
Greek turned to marble and bronze and canvas as the media
in which to perpetuate his anthropomorphic symbols of truth
and hopes, the Jew, fearing to make to himself any graven
image, used language for his statues and his paintings.
Utterly lacking in a knowledge of technique,* hardly ven-
1 Ezek. 30 : 2 f . ; 34 : 12 ; 39 : 8 f . 2 Cf Joel 2 : 18-27.
3 Cf. Chakles, art. "Apocalyptic," Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible ; Tokeet,
"Apocalypse," Jewish Encyclopaedia, Vol. I, and literature cited there.
* Cf., for instance, the bas-relief decoration in the castle of Hyrcanus, east of
Jordan, in 'Arak el-Emir (Josephus, Ant., xii, 1:11).

Apocalyptic Messianism of the Pharisees 23
turing to look at a Greek god or goddess, deficient in the
very elements of art, he painted his word-pictures as he had
seen the uncouth monsters of Egypt and Assyria.' His sym
bols became strange creatures with eagles' wings and lions'
bodies, legs of brass, and feet of clay. Unity was as lacking
in the composition of his pictures as in their units. Bulls
and buffaloes and sheep and goats and birds and shepherds
jostled each other in his visions, and the fixed order of nature
was unhesitatingly reversed. Yet in all these inartistic, con
fused symbols stands the one great thought of the prophetic
Day of Jehovah. God will judge mankind, will gloriously
deliver a righteous Israel from oppression, will indescribably
punish the wicked and the heathen, and will establish a
regenerate Judah at the head of the entire world.
It is not to our purpose to discuss how far these compos
ite pictures of pessimism and extravagant hope were also
infiuenced by the creation myths of Babylon." That there
was such influence is clear, not alone from the characters
and scheme of each apocalypse,' but from the fact of the
appearance of this bastard prophetism among those who had
been subjected to the influences of the exile. Yet the apoca- \
lypse really belongs to the Greek period of Jewish history. )
While visions were not unknown to genuine prophetism, it
is not until the post-exilic second Zechariah* that a true .
apocalypse is met in Hebrew literature. As might have
been expected, this first apocalypse deals, however interrupt
edly, with the Day of Jehovah, although "that day" is pre
ferred to this precise term. There, as always, its chief con
tent is that of punishment, but along with threats there are
1 Cf. for a popular statement F. Delitzsch, Babel und Bibel.
2 The question as to whether the apocalyptic pictures are mythological or
products of their times " scheint mir vielf ach ein Streit um des Kaisers Bart zu sein,"
says Peeuschen, Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1901, p. 169, note
3 See GuNKEL, SchOpfung und CMaos, pp. 286-93, for summary.
* Zech., chaps. 9-14.

24 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
the promises of blessings; for Israel was to be repentant,
and out of its sorrow was to come deliverance. But wild as
are the figures with which these complementary thoughts
are set forth, it would be untrue to the general spirit inspir
ing the early apocalyptic writing to think of its visions as in
the strictest sense eschatological.' A complete eschatology
was possible only when to other hopes there was joined some
recognition of the resurrection of the dead. In a general
sense, it is true, one might call these forecastings of the
future eschatological, but only in the sense that the apoca
lypses looked across the culmination of one "age" into the
events of another. Farther than this it is impossible to go.
The synthesis of the nation's and the individual's future
attempted by Ezekiel had been wholly within this mortal
life. It would be impossible to deny that the Jews through
out his period, when the material of later messianism was
developing, had some belief in immortality, but there is no
evidence that this hope had become in any way connected
with messianism. Yet after the Return such a union could
not long be postponed. The influence of Ezekiel's national
ism and of the later prophetic individualism was too strong.
With Isa. 26:1-19, that is, probably in the fourth century
B. C.,^ immortality appears with distinctness, but only as
limited to pious Hebrews. The son of Sirach seldom ven
tures to forecast the future, and then generally' in the spirit
of prophecy, but by the time of Daniel* the belief in the
resurrection has come to include others than Hebrews, and
1 The limitation of the term " eschatological in the strict sense " to forecasts of
the future involving a resurrection of the dead may appear somewhat arbitrary, but
seems necessary for clear thinking. Some word like "neo-eschatological" might
possibly be used to distinguish the eschatology of pharisaism from that of prophetism.
2 Chevne, Introduction to Isaiah, pp. 145 f., and art. " Isaiah " in En^yclopoedia
Biblica; Deivee, Introditction (6th ed.), favors a date early in the fifth century B. C.
SEcclus. 35:18, 19; 47:11; 48:10, 11; 50:23, 24.
* Dan. 12 : 1 f . On this matter in general see Chaeles, Eschatology, and his arti
cles in the Encyclopcedia Biblica and Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible. Unfor
tunately, he has not fully treated this particular phase of the subject.

Apocalyptic Messianism of the Pharisees 25
is joined with the messianic hope. Although this union con
cerns only the consummation of deliverance, like so much
else in Daniel, it was the beginning of that which was to
prove so potent a supplement of the social messianism of
the prophets, the new eschatology of later apocalyptic.
section II. the apocalypse as a means of transition
FROM political TO TRANSCENDENTAL MESSIANISM
While the messianism of the masses, following, though
but blindly, in the path of the older prophetic nationalism,
was seeking to establish a regenerate Israel as the precursor
of the kingdom of God, that of the literary classes, and of
the Pharisees in particular, advanced in the line of apoca
lyptic. This fact was a natural outcome of the difference
between the comfortable and the distressed elements in the
Jewish state. The masses wished for a new kingdom in
which an end should be made of the actually felt misery
born of poverty and social inequality quite as certainly as of
the national dishonor of subjection to a heathen power. The
Pharisees,, enjoying personal comfort and respect, were
naturally concerned rather with the more impersonal, if not
paradoxical, matter of the establishment of a new Jewish
state without revolution or social regeneration. Their hope
was in consequence more joined with patience. God, and
not man, would bring in the new age. Throughout the
three_j3enturies in which the apocalyptic suggestions of
\ Daniel were developed into new doctrines, pharisaic messi
anism became increasingly transcendental. A literary bour
geoisie could well afford to discountenance revolution and
await the fulfilment of academic dreams.
Yet the Pharisees, in their early days, were by no means
indifferent to politics. The great scribal movement from
which they sprang had crystallized first in the party of the
Chasidim, and the society of Pharisees had differentiated

26 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
itself from the older party largely because it saw in national
affairs the need of applying its principle of separation. The
break between John Hyrcanus and those who had been his
family's truest supporters doubtless came from the refusal of
the Pharisees to have further share in the traditional Asmo
nean policy of immersing Judea in international politics.
The bitter war which the Pharisees had waged with Alex
ander Jannseus was due to their opposition to the growing
monarchy. Under Alexandra and Simon ben Shetach the
Pharisees had supported the government, and had brought
great prosperity to the nation. Later they had taken sides
in the unhappy struggles between Aristobulus and Hyrcanus
II., and had thus been involved in the new political life
resulting from the conquest of Judea by Pompey.
But with the rise of the house of Antipater the political
interests of pharisaism had weakened. The awakening from
the dream of an ideal Israel administered by a Sanhedrin
devoted to the oral law, to the rough-and-ready government
of a foreigner supported by a heathen power, was too rude
even for their political idealism, and they attempted to
reduce Jewish political life to the minimum. Confronted
with the alternative of revolt or of submission to such rulers,
at first they chose neither. Twice at least did they endeavor
to induce the Romans to govern Judea through a provincial
official and local Jewish councils rather than through a rex
socius,^ and then, when these requests had been repeatedly
refused, the leaders of the society advised submission to
rulers, whoever they might be.^ Yet even then many of
them refused to take a formal oath of allegiance to Herod.'
1 Thus in the appeal to Pompey (though the Pharisees are not mentioned) (Ant
xiv, 3 : 2) and at the probating of Herod's will (Ant., xvii, 11 : 1, 2). Cf. also the desires
of the high-priest for peace ( War, iv, 5 : 2) and the attitude of Josephus and his party
at the outbreak of the revolt of 66 A. D. (Josephus, Life, §§ 5, 7, 13).
2ThusPolLio and Sameas counseled submission to Herod (Ant, xiv, 9:4; xv, 1:1).
3 With the Essenes, they were excused by that monarch (Ant., xv, 10:4; xvii,
2:4), though fined.

Apocalyptic Messianism of the Pharisees 27
With political hopes thus destroyed, the Pharisees turned
with an ever-increasing faith to Jehovah and his law. In his
good time deliverance would come to his people. In the
meantime his people might well await the divine plan.
Throughout the period in which revolutionary messianism
was developing, the Pharisees, as well as the Sadducees, con
stituted a party of law and order. Revolution was farthest
possible from their plans, and it is their spirit that breathes
in the unceasing denunciation of the Zealots in Josephus.
That body, though agreeing with the Pharisees in matters
of general belief,' differed from them radically in all matters
pertaining to the kingdom of God. The one attempted to
hasten, the other awaited, God's deliverance.^
Yet with the Pharisees, as with the Zealots, messianism
was grounded in a sense of misery so abject as to be hope
less except for Jehovah; only in their minds this misery
was given a purely religious explanation. The world,
though originally created for Israel,' seemed too miserable
and wicked for Jehovah's immediate presence, and pharisa
ism became half deistic and thoroughly dualistic. God had
abandoned the evil world. It was his Memra, his Word,
that was present,* and his law rather than the Shekinah
was the sign of his regard for men. The misery which the
righteous suffered, though a punishment for the sins of Israel,''
was in no way interpreted as evidence of an approaching
I Ant., xviii, 1 : 1, 6 ; War, ii, 8 : 1.
2 So far from correct is the undiscriminating statement of Eaton, art. "Phari
sees," Hastings's Diet, of the Bible, that the Zealots " simply carried out the Phari
saic principles to their logical conclusion." The logical conclusions of pharisaic
messianism were precisely those exemplified in pharisaism itself — a peaceful await
ing of the coming of the eschatological kingdom of God and the Messiah. For the
relations of the two parties see, for instance. Ant., xviii, 1:1; War, iv, 3:9 fl.
Guthe (art. "Israel," Ency. Bib.) has distinguished between the two parties.
3 Assumption of Moses, 1:12; cf 1:14-17; 4 Ezra 6:55, 59; 7:11; c/. Chaeles 's
note, Assum. Mos., 1 : 12 ; Apoc. Bar., 14:18.
* Enoch. 40: 7. See, for a somewhat extreme presentation of this entire matter,
Baldenspeegek, Das Selbsibewusstsein Jesu, chaps. 1, 2.
5 Enoch, 89 f . See also the Psalms of Solomon, passim.

28 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
deliverance. On the contrary, misfortunes were evidence of
the existence of a "Prince of the World," of a Satan,' or of an
Antichrist, the great opponent of God and the future Christ,
who was allowed for a time to torment Jehovah's people.
Even when not conceived of as transcendent, this opposing
personality was ever present in the mind of the pious
Pharisee. Antiochus Epiphanes; the dread figure of
Daniel and the Assumption of Moses;' the kings of the
Medes and Parthians;' the world of demons with its prince
Beelzebub — all seemed to explain Israel's misfortune and to
stimulate new faith.* The very indefiniteness of this pres
ent evil ruler must have made the Pharisee discountenance
revolution and look the more eagerly for the interference of
Jehovah. The arm of flesh would have been weak indeed
against the Prince of the power of the air. Thus there
grew up the dualistic belief in two opposing kingdoms, that
of God and that of Satan; the one peopled with good
angels, the other with demons' and evil angels. Humanity
itself was the prize for which they strove. Small, indeed, as
was the joy to be expected by the righteous in the present
age, Satan with all his demoniacal host was to be punished,^
and God's kingdom with all its blessings would certainly
come. If for the present Satan seemed supreme, his tri
umph was but temporary. Fearful as was to be the struggle
1 Assumption of Moses, 10 : 1 ; Enoch, 53 : S.
2Chap. 8. s Enoch, 5S:lt.; 56:lf.; 90:lf.
*On Antichrist see BoussET, Der Antichrist; Peeuschen, "Paulus als Anti
christ," Zeitschrift far die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1901, pp. 169-201.
6 According to Enoch, 15 : 8-12, the demons are the children of angels and women.
Cf. Gen. 6 : 2. Yet in 19 : 1 apparently the demons were in existence prior to this event.
6See,for instance, Snocft, 10:6, 12f.; 14:5; 16:1-4; 21:10; 41:9; 54:5f.- 55:4
chaps. 64, 68, 88 ; 90 : 15, 21-24 ; Book of Jubilees, 5 : 10 ; 10 : 8. Cf. also 23 : 29. Accord
ing to Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums, p. 242, this dualism seems to disap
pear from Jewish literature. It certainly is present in rabbinical, even if it be not
prominent or present in 4 Esdras; and Baohek, Agada der Tannaiten, gives but
three references. Orthodox Judaism today, at least in Palestine, is a firm believer
in demons as the authors of misfortune.

Apocalyptic Messianism of the Pharisees 29
between him and God (or Christ),' there was no question as
to its outcome. Righteousness, not sin, was the eternal
element in the universe.^
The passage from the religio-political messianism of the
earlier Asmonean days to that of the passive resistance of
the first Christian century was due to the increasing influ
ence of this magnificent moral optimism, and is easily to be
traced in the literature of pharisaism. In its early writings,
the kingdom is still superior to the Messiah, and patriotism
is still of this world. Only gradually did the images of the
apocalypse cease to be political symbols and become literal
figures. None the less, from the first the certainty of the
triumph of God's kingdom and the establishment of the
long-expected world-judgment forbade appeal to arms.
Even before the development of apocalyptic in the Enoch
literature, Elijah was to come as the forerunner' of the
glorious, though still hardly individualized, son of David*
and the eternal kingdom of Israel.^ Judith" and Tobit'
expect an approaching judgment of God upon the enemies
of Israel which clearly echoes the prophecies of the Day of
Jehovah. The triumph and glory of Israel are vividly
promised by Baruch,' and immortality is predicated of those
alone who were to share in the messianic kingdom." The
1 Test. XII Pat., Levi, 18; Dan., chap. 5; Naph., 8; Assum. Moses, 10: 1.
2 The ease with which men turned to apocalypse as a means of stimulating their
despairing countrymen is seen in the sudden transition, both in style and contents,
that marks Assumption of Moses, chap. 10.
3Mal. 3:23, 24; Ecclus. 48:10 The rOle played by Elijah in later messianism
will be considered below.
i Ecclus. 47 : 11 ; 1 Mace. 2 : 57. 5 Ecclus. 37 : 25 ; 44 : 13 ; 2 Mace. 14 : 15.
6 Judith 16 : 17. ' Tobit 13 : 11-13, 16-18.
n Baruch, 2:34, 35; 5:1-9. Possibly, however, these passages are as late as the
fall of Jerusalem.
9 2 Mace. 6 : 26 ; 7 : 9, 11, 14, 20, 23, 29, 33, 36 ; 12 : 42-45. As to the fate of the wicked
see especially 7 : 14. There is, of course, a fair critical question as to whether these
passages belong to the early Asmonean time. See NiESE, Die Kntik der beiden
Makkabaerbucher. Cf. Tobit 14 : 6, 7.

30 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
Sibylline Oracles^ show even in their most elevated passages
that political hopes had not been entirely abandoned by
those who readily adopted the apocalypse as a literary form.
The misery suffered under the Seleucidse was quite too
recent to be forgotten even by a Jew of the dispersion. The
judgment was still national rather than individual, the
messianic age the day of a Jewish empire, and the king who
was to be sent by God from the east — or sun — to "make all
the world cease from cruel war, killing some and making
faithful treaties with others," was doubtless an idealized John
Hyrcanus. Yet even here the writer could not stop with
mere political supremacy. The earthly representatives of
Satan's kingdom, the enemies of Israel, were to perish, the
righteous Jews were to be eternally blessed, and at last "he
who formally gave the Law to the pious would take the
kingdom forever over all men." ^
The line of development of messianism for a considerable
period does not seem to have followed the resurrection of
the dead already noted in Dan. 12 : 2, fruitful as it was
later to become, but kept true to its uneschatological and
mundane limitations. The passage from glowing visions of
a triumphant, re-established Israel to the Pharisees' belief
in the literal character of the apocalyptic drapery is long, if
easy, and one must look beyond Daniel to find it accom
plished. For the early apocalyptic movement extraordinary
word-paintings were intended to portray actual political and
social regeneration. The Day of Jehovah itself involved
the re-establishment of Jerusalem and certain institutions
modeled on the strong lines of the older prophetism.'
1 Metrical translation by Tekey, The Sibylline Oracles ; German translation of
essential portions by Blass, in Kautzsch, Apok. und Pseud., Vol. II, pp. 177-217 ;
Greek text, RzACH, Oracula Sibyllina; Geffcken, Oracula Sibyllina.
^Sib. Or., iii, 655-97, and especially 710-42, 755-60, 766-72, 930.
3 Cf. Zech. 12 : 5-9, and also the extraordinary readjustment of the topography
of Judea in Zech., chap. 14.

Apocalyptic Messianism of the Pharisees 31
Apocalyptic itself, in its first portrayal of the emergence of
an exulting nation from bitterest anguish, had a social con
tent. Its figures were truly figurative. The new Judah
was not to be in the sky or composed of imaginary beings,
but was to be geographical and political.'
The perception of a concrete and, so to speak, historical
phenomenon in the messianic community is to be seen clearly
in the great parent of later apocalyptic, Daniel. How thor
oughly this writing is prophecy post eventum has been
apparent to most recent interpreters. Nor can exegesis find
within it forecasts of a dim future. The various beasts rep
resent, not world-epochs, but kingdoms which had been all
too real in the affairs of the Jews. Three times over is the
history of Israel's international relations traced. The lion,
the bear, the leopard, and the fourth beast of chap. 7 are
almost obviously the Babylonian, the Median, the Persian,
and the Macedonian empires. The same is true of the
visions of chaps. 2 and 8.^ This historical horizon, however,
is bounded by the career of Antiochus Epiphanes, so strik
ingly pictured in the visions,' and with the death of that
king upon his expedition to the East the writer passes at
once to the glories of the messianic days. Yet here his
vision is still national. The "son of man," or human being,*
pictured the coming and triumph of a very real kingdom
of the saints. From the point of view of this prophecy, in
iZech. 9:9, 10.
2 The historical difficulties connected with finding a Median empire between the
Chaldean and the Persian are considerable, but affect the historical worth of the
book rather than this interpretation. Dan. 6 : 1 ; 8 : 3, 20 ; 9 : 1 can hardly mean any
thing else than that the Median empire of Darius really was the second world-power.
See commentaries by Deivee, Bev AN, Maeti, Behbmann ; the geneial Introductions
and the articles in Encyclopedia Biblica and Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible.
Critical scholarship is practically a unit in assigning the book to the Maccabean
period. 3 Dan. 7 : 8, 20-26 ; 8 : 23-25 ; 11 : 21-45.
4 Dan. 7 : 13. It is impossible to see in IBSS 12D any other meaning. The con
trast is clearly between beastUke and human symbols. No personal Messiah is
suggested. As the beasts stood for heathen empires, so a man symbolized the new
Israel.

32 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
fact, the early Maccabean uprising must have appeared a
part of the divine deliverance promised the oppressed Pious.
Yet in the same proportion as it is thus judged messianic
must it also be declared social and political. As a revolt it
was no mere incident in Jewish, or, indirectly, in universal,
history. Until the unexpected uprising of the Pious, the
Jewish state was being slowly amalgamated with a classical
antiquity. Not only had it lost its independence, it was
losing its religion as well. A theocracy whose high-priest
was indifferent to the cult that conditioned the very existence
of his nation could hardly be expected to resist much longer
the pervasive Hellenism of its suzerain. The double rebel
lion of Mattathias and the Pious was no more the reaction
against persecution than it was the child of devotion to the
law and of a desperate idealism. The bands of fanatics
which ranged through the little state, "smiting sinners in
their anger and lawless men in their wrath," pulling down
heathen altars, circumcising neglected children, guarantee
ing, as far as with them lay, safety in the observance of the
Thorah and the developing oral law,' certainly regarded them
selves as appointed by Jehovah, both for deliverance and for
the reconstruction of the state.^ Apart from their devotion
to law, it is to be admitted that evidence of any definite
social program is wanting; but back of all the development
of the state under the Asmonean house, and inextricably
united with the new nomism, there is to be presupposed
such hopes as run through the earlier portions of Enoch.
God was ever more strongly to aid the new theocracy and
punish its and his own enemies. With the Maccabean epoch
messianism, like scribism, enters upon a new stage.
Nor did success, as so often, prove fatal to the belief of
the scribes and their followers that God's kingdom was
soon to appear. Even in Hellenistic Judaism the Day of
1 1 Maco. 2 : 42-70. 2 1 Maoo. 5 : 55-62.

Apocalyptic Messianism of the Pharisees 33
Jehovah still fills the future. It is impossible to see in
the divinely promised king of the Sibylline Oracles^ any
other than one of the Asmonean house, Simon, or possibly
John Hyrcanus. Under him all war was to cease, and God
would send blessings upon the righteous and punishments
upon the lawless. Bloody wars and convulsions in nature
were to establish a peaceful state, bountifully supported by
a miraculously fruitful earth. The nations would come
under the law of Jehovah, and all the world become an
empire with Jerusalem as its capital. In the other literature
of the tithe may be traced similar expectations. "Wisdom"
itself, with all its disillusions, could not quite disbelieve in a
judgment of the heathen, a deliverance of God's people, and
an everlasting Jewish empire under a Davidic dynasty.'
The writer of the book of Tobit ventures the hope that when
the new Jewish empire is established all the heathen will be
converted to God.' Such messianism, though expressed in
terms of apocalyptic, evidently had not become transcen^
dental, but possessed still the social content of prophetism
itself. Its mission was to picture the rise of a triumphant
nationality — a new and divinely established world-power.
How truly national the hopes of the Pharisees were
appears as we trace the stream of their literature from
Daniel onward. If the new Israel was to be the result of
miracle rather than of revolution, it was none the less to be
a state. Indeed, it is impossible to avoid feeling that at the
beginning, behind symbols and visions of vengeance, there
is lingering the conviction that possibly war itself may be
the duty of a holy people. But this conviction, if it were
I Sibylline Oracles, III, 652-794.
2Ecclus. 32:18, 19; 33:1 f.; 37:25; 47:11; 50:24; with the first of these references
c/. Judith 16: 17.
3 Tobit 13 : 11 ; 14 : 6, 7. How far this hope ran through the Dispersion can hardly
be said because of lack of data. But cf. Beetholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten und
der Juden zu den Fremden, pp. 257-302, 337 ; and Feeedlandee, Das Judenthum in
der vorchristlichen griechischen Welt.

34 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
really present, is sedulously concealed. Saints were to be
delivered; they were not to achieve deliverance.
SECTION III. THE MESSIANISM OF THE EARLIER APOCALYPTIC
The stream of literature to which we have just referred
is always pseudepigraphic, and consists of the visions of the
future granted to great men of the past, like Enoch, the
patriarchs, IMoses, Baruch, and Ezra. These saints are rep
resented as bequeathing in the way of admonition and encour
agement to their descendants. Of the entire literature the
canonical Daniel is by far the most typical. Its method, its
range of vision, in many ways its symbols, repeatedly reap
pear in its successors. All portray history symbolically
in terms of explained mysteries and prophecy, only to pass
into apocalyptic poetry when describing the future; all are
unconcerned about historical accuracy ; all represent nations
and persons under the forms of animals. What is even
more important, all the pseudepigraphic literature like Daniel
was written for the purpose of arousing faith and courage by
insisting upon the certain destruction of those who had
brought misery upon Israel, and the equally certain deliv
erance and supremacy of the Hebrew people. It is this
confidence that lies at the foundation of whatever genuinely
ethical teaching there may be contained in its interminable
and commonplace visions.
Most important of this uncanonical pseudepigraphic
literature is that which bears the name of Enoch. It is
probably not quite accurate to say that Daniel is the pro
genitor of the Enoch literature as a whole. The fact that
so much of this literature sprang up practically contempo
raneously with Daniel would rather argue that both litera
tures are the outcome of the same literary and spiritual
movement. Within the cycle of visions brought together
by soma unknown editor is to be clearly seen the passage

Apocalyptic Messianism op the Pharisees 35
from political messianism expressed in apocalyptic form to
a transcendental messianism in which apocalyptic elements
have been literalized and political elements all but removed.'
In the original groundwork of the present book (Ethiopic) of
Enoch, chaps. 1-36, 72-104, the messianic element, though
expressed in apocalyptic terms, is national. In it, as in
Daniel, is to be seen the misery and the faith of an
oppressed people. Jehovah had permitted their enemies to
crush the pious, but the future was certain to see the pun
ishment of the oppressors. If we neglect the various dis
cussions of nature, and the origin of evil through the wicked
angels, chaps. 1-36 consist chiefly of the portrayal of the
punishment to be accorded the wicked, both demoniac and
human, and the awards awaiting the righteous. Central in
the entire portrayal is the day of judgment,^ when the fate of
mankind is fixed. The punishment is all but invariably
unquenchable fire, though in a somewhat elaborate chap
ter' sheol is divided into four sections, in two of which
are the souls of the righteous, and in the other two, suffering
different punishment, are the two classes of dead sinners,
those who had and those who had not suffered in their
earthly life. The rewards of the righteous are sensuous;
they are to live five hundred years,* will beget a thousand
children, and die in peace.' The entire earth will be miracu-
1 Recent criticism, as represented by SchOrer, Beer (in Kautzsch, Apok. u.
Pseud.) , Charles, Flemming and Radermacher, Bousset (Die Religion des Judentums) ,
is agreed on the main divisions of Enoch and the general periods of their compo
sition. The original work, chaps. 1-36, 72-104, barring numerous interpolations,
was written before 100 B. C; chaps. 37-70, before 64 or 37 B. C. Each of these
divisions is in no small degree composite, but the precise lines of divisions must in
many cases remain a matter of discussion. Compare, e. g., the analysis of Charles
(The Book of Enoch) and Beers, Kautsoh, Apok. und Pseud., II, pp. 217-35.
21-1 6-9- 10:6, 12; 16:1; 19:1; 22:4, 11 f. ; 25: 4. A complete list and classification
is given by Chaeles, ^Book of Enoch, p. 125, note. According to 1 : 4, this judgment is
to occur on Mount Sinai, but cf. 27 : 4.
3 Chap. 22.
110 • 10 This is called ?io>i aiavm by the writer. Clearly aiuvtos refers to the char
acter rather than the endlessness of the life. It is the life of the Age. See also 5:9;
25:6. 5 10:17.

36 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
lously fruitful, and joy and righteousness will be universal,
the heathen being converted.' Jerusalem thus becomes the
center of a Jewish empire.^
It is difficult to see in these words any hard-and-fast
theory as to the future. Rather are they extravagant pictur-
ings of misery and joy. How poetical rather than trans
cendental they are appears in the indifference of their author
to the resurrection. It is not explicitly taught, and, though
possibly implied,' it exerts no influence upon the general
messianic picture.* Possibly the joyous life of the righteous
follows this indistinctly portrayed resurrection. If so,
nothing is said concerning their future after their second
death, and the reader is left in doubt as to whether the
wicked are to be annihilated or raised to suffer new punish
ments.' In the Dream Visions (chaps. 83—90), written during the
days of Judas Maccabaeus" or John Hyrcanus,' the interest
is still shown in angels as the originators of the sin ' that
compelled Jehovah to send the deluge, but still more in the
misfortunes of Israel.' In a series of rapid scenes, in which
sheep, rams, and wild beasts are the chief actors, he traces
Hebrew history up to the days of the Asmonean revolt.
The years of misery are described as under the control of the
seventy shepherds, doubtless the angelic '" representatives of
heathen oppressors of Judea, whose reign falls into the four
periods" in which the sufferings of the little country were
1 10 : 20-22. 2 25 : 5. 3 So Charles on basis of 22 : 11, 13.
4 Possibly these sensuous pictures are to be referred to the supposed condition
of the world after the deluge. Cf. 10 : 20 and 12 : 1. The section, chaps. 6-11, however,
seems to be composed of a large number of traditions and legends uncritically
joined together. It is probably hopeless to discover consistency in the melange
that has resulted, yet its purpose is certainly to some degree messianic.
iC/. 22 : 10, 11, 13. 6 Bousset, Charles.
' Beer and Dillmann. Schttrer places it 166-100 B. C.
8 84 : 4 ; chaps. 86-88. 9 Chaps. 89, 90. lo So Charles, Schflrer, Beer.
11(1) Till Cyrus (twelve hours); (2) till Alexander; (3) till conquest of Palestine
by Syria about 200 B. C. ; (4) till the messianic period.

Apocalyptic Messianism of the Pharisees 37
divided, the last, as the author trusted, being about to end
in the dawn of the messianic age. This new age is intro
duced by the day of God's judgment,' when all evil per
sons, including the wicked angels and the seventy shepherds,
are cast into an abyss of fire.^ Then the new, and appar
ently heavenly, Jerusalem is established by God,' all surviv
ing humanity is converted, the dead (again by implication)
are raised,* the Messiah appears, and all men are transformed
into his likeness.^ In all this there is little that is transcen
dental, and nothing that demands a new earth or a general
resurrection. Indeed, the resurrection of the dead is very
shadowy. The apocalyptic is still true to the spirit of prophet
ism. The Messiah, though distinct in the symbolism of the
white bull, has no function of either judgment or conquest
assigned him. The new kingdom is a gift of God to a
suffering Israel.
In the little "Weeks" apocalypse," however, one dis
covers the transition to a more transcendental hope. A.
period of peace and joy follows the overthrow of the enemies
of Israel, the angels alone are judged, all men repent, and a
new heaven appears in which goodness and happiness are
eternal. There is no mention of a Messiah, and this fact,
as well as the general character of its portrayal of the future,
leads one to refer this section to another source than its con
text.' When one passes to the later chapters of this oldest sec
tion of the Enoch literature, there are again met the elements
of a triumphant Israel, a day of judgment,' and the suffer
ing of the wicked. But there now appear more distinctly
190:18-20. 2 90:24-27. 3 90:28,29.
490:30-33. 5 90:37,38. 6 91 : 12-17 ; chap. 93.
7 This, however, in the light of Enoch, chaps. 1-36, does not necessitate any
radical chknge in date from that assigned its larger context, but rather argues that
in its early years pharisaism was combining its hopes for the appearance of the
eschatological kingdom with its political forecasts.
899:15; chap. 102; 104:5.

38 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
some of the characteristics of the new eschatology. The
wicked are to be slain in sheol' after a fearful struggle with
Israel's champion. During this conflict the righteous sleep,'
to be awakened only that they may share in the resurrection
of the spirit.' This resurrection, it should be noted, comes
at the close, not at the beginning, of the messianic kingdom,
and is to be followed by the enthronement of those who
enjoy it.* The Messiah is referred to only in a general way
as "my son,"° and his reign is evidently one of straggle
rather than of blessedness — a tribute to the systematic
tendency already noted. A similar advance over the earlier
messianism is seen in the retreat of purely sensuous con
ceptions. It is obviously impossible to reduce in any sure
system these various elements of the hope for the future.
It may well be doubted whether the writers of these por
tions of the Enoch literature had any consistent ideal in
their minds. We have doubtless reached the frontier of
certainty when we catalogue the elements of divine deliver
ance for Israel, the day of judgment, the punishment of
the wicked in hell, and the resurrection of the righteous.
These, at least, are common to the entire literature. A Mes
siah, a period of struggle before the wicked are subdued,
the manner and time of the resurrection, the place and
nature of the punishment, the length and degree of sensu-
ousness of the blessings — all these vary with the different
writers. The tendency away from the sensuous toward the
transcendental is, however, apparent.
From such inconsistent and bizarre" pictures as these, in
which the imagination shrinks from no extravagant pictures
of sensuous and transcendent bliss, the transition was easy
199:11; 100:5; 108:3. 2100:5.
3 103 : 4. There apparently is no resurrection of the body. One cannot help sur
mising that this singular expectation bespeaks a philosophical tendency not com
monly discovered in pharisaism, but clear in Paul. Cf. his (rifia Ttve«\i.tt.ri.ii6v.
4108:11,12. 5105:2; c/.4Ezra7:28,29; 14:9. 6 (y. Isa. 65:20-22; 30:23 f.

Apocalyptic Messianism of the Pharisees 39
to the next group of Enoch visions (chaps. 37-71). In them
the literalizing of the apocalypse is clearly begun. To men
tion only the most important matters, the Messiah is now dis
tinctly individualized with a variety of names — Son of man,'
the Elect, the Anointed, the Righteous One. He is pre-
existent^ and a judge' conjointly with God himself. In this
judgment all, both good and evil, even though dead,* share.
Kings and nobles suffer punishment^ with the evil angels."
No sin goes unpunished, though, except in the case of the
kings,' repentance seems always possible through the mercy
of God.' Yet even here the scene shifts back to earth. The
Jews of the dispersion return to Palestine,' and the Messiah
reigns'" over a righteous nation happy in the enjoyment of
peace and equality." Heaven joins the earth, and immortal
men dwell together with angels in a world forever free from
sin.'^ In these visions it is difficult to see anything but the
phantasies of a glowing faith, utterly untrammeled by the
conceptions of modem science. They have even less con
sistent eschatology than cosmogony. Demons, disobedient
stars, angels, magical trees, palaces, and mountains of pre-
1 Unless the sections in which this term is used be held to be post-Christian (see
Bousset, Jesu Predigt, 105 f . ; Deummond, Jewish Messiah, 61 f . ; Pfleidbeee, Das
Urchristentum, 315 f. ; and a good summary of arguments for this position in
Stalkek, Christology of Jesus, App.), a view with which it is difficult to agree.
WhUe interpolation is of course not impossible, all indications, especially the utter
absence of any reference to the historical Jesus, point against such a hypothesis.
See LlETZMANN, Der Menschensohn, pp. 42-8; SCHfjEEE, Geschichte des jUdischen
Volkes^ Vol. Ill, pp. 200-202 ; Beee in Kautszch, Apok. und Pseud., Vol. II, pp. 230-32.
Bousset in his Die Religion des Judentums, pp. 13, 196, has adopted pre-Christian
date According to some texts, in 62 : 5 and 69 : 29 the title " that Son of the woman "
appears ; this reading is rejected, however, by Chaeles, Book of Enoch, p. 164.
246:1,2; 48:3,6; 62:7.
345:3- 47:3; 50:4; 62:2. Cf. Chaeles, Enoch; Beee in Kautzsch, Apok. und
Pseud., in loco.
4 51:1,2. 5 Chaps. 62 and 63. 6 54:5, 6; chap. 64. '63:6-9.
8 The position given men in the heavenly kingdom is apparently determined by
the time of their repentance. Cf. chap. 50.
9 Chap. 57. '°«:^5- "53 = «'''-
1239:5-12; 41:2; 45:4-6; 49:12; 51:4; 58:3; 71:16.

40 Messianism in the New Testament
cious stones chase each other in a Waldpurgis night
dance of oriental imagery. As for definite ethical concepts,
beyond the most general manipulation of the thoughts of
sin and punishment, righteousness and reward, they are
practically neutral. Symbolism itself has all but ceased to
be symbolic and has become literal. Political rulers and par
ties are with difficulty seen to be the chief actors of the new
apocalypse, and the reader is introduced into an eschatology
in which the pharisaic dualism reaches a solution in the thin
air of transcendentalism.
Far less elaborate than this hope is that of the writer of
the Haggadist commentary on Genesis, the Book of Jubilees.'
Indeed, the messianic hope in any precise sense is all but
lacking in his book. Like the Ethiopic Enoch, its angel-
ology and demonology are well developed, and most impor
tant events of the Old Testament history are referred to
superhuman personalities. The evil spirits are under " the
prince of the Mastema,"^ from whose power the good angels
protect the righteous, and who at last is to be judged.' Yet,
writing as he does in the height of Maccabean success, it is
not unlikely that the author of Jubilees conceived of the
messianic age as having already begun.* Members were
to live a thousand years. The new age apparently was to
be inaugurated with a widespread study of the law," and
the age was to be free from the influence of Satan." The
1 It is with much hesitation that I place the Book of Jubilees in Maccabean
times. The arguments of Chaeles, Book of Jubilees, Introduction, § 17, fall far short
3f demonstration, and it is not easy to square all references in the book itself by
such a theory of its authorship. At the same time, the weight of probabilities is
somewhat in its favor. See also Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums, p. 13; Bohn,
Studien und Kritiken (1900), pp. 167-84 ; Littmann in Kautzsch, Apok. und Pseud.,
Vol. II, pp. 31-8. To the contrary, SCHtlEEE, Geschichte d. jild. Volkes3, Vol III'
pp. 274-80. 2 Or Prince MastSma, according to the Ethiopic manuscripts.
3Jub., 10:8.
4 Charles thinks that Enoch, 83-90, shows the same belief, but it is by no means
Dbvious. 5Jtt6.,23:26, 27; c/. 23:15. 6Jm6., 23:29.

Apocalyptic Messianism of the Pharisees 41
judgment comes at the close of this messianic period, and
no resurrection precedes it, the only immortality being that
of the spirit.' Another passage, however,^ seems to imply
that the judgment is to precede the establishment of the
kingdom. But here, as in all Jewish literature, it is impos
sible to discover absolute chronological consistency in escha
tological descriptions. There is no reference to a Messiah,
unless it be the very general prophecy concerning Judahs'
supremacy.' A bloody triumph of a nation that kept
Jehovah's law — this was the chief good expected. Terrible
suffering was to be endured by Jews before their conversion
to a devotion to the Law,* but just how the new age is to be
ushered in the author nowhere explains. It is probably
safe, therefore, to assume that he would not differ from other
apocalyptic writers in judging its coming to be cataclysmic."
Yet Jubilees is too completely legalistic in tone to justify
any precise conclusion as to its eschatology, and especially
as to its messianic hope. One must be content with saying
that, wherever such elements appear, they are clearly akin
to the general expectation, as it appears in the contemporary
literature we have already considered.
It is not difficult to appreciate the stage reached by this
new transcendentalism in the noble group of songs that
sprang into use during the last half -century before Christ —
the Psalms of Solomon. That these songs are of pharisaic
origin can hardly be questioned." According to the belief
of their author, misfortune never came to a nation except as
a punishment for sin. That Judea was suffering, therefore,
1J«6.,23:31. 2 23:11. 3 31:18-20. 4 23:1-23.
5 Chaeles, on the basis of /Mb. , 1 : 29 ; 4 : 26 ; 23 : 26-28, says that the author holds to
gradual transformation of creation, conditioned ethically by the conduct of Israel.
Book of Jubilees, p. 9, note. It is impossible to agree with such far-fetched con
clusions. ePor a general argument see RvLB and James, Psalms of Solomon; Kittel, in
Kautzsch, Apok. und Pseud., Vol. II, p. 127. For text see RifLE and James and
Gebhaedt, Die Psalmen Salamo.

42 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
argued long-continued secret wrong-doing on the part of its
rulers.' The Romans, though their leader had experienced
God's wrath,^ were but God's agents of punishment;' the
real offenders were the degenerate Asmonean high-priests,
whose faults seem to have been the change of the kingless
theocracy to a monarchy ; in case a monarchy was inevitable,
their presumption in usurping the throne of the divinely
appointed Davidic family; their misuse of their priestly
office; and their surrender to Rome. Yet the writer all
but never makes use of the apocalyptic scheme or method.
He writes as a good Pharisee, but as a poet rather than a seer.
It should be remembered that the Pharisees, in their
Chasidim days, had cheerfully submitted to the high-priest
hood of the Asmonean house. It was not the displacement
of the house of Zadok which displeased them, for the Asmo
neans were priests,* and any technical difficulties the Pharisees,
with the people, were content to waive until some prophet
should appear to solve them finally. It was the monarchy
as such that the Pharisees opposed. The ideal Judea, com
posed of those who were righteous, was impossible as long
as "sinners" controlled the state.' A righteous king was
therefore the first condition of that righteous and glorious
state for which all Jews longed."
From this point of view the messianic portrait of Pss. 17
and 18 is quite intelligible. In them the apocalyptic ele
ment is all but wanting. The pious are indeed to rise from
the dead,' but there is no clear correlation of this eschatology
with the messianic hope. Yet there is nothing in the Psalms
inconsistent with the apocalyptic messianism. The picture,
however, is more personal than in the older apocalypses.
1 See especially Ps. 1. 2 Pg. 2:30,31. 3 c/. 2 : 7, 8, 17.
4 According to 1 Maco. 7 : 13, 14, the Chasidim had been ready to submit to the
Hellenist Alcimus, since he was of the seed of Aaron.
50/. 17:26. 67:9; 9:19.
'3:16; 14:1-3, 7. For the wicked there is no such hope (3:13-15; 13:10; 14:6;
15:11).

Apocalyptic Messianism of the Pharisees 43
The thought of a kingdom is in marked subordination to
that of the Messiah. No picture could be more clearly
drawn than his. Neither a sufferer nor a teacher, pre-exist-
ent nor miraculously born, a priest like the Asmoneans nor
an eschatological wonder like the Son of man of Enoch, he
is the mighty king, the vice-gerent of God. In character he
is to be sinless,' obtaining wisdom from God,^ and strong
through the Holy Sprit.' His capital is to be Jerusalem,
which is first to be purged of all heathen,* and his kingdom
is to be composed of sanctified Jews,'* sons of God, among
whom there will never be pride or oppression or unright
eousness of any sort. He is to conquer the entire heathen
world, and even the sinners — by whom the Asmonean house
may be meant— will be "convicted in the thoughts of their
hearts" (vs. 27). The entire earth shall serve him, and he
will have mercy only upon those who fear him.
Yet this mighty king is not to be a man of war. He is
to put no trust in horses or cavalry or bows or armies. His
conquests are to be wrought "with the word of his mouth.""
The expression is a true echo of pharisaism. The king is
certainly not to be a teacher or a preacher or a philosopher,
but the author of the psalm does not wish to be understood
as counseling war, and therefore falls back on miracle. The
Christ is to be so mighty that he does not need to fight.'
The laissez-faire spirit of pharisaism as regards political
evils could hardly be better joined with limitless hope. The
world is to be subjected to a pharisaized Israel,' over whom
a great king is to reign as a representative of God ; but the
messianic ideal of these psalms is farther from that of the
1 „ . 35 36 3 17 : 37, 42. ^ Vss. 26, 32, 33, 36.
2l7:3l!35. 4 17:25,30,31. 617:36-39.
1 There is no need, however, of using this fact as a basis for the view that the
Jews had a double conception of the Christ, sometimes thinking of him as a warrior
and sometimes as a judge, as in Baldenspeegee, Das Selbstbewusstsem Jesu (3d ed.),
pp. HI f . The two are really two phases of the one conception of the conquering king
8 Aabff a-ytos, 17 : 28.

44 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
Zealots than from that of the apocalypses. One sees in it
an attempt to express the spirit of apocalyptic without the
assistance of visions. As the nearest approach made by
pharisaism to picturing a literal Jewish state, it demon
strates how utterly unworldly even its non- apocalyptic mes
sianism had grown. Social evolution, to say nothing of
revolution, is not thought of. God's Messiah must come
and miraculously establish the new kingdom. In the mean
time pious Jews must wait in patience.
SECTION IV. the transcendental MESSIANISM OF
later PHARISAISM
With the final establishment of the Roman suzerainty,
the hope of pharisaism turned unreservedly to apocalypses
in which the judgment is, as might be expected, all-impor
tant. As if in terror of any revolutionary bias, the Assump
tion of Moses, written during the first years of the Christian
era, mentions no Messiah and distinctly says that God
alone will punish the gentiles.' In the same treatise,^ also,
suffering is made the incentive, not only to repentance' and
religious faith, but also to confidence in the ultimate estab
lishment of the kingdom of God. The hostile kingdom of
evil, with its great king, was to be overcome.* The con
demnation of all heathen, the punishment of enemies of God
in Gehenna, and the surpassing glory of a reunited Israel in
the new dispensation," were to follow. Again the kingdom and
not the Messiah is central, the latter being unmentioned.
110:7.
2 Chaeles, Assumption of Moses ; Clemen in Kautzsch, Apok. und Pseud.
31:18.* Assum. Mos. gives in chap. 8 a striking picture of the persecution of Antiochus
Epiphanes, but does not, as Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums, p. 243, thinks,
present the king as " the tyrant of the end of the age who rules over the entire
world." The tyrant, when called "king of the kings of the earth," is evidently
viewed historically rather than eschatologicaUy. Cf. Ezek. 26 : 7 ; Dan. 2 : 37 ; Ezra
7 : 12. As Chaeles, Assumption of Moses, p. 30, says, the phrase is a title peculiar to
oriental monarchs.
5 10:1-10.

Apocalyptic Messianism of the Pharisees 45
God is a great judge, granting salvation only to the king
dom's members. Even more central is the final judgment
of both angels and men in the Secrets of Enoch, also written
some time near the beginning of the Christian era.' After
it, there begins for the righteous who have entered the king
dom a new age, endless and blessed, without illness or
sorrow of any sort.^ Of the Messiah or resurrection there
is no mention. It is noteworthy also that in this work the
doctrine of the millennium is distinctly formulated and de
rived.' Transcendentalism is seen in its final form in the various
cycles of apocalypses that were brought together after the
destruction of the Jewish state. As the persecution of
Antiochus Epiphanes had given rise to the Daniel and
Enoch apocalypses, so the new catastrophe produced the
Apocalypse of Baruch and 4 Esdras.* Within the former
it is perhaps possible to distinguish two sorts of forecasts of
the future, the one evidently optimistic, and the other hope
less, as to the future of Israel as a nation. In both alike it
is the judgment and the messianic kingdom that fill the
seer's horizon. In the one cycle, the future holds a new
Jerusalem, already prepared in heaven ;" a mighty Messiah
who should slay all those who had ruled or even known the
146:3; 48:8,9; 19:1-5; 65:6-10; cf. also 9:lfE.; 10:3-6; 18:1-6. Moefill and
Chakles, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch.
261:2f.; 65:8-10. 332-33:2.
4 Genuinely critical treatment of these two works may be said to have begun
with the article by Kabisch, " Die Quellen der Apocalypse Baruchs," Jahrbiicher
fur protest. Theol., 1891, pp. 66-107. He regards Baruch as the work of at least four
writers, and as consisting of a groundwork (1-23; 31-34; 75-87) ; two complete visions
(36-40 and 53-74)— in which he is supported by DEFAVE,ies apocalypses juives; frag
ments of a third apocalypse (24:3-29); and various material, including editorial
passages like 28 • 5 ; 30 : 1 ; 32 : 2-4 ; 35 ; 76 : 1. Chaeles, Apocalypse of Baruch, finds
three "Messiah apocalypses" (27-30:1; 36-40; 53-74; chap. 85); and two groups of
sections (1-1; 43-44.7; 45-46:6; 77-82; 84; 86, 87; and 9-12; 13-25; 30:2-35; 41-42;
44 •8-15- 47-52- 75, 76; 83). It is difficult not to feel the force of the arguments for
some broad division of the book into constituent material, but one may well reserve
an opinion as to such elaborate analysis.
64:2-6; 32:2-4.

46 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
Jewish nation ; ' and a new age in which all evil and physical
pain should disappear.'' For the other, the future holds no
such glory for Israel. Jerusalem had been destroyed, Israel
hopelessly defeated, and the end of the corruptible world
seemed the one precondition of permanent happiness. Not
a new nation or even a new age for Israel was to be
expected, but a new world-epoch' in which the very dead
should be raised,* and in which the world should become
immortal" and invisible." At this conviction even apocalypse
halted. Unlike the earlier writers (unless we except Sibyl
line Oracles, III, 97-807), the author of the Apocalypse of
Baruch regarded the messianic kingdom itself as but tem
porary. It marked the end of "the present age,'" was to be
followed by a general resurrection, after which was to come
the final judgment,' and a new age in which corruption
should be no more.^ When each man has been given his
deserts, then begins the everlasting age in which time
ceases, the righteous, like angels, dwell in heaven and not on
the earth, and the wicked agonize in fire.'" In i Esdras the
picture is more elaborated, but, with one exception, hardly
different in essentials. The pre-existent Christ" rises from
the sea in company with Enoch, Moses, and Elijah.'^ For
the first time in Jewish literature — unless we except the
questionable instance in Enoch, 105 : 2 — he is addressed by
God as "My Son, the Messiah."" He destroys the united
1 72 : 1-6 ; cf. chaps. 39, 40 ; 70 : 7-10. 2 44 ; 8-15 ; chaps. 73 ; 74. 3 32 : 6. 4 50 ; 2.
6 51:3; c/. 48:50. 651:8. '40:3; 74:3. schap.SO.
944:12; e/. 85:5. 1051:1-12. "12:32; 13:26, 52; 14:9.
i2i£sdras, 6:26("they shallsee the men who have been taken up, who have not
tasted death from their birth," i. e., Enoch, Moses, Elijah) ; 13: 2, 3, 5, 25, 52.
13 i Esdras, 7 : 28, 29 ;c/. 13: 32, 37, 52;14:9. Dalman, WordsofJems (Eng. trans.),
pp. 268-74, is doubtless correct in arguing that Ps. 2:7 is the ancestor of the Chris
tian use of the term 6 nibs toO 9eo5 in a messianic sense. At the same time he recog
nizes the surprising lack of evidence tending to establish a general use of the
term in that sense in Jewish literature. So far as lexicography goes, it is difficult
to show that the term comes over into the New Testament from any source whatso
ever. Obviously this is to prove too much, for it is impossible to account for the
term in the New Testament literature on ontological grounds. Were it otherwise.

Apocalyptic Messianism of the Pharisees 47

enemies of Israel' without war, but with fire that proceeds
from his mouth.^ The ten tribes of Israel return to dwell
with their brethren in a new Jerusalem, not made with
hands, but which had come down from heaven.' At this
point, however, appears a new element which one cannot
help believing is in some measure due to Christian influences.
The Messiah and all mankind die, the world being for an
entire week locked in death.* Then comes the general resur
rection, and God establishes the judgment" in which the
endless destiny of every man is fixed. The rewards and
punishments of life have already been experienced in some
degree," but now the righteous go to an eternal paradise and
the wicked to eternal hunger and pain.' Thereafter God is
supreme. It is not necessary to trace the development farther. The
alleged' two cycles of conceptions in Baruch, and to some
extent in 4 Esdras, in which the historical and the transcen
dental element are apparently interwoven, are not to be too
readily treated as documentary. Quite as likely are they but
there would certainly be some use of the ontological concept. The case is, however,
not so anomalous as might appear. The idea of sonship of God is by no means
uncommon in the Old Testament. Thus of Israel as the special object of Jehovah's
love (Exod. 4:22,23; Deut.l4:l, 2; Hos.ll:l);of some individual who may be con
ceived of holding a peculiar relation to God (2 Sam. 7 : 14 ; 1 Chron. 17 : 13, 14 ; 22 : 10 ;
Pss. 2:7; 89 : 20-37. ) Somewhat similarly in Philo, God is figuratively said to be the
father of innumerable virtues, graces, persons, and even the Logos. In all Philo
uses the analogy, occasionally with startling explanations, something like 300 times.
I wish to express my indebtedness to an as yet unpublished paper by A. S. Caeman.
More particularly, the viol 6eov seems to have acquired a somewhat technical force :
"those who are (or are to be) members of the kingdom of God" (Pss. SoJ., 17:27;
cf. Luke 20 : 36) . In the light of this usage, both of the analogy and of the term, it is
not difficult to see how, as in 4 Esdras and the interpolations of Enoch, the Messiah
should have been regarded as o uib? toO fleoO, or simply vtb? deov, par excellence. See
Baeton, Journal of Biblical Literature, 1902, Part I, pp. 78-91 ; for an attempt to
connect the term with current Roman usage see Deissmann, Bible Studies (Eng.
trans.) , pp. 166 f .
112:31-34.
2 13 : 37, 38, an echo of Pss. Sol., 17 : 39, perhaps in its turn derived from Isa. 11 : 4.
313:39-47; 7:26; 10:55; 13:36. 47:29,30. 57:31-35.
6 6 : 5 f ., though these verses are not beyond question. ' 8 : 52-59.
8 See Chaeles, Apoc. Bar., Intro.

48 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
two hemispheres of the same hope. To a modem, the
material already presented from the earlier apocalypses is
hardly less an inconsistent combination of political hope
and religious imagery. The fact seems to be that the Jew
could not distinguish between the supremacy of God and
the supremacy of his people Israel.' For teachers surrounded
by heathenism such a point of view was inevitable. It was
inconceivable that God should not finally be supreme ; but
it was just as inconceivable that his people should not be
supreme as well. Inevitably the mind of a seer would thus
waver between the two descriptions. One moment he
would picture in non-political words the triumph of God,
and the next, with precisely the same denouement in mind,
he would picture the triumph and imperial supremacy of
the Jew.
Similarly, in these apocalypses appears another contradic
tion to be noticed in all literature of the class : the dualism
as regards the enemy to be overcome. Repeatedly the
reader is confused by the sudden transition from an obvi
ously political enemy — at first Antiochus Epiphanes and
afterward the Roman empire — to Satan or evil angels. Here
again a modern mind is sure to be confused and tempted to
appeal to the ever ready deus ex machina of analytic criti
cism. But from the point of view of the Jew there was no
difficulty in such identification of politics and demonology.
If the kingdom of God was to be in practice the kingdom
of the Jews, so the enemy of God was in practice some politi
cal oppressor. It was as easy to identify the one set of
parallels as the other. Middle terms like Edom^ or the
visions of Daniel' or Nero as Antichrist* were always at hand.
1 Bousset, Die Religion des Judenthums, pp. 201-3.
2 4 Esdras, 6 : 8-10 ; Targ. Jon. Lev., 26 : 44. Cf. Bachee, Agada, Vol. I, p. 292.
3 4 Esdras, 12 : 11 ; 5 : 3, 11, 12 ; Baruch, 39 ; JosEPHua, Ant., x, 11 : 7.
4 Ascension of Isaiah, 3 : 13—5 : 1. Cf . Chaeles, Ascension of Isaiah, LI-LXXIII
and in general on this point Bousset, Religion des Judenthums, pp. 204-6.

Apocalyptic Messianism op the Pharisees 49
Even when such process of identification was not utilized,
the Jewish mind would find no difficulty in demanding the
punishment of both sets of enemies. Indeed, it is to be
noticed that the punishment of wicked men — who must cer
tainly be heathen — was made the same as that of the devil
and his angels.'
Another inconsistency for the modern mind lies in the
expected resurrection. It is apparent that by the time the
messianic hope had reached this stage of its development,
immortality, at least of the righteous, had become one of its
integral parts. The passage from the age of present misery
to the age of glory and joy logically involved an emphasis
upon the continuance of human life, not only in its national,
but in its individual form. The Wisdom of Solomon pre
sents this hope in perhaps its most perfect form :
"The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God;
And no torment shaU touch them."
"For even if in the sight of men they be punished.
Their hope is full of immortality." ^
This hope of immortality, as has already appeared, was
by no means the child of messianism. Before the hope of
the prophets had finally been transformed by the apocalyptic
tendency, the pious Jew had reached a clear faith in a life
after death. Not to trace the earlier stages of this hope, in
which there are few elements that do not appear in most
primitive religions,' it will be necessary only to call attention
to the general silence as regards the conditions of the
wicked dead. That they are annihilated it would be hardly
safe to affirm, although the Wisdom of Solomon' distinctly
1 Enoch, chaps. 62, 63, especiaOy 63 : 6 ; cf. Matt. 25 : 41.
^Wis.Sol.,3:l-S.3 Thus shades, the pit, the upper and the under world. For a general summary
of the Hebrew belief see Chaeles, A Critical History of Eschatology, etc., pp. 152 f. ;
but one needs to be constantly on guard as regards the author's exegesis.
43:9,17:14; 15:2,3.

50 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
limits immortality to the righteous. More probable is it
that pharisaism and Essenism, as described by Josephus,' rep
resented the current religious belief in these particulars, and
that the Sadducees were exceptional in holding that "souls
die with the body." Yet the further statements of Josephus
in this connection are well substantiated by the entire litera
ture of the Pharisees. "They believe," he says, "that
there will be under the earth rewards and punishments,
according as men have lived virtuously or viciously in this
life; and the latter souls are to be detained in an everlasting
prison, but the former will have power to live again." In
the Jevoish War' he says expressly that the Pharisees
believe that "the souls of good men only are removed into
other bodies, while the souls of bad men are punished with
eternal punishment." This limitation of the resurrection to
the righteous is in keeping with the entire pharisaic litera
ture, and reappears in the silence of Paul and the other New
Testament writers concerning the resurrection of the wicked.
These words of Josephus enable us also to see clearly the
force of the references already noted in the literature to the
place and nature of the punishment which, according to
pharisaism, awaited the unrighteous. Sheol was originally
simply "the pit" under the earth to which all dead persons
were supposed to go. Thanks to the imagination of the
apocalypsists, however, it became a place of fire, first for
evil angels,' and later for evil men.* A more fully developed
doctrine of hell as a place of punishment appears in Enoch,
22 : 1-14. According to this passage, hell is divided into
four sections : for the martyrs, the righteous, the sinners who
lived prosperously on the earth, and sinners who had been
to some degree punished on the earth. The souls of the
1 Ant., xviii, 1:3-5; War, ii, 8 : 2-14. 2 ii, 8 : 14. 3 Enoch, 21.
4 Enoch, 27 : 2, 3 ; 48 : 9 ; 51 : 1, 2 ; 62 : 12, 13 ; 90 : 26, 27. It is worth noticing that in
these passages there is no trace of the purgatorial fires of rabbinism.

Apocalyptic Messianism of the Pharisees 51
third class were to be slain' in the day of judgment, but
those of the fourth class were to be left in sheol, bereft of
all hope of resurrection.
From these representations it is safe to infer that the chief
reward to which the Pharisee looked forward was the resur
rection of the body. Goodness was a matter of keeping the
law, but not for its own sake. Rather was it a means by
which one should escape the power of death, and, unlike the
wicked, pass over into the glorious future set by the king
dom and conditioned by the obtaining of a new body. This
identification of the heavenly reward of the righteous with
the resurrection, coupled with the fact that such reward
could only come to the righteous, i. e., those who kept the
law sufficiently to be acquitted at the day of judgment, fur
nishes an essential part of the Pauline scheme of justification
and salvation.
With the introduction of the resurrection into the mes
sianic concept, pharisaism reached the limits of its transcen
dental hope. Further it could not go and remain Jewish.
The new world was a Jewish empire and the new Jerusalem,
inhabited though it might be with risen saints, had still its
temple and its worshiping Jews and proselytes. Logical
difficulties might be numberless; they were as nothing in
comparison with any teaching that de-ethnicized the new
age. Lacking scientific habits of mind, the Pharisees had
boundless confidence in their nation. To question its future
supremacy was to question Jehovah's love and power.
section v. the essential elements of eschatological
messianism
Such considerations as these, reinforced as they are by
the evident variety seen in the different survivals of Jewish
literature, should warn us against believing that there ever
1 This is not equivalent to annihilation, in the light of Enoch, 108 : 3 and 99 : 11.
But what does it mean?

52 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament

was an "orthodox" messianic hope among the Jews. Among
the rabbis of the second century it may be that there are to
be seen tendencies making toward an authoritative formu
lation of such a hope, but among the Pharisees of New
Testament times messianism, both in its general and its
specific character, was in process of development. Any
systematic statement of its content is therefore liable to be
misleading, and most of all any statement that depends upon
a classified accumulation of the various elements of the
various writings.' The only safe method of constructing
any schematic statement is that which distinguishes those
elements which are clearly universal and fundamental from
those that are to a greater or less degree peculiar to any
given document or teacher, and sets such variations in
genetic relationship with the common elements.^
If now we formulate the common elements of eschato
logical messianism as found in the apocalyptic literature of
pharisaism, we obtain the following results:
1. Two ages, the one present and the other future —
"this age" and "the coming age."
2. The belief that the present age is evil, under the
influence and even control of Satan,' and aboimding in all
sorts of misery, including disease and pain and death.*
3. The belief that the good age is to be introduced by
1 As, for instance, is given by ScHtJEEE, Vol. II, ii, and Wbbee, JUdische Theo-
logic. 2ScHtyEEE's elaborate presentation of the messianic hope, Gesch. jUd. Volkes^,
§ 29, is misleading at this point. By his method of accumulation of materials, he
gives the impression that all people held to all the elements he has tabulated. How
far this is from the actual facts will be apparent to any person who reads his pres
entation of his data, or, better, reads the literature itself. SchCeee's text. Vol.
II 3, pp. 550, 551, is apparently intended to correct any misapprehension caused by
his method. 3 It is worth noticing that this conception of Satan is of late origin. Very pos
sibly it is the result of Parsic influence. Cf. Stave, Einfluss des Parsismus auf das
Judenthum, esp. pp. 272 f . ; J. Weiss, Predigt Jesu 2, pp. 30-35,
iE.g. , Jubilees, 10:8; 17:16; Assum. Moses, 10:1 f.; Testament XII. Pat.; Dan.
5 ; Naph. 2, 3 ; Lev. 19 ; Issa. 6.

Apocalyptic Messianism of the Pharisees 53

God or his representative through some sort of catastrophe.'
In some cases this catastrophe is developed into a period of
struggle between God's representative and his enemies.
4. The judgment, which is at times identified with the
catastrophic punishment of the enemies of the Jews. The
decisions of this judgment are final. The future of the gen
tiles, however, is not altogether distinct, varying between
destruction in a gehenna of fire to a conversion and subjec
tion to the new Jewish kingdom. The fact that reference is
sometimes made to two judgments^ emphasizes the central
portion of the judicial element.
The judge is to be God, although occasionally the Mes
siah himself is so conceived.' Once also the righteous are
regarded as judges.*
5. The introduction of the new kingdom of the Jews,
which is also understood to be the kingdom of God or
heaven. This kingdom is the great characteristic of the
new age. It comes like it, not by way of evolution, but as
God's gift. A variation at this point is the introduction of
a messianic kingdom of limited duration — four hundred or
a thousand years — which is followed by the final establish
ment of God's control over all men.
It is to be borne in mind that the Pharisee, as distinct
1 A reference in Assum. Moses, 1 : 18, to repentance as in some way related to the
coming of the kingdom, is unique in pre-rabbinic literature. How prominent it
later became may be seen in Sanh., 976; Pesitta, 1636. See Webee, JUdische Theolo
gie, pp. 348 f. In Assum. Moses, 1 : 18, the repentance does not condition the "consum
mation of the end of the days," but is the first result of such a consummation. Cf.
also the relation of the conversion of the gentiles in Assum. Moses, chap. 12.
^E.g., in Apocalypse of Baruch, 4 Esdras, Enoch literature, and Wisdom of
Solomon. In rabbinical literature there is even a threefold judgment. Cf. BlSEN-
mengee, Entdecktes Judenthum, Vol. II, pp. 950 f.
3Enoch,i5:3^ 55:4; 61:8; 62:2; 69:27; Sib. Oracles, iii, 286.
4 Wisdom of SoUmwn, 3:8; cf. Ecclus. 4:15. See also the forecast of crowns and
thrones prepared for the righteous and awaiting them at the resurrection, Ascen.
7s., 7 : 22 ; 8 : 26 ; 9 : 10-13, 18, 24, 25 ; 11 : 40. But these passages are of Christian origin.
Later Jewish thought conceived of the messianic age as one of struggle and placed
the judgment at its close. Cf. Webee, JUdische Theologie, § 88. It also demands
the resurrection of the bodies of the righteous.

54 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
from the Zealot, did not desire to inaugurate this kingdom,
but to wait God's pleasure. The later rabbis, it is true, were
swept from this position, and under Akiba did attempt the
establishment of a new Jewish and messianic state by force
of arms, but the Pharisees simply waited for God's initiative.'
6. The resurrection of the righteous. Here variation is
also to be seen in that sometimes the resurrection and the
judgment are made contemporaneous, and occasionally there
seem to be two resurrections, one preceding the messianic
kingdom and the other introducing the final reign of God.^
7. The personal Messiah. This, however, is not an expli
citly described element in all the messianic conceptions. He
would of course be always implied. There is no contrast
between a fighting and a judging Christ, and no reference
to a dying or a suffering Christ. He might be a man
especially "anointed" for his work, or a superhuman
character. The coming of Elijah, though not unexpected by pre-
Christian Judaism, was not so prominent as in rabbinism
proper. 1 Josephus's refusal to give the one interpretation to Dan., chaps. 11 and 12,
required by his context (War, iv, 6:3; Ant., x, 11:7) shows that the Pharisees
expected the future supremacy of the Jewish people.
2 The status of the righteous dead between death and the resurrection is not set
forth in Jewish literature with any consistency. Some rabbis evidently thought
that this interval was spent in "paradise." Cf. Enoch, 39:3-12; 60:8-23; 61:12;
70:3,4; 71:16,17. 4 Esdras, 7:30-34, speaks of the righteous dead as being in a
"storehouse; " c/. 4:35. Such or similar views were especially held by the Jews of
the Dispersion. See SCHtJEEE, Ges. jild. Volkes^, Vol. n, p. 549, note. See also
Castelli, "The Future Life in Rabbinical Literature," Jewish Quarterly Beoiew,
Vol. I (1889), pp. 314^52.

PART II
THE MESSIANISM OF JESUS

CHAPTER I
CRITICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS
In any discussion of the sayings of Jesus critical pro
cesses must always be presupposed. It is by no means to
be assumed that the records contained in our four gospels
are verbatim reports of the words of Jesus. With the evi
dence of textual criticism, the patristic gospels, and the
Fourth Gospel at hand, it is to exercise but ordinary caution
when we carefully scrutinize any reported saying. Above
all, there must always be recognized the possibility that the
universal eschatological messianism of the early church
should have been read back into the sayings of Jesus.
At the same time, however, it is not difficult to reach
certain critical positions without attempting at the outset a
precise opinion as to just how great an allowance should be
made for the subjectivism of the evangelists. While it is
obviously impossible to enter fully into a discussion of the
grounds for such positions, it will perhaps conduce to a
better understanding of what may be said in the following
pages, if such positions be briefly stated.
Sufficient evidence is already at hand to warrant us in
believing that there exist in our synoptic gospels two classes
of material.' One class is composed of narratives of the
deeds of Jesus. Chief of such material is a collection to all
intents and purposes the same as our present gospel of Mark.^
i(y. especially Weenlb, Die synoptische Frage; Bueton, "Some Principles of
Literary Criticism and their Application to the Synoptic Problem," Decennial Pub
lications of the University of Chicago ; and A Short Introduction to the Gospels.
2 The question as to whether or not the original sources of the synoptic gospels
were in Aramaic (as with Dalman) or in Hebrew (as with Resch) does not demand
attention in the present study. Nor does it yet appear that we are likely to account
for the variations in parallel sayings, and thus come nearer the actual words of
57

58 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
Another, and for our purpose much more important, class
of sources is that comprising collections of the sayings of
Jesus. Chief among these would be that known as the
Logia of Matthew.
The combination of the different collections of these two
classes of sources in varying proportions gave us our synop
tic gospels. Just which collection in each group is the older,
or whether any in the group of narratives antedates those in
the group of sayings, it is not necessary for our purpose to
decide. Far more important is it to decide which of the
variant forms of a saying is the older and thus more probably
represents the actual thought of Jesus. At this point we
may safely use this canon: that saying is more probably
genuine which treats of messianic matters in any other way
than that which characterized apostolic belief. The trust
worthiness of sayings which do not contradict, but agree
with, apostolic belief must be decided on these more general
critical grounds: (1) Such sayings as appear in Mark as well
as in Matthew or Luke may be used with confidence. (2)
Such sayings as are common to Matthew and Luke are also
to be used with confidence as representing the thought of
Jesus. (3) In the case of sayings which occur in both Luke
and Matthew, but in different forms, the preference will, on
the basis of internal evidence, be given sometimes to the
Lukan and sometimes to the Matthean form. The reason
for this uncertainty, as far as Matthew is concerned, lies in
his tendency to give new literary form to his material, in the
less specific character of his version of parallel sayings, and
in the interpolatory use made by the first gospel of material
Jesus by retranslating our Greek gospels into either Aramaic or Hebrew. The
results of such a method as yet are interesting rather than convincing.
That our present gospel of Mark shows the influence of Matthew or the
Matthean Logia (Badham, Influence of the Gospel of Matthew upon Mark; J. Weiss,
Das alteste Evangelium), and that it is itself composite, may very likely be true, but
such highly refined critical processes as such a possibility demands, in order to be
come probability, have not brought very tangible results as yet. See J. Weiss,
Marcuscvan^elium.

Critical Presuppositions 59
contained in proper contexts in the third. On the other
hand, Luke seems at times to have made changes from sub
jective reasons.'
In certain cases Luke has apparently used narrative
materials different from those employed by either Mark or
Matthew. Here the Lukan account bears every evidence of
late origin, and in no way proves an exception to the general
principle, already enunciated, of the primary value of the
Markan account. It is not impossible, also, that in the case
of certain sayings dealing with questions of wealth the
Lukan gospel includes material of Ebionitic origin. Such
material, however, for our present purpose may be largely
disregarded, as it is messianic only in the most general
sense, and introduces no elements which are not found in
sayings about which there can be no reasonable question.
A consideration of the utmost importance concerns the
reworking of sayings in the different gospels. Practically
without exception, these reworkings show an advance toward
the schematic messianism of the apostolic age. It is not
difficult to recognize these expansions and modifications, and
their existence is a constant warning against a too ready
attribution to Jesus of appeals to current messianic ideas.
The problem involved in any use of the Fourth Gospel is
admittedly intricate. The general tendency of criticism
seems to be, on the whole, toward insisting upon the impos
sibility of separating the sayings of Jesus from the editorial
element of the gospel. Such agnosticism does not appear
to be wholly justifiable. That the editorial element in the
gospel is very large is apparent from even a superficial
study, but much of the argument against the originality of
Johannine sayings of Jesus is based upon the position that
Jesus did not assume messianic importance until Csesarea
1 On the Sermon on the Mount see article by Votaw in Hastings's Dictionary of
the Bible, supplementary volume, and Bacon, The Sermon on the Mount.

60 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament

Philippi, and that therefore the early portion of the Fourth
Gospel is without historical value. As will appear later in
our discussion, this is a point which cannot be established on
sufficiently independent grounds to warrant the rejection of
the facts contained in the chapters of the gospel. For the
purpose of discovering the sources to be used in tracing the
messianic thought of Jesus, it would be a distinct begging
of the question to declare that nothing can be genuine
which portrays an early development of the messianic con
sciousness on the part of Jesus. Just when that conscious
ness dawned is the precise question under discussion.
Before it can be answered it will be necessary to establish
the worth of the Johannine material by the use of inde
pendent criteria. If it should appear that there is absolute
contradiction between the messianic portrayal of Mark and
that of John, the choice then necessary would favor Mark ;
but such contradiction has never yet been fairly established.
Nor is it by any means impossible at many points to dis
tinguish sharply between the editorial comment and doctrine,
and the sayings of Jesus which lie below them. Even when
such line of cleavage is not immediately evident, it can be
pretty thoroughly established that most of the sayings rep
resented by the Fourth Gospel as those of Jesus are really
echoes of similar sayings of Jesus contained in the synoptic
tradition. It is true that the term "kingdom of God" is
not commonly used in the Fourth Gospel, but the term
"eternal life" is clearly an equivalent to the idea of mem.
bership in such kingdom. The eschatological point of view
predominates in the Fourth Gospel quite as truly as in the
synoptics. In so far, therefore, as the sayings of Jesus in
their Johannine form are similar in content to those of the
synoptic cycles, it is hard to see why they should not be
used as sources for constructive statements. In cases where
there is no such echo of the synoptic logia, the question of

Critical Presuppositions 61
authenticity must be decided very largely through a decision
as to whether or not a saying is in a section of editorial dis
quisition, and whether it is in general harmony with the
thought in the synoptic cycle. Generally speaking, it will
be found that, outside of the references to the early mes
sianic career of Jesus, the Fourth Gospel contains nothing
from Jesus that is new. More than the synoptics it empha
sizes certain elements of Jesus' teaching, notably those of
the Holy Spirit, and of the superhuman relationships exist
ing between himself and God. Undoubtedly, too, it
represents a more developed tendency toward apologetic
interpretation than that discoverable even in Matthew. But,
after all, it is a question of degree rather than of sort of
treatment, and at least as far as messianic elements are con
cerned the problems involved are by no means beyond solu
tion.

CHAPTER II
THE MESSIANISM OP JOHN THE BAPTIST
It is by no means to be inferred from the discussion of
the pharisaic literature that apocalyptic, eschatological
messianism was universal among the Jewish people.'
Popular messianism, as has already appeared, was rather of
the political, revolutionary type. Yet both parties awaited
the Day of Judgment, and either could use the vocabulary
of the other. There was, further, always a possibility that
the old message of prophetism might furnish a common
ground upon which both might stand. That message, how
ever, was never uttered. The call which stirred the common
people, however it may have been interpreted by them, was
eschatological, and not religio-political; apocalyptic, and not
revolutionary. In the person who uttered it, John the
Baptist, we have a man speaking, indeed, in the spirit of
prophecy, but under the control of that messianism which
had grown up in the pharisaic period.^
John the Baptist is always regarded by the New Testa
ment writers' as the inaugurator of the great movement of
1 Baldenspeeoee, Selbstbeumsstsein Jesu^, pp. 203-7, has probably underrated
the diffusion of apocalyptic influences, especially since, as has already been noted,
the book of Daniel was in universal use. There is, to my knowledge, no evidence,
fit to be taken seriously, of the existence among the Jews of a sect of apocalyptic
Pietists. It, like the similar body of religionists, " Die Stillen im Lando," may have
existed, but the historical student must yet relegate that possibility to the region of
conjecture. 2 It is difficult to see why wo should question the trustworthiness of the Lukan
account of John's mission. There is certainly nothing in it that is in any way con
tradicted by the common synoptic source or by Matthew, or by later references of
New Testament writers. The reference in Josephus (Ant., xviii, 5:2), whose genu
ineness, indeed, is not above suspicion (ScHtJEEE, Geschichte des jUdischen Volkes^,
Vol. I, p. 438, n. 24), compels us to believe that John's career and preaching were
such as would suggest social revolution.
3Markl:l-Si Johnl:l-6: Actsl:22; 10:37; 13:i24, 35.
62

The Messianism of John the Baptist 63
which Christianity was the outcome. Although the iTew
Testament gives us few data, they are sufficient to enable us
to formulate an opinion concerning him and his work. The
appearance of the man and his methods were both adapted
to attract the attention of the people and to stir the nation.
Of agitators there had been many, and of revolutionists, but
there had been no one who so completely fulfilled the popu
lar conception as to what a prophet should be.' His long
hair, his fasting, his rude clothing, his intensity, his own
estimate of himself, all argued the prophetic office. The
message which John delivered was exceedingly simple.^
The Christ was at hand, the judgment was soon to be estab
lished, and punishment was soon to be inflicted upon the
wicked. Such preaching is evidently a prophetic announce
ment of an approaching messianic era. John does not
mention specifically the two ages, or Satan's kingdom, or
the messianic kingdom and the resurrection of the dead.
His attention seems to be entirely centered upon the coming
Judge. In this obviously he is in advance of messianism, as
we have seen it, in which the person of Christ is generally
subordinated to the idea of the kingdom. But he is in sym
pathy with the spirit of pharisaism in that he emphasizes
the idea of judgment and the necessity for righteousness on
the part of those who wish to be members of the kingdom.
It is to be noticed, further, that, as in pharisaism, this
repentance and achievement of righteousness do not condi
tion the coming of the messiah. Repentance is the means
by which a man determines his fate. Righteousness neither
hastens nor delays the divinely fixed event.
The recognition of the redemptive work of Jesus con
tained in the phrase "the Lamb of God that taketh away
the sin of the world'" is certainly not so easily explained.
I Mark 1 : 6 and parallels. 2 Mark 1 : 7 ; Matt. 3 : 7-12 ; Luke 3 : 7-9.
3 John 1:29.

64 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
In view of all the facts at our disposal, it is impossible to
believe the Baptist conceived of Jesus as fundamentally a
sacrifice for sin. Possibly the explanation is in part critical.
John 1:29 may be an editorial expansion of John 1:36.
The hypothesis is by no means improbable, in view of the
general character of the Fourth Gospel, and would account
for the appearance in a saying ascribed to the Baptist of a
soteriological concept of later origin. If it be regarded as
tenable, the characterization of Jesus as the Lamb of God
would mean simply that the Baptist saw in him an utter
absence of the revolutionary furor of the Zealots. Such a
role he might well have believed to be temporary, and later
have grown impatient for the establishment of the judgment
he had predicted. When it is recalled that in the estima
tion of Jesus' own disciples his work as a teacher and healer
delayed his assuming his proper functions of Messiah, it is
not difficult to see how John could have been ready to
believe that Jesus might begin his work in a quiet, undemon
strative way, and later take up a more obviously messianic
role. His later attitude toward Jesus' would thus be one
of disappointment rather than of curiosity or newly awakened
interest. It is, however, rather remarkable that John so expressly
repudiates the idea that the acquittal in the judgment and
membership in the kingdom are in any way conditioned by
Jewish descent. Whether or not he could have stated the
matter more positively and said that anyone, Jew or gentile
who repented might became a member of the kingdom, it
would hardly be safe to affirm. In view of his subsequent
questionings concerning Jesus' conception of the role of
Messiah,^ it would probably be safer to conclude that his
position was negative. That is, while holding to the general
Israelitic character of the messianic kingdom, he made it
I Matt. 11 : 2, 3 ; Luke 7 : 18-21. 2 Matt. 11 : 2-19 ; Luke 7 : 18-35.

The Messianism of John the Baptist 65
clear that the Jew would not enter it simply as a Jew, but as
a penitent Jew. Repentance, not birth, was to be the ground
of acquittal. The act of baptism which John adopted to symbolize
repentance as a preparation for entrance into the kingdom
consequent upon the forgiveness of sins, can hardly be said
to have been invented by him. Ablutions were common
throughout the Jewish cult, though administered by one's
self rather than by another. The real significance given
the bath by John was however new. Its symbolism was by
him connected, as it proved inseparably, with the messianic
hope. And instead of the repeated ablutions of current
Judaism, it was administered but once — a fit symbol of that
one supreme act of penitence and abandonment of sin
demanded of those who believed the good news of the com
ing salvation.'
That John was in no wise revolutionary or ascetic in his
teaching, however he might himself live, is to be seen in
directions given by him to the various classes of penitents,
as recorded by Luke.^ These words enable us to see again
how thoroughly he was in sympathy with the pharisaic rather
than the Zealot messianism. His converts were not to
abandon their ordinary way of living, but were to maintain
a righteous mode of life. Such mode of life was, however,
not conceived of by him as a part of the messianic kingdom
proper, but rather as the sort of life which became penitents
who were awaiting the messianic kingdom. With John
clearly the kingdom was still future, and it would be serious
perversion of his thought to hold that these directions
given the publicans, and the soldiers, and the people generally,
1 Weenle, Beginnings of Christianity (Eng. trans.), p. 36, very properly says that
this baptism and the accompanying ascetic tendencies of John's teaching (e. g.,
fasting) were toward pharisaism. They might indeed conceivably, to judge from
the tone of the Fourth Gospel, be even regarded as opposed to Christianity proper.
2 Luke 3: 10-14.

66 The Messianic Hope iN the New Testament
concerned the kingdom itself. What life would be in the
kingdom he never specified. He even refused to assume the
role of Elijah. He was simply a voice calling for prepara
tion for the coming King and Judge.' As to what would
happen after the judgment and the coming of the king
dom, John utters no word, except a general forecast of punish
ment. But he does most emphatically declare that whereas he
baptized with water, the Coming One would baptize with
the Holy Spirit. And that Coming One he believed was
close at hand.
1 Luke 3:15-17; John 1:19-27.

CHAPTER III
THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN THE TEACHING OF JESUS
Like his contemporaries, Jesus lived in the messianic
atmosphere. It would, indeed, be interesting to speculate
as to just the form in which he would have expressed his
religious and ethical teachings, had he been a Greek rather
than a Jew. Possibly like Plato he might have described
an ideal city-state, or, like the Stoics, have spoken of Nature
or Logoi. Our sources, however, make such speculation
futile, and we are thrown back upon the fact that Jesus was
a Jew, and, as one born under the Law, was inextricably
and to no small degree genetically united with the thoughts
and life and hopes for Judaism. That he gave new content
to his people's language and thought-forms is true, but to
understand him completely one must first of all understand
his times. Yet, as one discovers in Jesus something quite
other than a mere restatement of the better element of
pharisaism in general, even more does one discover in his
entire career the mingled rejection and acceptance of ele
ments in current messianism. I
1. From one point of view, Jesus seems utterly to reject
both the popular and pharisaic messianic hopes, and to lay
emphasis upon the essentially religious hope of deliverance
through God's help, of which Jewish messianism was a his
torical and ethnic expression.' He apparently wished to be
recognized as the founder of a society the members of which,
whether Jews or gentiles, should resemble him, their Teacher
I Weenlb, Die Anfdnge unserer Religion, English translation. Beginnings of
Christianity, and Beichgotteshoffnungen, pp. 23-44, discusses this matter in detail.
67

68 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament

and type, in their faith in a loving heavenly Father, in their
love of other men, and in snch a willingness to count this
faith and love the highest good in life as to be ready to
sacrifice all else rather than them. Where they went, as where
he was, the kingdom of God was. The group of men thus
devoted to a religious and moral life — the kingdom of
Qod^ — he seems to have believed would ultimately trans
form society into a great brotherhood of love and service
and trust in God.^
Evidently in such a conception Jesus made the kingdom
1 The two terms 17 ^aa-tKela Twv ovpaviov and i} jBatriXet'a tov Oeov are essentially
identical. Each may very well be the translation of ^{^^'QTZJT SHlDb'Sg (Heb.
D^^TQl^ n^DblS). So Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, Vol. I, p. 75, who gives references to
Berachoth.,!!,, 2, and to similar expressions in Ab.^ i, 3; Sanhedrin^ vi, 4; ix, 6. The
Aramaic form is made definite simply because the Aramaic has no other form. It
should be noticed that the Hebrew is without the article. See also SchUkee, Jahr^
buck fiir protestantische Theologie, 1876, pp. 171 f. ;¦ Tatlob, Sayings of the Jewish
Fathers, p. 67. Dalman rejects, the ideas of Baldenspeegee, Selbstbewusstseln
Jesu^, p. 197, and Stanton, Jewish and Cliristian Messiah, p. 209, that v ^a<rtA.eta rov
oupacov emphasizes a transcendental element in the conception of the messianic king
dom. So, too, Bousset, Die Religion des Judenthums, p. 208. Dalman also holds that
Jesus chose the expression in order to avoid the use of God's name. Luke and Mark,
in reporting his words, followed the usage of the LXS, which always uses rj ^aa-LKeCa.
TOV 0eou. The fundamental idea of tl'^Db'Q he holds to be always " reign " (Regiment,
Herrschaft,) and not "domain" (Reich) ; so Holtzmann, LebenJesu, pp. 125 f.; but
see Krop, La pensie de JSsus sur le royaume d« Dieu, pp. 21 f. Dalman's examples
certainly establish such a usage among the rabbis, but that it is the only usage is
contradicted by other literature. And what easier and more inevitable metonymy
is there than that "dominion" should pass over to represent " those rtded " ?
At all events, it is important to recognize clearly that in the present instance
we have an example of the fact that the study of a concept is more important than
the study of a term. The expression rj paaiKeia toO 9eov does not occur in the Jewish
literature contemporary with Jesus, unless it be Eth. Enoch., 41 : 1 f . ; 52 : 4 ; Wis. Sol,,
6:5; 10:10; Ps. So^, 5:21. Yet, Grod's relation to the messianic kingdom is univer
sally recognized as that of king (e. g., Eth. Enoch, 25 : 3, 5, 7 ; 27 : 3). And, more specifi
cally, the kingdom is actually in heaven, according to Test. XII, Pat., Lev. 2:3;
Ascension of Isaiah^ 4 : 14. In Assumption of Moses the victory of Grod's kingdom over
that of Satan is described at length (cf. especially 10: If. ; cf. Test. XII. Pat., Dan 5).
Further, see Ps. Sol., 17:4; Tobit, 13:1; Dan. (Song of Three Children) 3:54.
2Matt. 12:28; Luke 10:11; Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43,47-50; Mark4:26-29. JtJUCHEK,
Gleichnissi'eden Jesu, hardly does justice to these parables. To these passages are
sometimes added Matt. 11:11, 12; (Luke 7:28; 16:16). This social view of the king
dom of God has played a considerable, and doubtless helpful, rOle in recent litera
ture. I have myself adopted it in my Social Teaching of Jesus, chap. 3. Such a
definition, however, is not the proper point of departure for a study of the social
teaching with which the gospels abound.

Kingdom of God in Teaching oe Jesus 69

into a family, thereby utterly destroying its formal messianic
content. It was to be a regenerate humanity, not a conquer
ing Jewish nation. God was to be a father and not a king.
Evidently, too, he has preserved the truth that lay in revolu
tionary messianism. If God is to deliver men from misery
or sin, social results are inevitable. To postpone all effects
of divine assistance to an indefinite future is to ostracize God
and to threaten the very foundations of religion. That Jesus
discountenanced revolution by no means argues against this
position. He rejected violence as the mistaken idea of the
Zealots, just as he agreed with them and the prophets in his
forecast of social regeneration as inextricably united with
that of the kingdom.
2. If this were the only form taken by Jesus' teaching as
to the kingdom of God, apostolic teaching would be inex
plicable. In the sayings that warrant this formulation of
his doctrine the idea of an eschatological kingdom of God is
lacking; with the apostles it is exclusively and invariably
present. If the teaching of the apostles is the outgrowth of
that of Jesus — a position few would question — the inference
is unavoidable: Jesus' teaching must also have contained
and emphasized the eschatological hope. That the apostles
should have left unnoticed, or even have overlooked, certain
elements of the teaching of Jesus, and in consequence should
have made over-prominent other elements, is easy to believe.
But it is quite inconceivable that they and the early church
should have so utterly misunderstood his words as always to
see eschatology where he intended a divinely directed social
evolution. At least they must have dropped some hint which
would suggest such a change of opinion.
We are not left, however, to merely a priori and nega
tive considerations. The extant sayings of Jesus show be
yond doubt his acceptance of elements of pharisaic eschato
logical messianism.

70 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
Even from the side of exegesis, the evidence that the
kingdom is present is not free from objections. Chief
among the supports for such a view are the parable of the
seed growing secretly ' and the saying of Luke 17 : 20. Any
fair criticism will recognize the genuineness of these say
ings, and any fair exegesis will admit their reference to the
kingdom. The fact that the phrase with which a parable
is introduced may be used (as, for example, Matt. 13 : 44-47 ;
20 : 1 ; cf. also Matt. 18 : 23 ; 22 : 2 ; 25 : 1) to denote a gen
eral analogy between certain things true of human experi
ence and certain things true of the kingdom, does not
necessarily argue that it has no more specific reference
here. In this parable Jesus is evidently speaking of the
kingdom itself. Yet it can be urged that these two sayings
do not necessarily argue a present kingdom. In the case
of the parable of Mark 4 : 26-29, the teaching as to a
present evolving kingdom is wholly dependent upon a dis
regard of vs. 29. In the only other parable in which the
figure of the harvest is used it is equivalent to the day of
judgment.^ This parable might very properly be inter
preted eschatologicaUy; that is, as intended to teach the
necessity of waiting until the coming of the harvest with
reaping long delayed by the growth of the grain. Thus
the parable would to all intents and purposes have the same
teaching as that of Matt. 13 : 24, 29. Similarly in the case
of the saying of Luke 17 : 20. The context not improbably
compels it to refer, not to the fact that the kingdom is pres
ent, but to the suddenness with which it will appear. One
will not need to say that the kingdom is here or there;
it will be instantaneously among people, as the lightning
instantaneously crosses the entire heavens. Men will not
I Mark 4: 26-29.
2 Matt. 13 : 39. The figure is different in Matt. 9 : 37 and John 4 : 35.

Kingdom op God in Teaching of Jesus 71
need to look for it carefully, because it will suddenly be
among them.'
Even the most superficial reading of the gospels reveals
a terminology already made familiar by the study of the
pharisaic apocalypses. Such terms as a-vvTeXeia, TraXtyyevea-ia,
al(i>v and its cognates, 6 vio? tow avOpdnrov, Koafio';, 6 eKXeXey-
fievo<i, 8aifi(ov, TTTta^ot', 017409, acoTrjpta, avdaraa-L';, yeevva, <f>a)^,
fiaaCXeCa, ¦)(^piaT6'i, indicate at once how great is the in
debtedness of the gospels to current vocabularies.
Similarly in the case of specific concepts. A comparison
of his words with apocalyptic literature will reveal a num
ber of striking similarities. It is certainly no mere coinci
dence when we find Jesus referring to hell as prepared for
the devil and his angels ; ^ to wealth as the mammon of un
righteousness f to the approaching redemption ;* to the
thrones prepared for his followers.^
When, however, one lays the general scheme of the teach
ings of Jesus over against the general scheme of pharisaic
messianism already presented, the points of similarity are
strikingly shown.
1. With him, as with the authors of the apocalypses,
there are two ages, the present and the coming."
iSo also, JtfiiiCHEE, Gleichnissreden Jesu, Vol. II, p. 136. Weenle, Reichgottes-
hoffnungen, considers Matt. 11 : 11, 12, with parallels, as arguing the presence of the
kingdom, but his arguments are not convincing. In both sayings the reference
may be quite as satisfactorily held to be to the eschatological kingdom.
2 Matt. 25: 41 ; Eth. Enoch, 54:5 ; if this verse is not actually from Jesus, it of
course loses its weight.
3 Luke 16 : 9 ; Enoch, 63 : 10. ¦• Luke 21 : 28 ; Enoch, 51 : 2.
5 Matt. 19:28; Enoch, 108:12. These and similar references will be found given
with some completeness in introductions to the various apocalypses. In particular
see Chaeles, Enoch, Jubilees, Assumption of Moses, and Ascension of Isaiah. The
matter is also treated in Thomson, Books which Influenced Our Lord and His
Apostles, and more generally by J. Weiss, Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes 2 ; Bousset,
Predigt Jesu in ihrem Gegensatz zu Judenthum.
SThereisonly one saying unquestionably from Jesus (Mark 10:30), in which
this distinction is explicitly drawn, and even in this instance the word satpos is
used in the first member of the antithesis. The one complete and precise saying at
tributed to him (Matt. 12 : 32), is an explanatory rewriting of Mark 3 : 28, in which
no reference is made to the two ages. Similarly oJios o oluii' of Luke 20 : 34, is au

72 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
2. The present age was evil and under the control of its
prince, Satan.' Through his infiuence sickness^ and temp
tations to evil,' suffering and "possession," had seized upon
mankind.* Though Jesus had prophetically seen the fall of
its prince,^ one large part of his mission consisted in de
stroying this demoniacal kingdom," and bringing its king
and members to the fires of hell.' Demons were cast out by
himself and his representatives,' the prince was to be over
come," and the kingdom of God was to prevail.
3. With Jesus as with the Pharisees the kingdom of God
was still future.'" Repentance was urged, not as the means
of bringing in the kingdom, but as a preparation for mem
bership in it, when in the Father's good pleasure it should
appear. The kingdom is thus a gift of God," destined to
come, not as the product of social evolution, but suddenly, as
something already prepared before the foundation of the world.'^
It is to be inherited and found rather than constructed." ¦
explanatory expansion of Mark 12:25. In Luke 16:8, however, the contrast is
drawn between the children of **this age " and " the children of light." This reticence
of Jesus, which we cannot believe to be accidental, may well be contrasted with the
usage of Paul. See, e.g.. Bom. 12 : 2 ; 1 Cor. 1:20; 2:6, 8; 3:18; 2 Cor. 4 :4; Gal. 1 : 4.
1 Mark 3:24; 4:15 (Luke 8:12) ; Luke 22:31 ; Matt. 4:8, 9; 12:26. In the Johannine
logia this conception is very clearly expressed. See, lor instance, John 12:31; 14:30;
16:11. 2 Luke 13: 11 f. 3 Matt. 4:1-11 (Luke 4:1-13).
4 On the kingdom of Satan as opposed to, and to be conquered by, Jesus see
IssBi., Reich Gottes, pp. 38-51; J acoby, Neutestamentliche Ethik,i>p.55-G2; Wendt,
Teaching of Jesus, Vol. I, pp. 163-68 ; Weiss, Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes'^, pp. 90-94.
5 Luke 10 : 18. 6 Mark 3 :22 ; Matt. 12 : 22-37 ; Luke 11 : 14-23.
'Matt. 25:41; e/. Eth. £nocft 54:5 ^scen.Jsa., 7: 12; 10:12. In case this section be
treated as a Christian homily, this reference should be omitted.
8Luke9:llf.; Mark3:15; Luke 10:17. 9Luke 22:31; Mark3:23.
10 ifx^aOai., Matt. 6 : 10 ; Mark 9 : 1 ; Luke 11 : 2 ; 17 : 20 ; hy'-i^'-". Matt. 3 : 2 ; 4 : 17, etc. ;
^Ba-velv, Matt. 12 : 28 ; Luke 11 :20.
"Luke 12:32; Matt. 25:1-45; Mark 13:3-37 (Matt. 24:3-42; Luke 21:5-58). It
makes little difference whether or not this eschatologicaljaddress is composite. The
mass of evidence is too great to have the decision affected.
12 Matt. 25 : 34. Even if this section of Matthew be no part of the original logia,
but a little apocalypse incorporated into the gospel, it would be difficult not to
believe that Jesus' words had given color to the belief in the pre-existence of the
kingdom. Cf. the sentence in the model prayer, " Thy will be done in earth as it is
in heaven," Matt. 6 : 10.
n Matt. 6 : 33 and parallels ; cf. 13 : 44-46. See LOtgeet, Reich Gottes, p. 26 ; Holtz-
MANN, Neutestamentliche Theologie, p. 202; Sandat, art. "Jesus Christ," in Hast
ings's Dictionary of the Bible.

Kingdom of God in Teaching of Jesus 73
4. The judgment' also plays an important rOle in the
teaching of Jesus. The Son of man was to appear in the
clouds,^ to accord rewards and punishments.' Once, also,
Jesus is reported as speaking of his disciples sitting on
thrones "judging the twelve tribes of Israel."*
5. Similarly the resurrection is distinctly taught by
Jesus as one element of a complete transformation of the
individual,^ when the evil age should reach its "consumma
tion" and the new messianic age should begin." Indeed,
the one extra-gospel saying of Jesus dealing with eschato
logical matters unmistakably deals with the resurrection.'
The coming of Elijah as the precursor of the messianic age,
which was to play so large a r6le in rabbinic messianism, is
also distinctly recognized by Jesus.'
Thus of the seven fundamental elements of the pharisaic
messianism, five and, since, as will be argued below, Jesus
regarded himself as the Messiah, six are an integral and
distinct part of his teaching. The seventh — the fifth of the
summary — the restriction of membership in the coming
kingdom to Jews, was distinctly repudiated by him. This
divergence from current beliefs was inevitable because of
his insistence upon the ethical nature of the new citizenship.
The citizen was to have the character, not the nationality, of
the king.^
1 It is one of the merits of Holtzmann, Leben Jesu (e. g., pp. 132f.), that this is
sufficiently recognized.
2 Mark 14: 61, 62.
3 Matt. 13 : 41-43 ; 16 : 27, 28 ; 19 : 27-29 ; Luke 22 : 69. Here belong also the eschato
logical discourses of Mark, chap. 13, and parallels, and Matt., chap. 25, as well as the
parables of Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43, 47-50; Mark 4:26-29.
4 Matt. 19:28; Luke 22: 30.
Regeneration, Matt. 19:28, which is added to Mark 10:28.
6 Mark 12: 18-27; Matt. 22:23-33; Luke 20:27-38; John5:28,29; 6:39,40.44,54.
71 Thess. 4:15-17. The force of the statement in the text would not be changed
if vss. 16, 17 should be shown to be Paul's.
8 Thus, Elijah, Mark 9 : 11 (Matt. 17 : 10-12) ; Matt. 11 : 14.
9 It cannot be denied that there are sayings of Jesus which may be used to show
that he thought of the kingdom as to be composed of Jews; e. s., Luke 19:9; Mark
14 : 25. Cf. Luke 22 : 16, 30.

74 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
The transference of the kingdom from the Messiah to the
Father he does not discuss, but as the supremacy of God in
general was one of his most fundamental teachings, there
can be nothing in opposition to such a relegation of the
Messiah to a secondary position, when once his mission had
been accomplished.' II
We find, then, in the messianic teaching of Jesus a two
fold representation of the kingdom. On the one side he is
reported to have spoken of it as present and evolving; on
the other, he far more commonly spoke of it as future, given
by God to a waiting people who had prepared themselves
for its coming by repentance and faith in the loving heav
enly Father. The first conception is unique in Jewish and
early Christian thought. The other is to all intents and
purposes the same as that of literary eschatological messian
ism. The fact that superficially, at least, the one conception
appears inconsistent with the other has led opposing schools
of critics to deny the authenticity of each.
1. On the one hand it is claimed that the apocalyptic
element is due to reading back apostolic hopes into the gos
pel record of the sayings of Jesus.^ The social and religious,
rather than the eschatological, elements are therefore treated,
not only as an exegetical point of departure, but also as a
critical and exegetical norm.
In general, such criticism is under the direction of dog
matic presuppositions as regards the kingdom of God, due to
the infiuence of Eitschl. For those who approach the sub
ject from the theological-sociological point of view the term
is essentially identical with the church — a present evolving
institution. The kingdom from their point of view is not to
1 Cf. Matt. 10:32; Luke 12:8.
2 So, MniEHBAD, The Eschatology of Jesus; and, cautiously, Stevens, BJ6!icaZ
Theology of the New Testament, pp. 37-40; Teaching of Jesus, chap. xiv.

Kingdom of God in Teaching op Jesus 75
come suddenly, but gradually ; it is in no sense apocalyptic,
but genuinely social. It is not at all difficult, therefore, to
understand that Jesus' references to eschatological matters
should either be accounted for in terms of a developing
organism or be judged unauthentic.
While there is the possibility, if not the probability, that
a certain amount of apostolic thought has been read back
into the words of Jesus, such a rough and ready treatment
of a genuinely difficult problem can hardly be considered
satisfactory. As a matter of fact, it clearly begs the ques
tion. If it were true that Jesus thought only of the king
dom of God as a present, growing institution, it would be
necessary to reject as unauthentic all sayings attributed to
him of a strictly eschatological import; but this is precisely
the point at issue, and cannot be assumed.
Again, there are those who hold that the eschatological
element was adopted by Jesus to bring himself in touch
with the thought of his day. It cannot be denied that such
a position embodies a very important truth, but it is far
from being a complete answer to the problem. If Jesus
employed a term which was in common use, and gave to it a
definition which was different from that which it ordinarily
possessed, we should certainly expect that in some way he
would have attempted to disabuse the minds of his disciples
of false impressions. At least we should expect some
explicit references to the definition he held to be correct, as
over against that which others held to be correct. As a
matter of fact, however, we do not have any such correction
in our records. If it is argued that it is to be expected that
the apostles would overlook such teaching, the reply must
again be made as before that, while there would be no
improbability in holding that the disciples overlooked many
of the sayings of Jesus, because of their failure to under
stand and so to remember them, it is altogether beyond the

76 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
range of probability that they should have completely over
looked any explicit correction of current ideas as regards the
kingdom of God. They certainly remembered his criticism
of the current conception of the Messiah as a son of David.
With this argument from silence removed, our way is plain.
To think of Jesus as deliberately using a term with a
meaning different from what it would have for others is not
only to raise a question as to his morals, but as to his
capacity as a teacher.
There remains one other critical hypothesis for the
removal of at least a large element in the eschatological
teaching of Jesus. It is in effect that Matt. 25 : 81-46 is an
apocalypse of early Christian origin which has been incor
porated into the gospels, and that, similarly, the eschato
logical elements of Mark 13 and parallels' did not come
from Jesus, but are a "little apocalypse" that have been
inserted in his teaching. But even if this, by no means
improbable, hypothesis be granted, it by no means follows^
that the eschatological element in the teaching of Jesus
vanishes. There are still left on practically indisputable
critical grounds such eschatological sayings as those of
Matt. 16:27 f.; 26:29,64; 10:23; 19:28 f.
2. Diametrically opposite to this attempt to eliminate the
eschatological elements from the teaching of Jesus is the
more or less pronounced tendency on the part of some
scholars to deny that Jesus himself spoke of the kingdom of
God in any other than an eschatological sense, and, conse
quently, to deny the authenticity of the passages which
involve any idea of a present kingdom.' The basis of such
1 See Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu, Vol. I, pp. 9 f. ; Schihedel, art. " Gospels," Ency
clopcedia Biblica, §124. The "little apocalypse" here imbedded in the gospel
narrative is held to have been interwoven in authentic non-eschatological sayings
of Jesus concerning the fall of Jerusalem. This "little apocalypse" may be
recovered by uniting the following verses of Mark : 13 : 7-9a, 14-20, 24-27, 30.
2 Cf. SOHMIEDEL, in article cited, §§145f.
3 See J. Weiss, Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes^; Schmollee, Die Lehre vom
Reiche Gottes; Schnedeemann, Reich Gottes; Issel, Reich Gottes; Weenle, Die

Kingdom of God in Teaching of Jesus 77
a denial is not exegetical, but critical. Such sayings as in
any clear way represent the kingdom as present are declared
to be due to an introduction into the thought of Jesus of the
apostolic conception of the church as a kingdom of Christ
distinct from the kingdom of God. The basis, however, of
such an argument is by no means firm. It cannot be denied
that Paul conceived of a time when the Christ would transfer
the kingdom to the Father,' but it is a mistake to conceive
of this expectation as referring to the church. The king
dom to which the apostle refers is evidently that to be
inaugurated at the coming of Christ, and is truly as eschato
logical at its inception as it is at its completion.^ In the
apostolic thought the church is not conceived of as the king
dom, but as the body' of Christ, and Christians are distinctly
said to have their citizenship in heaven.* To say, with J.
Weiss, '^ that the idea of a present kingdom of Christ, as dis
tinct from the coming kingdom of God, has here been read
back into Jesus' teaching by primitive Christianity, is pre
cisely to reverse the facts at our disposal. Early Chris
tianity, as represented both by the apostles and the Fathers,
thought of the kingdom of Christ and of the kingdom of
God as eschatological. The use of 1 Cor. 15: 24 ff. to prove
the contrary is unfortunate in the light of 1 Cor. 15: 22, 23.
That the apostles believed that the Christ would some day
deliver over the kingdom to the Father is undeniable, but
this is very different from saying that his kingdom is
present. There is no one to be mentioned to whom the idea
of a present kingdom can be attributed except Jesus himself."
Anfdnge unserer Religion; Cone, Rich and Poor in the New Testament; Balden
speegee, Das Selbsibewusstsein Jesu; Bousset, Die Predigt Jesu in ihrem Gegensatz
zu Judenthum. See, however, LtJHE, "Das Bild Jesu bei den Eschatologen" in
Protestantische Monatshefte, Vol. VII, pp. 64-78; Hadpt, Die eschatologischen
Aussagen Jesu.
1 1 Cor. 15 : 24, 25. 2 1 Cor. 15 : 23. 3 Eph. 1 : 23 ; 5 :30 ; 1 Cor. 12 : 12-27.
* Phil. 3 : 20. 5 Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes'^, p. 41.
6 I wish to acknowledge assistance received at this point from a doctor's thesis
by H. M. Heeeick, The Kingdom of God in the Patristic Literature.

78 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
Apart from this consideration, there is no critical argu
ment which would lead one to doubt the authenticity of all
the eschatological or all the religio-sociological passages,
and the problem is left precisely where a fair exegesis
leaves it : How may we reconcile the two contents given by
Jesus to the term, "kingdom of God"?
Ill
Before attempting to solve this problem methodically,
it may be well to consider a rather ingenious attempt at
ruling it out of court by a sort of exegetical tour deforce.
This is the view that accepts the apocalyptical sayings
attributed to Jesus as genuine, but holds them to be simply
figurative expressions of judgment and of glory. The basis
for such an argument lies in the admitted fact that the
coming of the Son of man in Enoch has obviously to do
with judgment. Apocalyptic being considered as a purely
literary form without content, all references which Jesus
makes to such a coming are therefore treated as figurative
prophecies of the judgment which is to be inflicted upon
the Jewish nation. Such a view would see, for example, in
the destruction of Jerusalem a fulfilment of the words of
Jesus to the high-priest: "Ye shall see the Son of man
coming in the clouds of heaven.'" Indeed, the view may
even be carried further^ and involve an indefinite number of
comings of the Son of man, in the sense that every great
crisis in which suffering results from national or individual
wrongdoing may be said to be a judgment of God, and so a
coming of the Son of man.
The difficulty with such an interpretation lies not so
much in the assertion that the coming of the Son of man
was synonymous with judgment, as in the fact that it is a
philosophical generalization which by no means is to be
1 Mark 14:62.
2 Bdeton and Mathews, Constructive Studies in the Life of Christ, p. 240.

Kingdom of God in Teaching of Jesus 79
found in the thought of Jesus. With him, as with the
apocalyptic 'writers, there was to be but one coming of the
Judge. To reduce the apocalyptic terminology to a mere
figure of speech is to destroy, not merely a literary form,
but a certain definite content as well. That this view has
elements of truth in it cannot be denied, but as a complete
explanation of the situation it raises more difficulties than
it explains. Nor can it be satisfactorily argued that the eschato
logical kingdom represents a completed kingdom, the begin
nings of which are to be seen in Jesus and the community
of disciples about him. It cannot be denied that such a
view has great attractiveness. Certain passages, to which
references have already been made, like the parable of the
seed growing secretly, and of the leaven, might be argued
in favor of such a position. The difficulty is, however, that
Jesus himself never distinctly makes the combination.
Nothing would have been easier for him than to have em
bodied such a view in his teaching. It is, of course, possible
to think of a series of comings of the Son of man in judg
ment ; but even thus it is exceedingly difficult to think of the
kingdom in its eschatological shape as in any way growing
out of the kingdom in the social sense. Whether or not
Jesus actually used the term, the establishment of the new
age was really a iraXtyyevea-Ca — a new birth.'
The first step toward a proper reconciliation of the two
usages of the term, must be a determination as to which
of the two is really fundamental. The difficulty in making
the idea of a present kingdon fundamental has already been
seen to be insuperable, because of the difficulty of synthe
sizing with it the distinctly eschatological elements which
are so prominent in the teaching of Jesus. If these elements
had been but incidental, or if Jesus had referred to them in
1 In the Syriac version of Matt. 19 : 28, vaXiiyeveain is translated " in the age new."

80 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
the way of accommodation, or if they had been but literary
figures, the synthesis would be comparatively, easy. The
eschatological pictures of the kingdom could then be treated
as a poetic representation of the completion of the evolving
present kingdom. Such a hypothesis is untenable, not alone
on the grounds already stated above, but because it involves
a reversal of true exegetical method. At the very best the
passages which can be quoted in favor of the existing present
kingdom are exceedingly few, while those which more natur
ally must be interpreted to refer to the future kingdom are
all but constant. But the objection rests not alone on the
comparison of numbers. If a true exegetical method de
mands anything, it is that the interpreter come to a given
thought with the stream of historical development. The
burden of proof lies heavily upon him who gives a meaning
to historical concepts which is contrary to the course of such
development. Such burden of proof can be sustained in
the case of certain elements of the messianic hope as taught
by Jesus, notably those which concerned the office and the
work of Christ himself; but, as has already appeared, the
entire scheme of his teaching is so thoroughly like that
which it has been shown he must have inherited, as to render
the substitution of new definitions for those inherited im
probable in the highest degree. The historico-grammatical
process, if it is worth anything, demands that of the two
uses of the term "kingdom" the eschatological be chosen as
fundamental. The practical question is therefore reversed. It is no
longer one of adjusting the eschatological teachings of Jesus
to his religio-sociological, but that of adjusting his refer
ences to a present kingdom to his entire eschatological
scheme. Such an accommodation is by no means difficult
when once it is undertaken.
The words of Jesus which apparently describe the pres-

Kingdom of God in Teaching of Jesus 81
ent kingdom refer (1) to those who were to be received into
the kingdom when it appeared, and (2) to the triumphs he
and his followers were winning over Satan and his kingdom.
1. The kingdom was among those to whom he spoke, in
the sense that there were men present who were to enter it
when it appeared. This simple explanation has very much
in its favor. To begin with, it is precisely the conception
of the relation of the individual believer to the kingdom
held by the early church. Then, further, it necessitates no
redefinition of the term "kingdom of God," but simply a
metaphorical use of the term to refer to those who were to
be its subjects. To attempt to give to the words of Jesus
any double definition seems very hazardous ; to think of him
as at one time speaking of the kingdom as sociological, and
at another as apocalyptic-eschatological, is to raise the sus
picion that he himself had no clear idea of the term. To say
that he uses the term with a constant sense of the new king
dom which was to be established by God in the new age, but
also in a figurative way to refer to the people who are actually
to belong to it, is to allow him no more than a conventional
freedom in his references to and use of an inherited concept.
From this point of view it is easy to see how Jesus could
speak of the immediate group of his disciples as growing in
the world like leaven in the meal, or like the mustard seed.
The small beginnings were, indeed, to have a great ending,
numerically as well as in dignity.
2. Jesus could speak of the kingdom as present in the
sense that there already was to be seen an expression of that
divine power and authority which later would establish the
complete overthrow of Satan's kingdom. In the person of
himself and his disciples that struggle between the two
kingdoms which has already been noted as a part of his
general thought was in progress. The first intimations of
the final triumph were already seen. The disciples were

82 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
given authority to, and are reported to have, cast out
demons.' Jesus himself by the finger of God cast them out,
and was himself the strong man who was to bind and spoil
his opponent. When the kingdom had in a precise sense
come, Satan would be completely vanquished. In the mean
time Jesus, in the full assurance of that victory, could speak
of having seen him fall from heaven.^ How easy it was for
the apostolic age to interpret the historical work of Jesus as
that of one who introduced, not the kingdom, but the mes
sianic last days, will appear in our subsequent discussion.
None of these considerations, however, affect the con
clusions which one must draw concerning the primary and
the derived messianic conception of Jesus. Any strict defi
nition of the kingdom of God as used by Jesus must be
eschatological.' With Jesus as with his contemporaries the
kingdom was yet to come. Its appearance would be the
result of no social evolution, but sudden, as the gift of God ;
men could not hasten its coming; they could only prepare
for membership in it. IV
The discussion thus far may now be summarized:
Formally considered, the kingdom of God in the estima
tion of Jesus was that community over whom God was to
rule, whose members were like God in character and in that
they were not possessed of physical bodies. When God saw
fit, it was to be miraculously triumphant over the Satanic
kingdom and established upon the earth by the Christ. Those
who had prepared to enter it by living a life of love, might
be conceived of proleptically as the kingdom, so certain were
1 Mark 3:15; Luke 10: 17.
2 Luke 10:18. It is the merit of Weenle (Reichgotteshoffnungen) that he has
seen distinctly the significance of this latter point. He is less happy in his adoption
of the distinction drawn by J. Weiss between the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom
of God, See also his chapters iv and vi in The Beginnings of Christianity.
3 See, for simUar statement, TiTiDS, Neutestamentliche Lehre von Seligkeit-,
VoLI,D.5.

Kingdom of God in Teaching of Jesus 83
they to enjoy its unmeasured happiness. It was Jesus' duty,
both by teaching and example, to prepare men to enter and
to prepare others to enter it when he, the Christ, should
come to establish it.
Yet this is by no means the end of the matter. It would
be a grievous mistake to think that Jesus appropriated with
out discrimination the beliefs current among his people. He
was far too original a thinker not to see limitations in the
religious world whose life he shared. While the kingdom
of God as he conceived it resembled the kingdom of God as
the Pharisee conceived it, there were radical differences in
the two conceptions. Just what these differences were can
be best considered, however, in connection, not with abstract
teaching, but with the formulation of his own self-
consciousnesso

CHAPTER IV
JESUS' CONCEPTION OF HIMSELF AS MESSIAH
The question as to how Jesus regarded his own relations
to the kingdom he foretold is one of first importance, both
from the point of view of Christology and from that of con
structive theology. Such a question has but two possible
answers; either he regarded himself as the Christ, or he did
not so regard himself.
Which of these two alternatives is to be chosen will
appear only after a detailed examination of the material of
the gospels.

The chief argument against messianic self-consciousness
in Jesus is critical, and amounts to the complete denial of
the historical value of the early chapters of the Fourth
Gospel and the assertion that such passages in the synoptic
gospels as imply messianic self-estimate on the part of
Jesus are either misinterpretations or unauthentic. Some
times, it is true, such criticism does not lead to a denial
that Jesus considered himself to be the Messiah. As in the
case of Wrede,' the gospel material may be held to show
that Jesus did believe himself to be the Christ, but that he
kept it a secret except from his most intimate friends.
From such a point of view, all sayings as appear to give
publicity to this belief are untrustworthy. The self-desig
nations which have commonly been held to imply the mes
sianic character on the part of Jesus are now held by an
increasing number of scholars to be either mistranslations of
1 Das Messiasgeheimniss Jesu. 84

Jesus' Conception of Himself as Messiah 85
some original Aramaic expression, or interpolating additions
of the evangelists or editor of the gospel.'
So complicated and discordant is this criticism, and so
subjective are the criteria which it employs, that detailed
discussion is here impracticable. Yet it is not difficult to
see that, wholly apart from any philosophical bias against
the miraculous, such criticism makes three untenable pre
suppositions. In the first place, it assumes that a confession of belief in
Jesus as the Christ involved also the belief that Jesus was
at the time of the confession engaged in recognizable mes
sianic work.
In the second place it assumes that Jesus could not have
considered himself the Messiah unless the kingdom had
actually come.
In the third place it assumes that any similarity between
the messianic teaching of Jesus and the messianic belief of
the apostolic church is due to a reading back of such apostolic
faith into the sayings of Jesus.
To all three presuppositions it may be replied, in gen
eral, that they embody the precise matter under investiga
tion and cannot be used as critical criteria. That there are
independent criteria at our disposal is undeniable, and the
problem before the investigator must be answered by em
ploying them.
But this general consideration is by no means the end of
the matter. Each of the presuppositions is open to par
ticular objections.
The assumption that Jesus must needs be doing recog
nizable messianic work in order to be accepted as the
Messiah is fundamentally incorrect. The entire church of
1 See Caey, The Synoptic Gospels, pp. 360 f . ; Maetineau, Seat of Authority in
Religion, pp. 355 f.; Meinhold, Jesus und das Alte Testament, pp. 98 f.; Havet,
Le Christianisme et ses origines. Vol. IV, pp. 15 f . ; KAhlee, Der sogenannte historische
Jesus und der geschichtliche biblische Christus ; Schmidt, art. "Sou of Man" in
Encyclopcedia Biblica.

86 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
the New Testament times had no difficulty in believing the
precise opposite. To its members Jesus was the Christ, but
a Christ who in their own time had not established his king
dom. Nor was this position wholly precluded by eschato
logical messianism as it existed among the Pharisees. While,
as has already appeared, it is true that the current expecta
tion knew nothing of a suffering and dying Christ, it is
quite as true that it included a period of messianic activity
in which the Christ should not have completed his work.
It will be recalled that his reign was held to include, if not
to constitute, a period of struggle. It is obvious that at
some point within this period the Christ would not have
attained his real messianic supremacy. Such a considera
tion as this does not prove that one could be the Christ who
was not actually engaged in messianic work, but it does
suggest caution as to holding that, in order to be the Christ,
one must be recognized as doing the full, or even recog
nizable, messianic work. That which constituted a person
ality messianic was not so much his deeds as the presence
in his life of the spirit of God. Accordingly, if, instead of
assuming that messianic quality and recognizable messianic
activity are inseparable, one admits possible periods in a
progressive messianic activity, there is no difficulty in hold
ing that, in case the evidence of the synoptic gospels warrant
the view, Jesus might both be and be considered the Christ.
His activity, before he was seen to be a messianic king, may be
conceived of as falling into two periods — the preparatory or
prophetic and the eschatologicaUy messianic. Finally, to hold
that all similarities between the teaching of Jesus and that
of the apostles originate in the latter is the most arrant sub
jectivism. Why might they not have originated with Jesus
and have been reproduced in the apostolic teaching? Or,
as is indeed the case, why might they not have originated
in Judaism and have been reproduced by both Jesus and

Jesus' Conception of Himself as Messiah 87
his disciples? There may very well be certain cases in
which the evangelical tradition has been somewhat reworked
by the evangelists or by those who subsequently edited
their writings, but such reworkings and interpretations and
substitutions of verbal equivalents can generally be detected
and controlled by critical methods that are independent of
the result they seek to establish. The simple fact is that
the method by which it is sought to prove that Jesus did
not hold himself to be the Christ proves too much. It
destroys the entire historicity of the gospel narrative. How,
for instance, is one to deny the genuineness of Jesus' reply
to the high-priest' and hold to any part of Mark as histori
cal data? But if such a saying as this is admitted, it is
sheer waste of time to argue that Jesus did not, at least in
the latter part of his career, think of himself as the Christ.
As might be expected, these presuppositions find their
chief critical result in the rejection of the early sections of
the Fourth Gospel. Jesas is there represented as having
been pointed out by John the Baptist and accepted by cer
tain disciples as Christ at the very beginning of his ministry.
The precise content of the testimony of the Baptist to Jesus
will be considered later; at present it is enough to consider
the broader aspects of the matter. It cannot be denied that
there is, superficially at least, some discrepancy between the
early acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah recorded by the
Fourth Gospel, and the silence of the synoptists as to the
faith on the part of the disciples before the scene at Csesarea
Philippi. This discrepancy, however, loses much, if not all,
of its force when one recalls that neither in the Fourth
Gospel nor in the synoptics is messianic faith in Jesus any
thing more than an expectation that he would do messianic
work in the future. In neither is there any clear acceptance
of him as Christ on the basis of qualifying messianic acts.
1 Mark 14 .-61, 62.

88 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
From the point of view of the early church, there is no
a. priori reason why such a conviction might not liavo come
early as well as late in Jesus' ministry, provided only some
one had the insight to perceive the real character of Jesns.
The question, therefore, becomes simply a matter of evi
dence to be decided by the use of the synoptic gospels as
controlling data. If they do not make it impossible to hold
that the disciples could have accepted Jesus as the future
Christ during the lifetime of John the Baptist, we may
safely estimate and use the Johannine material. The one
assumption in which this position may involve the investi
gator concerns the prophetic insight of John the Baptist,
If Jesus were pointed out by him as Christ before he had
presented, so to speak, his messianic credentials, John cer
tainly had powers of insight beyond the ordinary. But as
to the possibility of John's believing that Jesus was the
Christ and so describing him, it is hard to find a priori
objections. No serious scholar would deny some plus ele
ment in the prophetic self -consciousness.
It is the investigator's first duty to discover in the synoptic
sources how distinct was the messianic consciousness in Jesus
himself throughout his public ministry ; in short, to deter
mine whether Jesus actually did consider himself the Messiah.
II
In any constructive statement as to the self -consciousness
of Jesus the point of departure must be his baptism rather
than his birth. It is true, as will appear in this discussion
sooner or later, that any estimate of his personality arrives
at ontological conclusions. It is also doubtless true that for
minds of a Greek tendency statements concerning origins are
more intelligible than those which deal with the "coming
of the Spirit" upon a person. At the same time outside
of the infancy sections, the New Testament writers never

Jesus' Conception of Himself as Messiah 89
approach Jesus through his miraculous conception.' Mark
expressly states'* that the beginning of the gospel was the
work of John, and implies that a new consciousness came
to Jesus at the baptism.'
But was this new consciousness genuinely messianic ?
Might it not have been simply prophetic ? It is impossible
so to interpret the data. A messianic content is intended by
the synoptic writers, and is reaffirmed by the Fourth Gospel*
and the early church.^ The recognition on their part of the
inseparable connection between the baptism of the believer
and his reception of the Holy Spirit is always taken as
proof of a messianic relation. If it be replied that such
experience of the Christian was wholly subjective, it can
be said that the subjective character of Jesus' experience
after baptism is now seldom doubted even by scholars not
subject to suspicion of extreme rationalism. ° The opened
1 The first dogmatic use made of the Infancy sections in Matthew and Luke is
that of iGNATros, £pA.,7:21; 18:2; 19:1; 20:2; Smyr.,1; Magn., 11. Cf. Hoben,
The Virgin Birth in "Historical and Literature Studies," etc. ; also American Journal
of Theology, Vol. VI (1902), pp. 481-83.
2 Mark 1:1.
3 The phrase " messianic self-consciousness 'Vis at best an unhappy one, and is
without strictly scientific definition. In the interest of precision, it would be well
if it could be abandoned. At the same time, it has acquired a general usage and is
convenient for expressing that which otherwise would require considerable circum
locution. In using the term, I do not wish to be understood as implying that Jesus
had two origins of consciousness, the one that of the ordinary Jew, and the other
that of the Christ. Any such duality is foreign to the entire New Testament concep
tion. By " messianic self-consciousness " is meant simply that recognition of his own
personality as possessed of certain powers and characteristics to which he gave
a messianic value. On the messianic self-consciousness see Baldenspeegee. Das
Selbsibewusstsein Jesu 3 ; Schmidt, " Bildung und Gehalt des messianischen Be-
wusstseins Jesu," Studien und Kritiken, 1889, pp. 423-507; Holsten, "Zur Ent-
stehung und Entwicklung des Messiasbewusstseins in Jesus," Zeitschrift fur
wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1891, pp. 385-449 ; BovoN, Thiologie du Nouveau Testa
ment^, Yol. I, pp. 262-90; Holtzmann, Das ieften Jesu, chaps. 6, 7; Schmidt, "Son of
Man," in Encyclopaedia Biblica; Weede, Das Messiasgeheirfinlss Jesu; Schwaetz-
KOPFF, The Prophecies of Jesus Christ concerning His Death and Resurrection;
Baeth, Die Hauptprobleme des Lebens Jesu, pp. 229-84.
* John 1:30-34. 5 Acts 10: 38.
6 See, for instance, Beuce, Expositor's Greek]Testament, on Matt. 3 : 16, 17 ; Luke
3:22; Sandai, art. "Jesus Christ," in Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible; J.
Weiss, Life of Jesus Christ, Vol. I, p. 324. See also Eeim, Jesus of Nazara, Vol. II
p. 286; Beyschlag, Leben Jesu, Vol. II, p. 112.

90 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
heavens must certainly be figurative. The dove is a rab
binic analogy of the Holy Spirit.' The Bath Qol, "the
daughter of the voice" (of Jehovah), is frequently met with
in rabbinic literature to denote a divine revelation to
some teacher in the form of an oracular sentence.^
Described thus in terms almost conventional among
the rabbis to express the idea of divine revelation, the
tendency seen in Luke to describe the baptism in more
concrete terms caimot for a moment affect the general
conclusions. It is a picture of the inner experience of
Jesus. Jesus himself must have been the source of the
story, at least in its fundamental elements. That is to say,
he must either have used the figures which we find in the
synoptic gospels, or have simply stated that at his baptism
he became aware of his messianic office. His subsequent
references to himself at Nazareth and in his reply to the
question of John the Baptist are fully in accord with this
view. The Spirit of the Lord was upon him.^ The sin of
misinterpreting his beneficent work of conquering Satan
lay, not in the attack upon himself, but in that upon the
Holy Spirit who was working through him.*
1 Chag,, 15a; but see Edeesheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Vol. I,
p. 287. 2 See Webee, JUdische Theologie 2, pp. 190-95, especially pp. 194, 195 The origin
of this belief is held by Bousset, Die Religion des Judenthums. p. 319, n. 3, to have
lain in Jubilees, 17 : 15 ; Eth. Enoch, 65 : 4 ; Baruch, 13 : 1 ; 22 : 1 ; 4 Esdras, 6 : 13 f . That the
term was in use in the time of Jesus is implied by its appearance in the Mishnah,
ye6.,xvi, 6; Abhoth,vi,2. Dalman, Words of Jesus, pp. 204, 205, and art. "Bath
Kol" in PiJ£;., Vol. 113, p. 443, distinguishes between two species of such " voices "
the one directly from God (as in the case of Jesus), and the other some chance
expression of a man which seemed, to express oracular quality. See, further,
WOnsche, Neue Beitrdge, pp. 22, 23; Hambuegee, Bealencyclopadie, and Jewish
Cyclopaedia, art. "Bath Qol." In our synoptic sources the later accounts of
Matthew, and especially of Luke, show a decided tendency to materialize the account
of Mark. 3 Luke 4 : 18 ; cf. Luke 7 : 22, 23 ; see also Mark 1 : 12 ; Matt. 4 : 1 ; Luke 4 : 1, 14.
4 Mark 3: 29, 30; Matt. 12 : 28-32 ; Luke 12: 10. The statement of the text is not
affected by a rejection of the non-Markan form of the saying of Jesus as a reworkinff
of the Markan material. It is interesting to note, in this connection, such an expres
sion as Luke 10:21.

Jesus' Conception of Himself as Messiah 91
It is possible, however, that it may still be insisted that
Jesus' experience of the Spirit does not differ fundamentally
from the experience of the prophet, and that it would con
sequently be incorrect to speak of it as necessarily implying
a messianic consciousness. Such a hypothesis is not abso
lutely impossible, but, in the light of the data at our dis
posal, it must be pronounced highly improbable. As has
already been pointed out, the early church evidently con
ceived of this experience as one of messianic rather than
merely prophetic importance.' Further than this, as ap
pears especially clear in the original account in Mark,^ the
spiritual experience of Jesus at the baptism was the basis
of what is commonly known as the temptation. In this
latter experience, as described by Matthew,^ and Luke,*
Jesus is not confronted with any doubt as to a possible
deception in the baptismal experience, or as to the reality
of his new self-consciousness, but rather with the possi
bility of misusing miraculous powers known to be his
through that experience. It is exceedingly difficult to be
lieve that such a struggle resulted from anything else than
a consciousness of messianic importance. The critic who de
nies the historicity of the account may of course avoid such
a conclusion, but the burden of proof lies upon him in
making such a denial.
Throughout Jesus' life his attitude is always that of one
superior to the prophet. The force of this statement can
be broken only by a denial of the historicity of the pas
sages to which appeal is made. Thus he clearly regards
himself as greater than Jonah, Solomon,^ his own dis-
1 This statement would perhaps gain still further strength if Dalman, Words of
Jesus, pp. 276-80, be right in insisting that " the evangelists give an account of the
voice, not on account of any importance which the reception of such a divine voice
might possibly have for Jesus, but in the sense of impressive testimonies that
Jesus really was what his disciples before the world proclaimed him to be."
21:9-13. 34:1-11. * 4: 1-13.
5 Matt. 12 : 41, 42 ; Luke 11 : 31, 32.

92 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
ciples,' and Satan himself.^ If we add to this the further
consideration of his frequent recurrence to his intimacy
with God, the conclusion as to his sense of superiority to the
prophetic office is much strengthened.' But the strongest
argument for the messianic self -estimate of Jesus is cumula
tive, and to be stated best by a careful consideration and
combination of all the other facts at our disposal. To this
we now pass.
The beginning of the public career of Jesus is said by all
the synoptists to have followed the temptation. He came
into Galilee announcing that the kingdom of heaven was
close at hand, and calling upon his fellow countrymen to
believe the good news.* Further than this we know nothing
of his teaching. His own relation to his message must be
determined by an appeal to the experiences oE the baptism
and temptation, as well as to his conception of the kingdom
he announced. In no case, however, are there good grounds
for holding that he regarded himself as "founding" the
kingdom in the ordinary sense of the word. So far as his
mere summons is concerned, it implies messianic character
in his case no more than in the case of John. Its real
messianic significance can be established only by establish
ing the messianic character of Jesus himself.
Yet this argument from silence must not be pushed too
far. At the time he called the four fishermen, he must have
iMatt. 10 : 24, 25 ; Luke 6 : 40 ; Matt. 23: 10. These passages are very liable to
critical objections, but that Jesus did consider himself the superior to his disciples
will not be questioned. In the Fourth Gospel this superiority is developed at some
length. See, for instance, John 13 : 12-16.
2 Mark 3:23-27, and parallels; Matt. 12 :28. As to the kingdom of Satan cf
Assum-p. Moses, 10 : 1.
3 The reference here is not to the Johannine addresses, although it would be
rash to deny absolutely their historical worth, but to the sayings of Matt. 11 : 27, and
Luke 10: 22. Whatever critical position one may take as to the parallel saying of
the last half of the verse, that of the first half is clearly more than the expression of
a simple prophetic ecstasy akin to it though it may be ; cf. Matt. 10 : 40. It is prob
able that when the structure of the Fourth Gosp->l is better understood such say
ings as those of John 6:46, and 13:20 will be seen to be echoes of these synoptic
logia. 4 Mark 1 : 14-20.

Jesus' Conception of Himself as Messiah 93
been already known in some exceptional capacity. It is cer
tainly not to be supposed that men would have abandoned
their occupations if an utterly unknown and irresponsible
person had promised to make them fishers of men. The
only satisfactory explanation of the action of the two sets of
Galilean brothers lies in the assumption that they had
known Jesus prior to their summons, and that they had
accepted him in some way as related to the messianic future.
It is, of course, true that the synoptic material in itself does
not warrant the inference that they accepted Jesus as one
who was superior to John the Baptist. Without the Johan
nine material we should never have suspected that they had
been associated with the Baptist,' and their acceptance of
Jesus as master at the beginning of his Galilean ministry
would in itself compel us to hold only that they considered
him the successor of John the Baptist, who, according to
the synoptic source, had just been arrested and imprisoned.'
Yet, after all such due allowance is made, there is nothing
here contradictory of the Johannine story. Nor is there
anything intrinsically improbable in the statement of the
Fourth Gospel that some disciples of John should have
abandoned him and followed Jesus. And if so, why should
they have chosen Jesus, had it not been that John had in
some way recognized him as more than an ordinary disciple ?
If one be ready to admit that the Fourth Gospel correctly
represents this change of discipleship as involving a faith in
the messianic future of Jesus on the part of both John and
1 Cf. the comparison between the Twelve and the disciples of John ; Luke 11 : 1 ;
Mark 2: 18.
2See''also the highly subjective criticism of Beiggs, New Light on the Life of
Jesus, chaps. 1, 2. If it were possible to adopt the general thesis of this latest tour
de force of harmonization, and bring in the Samaritan visit with its express
messianic claims (John 4:4-43), after John 11:54; Mark 10:1, and Luke 13:22,
many difficulties would certainly be avoided. But it is hard to see the justification
for such a readjustment. The order in Luke when compared with that in Mark
shows a rearrangement for the sake of explaining the basis for the obedience of the
force to the call of Jesus.

94 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament

some of his disciples, the explanation of the readiness with
which the four subsequently left their employment is readily
seen. They believed that Jesus was now about to take up
the work that such a future involved, but which he had
postponed when there was danger that the preparatory steps
might interfere with the similar work of John.' That such
a view involves difficulties cannot be denied, but it is hardly
to be rejected as improbable simply because it treats the
Johannine account with respect. The chief business of a
historian is to utilize material that is not absolutely irrecon
cilable. And most unprejudiced students will admit that,
in the light of the baptism and temptation of Jesus, the
account of the Fourth Gospel gives a very satisfactory
explanation for the sudden abandonment of their business
interests by James and John, Peter and Andrew.
From any difficulty herein involved it would, however, be
altogether unjustifiable to argue that Jesus did not consider
himself as anything more than a second John. His sense of
his superiority, with its awful responsibilities was already
keen. He kept it a secret from the masses, perhaps from
many of his disciples,^ but — if such a hypothesis be not
judged too speculative — not from those who were peculiarly
sensitive to mental suggestion, the so-called demoniacs.^
For some reason these unfortunate persons were accustomed
to address Jesus in messianic terms. Is it too much to
suppose that in some mysterious way they caught a sugges
tion from his own conviction as to himself ?
1 John 4: 1-3.
2 For an elaborate treatment of this position see Weede, Das Messiasgeheimniss
Jesu. 8 Mark 1 : 24 ; cf. Mark 3 : 11 ; 5:7, and parallels. The tendency among interpreters
t3 regard these instances of "casting out demons " as the cure of persons afflicted
with peculiar forms of nervous diseases is the warrant for the conjecture in the text.
The critical basis for their cures is as good as for any part of the gospel narrative.
The hypothesis I suggest amounts to this : these persons responded to the thought
and will of Jesus as the clairvoyant to his enquirer. There is no larger difficulty
here than is recognized in hypnotism and allied phenomena.

Jesus' Conception of Himself as Messiah 95

However we may estimate the worth of this speculation,
it is clear that it is only from the point of view of a concep
tion of himself as Christ that one grasps the full significance
of the words of Jesus concerning his conquest of Satan to
which reference has already been made.' Perplexing as
such sayings are to the modern man, they are at once intel
ligible from the point of view of messianism. Such a con
quest argued the beginning of the victory of the kingdom
of God. But the Christ and the Christ alone would be
strong enough to overcome the kingdom of evil that over
shadowed and embittered the pre-messianic age.
The interpreter stands, however, on surer grounds when
dealing with the answer given by Jesus to the query of
John the Baptist as to whether he was the Coming One. It
has been held that this answer does not involve any mes
sianic claim. Such a position is certainly not that of the
evangelists or of anyone who is not determined to give every
saying of Jesus a non-messianic force. Just as certainly it
is not of Jesus. Unless the reply be an affirmation of his
messiahship, the entire anecdote is meaningless. John
asked him point blank whether he were the "Coming One"
— the Christ. Jesus must have known that he either was
or was not such a Personage. If he thought he was not the
Christ, it would have been only elementary honesty to have
said so. But he does not make any such declaration. On
the contrary, he declared that he was fulfilling a text of
scripture which John must have recognized as messianic.^
And, what is more, if he had not intended John to under
stand his reply as an affirmation of his messiahship, he would
scarcely have referred to the blessing awaiting the one who
did not "stumble" over him. Once take Jesus' own point
of view, that he was the Christ who was engaged in a work
1 See especially Mark 3 : 23-26, and parallels : Luke 11 : 18 ; 13 : 16 ; c/. Acts 10 : 38.
2 Isa. 35 : 5, 6, is repeatedly applied to messianic times by the rabbis, Edees
heim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Vol. II, p. 725,

96 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament

of preparation while he awaited the Father's call to establish
the kingdom, and all difficulty vanishes. The fact that
Jesus did not explicitly say "Yes" to John's question was
simply due to caution. He had his idea of the true mes
sianic work; the people had theirs. He could not and he
would not endanger his own ideal by even apparently yield
ing to theirs. He that had ears to hear could hear, and he
that had eyes to see could see.'
While there is not quite the same distinctness in the
words of Jesus at Nazareth,^ their general import is obviously
the same. The reference to the fact that the Spirit of the
Lord was upon him might possibly imply only his prophetic
call to announce the acceptable year of the Lord. Yet the
reference is clearly to himself, and, taken in connection with
his reply to John and his experience at the baptism, it may
certainly be interpreted as expressing the same distinct
consciousness of his messiahship.
It is generally admitted that Jesus accepted the mes
sianic title at Caesarea Philippi.' For the purpose of the
present discussion there is no need to consider again the
question as to whether this was the first time that his dis
ciples considered him as Christ. This matter is not so vital
as the fact that they did so accept him. What their con
fession involved it is easy to see. They believed that he
was the Christ, in the sense that his personality was so
august and mighty as to convince them that he must in the
near future take up the messianic work. In other words,
they ascribed to him future messianic power. That they
expected this future to be in general similar to that expected
1 Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, pp. 169-71, makes the words of Jesus apply to the
kingdom and the messianic age rather than to himself. But what point has such an
answer? John knew the messianic age was close at hand. What he wished to
know was whether Jesus was the Christ. Even on Holtzmann's own ground it fol
lows that the words of Jesus form an affirmative reply to the Baptist's question.
For if the messianic age was really shown to be present by his works, then certainly
he must have been understood to be the one who introduced it.
2 Luke 4 ; 16-30. 3 Mark 8 : 27-30 and parallels.

Jesus' Conception of Himself as Messiah 97
by the Pharisees appears not only from the hope of the New
Testament church, which will be considered presently, but
from their own words and Peter's rebuke of Jesus.' It was in
this sense that Jesus must have accepted their confession of
faith in himself. For it can hardly be doubted that he did
accept the title. The oldest source, it is true, does not state
this explicitly, but, on the other hand, there is recorded no
refusal of the title on his part, and the story evidently
implies acceptance. If the additional material in Matthew^
be accepted, any question as to the attitude of Jesus is super-
fiuous. He is there represented as giving Peter the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, and as making him the foundation
of his church. His subsequent conversation with Peter
concerning the suffering which awaited him at Jerusalem is
most naturally understood as implying that Jesus was by
both himself and Peter assumed to be Christ. Here again
the account in Matthew' adds an explanatory saying which
makes the reference more distinct, but the Markan source*
can be understood in only one way. What this interpreta
tion is will at once appear from the fact that in the latter
part of the words spoken at this time' the reference is both
to the speedy coming of the kingdom and to his own return
"in the glory of his father with the holy angels."
From the time of the confession of Peter at Csesarea Phi
lippi until his death, Jesus is represented as more openly
disclosing his messianic position, though often with empha
sis upon matters like suffering and death which the Twelve
could not recognize as compatible with messianic felicity
and glory. At the same time, he more completely appropri
ates an eschatological significance. He treats with increas
ing emphasis the future kingdom and its world-judgment.
It is true that in some cases his teaching concerning the
1 Mark 8:31:33; 9:11; 10:35-37; 11:1-10 (parallels in each case); cf. also Acts 1:6.
816:17-19. 3l6:20f. * Mark 8 : 31-33. SMark 8:34-39.

98 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
kingdom does not expressly involve his own messianic posi
tion, and might have been spoken by one who held himself
a prophet rather than the Messiah ; but, on the other hand,
there are events and sayings which- must be eliminated
before the general content and connotation of his words can
acquire a non-messianic character. It is not merely that
Jesus permits himself to be called "son of David."' He
promised those of his disciples who have made great earthly
sacrifices the reward of eternal life in the world to come.^
In the case of the request of James and John,' he does not
deny their assumption that he is to sit as king in glory, but
replies to them from their own point of view, denying only
that he himself has the right to distribute those honors
which should be given by God himself. Such a denial as
this can by no means be interpreted to imply that Jesus
conceived of himself as something less than the Messiah.
Had this been the case, it would have been simple honesty
for him to have disabused his disciples' minds, and to have
declared that not he, but another, was to come in royal
glory. As it stands, his reference is to the fact commonly
recognized by all Messianists, that the Messiah himself was
subordinate to God.
The triumphal entry* is not interpreted in the oldest
source as in any way intended by Jesus to be a dramatic
presentation of messianic claim, although this interpretation
is given it by both the first and the fourth evangelists.^
None the less, he allowed the crowds to attribute to him
messianic importance, if not the messianic title." A com
parison of the four gospels shows that the cry of the people
is essentially the same in all accounts except that of Mark.
1 Mark 10 : 46-48 and parallels. 2 Mark 10 : 28-30. 3 Mark 10 : 35-45.
* Mark 11 : 1-11 and parallels. 5 Matt. 21 : 4, 5 ; John 12 : 14-16.
6 The oldest source simply speaks of the kingdom of David. According to Matt.
21 :9, the people saluted him as the Son of David. Similarly Luke 19 : 38 and John
12 : 13 speak of him expressly as the King.

Jesus' Conception of Himself as Messiah 99
In that, although Jesus is said to be coming in the name of
the Lord, he is not spoken of expressly as King. The dif
ference does not seem to be important. He who came in
the name of the Lord, introducing the kingdom of David,
could hardly be other than the Christ.'
The cleansing of the temple can hardly be counted as
other than an expression of the same sense of messianic
importance. This would be true whether it be held that
there were two cleansings or one, although, if there were
but one cleansing, and if that occurred at the end of the
ministry, such an interpretation would appear the more
certain.^ The ready yielding of the Sadducean officials of
the temple to commands of Jesus is easily explicable in
5 The additional verses of Luke 19 : 39, 40, in which he refuses to rebuke his dis
ciples for saluting him thus messianically, add nothing of importance beyond what
is fairly implied by the other accounts.
2 The questions at issue in harmonizing the two stories of the cleansing are cer
tainly perplexing. The similarity between the accounts of John 2 : 13-22, and Mark
11 : 13-19 and parallels is too striking to argue that the two are independent accounts
of separate events. The only serious objection to our immediately identifying them
lies in the position accorded the event in the two sets of sources. (Yet see Hutton,
Theological Essays.) From the point of view of a reasonable criticism, however,
this difficulty vanishes, and it is permissible to follow obvious probabilities and
identify the two accounts. The question, however, as to whether the cleansing
belongs at the beginning or at the end of the public ministry of Jesus is one on
which there will always be difference of opinion until we have reached a more
definite conclusion concerning the composition of the Fourth Gospel. Briefly stated,
the situation amounts to this: Everything in the nature of the event favors the
position accorded it by the synoptists. So far as the general character of the
sources is concerned, it must be argued also that it is easier to transfer the section
John 2 : 13 f . than it is that of Mark 11 : 15-19. Tatian follows the synoptists' order.
On the other hand, the chronological expression recrtrepaKovTa /cat e^ ireffiv oUoSotn^BTj
in John 2 ; 20 can most easily be interpreted in the sense that the forty and six years
had already elapsed and the building was still in the process of erection. Cf. 4 Esdras,
5 : 16. Yet the fact that the aorist was used with the dative may possibly indicate
that the temple was not still in process of erection, but that it had taken forty-six
years to build it. In that case the expression has no chronological bearing what
ever. When one balances all these data, it seems on the whole more reasonable to
argue that the datum of the forty and six years was due to a careful calculation on
the part of the editor of the Fourth Gospel, made in the interest of his peculiar
chronology. Certainly such a view is no more extreme than that compelled by the
discrepancy which exists between his statements concerning the date of the Last
Supper and those of the synoptists. If no other way of adjusting the chronology is
discovered, and one is shut down to a choice between such a view as to the forty
and six years, and the results which follow from transferring the cleansing, recorded
in the Markan source, to the early Judean ministry, the former is certainly preferable.

100 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
view of the reception accorded him at his entry to Jerusalem,
and the act, though by no means unlike those of a prophet,
is entirely in keeping with the general antagonism of Jesus
toward the Pharisees, consequent upon his messianic con
sciousness. Most clearly do the gospel records show that during his
last days Jesus spoke of himself in messianic terms.' Among
the sayings of these days attention must first be called to
the eschatological address of Mark, chap. 13.^ Before, how
ever, we can safely use material contained in it, a conclusion
must be reached as to whether or not it truly represents the
teaching of Jesus. Recent critics' have regarded the sec
tion as composite, vss. 7, 8, 14-20, 24-27, 30, 31 being held
to be no part of the original discourse of Jesus.* Whatever
position one may take as regards this proposed critical
division, it is clear that in vss. 5 and 6 there is a reference
of Jesus to his messianic position. Many were to come in
his name, saying: "I am He," that is, the Christ. If vss.
24r-27 be not an apostolic addition, such a reference becomes
1 At a first glance it might appear that reference cannot be made fairly to Matt.
23 : 34, because Luke 11 : 49 substitutes " the wisdom of God " for " I ; " but the real
content of both passages is applicable only to the time of speaking, and although
it is possible that the saying is in its more original form in Luke, the passage in
Matt. 23 : 37-39 certainly contains a logion which refers to Jesus himself (cf. Luke
13 : 34, 35). It will be impossible therefore, without destroying the text, to deny that
the passage in some way gives expression to Jesus' conception of his own mission.
2 In general, see Haupt, Die eschatologischen Aussagen Jesu.
3 Notably, Wendt, Lehre Jesu, Vol. I, pp. 10 f.; H. J. Holtzmann, Einleitung,
N. T. Theol.; O. Holtzmann, Leben Jesu, pp. 359 f.; Chaeles, Eschatology, pp.
323-29 ; BoussET, Lehre Jesu.
4 The grounds for such an opinion are, first, a comparison of Mark 13: 10 with
Matt. 10:23; second, vss. 14-20, in the light of the call 6 avayiyviiaKav vctirm, could
hardly have come from Jesus; third, there seems to be contradiction between vss.
13 and 18-20; fourth, the two sections of the discourse deal with different subjects,
vss. 7, 8, 14-20, 24-27, 30, 31, dealing with terrible sufferings which are the result of
wars, famines, the destruction of Jerusalem, rising at last into apocalyptic predic
tion, whQe the other half, vss. 5, 6, 21-23, 9-13, 28, 29, 32-37, deal with the persecutions
to which the disciples are to be subjected and with the reward which is certainly to
be theirs. It is held that the first-named verses constitute a section of the discourse
which is a Jewish Christian apocalypse, written in 67-68 A. D., which has been
added to genuine sayings of Jesus.

Jesus' Conception of Himself as Messiah 101
genuinely apocalyptic' Certainly the specific reference to
the destruction of Jerusalem, in the light of our discussion,^
seems more foreign to the method of Jesus than the apoca
lyptic presentation of the future.
The vision of judgment in Matt. 25:31-46 is possibly a
homily of the early church, for it seems out of keeping with
the general method of Jesus. In view of what we know as
to the literary habits of the early Christians,' it would have
been by no means strange if there should have developed an
apocalyptic teaching which attempted to do for the ethical
life what this section so forcibly does. Further, the general
tone of the address is impersonal. In no case is Jesus
represented as uttering the various sentences, but they are
put into the mouth of "the King."* The general teaching
is in harmony with that of Jesus, but it will probably be
safer not to use the section as coming from him.
No such doubt can, however, fairly rest upon the words of
Jesus uttered at the Last Supper.^ Although their precise
meaning is very difficult to grasp, the only explanation which is
possible lies in the fact that, anticipating death, Jesus yet
expected that he would share in a resurrection and so enter
the kingdom of God.^ Such a belief in his own resurrection
had already appeared in his own words to his disciples' just
subsequent to the confession of Peter at Csesarea Philippi.^
lit is this fact that leads Chaeles, Eschatology, p. 328, to reject them as non-
authentic. The reason for this decision is that he finds so many parallels to the
sayings in the apocalyptic half of the chapter in Jewish literature. Such an argu
ment does not appear conclusive. It is a fair question whether the test proposed by
Wendt and adopted by Charles and others be not too subjective. A priori is it any
more probable that Jesus would have predicted the sufferings of his disciples than
that he would have dealt in a general apocalyptic fashion with the end of the agel
2 Cf. especially the influence of Dan. 7 : 13. 3 Cf. The Sheplierd of Hermas.
4 Matt. 25 : 34, 40, 41, 45. £¦ Luke 22 : 15, 16.
6 The possibility that Jesus expected that before he ate another passover the
kingdom would be established on the earth is not to be denied, but hardly to be
treated very seriously.
7Mark8:31; 9:31; 10:34.
8 The reference in Matt. 12:40 to the similarity between the circumstances of the
mission of Jonah and that of the Son of man must be disregarded as an interpola-

102 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament

By all means the most important of the messianic affirma
tions of Jesus are those which are to be f oimd in the account
of his trial. Both before the Jewish authorities and the
Roman Jesus was charged with being the Christ. At the
first trial, it is true, the Jewish authorities seemed to have
endeavored at the start to condemn him on other grounds,
but, these attempts failing, the high-priest adjured him in
the name of the living God' to tell them whether or not he
was the Christ. The reply of Jesus in Mark is umnistakable.
"I am," he said — and immediately made reference to an
eschatological coming of the Son of man. Because of these
words he was condemned. It was the same charge of being
the Messiah, although cast in words fit to appeal to the
Roman authorities, that was made against Jesus in his trial
before Pilate. The Jews, however, at that time gave the
term "Christ" the Zealot significance. Again he admitted
the charge and as the king of the Jews Jesus was finally
crucified.^ Ill
It is at this point we can best consider the terms which
Jesus uses as self -designations.
1. First and most important of these is the term "Son of
man," o uto? toO avOptoirov.
Within recent years there has been much discussion as to
whether or not this term is the outcome of a mistranslation
due to the misinterpretation of the Aramaic phrase (S)TI33X "'3.
It is urged by Wellhausen,' Lietzmann,* Schmidt,'' that the
tion. The original account made the repentance of the Ninevites the real sign of
Jonah. The reference is lacking in Mark and Luke 11 : 32. In the entire matter of
the reference of Jesus to his resurrection see Schwaetzkopff, Prophecies of Jesus
Christ. 1 Mark 14 : 53-64 ; Matt. 26 : 57-66. 2 Mark 15 : 1-15.
Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, Vol. VI, pp. 187-215. 4X>er Menschensohn.
^Encyclopaedia Biblica, art. "Son of Man;" The Son of Man and The Son of
God. See for summary of recent discussion Deummond, " Son of Man." Journal of
Biblical Studies, 1902.

Jesus' Conception of Himself as Messiah 103
Aramaic term iiT23Di< ^S means simply "man," and that its
translation 6 vloi tov avBpdnrov is due to the failure of the
Christian writers to grasp its real force. On the other hand,
Dalman' criticises very vigorously this position and insists
that the Greek translation is by no means untrue to the
Aramaic original. But it is hard to see that the matter is
one to be settled on purely philological grounds. Even
though Dalman's position be mistaken and Wellhausen's be
correct, there is no reason why "the Man" or "Man" should
not have been given a peculiar force and reference by Jesus.
In no case is the idea of sonship of man vital to the term as
he used it. Whatever force one finds in it must be one of
connotation, not of strict translation.^ Most scholars would
admit that certain sayings in which the term appears were
uttered by Jesus, and it is from this fact that we must pro
ceed. The point at issue in these instances becomes one of
exegesis, not of criticism. To argue that all the expressions
in which the phrase is used have reference to humanity in
general is to do violence to any true exegetical method.'
But this is not all. The phrase is represented as being used
by Jesus to refer to himself as Judge.* To argue that these
passages are Christian comments added to the words of
Jesus is certainly to base conclusions on no clear evidence.
Let it be repeated: we are dealing, not with a question of
translation or mistranslation, but with a question as to what
the term, whether properly "Man" or "Son of man,"
connoted. We may grant that in such a passage as Matt.
8 : 20 and Luke 9 : 58 it may have simply the force of "a man,"
but it is certainly unnecessary to argue that Jesus could not
1 Words of Jesus, pp. 234-67. See also Schmiedel, Protestantische Monatshefte,
1848, pp. 252-67, 291-308 ; 1901, pp. 333-51 ; Bousset, Religion des Judenthums, pp. 248-55.
2 A view very similar to this is that of Bousset, Religion des Judenthums, p. 252.
3 Cf. Matt. 11 : 18, 19 ; Luke 7 : 33, 34, where any contrast between John the Baptist
and humanity at large is altogether meaningless. So, too, Mark 10:44, 45; Luke
19:10. 4Mark8:38; 14:62.

104 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
at other times have used the term with special reference to
himself as the type of the kingdom.'
There are three considerations here of primary impor
tance: the use of the term in the Enoch literature;^ the
wide infiuence of the book of Daniel; and the practical
absence of any use of the term by the early church as
descriptive of Jesus.
a) As regards the use of the term in the Enoch literature,
there has been no small attempt to show that the sections in
which the term occurs are either Christian interpolations or
due to the infiuence of Christian thought. Recent criti
cism,'' however, has shown conclusively the impossibility of
attributing these sections to Christian influences. There is
in them absolutely nothing that can reasonably argue Chris
tian origin ; but, on the contrary, they are thoroughly pharisaic
in spirit. 6) The probability that the term did have some messianic
connotation gains strength from the fact that the apocalyptic
sections of Daniel were in general use in the time of Jesus.
We have here at our disposal not oiily the existence of the
apocalyptic literature, so full of echoes of the Daniel apoca
lypse, but also clear evidence of the appeal to and interpre
tation of the book by Josephus as one commonly read and
accepted.* In fact, every argument for the existence of
Daniel in the time of Jesus is an argument for the currency
1 FiEBiG, Der Menschensohn, holds that the Aramaic K1D5S Hi and TB24< "1^ may
be translated "man" in a collective sense (der Mensch), "a man," or "anyone," ac
cording to its context. The only difference he sees between 6 avOptimo^ and 6 vtbs tou
irSpuiTroii as used by the gospels is that the latter refers to Dan. 7 : 13, which he takes
in a personal sense. According to this view, Jesus used the word with a messianic
connotation (Der Menschensohn, p. 120). The definite Greek form with the article
as distinct from vibs ivefuiirov of the LXX rendering of Dan. 7 : 13 is a new translation
of the Aramaic of that passage.
2Eth.-E»ocA, 46:2-4; 48:2; 62:5-9; 63:11; 69:26,29; 70:1.
3 Bousset, Religion des Judenthums, pp. 13, 248; SohOeee, Geschichte, eto.3.
Vol. Ill, pp. 200-202; Kautzsch, Apoc. und Pseud., Vol. II, p. 252.
*See for details Geelach, Die Weissagungen d. A. T. in den Schriften d. Fl-
Josephus.

Jesus' Conception of Himself as Messiah 105
of the book among the people. It may therefore be assumed
that the term 'JJ3K"12, used in Dan. 7:13 to symbolize the
coming kingdom of the saints, was in current use and given
a more or less distinct messianic content. This is not of
necessity to argue that the Jews commonly conceived of the
term as referring to a personal Messiah. In this sense its
use by the Enoch literature is unique in pre-Christian writ
ings, being approached, indeed, only once in post-Christian
Jewish literature.' It does, however, argue that Jesus could
use it in the symbolical force of Daniel and be understood
by his hearers to portray the character of the kingdom.^
c) In the literature of the early church other than the
gospels it is to be noticed that the term is never used of
Jesus except in Acts 7: 56.' Various conjectures have been
made to account for this fact, but its most plausible explana
tion seems to be that after his death the followers of Jesus
used the term "Christ" as a precise description of their
belief in him. There was, indeed, no good reason for early
Christians to use a more obscure term. Most of the New
Testament literature, it is true, was written before the
gospels, and this fact might conceivably argue that the term
was the invention of the second generation of Christians.
But it is impossible to discover a motive for such invention,
or in any way to account for its appearance, unless the
evangelists may have mistranslated the Aramaic words of
Jesus — a hypothesis already considered. That when the
1 4 Esdras, 13 : 3, 5, 12, 25, 51.
2FIEBIG, Der Menschensohn, pp. 75 f., discusses fully Dan. 7:13 as point of
departure from the force of the term as used by Jesus. He finds the similarities in
the two usages to be largely in their eschatology. The differences he discovers to be
numerous. Fiebig's opinion that the term in Dan. 7 : 13 is personal and refers to the
Messiah can hardly be accepted. That kingdom was to be like the " Son of Man "
or"TheMan." To set himself forward as that " Son of Man " or " Man " would be
by no means to be understood as indicating that Jesus considered himself the Christ.
It would, however, undoubtedly lead to his being understood as presenting himself
as the type of such a kingdom, whether it were to be founded by himself or another.
3 In Rev. 1 : 13 ; 14 : 14, the phrase o/ioior vibv ivBpunrov is used, but evidently in a
general sense of " a man."

106 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
term was used by the evangelists it was regarded as a self-
appellation of Jesus seems clear from a comparison of Mark
8:27 with the parallel question of Matt. 16:13.
In view of these facts, therefore, the most satisfactory
conclusion seems to be this: Totally apart from its etymo
logical force, Jesus used the Aramaic term translated 6 vloi
rov avOpdmov (a) as a self -appellation ; (&) derived from the
messianic passage of Dan. 7: 13; (c) with a meaning which
while not necessarily seen by all his hearers to be a claim
to personal messianic character, would be seen by all those
familiar with Dan. 7: 13 to imply that he regarded his life
as in some way typifying that life which should characterize
those who were preparing for the coming kingdom. In
, other words, in the mind of Jesus himself it would express
his messianic character in its moral and exemplary aspects.
2. The term "Christ" is never found in the gospels as a
self-appellation of Jesus. In the synoptic accoimt the word
is not used except by the evangelists as a descriptive term,'
and in the Johannine account Jesus does not call himself
the Christ except by implication to the woman at Samaria.''
Even after the confession of Peter at Csesarea Philippi, he
never used the word with explicit reference to himself. It
is lacking, even in Mark 14:61, when Jesus answers the
high-priest's question in the affirmative.'
3. So also in the case of the term "Son of God." Jesus
himself does not use the expression, although others use it
with reference to him.* It is, of course, true that Jesus
frequently speaks of God as "Father" and of himself as
IMatt. 1:1, 18; 11:2; Mark 1:1, 34; Luke 4:41. 2 John 4:25,26.
3 Dalman, Words of Jesus, pp. 289 f., gives full treatment of the meaning of the
term "Christ."
4 Mark 3:11; 5:7; 15:39; John 1:49. A possible exception should be made to
this general statement in the text of John 10 : 36 ; 11 : 4 ; but in the light of the general
character of the Fourth Gospel, it would be hardly safe to say that the evangelist
had not substituted a term expressive of his own estimate of Jesus for the word
which Jesus himself used.

Jesus' Conception of Himself as Messiah 107
"the Son," but this is quite another matter from speak
ing of himself as o vlb^ tov deov.^ This title is, indeed,
applied by Peter to Jesus, according to Matt. 16:16, but
this is clearly an addition of the evangelist. It is not
found in the original account in Mark 8:29. That Jesus
spoke of God as his Father in some unique sense cannot be
denied, but such sayings as imply this do not employ either
d in'o? TOV Oeov or vto? deov, and can be considered more prop
erly where the content of the messianic consciousness of
Jesus is under consideration.
After thus examining the sayings of Jesus concerning
his relation to the kingdom, it is impossible to reach any
other conclusion, than that he was convinced that he was
the Christ and that he was to inaugurate the kingdom he
foretold, and the infiuence of which he was already bring
ing to bear upon men. Yet such a conclusion as yet is
largely formal. The content of this estimate of himself,
both personally and as conditioned by his relation to the
kingdom, must now be considered.
1 For elaborate discussion see Dalman, Words of Jesus, pp. 268-89. His con
clusion is that the term is sometimes a synonym of Messiah, and at other times
(e.g.. Matt. 16 : 16 ; Luke 1 : 35 ; 3 : 38) is used in a Hellenistic sense involving paternity.

CHAPTER V
THE CONTENT OF THE MESSIANIC SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS
If it be true that Jesus conceived of himself as the Christ,
the next question to be answered concerns the content which
he gave the term. It has always been the opinion of students
of his life, and of the church generally, that he gave to the
term a somewhat different force from that given by his con
temporaries. How justifiable is such an opinion will at
once appear. I
1. The first modification is fundamental: he broke utterly
with pharisaism as a system. Eschatological messianism
was peculiarly the property of the Pharisee and the Essene.
New Testament scholars have long since abandoned any
hope of showing that Jesus was an Essene or intimately
connected with the fraternity. His relations to pharisaism
cannot be determined so promptly. On the one side, he
certainly had much in common with their fundamental reli
gious opinions. Even in the process of his denunciation of
their mistakes he distinctly says that the scribes and law
yers sit in Moses's seat, and bids his disciples follow their
instructions,' though avoiding their practice. In such a
saying he bears deserved testimony to the position which
ideally the representatives of the law of Jehovah occupied.
Further, it would seem probable that in the early part of
his ministry the Pharisees saw in Jesus one who was at
vital points apparently in sympathy with them. It was not
until he began the more positive instruction of his disciples,
and showed indifference to the oral law, that their suspicions
IMatt. 23:2. 108

Content of Messianic Self-Consciousness 109
were aroused. Little by little these suspicions grew into
distrust and enmity. In each step, however, the develop
ment of hostility was the outcome of some positive act or
word of Jesus himself. It is a serious mistake to think of
Jesus as being a passive martyr; on the contrary, it was he
who was the aggressor, and it is in his positive rejection of
certain elements of pharisaism that we have an expression
of those general principles which led him to modify the
messianic conception he had inherited.
Apart from their expectation of the coming kingdom of
Israel, four things were the special mark of the Pharisee
movement: the elaboration of sabbath observance, scrupu
lousness as to the requirement to pay tithes, an equally
scrupulous regard for the laws of ceremonial purity, and a
close adherence to the rapidly developing oral law. All four
could be classified under the fundamental conception of the
society-holiness through separation.
Every student of the life and teaching of Jesus will at
once recognize that these four traits, with their consequent
idea of the separation of the good man from the evil, are the
very points at which Jesus made his attack. Not only was
he a friend of the despised masses,' but he distinctly repu
diated the pharisaic teaching concerning the sabbath;^ de
clared that nothing a man ate could defile him, even though
he was not ceremonially clean;' declared the Pharisee was
making the word of God of no avail through his tradition;*
and censured the tendency to substitute the principles of
tithing for fundamental morality and religion.^ Indeed, he
went farther, and excused his disciples for not following the
disciples of John the Baptist in adopting the incipient
asceticism of the Pharisees shown in their new regard for
1 Mark 2 : 15, 16 ; Matt. 11 : 19 ; Luke 15 : 1.
2Mark2:23-27; 3:2f.; Matt. 12:10, 11; John5:lf.; 7:22 f.; 9:lf.
3 Mark 7 : 1 f . 4 Mark 7 : 8-13 ; c/. Matt, 23 : 5 f . 5 Matt. 23 : 23-25.

110 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
fasting.' In the light of this attitude toward pharisaism as
a system, it is not surprising to find him constantly censur
ing the Pharisees as a class for insincerity and casuistry in
the maintenance of their religious reputation.^ But so to
break with pharisaism was to abandon many of the very
principles that controlled pharisaic messianism, and to sub
stitute for formal requirements the recognition of actual
ethical conditions.
2. More distinctly revolutionary was the new teaching of
Jesus concerning God. It is absolutely essential for the
entire messianic scheme of pharisaism that God be thought
of in precisely the same way as the Pharisee thought of him,
namely, as a Judge and King. In Judaism such a concep
tion is not a matter of analogy ; it is description. As it has
already appeared from our survey of Jewish literature, the
kingdom of God was really to be a kingdom of Jews, and
God was to reign over them just as truly as Herod reigned
over Judea. The Judge no more than the judgment was a
figure of speech. God was actually to undertake judicial
functions. Jesus does not attempt a precise definition of the Deity.
His language is always one of analogy descriptive of the
moral character of God and his attitude toward mankind.
But even by way of analogy he seldom speaks of God as a
King or Judge. To him God was to be thought of as a
Father. Such an analogy, of course, did not exclude the
other and sterner conception, but it goes far toward modify
ing any religious or theological teaching derived from the
forensic concept. The great effort of Jesus was to induce
men and women to see father liness in the divine ruler; not
severity, or even bald justice. How far this modified his
conception of messiahship is immediately evident. The
Christ who was to reveal God's will and prepare men for the
1 Mark 2 : 18-22. 2 For instance, Matt. 22 : 14-33.

Content of Messianic Self-Consciousness 111
coming kingdom could not insist upon judgment so much as
upon the love that welcomed the penitent ; not so much upon
the destruction of one's enemies as upon that self-sacrifice
revealed by the heavenly Father in his treatment of bad
men.' 3. More specific was Jesus' rejection of the current con
ception of the Christ as the Son of David.^ The point at
issue in his well-known question as to the messianic teaching
of the scribes was not merely of descent. The term "Son of
David" had become expressive of the entire messianic idea
as held by all Jews, whether scribes or common people. It
indicated that the new kingdom was to be essentially Jewish,
just as its king was to be the representative of the most
typical royal family of Hebrew history. More than that, it
declared the new kingdom to be essentially military, for to
the Jew David was essentially a man of war, a conqueror of
the enemies of Israel.' To describe the messianic king as
his son was to ascribe to him the same military prowess.* All
this Jesus rejected. The Messiah was to be greater than
David; his glory was to be his own and not derived from
descent. 4. Similarly, at least in the latter part of his ministry, he
clearly repudiated the idea that the Jews had any monopoly
upon the coming kingdom. Those who were brought to the
wedding feast from the highways and hedges were the out
cast of Jews and gentiles.^ Many were to come from the
east and the west, the north and the south, and sit down
with Abraham, while the children of the kingdom, the Jews,
were to be cast out." And the risen Lord commanded his
apostles to disciple all nations.' It is to be noticed also that
in thus extending the kingdom to the gentiles Jesus does
not make proselytism a condition of entering it. In his
IMatt. 5:44-48. 2 Mark 12: 35. 31 Sam. 16; 18; 2 Sam. 17:8; 1 Chron. 28:3.
4 0/. Ps. 72:8. 5 Matt. 22: 1-14. 6 Matt. 8:11, 12. 'Matt. 28: 19.

112 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
entire teaching there is not the slightest reference to the
claim, subsequently urged by his followers in Jerusalem'
that it was necessary for a man to keep the law of Moses in
order to be saved. The condition of entrance was clearly
ethical. The pure in heart were to see God; the peace
makers were to be called the children of God ; the meek were
to inherit the earth.^ This teaching of Jesus concerning the
subjects of the kingdom supplements his teaching as to the
supreme dignity of the Christ. A Jewish king could expect
only Jewish subjects or proselytes. The kingdom of one
greater than David would be hampered by no such limita
tion. Such a universalizing of the messianic concept does
not modify the idea of the kingdom as an eschatological
institution, but introduces a fundamental change in the
conditions of membership in it. It goes far also to show
that in the teaching of Jesus the most fundamental thing
was not the kingdom itself, but that quality of life which
assured a participation in its blessings.
5. More revolutionary, if possible, than this universalizing
of the messianic ideas is Jesus' belief in the necessity of the
Christ's suffering. In all Jewish literature such a belief
had been wanting. Later, it is true, doubtless under the
force of Christian argument, the rabbis developed a theory
of a Messiah who was to suffer, but it was n6ver a universal
belief.' The source of so original and radical a modification
of the messianic concept as this of Jesus is really twofold.
On the one side was his own experience, which led him to
see how inevitable and fatal would be the hostility of the
religious authorities of his people; and on the other were
those scriptural statements, like Isa., chap. 53, overlooked or
repudiated* by the Jews, which foretold the suffering of the
1 Acts 15:1. 2 Matt. 5:3-12.
3 Dalman, Der leidcnde und der sterbende Messias : WCnsche, Die Leiden des
Messias. 4 Cf. Targum of Jonathan, in loco.

Content of Messianic Self-Consciousness 113
Servant of Jehovah. The full meaning of this element of
his messianic concept can be appreciated only as one grasps
Jesus' conviction that suffering and death were not merely
accidental to his career, but were an essential part of his
messianic work. It was the Father's will that he drink the
cup; it was the Father's will that he suffer and die. He
saw clearly that his was not a mere individual's fate. He died
and knew he must die, not as .Jesus the carpenter or teacher,
but as Jesus the Christ. His blood was to be shed for many.'
It was doubtless in part because of this growing convic
tion of the necessity of his death as a part of his revelation
that God was fatherly, and that all things in life could be
accepted as an expression of divine love, that Jesus main
tained the silence already noticed concerning his messiahship.
As modified by him, the term "Messiah" could not have
been apprehended by the people; to use it without the
change of content would be to confirm his followers and the
people in those very opinions as to the kingdom and its
Christ which he was seeking to change. How impossible
it would have been to induce the people at large to believe
that the Christ was to suffer is to be seen in the impossibility
of inducing even the Twelve to accept his forecast of his
death. They could not understand what he meant by his
sad words, and believed that he must certainly be mistaken.
Their preconception as to the career of the Christ completely
excluded all expectation of anything but glorious victory.
And they feared to question him concerning the new teaching.^
6. It is not difficult from this point of view to appreciate
the reference by Jesus to his resurrection. It is true that
certain of the sayings attributed to him may not be authen
tic,' but there is no good a priori ground for refusing to
1 1 Cor. 11 : 25 f . ; Mark 14 : 24. The words in Matt. 26 : 28, eis iit'^<riv aiiaprCuv, while
probably expressing a legitimate implication of the thought of Jesus, clearly are an
explanatory addition of the evangelist. Yet see Dennby, The Death of Christ, pp. 56 f .
2 Mark 8 : 31—9 : 1 ; 9 : 30-32. 3 Matt. 12 : 40.

114 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
believe that a Christ who believed that he must suffer and
die would also believe that, simply because he was the Christ
he would have power enough to accomplish his results after
death. It is to be borne in mind that the resurrection of
the righteous dead was an essential part of the pharisaic
belief as to the kingdom. If, then, the Christ were to die
before he had completed his messianic work, the inference
would be inevitable that he himself must partake of this
same resurrection. Here, too, the disciples seemed to have
been utterly at a loss to understand what he meant, and the
conception of a Christ who attained supreme power by
resurrection was as original with Jesus as that of a Christ
who shared humanity's common lot of suffering and death.'
II
To a considerable extent, any decision as to the general
messianic position of Jesus, and especially concerning his
idea of the kingdom, carry with them a determination as to the
term " Christ." If Jesus thought of the kingdom of God as
fundamentally eschatological, then he must have thought of
himself as the eschatological Christ. Such a conclusion will
be reached also by a process of elimination. Evidently he
did not think of himself as the political revolutionist, and
in the same proportion as the kingdom was to be the gift of
God rather than a result of the growth of the disciples in
number and influence, his messianic work would be future.
Such considerations mark the point of departure for any
study of the content of his messianic consciousness. The
problem of his messiahship, like the problem of his king
dom, is one that concerns the adjustment of the eschatologi
cal expectation with an actual historical career.
Jesus' teaching concerning the kingdom gives us also
data for determining his conception of messiahship. For-
I See Schwaetzkopff, Prophecies of Jesus Christ concerning His Death and
Resurrection,

Content of Messianic Self-Consciousness 115
mally speaking, the kingdom was eschatological, but, while
its coming was delayed, the struggle with the kingdom of
Satan had already begun, and its future members, while
preparing to enter it, were in a prophetic sense the kingdom
itself. Co-ordinate with these two periods in the history of
the kingdom would be naturally two periods of messiahship.
In the first the Messiah would be engaged in prophetic work ;
in the second, which would open with the coming of the
kingdom, he would be the messianic "Judge" and "King."
That Jesus himself believed that he was not only the Messiah,
but was actually doing messianic work during the ministry,
has already appeared. Herein he differed from his disciples.
They could believe that he was the Christ, but could not see
that his work of teaching and of self-sacrificing service was
a part of the messianic career. Still less during their associa
tion with him could they believe that death formed any part
of messianic work.
What was the adjustment which Jesus made in his own
mind concerning his work of preparing men for the coming
kingdom, and his work as the King and Judge of the king
dom when it came? Any difficulty involved in an answer
to this question lies rather in the preconceptions of the
interpreter rather than with Jesus himself. If we may
judge from the simplest interpretation of his words, in his
own mind the problem was one simply of two stages in his
messianic activity — the one prophetic and the other judicial
and royal. Between the two lay death. That the harmo
nization of the two careers gave rise to no moral struggles
on the part of Jesus we cannot assert. The whole signifi
cance of the temptation argues the contrary. Convinced as
he was that he must undertake the new duties and exercise
the new powers which were his because of the experience at
the baptism, he was brought face to face with the fate of
the prophets. If they suffered as the servants of God, cer-

116 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
tainly he must. Nor is it too much to believe that he had
already formulated that conception of the meaning of suffer
ing which it was to be his great mission to exemplify. If
God were the Father of righteous men, then certainly the
sufferings which they underwent must be a part of the divine
plan ; and if he, the Christ, were to bring to the world the
revelation of God's fatherliness, then he must himself be
ready to do this through sharing the fate of the noble army
of martyrs. From the very beginning of his ministry it
appears that he foresaw with more or less distinctness the
tragedy through which he was to pass,' and it is his own
experience that he seeks to make that of his disciples when
he insists that they must take up their cross and follow him.
Yet such a period of humiliation and agony was but tempo
rary. He was to return again. Death was to be but the
supreme sacrifice which he was to make in preparing men
for the coming kingdom. He was to return as King and
Judge. Of this assurance the evangelists do not permit us
for a moment to doubt. It was this that nerved him for
the final agony, as he foresaw it at the Last Supper. It
was this future that he distinctly laid before the high-priest
at his trial, and it was because of this, as much as anything
else, that he was condemned to death as a blasphemer.'' In
the mind of the early church there was no necessary chasm
between the present and the coming glorious life, nor was
there in the mind of Jesus. That personality which suffered
in order to show men how to prepare for the coming kingdom
was the same personality that was to return to introduce
that kingdom.' The resurrection would be the connecting
link between the two messianic periods.
IC/. Mark 2:19 f. 2 Mark 14: 60 f.
3 There is no alternative for this view, except that which sees in Jesus' death a
complete demolition of all his plans and in the words ascribed to him relative to
the new kingdom, the beliefs of the early church. The question here is, however,
precisely that which we have already discussed, and if Jesus believed that the
kingdom was future, and at the same time believed that he was the Christ, the
position taken in the text seems beyond question.

Content of Messianic Self-Consciousness 117
As to the precise time when he should take up the full
messianic work, Jesus is said' expressly to have confessed
ignorance. It must be admitted, however, that this verse
sounds much like a gloss or editorial comment. At all
events, however, it is clear that Jesus foretold his appearance
as sudden and unexpected.^ It was to be preceded by perse
cution and preaching on the part of his disciples.' If we
follow the line of criticism already indicated and remove
Mark 13:7-96, 14-20, 24-27, 30, 31 from their context,
the program of events preceding and accompanying the
coming of the Messiah is very indefinite.* If, however,
they are retained it would appear that Jesus in some way
correlated his return with the fall of Jerusalem. However
that may be, the limit within which the messianic kingdom
was to be established, and the Son of man was to return, is
expressly stated to be the life of the generation to whom he
preached.^ And it is in accordance with such conviction
that the apostolic churches ordered their lives and hopes.
Just what relation Jesus saw existed between his death
and the entrance of his followers into the blessings of the
heavenly kingdom is not clearly exhibited in the gospels.
It is, indeed, possible to construct an argument" which
would show that even at his baptism he consciously took up
the work of the Suffering Servant. From such a point of
departure it is easy, by the aid of the "ransom" saying,'
to discover in the words of Jesus a complete Pauline doc
trine of the atonement. Yet such a dogmatic exegesis does
1 Mark 13: 32.
2 Mark 13 : 35 ; Luke 12 : 35, 46 ; Matt. 25 : 1, 13 : possibly also Luke 17 : 20 f .
3Matt. 10:24, 25; Mark4:n; Matt. 10:23.
4 These verses contain striking parallelisms with the thought of the apocalyptic
literature, such as Apoc. Bar., 27:2, 7; 48:32, 34, 37; 70:2, 3, 6, 7, 8; 6:24; 9:3;
4 Esdras, 5:9. As to the shortening of the days, see Apoc. Bar., 83 : 1, 4.
6 Mark 9:1 and parallels; Matt. 10:23; 14:62. The current belief of the early
church is to be seen also in John 21 : 20-23.
6 Thus Denney, The Death of Christ. ' Mark 10 : 43.

118 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
not quite bring conviction. Jesus believed that his death
was an integral part of his redemptive work as Messiah; of
this we may be sure. In this sense it was vicarious and
atoning. But this is far from saying that he regarded his
death as in any true sense a "buying off" of God or Satan.'
It was in behalf of others; it was not necessarily in the
place of others. Through it many would be freed from the
punishment which otherwise might be inflicted upon them.
For the messianic work without it would be incomplete ; and
without that messianic work the way of salvation would have
been incomplete.
So far we can go with assurance. But can we go farther ?
Did Jesus consider his death as having, wholly apart from
his career as Messiah, an efficiency in itself? On this we
cannot speak from unquestionable data, and if we are to
confine ourselves to the evangelists' records at our disposal,
we must plead ignorance of any more precise thought than
that he saved them as a Messiah who died. But the deliver
ance was no less real. The fear of death, the power of
death, the distrust of God's love because of suffering — all
these vanished when the Christ died. In very truth he
submitted to that penalty which all lives must endure, but
he suffered to conquer, and he died to rise. And all for the
sake of others.^
Yet it must be constantly borne in mind that the content
of the term in Jesus' teaching is not historically discon
nected with the messianism of his day. Such differences as
may appear between the two systems are not radical, but
modifications on the part of Jesus. The ground-work of
1 The force of Aurpo;' ii/rl mWSiv is not to be pushed into a literalizing of the
figure. It is "deliverance at a cost" that is here set forth, not primarily a ransom
in its literal sense.
2 See Wendt, Teaching of Jesus. Vol. n, pp. 218 f. ; Stevens, Teaching of Jesus,
chap, xii; Theology of the New Testament, Part I, chap, x; Stalkeb, Christology of
Jesus, chap, x; Beyschlag, New Testament Theology. Book I, chap, vi; Feinb,
Jesus Christus und Paulus, pp. 113-35.

Content of Messianic Self-Consciousness 119
his entire conception of the Messiah's work is conditioned
by the eschatological kingdom. On this point Jesus was in
accord with John the Baptist and with the entire apostolic
church. He was to come in his kingdom;' as the Son of
man he was to be the judge sent by God.'' In the Johannine
reworking of his sayings he is represented as promising to
raise up those who believe upon him at the last day ' and as
going to prepare places for his followers, whom he is to
return to take to himself.* Yet neither the kingdom nor
the Messiah of the gospels is precisely that of Judaism.
For Jesus was not utterly dependent upon his inherited
concepts. A review of the modifications noted above will
show that they appear wherever the inherited concept would
be affected by his self -consciousness.
IMatt. 16:27, 28. 2 Mark 14:62. 3 John 6 : 40-45. 4 John 14: If.

CHAPTER VI
THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS IN THE MESSIANISM
OF JESUS
The results reached in the preceding chapter lead us
out from the region of an historical, to that of a norma
tive investigation. We should do Jesus an injustice were
we to leave the discussion of his messianic self -estimate
at this point. The significance of the modifications made by
him in Jewish messianism are too important to be overlooked.
It is inconceivable that Christianity should have been the
result of the mere belief either on the part of himself or of
his disciples that he was in future to be the Christ of apoca
lyptic hopes. It is necessary above all things to discover
just what r5le messianism, as it has been seen to exist in his
teaching both as a general scheme and as a mold of his own
self-consciousness, played in the entire body of teaching
which he has bequeathed to us. The problem should be
stated sharply. Were these modified messianic concepts so
regulative and so absolutely essential to his function and
his doctrine that to remove them would destroy his religious
significance, or do they stand in such a relationship that
they may be allowed for ? Might they be removed and still
leave in the teaching and personality of Jesus truth of eter
nal significance? In other words, in order to have faith in
Jesus is it necessary, on the basis of the gospels, to accept
him as Christ in the strictly historical Jewish sense of the
word?

The answer to such a question is not to be found in an
appeal merely to the distinction between that which was
120

Elements in Messianism of Jesus 121
original with Jesus and that which was inherited by him
Prom his Jewish environment. The question as to what is
true and what is false in his teaching is not to be confused
with the question as to what is inherited and what is original
in his thought. The study of the messiapism of his times
gives us clearly the interpretative medium through which we
must study him, and it further shows elements that were
inherited rather than, strictly speaking, originated by him
self. It would be a mistake, however, to hold that all such
heritage is to be rejected out of hand as utterly false. The
two questions run, so to speak, at right angles to each other.
Much of what he inherited was, as has already appeared,
rejected by him. Some of that which he did not reject will
be rejected by men in different intellectual conditions; but
he would be an exceedingly rash man who should say that
the entire messianic concept, as it reached Jesus, was without
elements of truth. The practical problem for today lies just
here. After a study of messianism enables us to understand
Jesus better, there is still left the question as to what in his
teaching is eternally true.
It will, of course, be easier to discover what this per
manent element is after one has discovered what actually was
original and what was inherited by him, but such a distinc
tion is not the final criterion. The entire eschatological
scheme in which his teachings are apparently cast is not
mere speculation. As it appears in the teaching of Jesus, the
eschatological element was undoubtedly inherited, but none
the less it included in itself at least two elements which are
not at all dependent upon any particular coloring of the
future, but summarize the deepest experiences which the Jew
shared in common with all peoples. These two elements are
the belief that the good man must survive death, and the
belief that God is bound to come to the assistance of those
who trust him. Such fundamental beliefs may be expressed

122 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
in a great variety of ways — by the stoic, the cynic, and the
mystic, as well as by the messianist. The fact that Jesus
expressed these truths in the forms of messianism can be
easily accounted for, but such an explanation does not destroy
the truths themselves. Jesus, it will be recalled, made this
plain when he made the enjoyment of the kingdom dependent
upon one's possession of a life like God's. His rejection of
many of the conceptions upon which messianism was really
founded forces us to abandon any belief in the permanence
of the particular form of his teaching given by these two
elements of Jewish hope, but not in the truths they embody.
For the Jewish eschatology does, indeed, embody truths.
It may be and undoubtedly is true that the Jew did not
analyze his hope ; but none the less messianism may properly
be conceived of as a way of thinking of matters which are in
no sense dependent upon the peculiar form in which they are
portrayed. The portrayal of the Day of Judgment may be
quite too naive for an age dominated by the concepts of physical
science to accept, but its fundamental conception that good
ness must lead to blessing, and badness to suffering, is cer
tainly undeniable. The idea that the souls of the righteous
dead should enter new physical bodies — if, indeed, that were
commonly held by the Jews — is quite excluded by today's
psychology, but the persistence of a self-sufficient personality
after death is assuredly one element of this conception which
is not to be denied. The glorious and eternal kingdom of
the Jew was a dream which was never fulfilled, but the hope
of a society in which righteousness is supreme is certainly
one of the greatest treasures of humanity. The kingdom of
Satan may be the outcome of Persian dualism, and the pit
filled with fire prepared for demons and evil men may lie
quite outside any scientific cosmogony, but the great reli
gious and moral principles which the Jew embodied in these
concrete forms will never be denied.

Elements in Messianism of Jesus 123
One would hardly be justified in assuming a priori that
Jesus treated the messianic expectation in such a generalized
way as this, but just as truly is it unsafe to declare a priori
that he used messianic terms as finalities in his thought, or
as concepts which must be accepted before one can assent to
his explicit moral and religious teaching. He was possessed
of the idea of an impending eternity.' To him life had
meaning and the need of moral decisions was pressing
because of the possibilities of eternal woe or weal. Escha
tology in his teaching is essentially a recognition of immor- ;
tality. The center of his teaching is not the kingdom of
God, with its mingled ethnic and political connotation ; it is
eternal life — the life which, because it is like God's, persists
across death into the joy of the divine life. He could
teach it because he possessed it. To tell one of its certainty
and the way to possess it was in truth to preach a gospel.
It is to this life, born of the Spirit of God, that any study of
the messianic elements of the New Testament will continu
ally lead. The conception was not given by Judaism, it
was given by the conscious experience of Jesus. Because
he lived, his disciples were to live also. Life in the con
viction of an impending eternity! — that is exhortation of
Jesus. Life in the enjoyment of eternity! — that is the
supreme good. II
But, more specifically, it can never be forgotten that
much of the teaching of Jesus has value wholly apart from
its connection with the messianic concept. In fact, so true
is this statement that, as has already appeared, scholars have
1 Weenle, Beginnings of Christianity, Vol. I, chaps. 4, 5, discusses this matter
admirably, and with substantially the same results as those presented in the present
volume. In many points a comparison of his positions with mine shows differences,
especially in matters of criticism, but that two studies so independent as these
should reach results so similar gives me, at least, added confidence both in them and
in the method employed.

124 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
sometimes been able to convince themselves that the whole
significance of Jesus is unmessianic. Throughout his teach
ing there runs the note of universality rather than of Judaism.
That for which the religious soul turns to his teaching is his
reference, not to the kingdom of God, but to God himself;
not for his reference to the judgment, but for his exposition
of the moral values and outcomes of life possessed of eternal
capacities. If we ask ourselves as to the origin of these teachings, so
independent in their content from his inherited messianism,
our answer is not hard to find. In the first place, Jesus
re-emphasized the noble ethics of the prophets. All through
the history of the Jews there persisted the struggle between
the prophet, on the one hand, and the priest and the legalist,
on the other. Tragic as this contest sometimes became, it
gathers an element of pathos when we recall that the prophet
himself sometimes found it necessary to further the policy
of those to whom he was really opposed. But of one
thing the prophet was never ignorant : Whether he expressed
his words in terms of prophecy, or in great principles
embodied in the Codes of his people's lawgivers, he never
forgot that life was something more than ceremony, and
that duty to God was something more than the keeping of
rules. Back of every specific act he saw a dominating
motive, and back of every law he saw his God. It was this
perception of the moral significance of religious faith that
gave the great prophets their ethical passion, and it was
this that Jesus himself appropriated. He, too, would say,
with the writer of Deuteronomy, that the two greatest com
mands of the law were to love God and to love one's neighbor.
Jesus saw also the supreme truth which lay in the prophet's
interpretation of suffering. It was this, quite as much as his
perception of the inevitable outcome of his struggle with the
Pharisees, that taught him the necessity of his death. In

Elements in Messianism of Jesus 125
the description of the Suffering Servant he saw the fate that
would be his as the Christ. In a profound sense he fulfilled
this prophecy. It was not merely that he expounded the
principles of the prophets even better than they themselves ;
beyond this he saw that he who would be the truly messianic
representative of God must fulfil those forecasts with which
the second Isaiah so wonderfully interpreted the sufferings
of Jehovah's Servant, but which the pride of the Jew had
refused to see must picture his Christ. But, at the same
time, it is noteworthy that in his teaching Jesus does not
magnify the messianic aspect of his suffering or of the
world suffering. The note which he strikes most insistently
is the note of the fatherliness of God. But when Jesus
reached this conception he had passed quite beyond the
sphere of the messianic expectation and had entered that of
universal religious faith.
It is here in this conception of God as love that we see
the basis of the ethical teaching of Jesus. It too, although
occasionally couched in terms of messianism, is not depend
ent upon the concepts of messianism. The supreme duty of
man is to believe that God is love, and to live with others as
God himself would live. That is to say, he is to live a life
of love. How far removed this is from the traditional
messianism of his day will appear at once. The kingdom of
God may or may not be considered as necessary in our
modern religious vocabularies, but it is no mere archaeologi
cal concept. Deep within it is the thought that men must
embody the love of God in their social relations. It is not
only heaven, it is a community of "children of God"
who are like the Master Jesus, who are brothers because
they are like their heavenly Father. They are to be
immortally blessed because they are possessed of that charac
ter, gained by the life of divine quality, which will make
immortality blessed. Any others, consciously refusing to

126 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
be godlike, must find immortality a curse. In a word, love
is the social correlate of the sacrificial individualism of
Jesus — the great dynamic element of eternal life.
But such elements as these in the teaching of Jesus
emphasize distinctions not merely between messianism and
ethics, or between messianism and religion, but between
truth and the form of truth; between the substance of
teaching and the form which that teaching took in a given
age. From this point of view the student of the life of
Jesus becomes increasingly convinced that none of the
essential teachings of Jesus are dependent upon the messi
anic scheme as such. Jesus does not use the idea of the
kingdom as inclusive of all his teaching. If it be abandoned,
his general ethical and religious teaching would not be
injured. The idea of the kingdom is a point of contact
between himself and his hearers. Could he, conceivably,
have been a Greek, it must have been something different.
His own experience of God, his own personality, led him to
enlarge upon eternal life rather than upon the kingdom.
But that is a term of his own personality, not of an inherited
hope. Its content is moral, not ethnic.
Ill
Yet even here we have not reached the most significant
help that lies in the messianic interpretation which Jesus
gave himself and his life. That lies in the very word
"Christ," the Anointed One, in which Jesus conceived
himself. When Jesus made his own inner life the object of 'atten
tion, and disclosed his self-conscious life, his words are
susceptible of being ranged in two general classes. On the
one side are those in which he speaks of his personality as
thoroughly under the influence of the Spirit, and on the
other are those in which he used the filial analogy to express

Elements in Messianism of Jesus 127
his relations with God. But it would be a mistake to think
of these two self -descriptions either as involving a double
personality, or in fact as expressive of any radical difference.
To think of God as Father was at bottom no more different
from thinking of himself as having the Spirit of God than
to think of himself as Son of man was different from think
ing of himself as Christ. The distinction between the two
terms is rather one of point of view. The very account
which describes the coming of the Spirit upon him also
describes the new experience as one of sonship.
The nearest analogy which we have to the experience of
Jesus is that of the prophet, but the psychological formula to
describe his and the prophetic experience is not the same.
Jesus was conscious, not of a momentary indwelling of the
Spirit,' but of a personality constantly and exceptionally and
supremely filled with the divine personality — of a divine
incarnation. Otherwise he would not have conceived of
himself as the Christ.
Again, however, a careful distinction is necessary. Such
a consciousness of himself as Messiah and of the significance
of his own personality would be impossible without experi
ences which antedated the baptism. Whatever new experience
of God and new perception of duty may have come to him
by the Jordan must have been conditioned by his previous
life. It is, of course, possible, with some of the Docetic
teachers, to hold that there was such an incarnation of the
Spirit of God at that time as would have been unconditioned
by any previous character or capacity of his personality ; but
such a position is unlikely on a priori grounds, as well as
opposed to such information as we have as to the early life
of Jesus. The words uttered by him as a boy in the temple
certainly do not refer to his parentage. Otherwise his
father and mother could not have failed to understand him,
1 Cf. John 1 : 32, 34. So, too, J. Weiss, Reich Gottes'^, p. 155.

128 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
Wholly apart, therefore, from the question as to the his
toricity of the infancy sections of Matthew and Luke, we
are forced to believe that by these words Jesus intended to
express his developing consciousness of God in his own life.
It would in very truth be contrary to all the data and
probabilities of psychology to find such a supreme experi
ence as that of the baptism unconditioned by previous states
of personality. Just what the difference was between the
state of soul of which Jesus was conscious before his bap
tism, and that of which he was conscious after his baptism,
it would be impossible to state with accuracy, but one thing
is clear: the personality of Jesus made the new self-
consciousness possible. Thereafter he believed himself to
be so great and so possessed of God as to be absolutely and
unquestionably convinced that all the glories of the eschato
logical kingdom were to be secondary to his own position as
its king. A greater thought than this probably never
entered a man's mind and left it sane. That Jesus should
have believed such a future should be his, is a most impor
tant datum for assisting us to judge his own self -estimate.
From the day of his baptism onward this conviction set
Jesus in a different class from that to which other men
belonged. Never for a moment does he consider himself as
a mere climax of humanity. In his experiences, in his duties,
and, most of all, in his consciousness of his own superhuman
self he puts himself over against humanity as its divine
Master. Otherwise he would not have been the Christ.
To come to a consideration of his self-consciousness from
this point of view is to find one's self convinced anew that
the real meaning of Jesus in history is not in the ascription
to him of a messianic future on the part of his followers, but
rather in a personality which, when fully read by him
self, compelled him to regard himself as the one destined to
undertake and enjoy a messianic future. Even though it

Elements in Messianism of Jesus 129

should be shown that such an expectation was historically to
be disappointed, the greatness of the personality which com
pelled itself to forecast its future in such ultimate concep
tions is indisputable.
Almost unexpectedly eschatology is thus seen to be of the
utmost interpretative importance. It would not have been
such an extraordinary thing to have regarded one's self as
Christ, if that had meant simply to teach men about God, to
do good, and to organize a great movement of social regen
eration which sooner or later should transform humanity.
But consider only what it must have meant for one so emi
nently sane as Jesus to attach to himself the eschatological
concept. He was doing nothing that the eschatological
Christ was expected to perform. The judgment throne was
not set; the dead were not raised; the wicked were not
being thrust down to hell ; the sun and moon and stars were
not being shaken from their places ; the earth was not being
renewed. Why did he forecast his future as involving such
expectations ? The answer is close at hand. It was because
he saw himself so supreme that he was forced to use the
extremest valuations of his day and people to express his
own self-consciousness. He could not interpret himself as a
reformer, as a prophet, as Elijah. He was the Christ. Had
such an interpretation been forced upon him, had others
believed that he was doing messianic work, the situation
would be radically different. As it was, it is a tribute to
something in his personality that compelled him to regard
himself as Christ. And that element was God. The coming
of God into a man's life was implied in the very word,
"Christ." It is that which the apostles saw and that which
Jesus himself saw. He regarded himself as the Christ —
the Anointed of God — because he was conscious of God in
his personality. What "unction" was in Semitic thought,
incarnation was in Greek thought. Jesus believed that he

130 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
was Christ because he knew that when he read his own per
sonality he read God. As this deep consciousness had led
him to abandon certain elements of pharisaic messianism,
and to modify others, so, too, did it become a contribution
to religion wholly independent of the self-appellation with
which Jesus was constrained to express it. It is the per
sonality of the historical Jesus, not a descriptive title, that
is God's best revelation to men. In very truth, in him was
life that was to be the light of men.
Similarly in the case of the resurrection. While it is
true that men believed Jesus to be the Christ before they
believed that he had been raised from the dead, it is
true that they believed he was raised from the dead because
he was the Christ. Clearly, the fact that he was raised from
the dead did not make Jesus the Christ; but it showed him
to be such. It is on the basis of this' fact that men attached
to him the messianic conception. As has already appeared,
there was absolutely nothing in the conception of messiahship
which would have involved the belief that the Messiah should
die and be raised from the dead. On the contrary, there
was everything in the concept to argue the opposite con
clusion. It was this which Peter evidently had in mind at
Csesarea Philippi: the Christ could not die. Account for
the belief of the disciples in Jesus' resurrection as one will,
it is the reverse of any genuine historical method to hold
that the belief was derived from a belief in his messiahship.
It is well to state this fact distinctly. The belief that
Jesus had been raised from the dead was the basis of a
messianic interpretation, not the result of that interpreta
tion. If one, therefore, is convinced that this belief of the
apostles was well grounded, and that Jesus actually did
manifest himself in some objective sense to the disciples, it
is impossible to deny that in this fact the Christian church
has a supreme historical datum wholly distinct from the

Elements in Messianism of Jesus 131
messianic concept. The death of Christ might be used by
the Jews to argue that Jesus was the Christ; for the man
who does not care to reach that particular conclusion it
stands equally significant as a fact in the history of the race,
a testimony to the superhuman personality of the historical
Jesus. It matters not in what schematic relation it is
placed; whether it be systematized as an element in the
messianic expectation, or in some scientific hypothesis like
that of evolution. The fact of the resurrection itself is
independent of any interpretation and stands out ready for
correlation with whatever other facts one may care to join it.
Whether or not one accept Jesus as the Christ of Jewish
hopes, he is the Risen One. IV
Thus we come in sight of the permanent, as distinct from
the interpretative, elements in the story of Jesus. There
are those fundamental human needs and hopes which messi
anism in itself expressed, and far beyond them is that
personality of Jesus which was the test of truth in his own
experience and lies back of his teaching, making him more
than human teachers. When we combine these two ele
ments, we have the permanent element of the gospels. Once
given such facts, and it is easy to systematize them. They
have but to be brought into correlation with any other group
of facts to have their value appear. As we shall see, that is
the use made of them by the apostles. By their aid the
early church solved the theological and philosophical diffi
culties of its own age. So to use them is to put them to
their true purpose. The life and resurrection and teaching
of Jesus were not intended to be sources of mystery to the
world. In such a case the gospel would be far enough from
good news. They were rather intended to serve as a means
by which the man who makes them supreme in his own con-

132 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
duct may better understand the world in which he is, better
trust the forgiving grace of God, better perceive the life he
ought to live, and be more fully assured of the life that may
hereafter be his.
It is here, far above traditional messianism, that we reach
our final word concerning Jesus and see most clearly his
significance. Jesus, as all will admit, was something more
than a teacher; he was a life, and the life was the light of
man. His teachings are the expositions of this life; the
ideal which he set forth as the divine way of living he him
self first lived. To think of him as in any way disingenuous
is impossible. If ever a man was transparently honest, it
was he. In this assurance lies the great authority which we
attribute to his teaching. He was not a theorist. He set
forth his own inner life in the words which he bade other
men to believe. This life he does not obtrusively set forth
as messianic, but rather as that of the Son of God, the one
in most perfect harmony with the divine soul, the one in
whom the divine Spirit himself was incarnate. It was his
inner life that forced upon him the messianic interpretation.
It was his inner life that he formulated in his teachings. It
is his personality, his vocalization of his self-conscious life
with God, his triumph over death, that survive when all
archaeological concepts are removed. Jesus taught how one
should live to insure the kingdom which the Jew expected
and he himself so lived. But this way of living — this life
of faith and love and sacrifice — remains imperative as a
moral ideal, whether or not one correlates it with the Jewish
pictures with which it was correlated by him as he spoke to
Jews. He taught and demonstrated the certainty of the
immortality of the man who possessed his sort of life. The
truth of such teaching lies, not in the fact that he described
it in terms of messianic hope, but in the historical fact of
his own resurrection. Cast these facts and these teachings

Elements in Messianism of Jesus 133
born of experience in any vocabulary and they are true.
The criterion by which to judge between the interpreta
tive and the permanent elements in the words of Jesus is,
in a word, Jesus himself. Such inherited thought employed
by him as cannot be demonstrated true by his personality
may be assumed as pedagogic and economic — the means by
which he expressed to his own age the truth born of his
own conscious experience.
In conclusion: On the basis of Jesus' own self-estimate
and the results of a reverent criticism, a man may believe in
him as the incarnation of God, as the revealer of a forgiving
God, as the type and teacher of the perfect human life, as
the Risen One who brought life and incorruption to light,
without necessarily committing himself to a formal accept
ance of his strictly messianic interpretation. The interpre
tation was born of Judaism and will be dynamic only as one
assents to Judaistic preconceptions. The life will ever be
the light of men.

PART III
THE MESSIANISM OP THE APOSTLES

CHAPTER I
THE MESSIANISM OF PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY
The disciples who composed the original church at
Jerusalem were those who had been associated with Jesus.
Most of them were Galileans, and farthest possible removed
from the academic discussions of the Sanhedrin. To them
Jesus was not a doctrine, but a real person. Their faith in
him was the product of their association with him — in no
way was systematized into a theology. He was the Christ
— of this they were certain from their daily contact with his
supreme personality and from his resurrection. Their hoffes
were conditioned by the awfulness of the future which his
return promised, and their daily life was full of the joy
resulting from a conviction that they were to share in the
glories of an eternity he in his kingdom would inaugurate.
He was to them more than a teacher of religion, or the
founder of a new religion. He had stirred their deepest
souls by his constant insistence upon preparation for the
impending eternity, and they were living in daily expectation
that this eternity would break in upon them. Already they
were living the same eternal life he had lived in humiliation
and was living in glory. Property might well be sacrificed to
alleviate the poverty of brethren during the brief period of
waiting for his return to usher in that eternity, while the
highest honor that could come to them was to be considered
worthy of suffering for acknowledging belief in his messianic
dignity.' Four literary sources furnish us material for portraying
the faith and hope of this group of Christians — the book
lAots3:44, 45; c/. 4:32-35; 5:41. 137

138 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
of Acts, the epistles of James and Peter, and the Revelation
of John. With the exception of certain of the material of
Acts, none of these literary survivals dates from the church
at Jerusalem, but all alike furnish data for reconstructing
the thought of those Christians who were not directly under
the infiuence of Paul, and who preserved that general mes
sianic point of view and habit of mind which the Apostle
to the Gentiles was so characteristically to preserve, modify,
and surpass. I
The question as to the sources and authorship of the
earlier chapters of the book of Acts is admittedly one of the
most perplexing of all the critical questions concerning New
Testament criticism. On the one hand are those who hold
that these chapters are hardly more than a collection of late
legends, which have been roughly grouped together and
edited in the interest of a compromise between the Jewish
and the Pauline wings of the early church.' In whatever
form this view takes, whether or not it recognizes the
possibility that original trustworthy records and recollec
tions of the Jerusalem church have been preserved along
with less trustworthy material, in general it discredits the
historical value of the early portions of the book. To
those who, on the contrary, hold that the book is the
unedited, or but slightly edited, work of Luke, the first
twelve chapters are of unquestioned value. On a priori
ground it might seem that a mediate position which recog
nizes the authenticity of certain sources and certain elements
1 Baur and the Tilbingen school (especially Zeller) and the tangential Dutch
school headed by Van Manen, represent this in its most elaborate form. The
Tttbingen scholars' theory of early church history compelled them to regard the book
as a fictitious " tendency " writing seeking to further the interests of a nascent Catholi
cism. Harnaok and Weizsacker represent something of a mediating view between
this and that of tradition. Cf. Haknack, History of Dogma, Vol. I, p. 56, and
Weizsackee, Apostolic Age, passim. The traditional view is argued vigorously by
Salmon, Introduction to the New Testament, and Knowling, in Expositor's Greek
Ttstament.

The Messianism of Primitive Christianity 139
in the account, but allows also for a considerable redaction,
would be thoroughly tenable. Such a position is, in my
opinion, justified by a study of the literary character and the
contents of the volume. That this early material has been
edited at a time considerably later than the events narrated
can be shown with all but certainty by internal evidence,
but such a position is far removed from that which would
insist that these early chapters are without historical value.
The actual inconsistencies which they present with Pauline
letters can either be resolved, or without serious difficulty be
laid at the door of some of the late redactors. The general
line of preaching, at all events, bespeaks a condition which,
on the one hand, would be impossible after the destruction
of Jerusalem, and, on the other, cannot be held to have been
suggested by the conditions in the churches of the gentile
world with which the editor was evidently associated.' The
duplication of accounts in these early chapters also argues
the originality of the substance of their accounts. There
is certainly no more difficulty in recognizing a double group
of sources in Acts than there is in recognizing the same
phenomenon in Luke — a work admittedly from the same
hand. And it is steadily growing apparent that philological
argument and literary analysis have been pushed too far.
A broad historical treatment certainly gives more tenable, as
well as more conservative, results.
If it were not that such an argument would be obviously
begging the question, appeal might here be made especially
to the general messianic concept ascribed to the apostles and
the primitive church of Jerusalem. Yet, if such views as
are ascribed to the primitive Jerusalem community exhibit
features which we should expect from Jews under the influ
ence of apocalyptic messianism, the conclusion is hard to
avoid that they must have been very early. Such a con-
1 This is, after all, the great objection to the position of Van Manen.

140 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
elusion would only be strengthened if it should be shown that
such a messianic concept had been modified by an editor or
editors in the interest of ecclesiastical peace. Critical pro
cesses must always, to a considerable extent, approach the
petitio principii, and can escape the danger only when, as in
the case of Acts, a thorough comparison of the contents of
a document with those of clearly established later and earlier
writings enables us to trace tendencies, and so to establish
the document under consideration in a probable historical
perspective. In the case of Acts, such a comparison supplies
sufficient evidence to warrant us in taking its early chapters
and the general contents of its speeches at their face value,
in so far as they purport to record the opinions of the
Jerusalem church before the period of expansion. Thus a
study of the messianic concept therein contained can be
made independently of any question as to the details of
authorship. By far the largest part of the material in Acts represent
ing the beliefs of the primitive church of Jerusalem is to be
found in speeches attributed to Peter. While recent criti
cism has urged the composite character of these speeches, its
results, if substantiated, would not materially affect the
results which a non-analytical study of them produces. No
one would claim that they are verbatim reports of the
addresses of the apostle ; but, on the other hand, the histori
cal student, rather than the devotee to analytical criticism,
cannot fail to see in their substance precisely the sort of
teaching to be expected of a group of Jewish messianists
who believed their hopes were about to be realized, and who
had not been forced to consider the problems arising from
the conversion of non- Jewish peoples. However clearly we
may discover in them Judean and Pauline documents, the
distinction between the two sets of material does not lie in
the region of the messianic hope so much as in the general

The Messianism of Primitive Christianity 141
attitude of the various authors to gentile converts and a
universal Christianity.' The same messianic hopes are in
both sets of documents.
All the evidence at our disposal makes it clear that the
sympathies of the primitive church were not with Zealotism.
There is nowhere in the entire literature of primitive or
Pauline Christianity any appeal for political action.^ Jesus,
it is true, had been executed as a political agitator, but his
followers knew better than to see in his career anything to
justify such a charge. In their own lives they were as far as
possible removed from anything like revolution, either social
or political. In their common life they held their meetings
in private houses^ and daily went to the temple to pray.*
There is every indication that they regarded themselves as
under obligation to maintain the Jewish law as conscien
tiously as before their association with Jesus.* In a word, they
were Jews who believed that the Christ had appeared in the
person of Jesus, and would again appear to undertake his
messianic work. There is not the slightest suggestion that
this faith in any way affected their devotion to their tradi
tional religion, or led them to feel that the gentile world could
share in the blessings of the messianic kingdom except by
its members becoming proselytes.
How thoroughly these early Christians were Jewish mes
sianists appears when we place the scheme of the pharisaic
messianism already formulated over against the too scant
records of the faith of the primitive church.
1. Peter, it is true, does not mention distinctly the two
ages, but the distinction is clearly implied by his references
iFor various analyses see Spitta, Die Apostelgeschichte, ihre Quellen, etc.;
Clemen, Die Chronologic der Paulinischen Brief e ; JDngst, Die Quellen der Apos
telgeschichte; HlLGENEELD, in Zcitschrift filT wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1895-96;
J. Weiss, Die Apostelgeschichte.
2 On the contrary, cf. Eom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13, 17.
SActs 1:13; 12:12. 4Acts 2:46; 3:1.
6 This appears clearly in the great controversy from which Galatians sprang.

142 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
to the fact that his generation lived in "the last days,'"'
that is to say, those just preceding the coming of Christ. It
argues the end of one epoch, while the approaching judg
ment argued just as strongly the approach of another — the
truly messianic.
2. There is no express reference to the evil age being
under the control of Satan in sayings attributed to the Jeru
salem church in Acts.^ That the primitive Christians believed
it to be true, however, is beyond question.'
3. It goes without saying that the first Christians believed
that the messianic age was to be introduced by the return of
Jesus. There is no evidence that they conceived that they
themselves had anything to do with its coming, except to
prepare themselves and others for it.* They believed that it
would come soon, since Jesus was already in possession of
messianic authority in heaven — a conclusion drawn from the
gift of the Spirit.* A similar argument is to be seen in the
"name," belief in which led to cures.*
4. The judgment was central in the entire thought of the
primitive Christian church. It was the expectation of that
dreadful day to which Peter appealed at Pentecost.' Jesus
whom the Jews had killed was the Christ whose enemies
were to be put under his feet. Naturally his auditors were
terrified and, reverting to the passage from Joel (3:22-25)
just quoted by Peter, asked what they might do to be saved.'
This is the first appearance of the concept of "salvation,"" and
'Acts 2:14-21. The passage here used is from Joel 3:1-5. The term of vs. 17, iv
Tail we'po's eo-xarait, is the apostolic substitute for niTi raira of the LXX. The ori
gin of the term is doubtless Mic. 4 : 1, which is clearly messianic. Cf. Mic. 2 • 10 • 3 ¦ 1 •
Jas. 5:3; Heb. 1:1.
2 This statement needs modification if Acts 5:3 be considered as strictly
historical. 3 Cf. the general scheme of Revelation of John and the entire thought of Paul.
4 Acts 3 : 19-21. 6 Acts 2 : 33 ; 5 : 30-33.
6 Acts 2 ; 38 ; 3 : 6, 16 ; 4 : 10, and often. 7 Acts 2 : 19-21, 35. See also 4 : 8-12 ; 10 : 42.
8Acts3:37;c/. vs. 40. ^Acts 2:21; 4:12; 13:26.

The Messianism of Primitive Christianity 143
t is worth noticing that it is correlated with the forgiveness
)f sins, and that in turn is correlated with escaping the pun-
shment of the judgment. The believer in Jesus as Christ
vas to be saved from an evil generation's punishment.' The
essential identity of this belief with the alleged exclusively
Pauline doctrine of justification by faith is evident." This
ivas only the negative side of the matter, to be complemented
by that which was the current belief of the early church, viz.,
salvation was release from death and entrance into the mes
sianic kingdom. But of this the records of Acts do not pre-
2isely speak.' As a precondition of obtaining such salvation
there were necessary repentance, and faith (indicated by
baptism) in Jesus as the Christ. Evidence of such acquittal
would be seen in the gift of the Spirit.*
5. A party in the primitive church at Jerusalem clearly
believed* that entrance into the coming kingdom — that is
salvation — was to be for Jews only.* That this party repre
sented the entire body of Jerusalem Christians is probable,
although doubtless' they were more zealous in propagating
their belief than other members of the church. The fact that
"those from James" should have made Peter and Barnabas
unwilling to continue eating with the gentiles at Antioch,'
as well as Paul's reference to other matters in connection with
Judaistic controversy, argue strongly that the prevailing sen
timent of the Jerusalem church was pharisaic. This conclu
sion is guaranteed by the history of the church. By the
1 Acts 2 : 40.
2 That the primitive church held to this doctrine is expressly stated by Paul,
Gal. 2:14-16.
SActs 2:21; 4:12; 13:26. SeePss. So!., 10:9; 12:7; Lk.l:69, 71,77; Acts 4:22; 13:26.
4 See page 142, note 9.
5 Acts 15 : 1. Doubtless this is the same party as oi U irepiTOfiiis of Gal. 2 : 12.
6C/.Actsl:3; 2:39.
1 Cf.oi iirb •laxiifiov ; Gal. 2 :12. Yet the account of Acts, chap. 15, especially vs. 5,
supports the view that the Jerusalem church was divided between the extreme and
the moderate Jewish party.
s Gal. 2:12.

144 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
time of Paul's visit to Jerusalem' the Christian community
there numbered thousands of Jews, "all zealous for the law."
What we know from Hegesippus concerning the punctilious
righteousness of James is of the same tenor." There is no
reason for doubting that this ethnic conviction included most
of the old expectations of the subjugation of the gentile
world to the regenerate and glorified Jewish state.'
6. The resurrection of Jesus is the central argument in
the apostolic preaching. Because of it Jesus was seen to be
the Messiah. However, in the speeches of Peter there is no
clear reference to the resurrection of the believer. At the
same time it would be impossible to doubt that the primitive
church held the resurrection to be one of its fundamental
hopes. It was involved in the idea of salvation.
7. As regards the personal Messiah there is, of course,
no question that the early church believed that Jesus was
the Christ who had returned to heaven, whence he would
come to introduce the new age and the new kingdom. This
was the very core of the entire Christian movement.*
Jesus was assuredly the Christ, for he fufiUed newly dis
covered messianic prophecies by his death and resurrection;
but he is never spoken of as having performed a truly mes
sianic act. His kingdom was to appear only when he him
self reappeared. And that was to be soon.*
It is commonly said that Jesus was not the sort of Christ
that the Jews of his day expected, and if one thinks only of
1 Acts 21 : 20 : e/. 15 : 5. 2 EnSEBius, His. Ecc, 2 : 23.
3 See further in the discussion of Revelation. An interesting commentary on this
attitude of the mind is to-be seen in the words of Peter, both in his vision on the
housetop and in his address to Cornelius, Acts 10 : 9-16, 28.
4.E.9.,Aots5:42.6 The ground for this statement lies not in specific texts, but in the general
expectation as seen both in the synoptic gospels, the Revelation of John, and in
Pauline thought. Indeed all apocalyptic looked to a speedily approaching relief.
What force would the appeals of primitive Christianity have had if they had been
understood to refer to an event to come in the indefinite future— say within ten
thousand years? Cf. 2 Pet. 3 : 1-10. See also Apoc. Baruch, 20 : 6.

The Messianism of Primitive Christianity 145
his brief career as teacher and philanthropist, such a view is
of course true. No orthodox Jew of his day or of any day
could for a moment admit that his historical career in any
degree squared with the messianic ideal. That Jesus him
self recognized this fact is equally clear from all of his few
references to his conception of a truly messianic work. If,
however, one looks to the apostolic conception of messiah
ship, another aspect of the matter at once appears. In the
estimation of the Twelve, Jesus was the Messiah, but his
career was prospective. His messianic life of humility was
not a part of his messianic work. That lay still in the
future. And when they and Paul undertook to picture what
this work and what he himself was to be, they appropriated
the apocalyptic hopes of the day. They did not believe he
was to be a Zealot Christ, but, with certain modifications,
they did believe he was to be the Pharisee Christ.
This consideration will go far to convince one of the
error of those who hold that the kingdom of God plays no
important rSle in apostolic Christianity; that all matters
eschatological were no more to the primitive church and
Paul and the first Fathers than they are to a modern treatise
upon systematic theology. Such a view both lacks histori
cal perspective and is at variance with the entire thought
of the literature of apostolic Christianity. The very name
of the new movement, Christianity, would suggest the con
trary opinion. So far from the eschatological kingdom of
God being a secondary element in the early church, it is its
great conditioning belief.'
The preaching of the first evangelists was not a call to
ethical ideals or an argument as to certain truths. Rather it
was the proclamation of a message. They told of the near
ness of the kingdom of God and of a preliminary earthly
1 So Haenaok, History of Dogma, Vol. I, p. 58 : "The Gospel entered the world
as an apocalyptical eschatological message, apocalyptical and eschatological not
only in its form, but also in its content."

146 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
appearance of the coming Christ.' To them this pre
liminary career had been that of "the prophet"' who had
attained his superiority by the coming of God's spirit upon
him. This is the earliest Christology. There is in it no
reference to a miraculous birth or to a messianic pre-exist
ence. Jesus was the Anointed.' And the decisive proof of
this messiahship was the resurrection.* The coming of the
Spirit upon his followers was, evidence that messianic
authority was already his.
It is at this point that we reach the first of new and
modifying elements in the new messianism. The Jews had
not expected that the Spirit of God would come upon all
flesh in the messianic days.* The Messiah would, of course,
be anointed of God,* but the members of the kingdom were
promised no such experience. The entire movement of
John and Jesus, however, evidently included the belief that
the followers of the Anointed were also to be anointed.
The origin of this hope cannot be discovered in Jewish
literature. John the Baptist is the first reported to have
given it utterance,' but he refers to it as a matter of current
1 See the admirable discussion by Weiss, Biblical Theology, Vol. I, p. 173.
2Acts 3:22; 7:36; 10:36-38. C/. Isa. 42:1; 61:1; 52:7. 3 Acts 10:36-38.
4 Acts 2 : 25-31. It is interesting to see how readily the early Christian aijologetic
used new interpretations of the Old Testament gained by a knowledge of the his
torical Jesus.
5 See Gloel, Der heilige Geist, pp. 91-136.
^Pss. Sol., 17:42; cf. 18:8; Eth. Enoch, 49:3: cf. 61:7, 11. Angels also are under
the influence of the Spirit according to 68:2. According to Wis., 1:5, 6, the holy
spirit of instruction will come and impart wisdom to those who are pure in thought
and deed. PhUo treats the matter somewhat more elaborately. Moses (Decalog., 33),
the prophets ( Quis. Rer. Div. Her., 53), Abraham (Nobil., 5), aU had the spirit of God
in exceptional degree. See Schoemakee, "The Use of n^-\ and of n-^eufia," Jour.
Bib. Lit., 1904, 13-67. Wood, The Spirit of God in Bib. Lit.', pp. 64, 65, gives Test. XII,
Pat. Levi 18, Judah 24, but these show Christian influence.
^ Mark 1:8; John 1 : 33. Reference ought perhaps here to be made to Eth. Enoch,
90:38, when the sheep (the Pious) are to become white oxen like the white bull (the
Messiah). From this it might be possible to argue that the author believed that all
men were to be anointed.

The Messianism of Primitive Christianity 147
expectation.' Nor would it be in the least surprising if
such should have been the case. But in such an event
current expectation would have been nothing else than
the speech of Peter explains — an explanation of an expe
rience. That this new experience was an actual speaking in
foreign tongues most critical scholars have come to question,"
the interpretation to that effect being ascribed to the editor
of Acts, who wrote after the phenomena of "tongues" had
ceased to be common in the Christian churches. Yet such
a position does not invalidate the report that the early
disciples experienced a religious ecstasy which took some
strange form, and was to be often repeated in the Christian
communities both in Judea and throughout the Roman
empire. Later a sharp distinction came to be drawn between
such spectacular manifestations of religious enthusiasm and
the normal infiuence of the divine life. It is enough now
to note carefully that the acceptance of Jesus as Christ did
lead to new experience. And it was the Spirit that was
really supreme in the church. The apostles' authority was
from him, and they it was who brought to others the same
gift. It was the Spirit who forced the Jerusalem-centered
church out into the world. Account for it as one may, the
historic fact is indubitable that with the death of Jesus
there sprang up innumerable men of the old prophetic
spirit. God was again in vital union with his creatures.
The neutralizing infiuence of Pharisaism was outflanked.
Apostles were reinforced by the Seven Hellenists with
Stephen and Philip at their head. Prophets like Agabus
1 Edeesheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Vol. II, p. 734, says that Joel
2:28 is explained by the Midrashim as "referring to the latter days when all Israel
will be prophets." But such references as he gives are all post-Christian and very
likely reflect the effect of the Christian polemics. In general eee Wood, The Spirit
of God in Bib. Lit., pp. 151-97.
2 An exception should be noted in the case of Weight, Some New Testament
Problems. See also Chase, Hulsean Lectures, and Baetlett, Acts (Century Bible).

148 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament

again began to utter their message. The humblest believer
had his particular "charism." The early church was full
of ebullient life. For men were coming straight to God.
Eternal life was being lived. Grant that the Christ never
came as the primitive Christians expected he would come —
God came.
A second modification that stands out clearly in the
messianic faith of the Jerusalem church is the emphasis laid
upon the death of Jesus the Christ. Throughout the
association of the Twelve with Jesus they had been quite
incapable of grasping the possibility of any such catastrophe
coming to one whom they believed to be the Christ of their
hopes.' It certainly was the opposite of their Jewish hope.
In the speeches of Peter, however, this death is argued to
be a necessary part of the divine plan of the messianic
revelation," foretold by the prophets and the occasion of the
exposition of divine power in the resurrection. At last
they saw the truth in the teaching of Jesus they had rejected
during his life.
There is, however, in the Petrine section of the Acts no
distinct correlation of this death of Christ with the forgiveness
of sins — a fact to be borne in mind when formulating the
New Testament doctrine of the atonement. Men were to be
saved by repenting and believing on Jesus' as Christ. They
were not urged to accept any basis for the forgiveness of
their sins which such faith and salvation involved. At the
same time, caution should be exercised in arguing that this
silence of the Petrine section of the Acts constitutes a posi
tive denial that the early church regarded the death of Christ
as having any relation to the forgiveness of sins. Paul*
expressly states that he "received" the teaching that "Christ
1 Mark 9 : 9, 10, 30-32 ; 10 : 32-34 ; Matt. 16 : 21-23 ; Luke 24 : 13-27.
2Acts2:22,23; 3:18; 4:27,28.
3Acts3:19; 10:43. 4lCor.l5:3.

The Messianism of Primitive Christianity 149
died for our sins, according to the Scriptures." Unless we
hold this to be a Pauline interpretative statement of facts,
this certainly implies that the early apostles held to some
thing closely akin to the late belief of a vicarious death.
The same conclusion is in some degree involved in Philip's
indentification of Jesus as the suffering Servant of Isaiah.'
Yet, had it not been for Pauline thought, it is hardly possible
that Christianity would ever have included any distinct doc
trine of the substitutionary death of Jesus." Justification
by faith was indeed distinctly a tenet of the Jerusalem
community (although not carried to its logical conclusions)
but the Atonement as a doctrine is the gift of Paul.
One point further demands attention. Did Peter expect
that the death of Christ, or some other aspect of his
messianic work, would guarantee the ultimate participation
of all men in the messianic salvation? This has been
argued strenuously from the fact that he said that it was
necessary for heaven to receive the Christ Jesus until the
times of the restoration of all things of which God spoke
through the prophets.' But obviously the reference here
is to the messianic glories which are to be established in the
future, and it would be natural to interpret it, from that
point of view, as involving only such an extension of the
messianic joys as would be conditioned by the whole scheme
of messianism. This is substantiated by the fact that Peter
urged his hearers to repent. If he were thinking about
universal salvation, it is difficult to see the force of this
appeal. Further, the reference is very probably to the
prophetic picture of the restored Israel found in Mic. 4:5, 6;
and finally there is nothing in the word cnroicaTdaTatn'; to
1 Acts 8: 35. In so far as the Gospel of Matthew reflects the belief of the Jeru
salem community it evidences the same probability.
sDennet, Deaifto/ Christ, vp. 76-91, makes the best possible statement of the
case, but fails to establish clearly any position in advance of that stated above.
For complete treatment see KAhlee, Zur Lehre der VersOhnung.
3Acts3:19-21.

150 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
argue that the reference is to the fate of individuals. It is
rather an echo of the general belief that God's reign, which
was once supreme, and has been to some extent threatened
by the power of Satan, was to be re-established, and in the
glorious messianic kingdom. The Fall was to be overcome
by the Restoration. II
Only one of the two epistles bearing the name of Peter
need concern us here. 2 Peter is all but unanimously held
to belong to the second century and to be pseudonymous.'
Concerning 1 Peter there are also many doubts, but there is
no compelling reason for rejecting it as, in the main at least,
the genuine work of the apostle. Apart from the admitted
difficulties of date suggested by chap. 4, the chief ground
upon which late authorship is built is its affinity with Paul
inism. Jiilicher" and Harnack' put the argument against
its authenticity strongly and about to this effect: While the
epistle contains nothing that is un-Pauline, it is thoroughly
filled with the Pauline spirit and uses Pauline formulas.
And to this may be added the general habit of the second
century to produce a Petrine literature.* Yet external
evidence in its favor is by.no means weak.* So far as
Paulinism is concerned, it is limited almost entirely to
parallelisms between it and Romans and Ephesians. Some
iFor summary of arguments in this case see JttLiCHEK, Einleitung; Bacon,
Introduction; and the articles in Encyclopaedia Biblica, and Hastings, Dictionary
of the Bible.
'^Einleitung, p. 133. 3 Chronologic, pp. 451 ff.
4 Thus we know of a Gospel of Peter, the Acts of Peter, the Teaching of Peter,
the Preaching of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, and at least three epistles of Peter.
6 Especially note the parallelisms between it and 1 Clement. The most important
are given in Bacon, Introduction, p. 151, note. The epistle was probably used by
Polycarp and Papias. If it be felt that the fisherman apostle could not have written
such good Greek as the letter contains, recourse may be had, with Bacon, to the
hypothesis of some amanuensis, possibly Silvanus. But a study of the very numer
ous participial constructions of the epistle wiU certainly suggest caution in too
liberal praise of its literary form.

The Messianism of Primitive Christianity 151

degree of dependence must certainly be admitted. ' It is hard
to see, however, why this should necessarily argue against
Petrine authorship. Intercourse between Paul and Peter is
certainly recognized in the New Testament," and it is hardly
open to question that Paul must have influenced his compan
ion. Nor is there anything improbable in the supposition that
the letter of Paul to the Romans, or, for that matter, to the
Asiatic churches, was known to Peter.
If it be further urged that there is nothing un-Pauline
in the letter, it can be replied that our discussion has shown
that the distinction between Paulinism and primitive Chris
tianity is by no means as sharp as has been sometimes
urged. Both alike include, with varying distinctness, the
fundamental doctrines which result from the attachment of
the messianic dignity to Jesus. The peculiarity of Paulin
ism was not its insistence upon justification by faith, but its
insistence that such justification was not limited to those
who observed Mosaism. Peter, as is indicated not only by
Acts, but by church traditions, had himself removed this
limitation and so far stood on Pauline ground.
These considerations make it clear that, although we cannot
safely ascribe to primitive Christianity all the doctrines
which lie in 1 Peter,' a summary of the positions taken in
the epistle will show that it, like primitive Christianity,
reproduces pharisaic messianism.
1. With Peter as with pharisaic messianism there were two
ages. The end of the times was already come,* and a new
age — the last time* — was yet to come. The end of all
things was at hand.*
2. While there is no mention of the existence of the
1 So Sandat and Headlam, Romans, Ixxiv f .
2 Gal. 1 : 18 ; 2 : 9-14. Acts, chap. 15, unless it be rejected completely, certainly con
tains evidence of an interplay of apostolic thought in line with the Galatian passage.
3 See the somewhat extreme statement of this view in Stevens, Theology of the
New Testament, where the question of the date of the epistle is not fully considered.
41 Pet. 1:19. 20; Mic. 4:1; Isa. 2:2. 51 Pet. 1:5-7. 61 Pet. 4:7.

152 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
kingdom of Satan, the essential idea involved in that belief
is recognized in ascribing to Satan the causes of persecution.'
3. The kingdom was to be established by the Christ."
It was to include certain of the dead,' and was to be estab
lished at the revelation of the Christ in glory.* All of these
forecasts imply a period of struggle which was involved in all
expectations of the establishment of the messianic kingdom.
The idea of an evolving kingdom is foreign to the entire
outlook of the epistle. Its coming was to be catastrophic.
4. The judgment is both referred to specifically and
implied.* The idea of salvation, the correlate of the belief
in the judgment, is frequently expressed. The Christian's
hope in salvation is perhaps the key-word to the epistle.*
The judgment is conducted both by God and Christ.'
5. The letter is directed to the "sojourners of the disper
sion," i. e., Jewish Christians. While there is no antagonism
to gentile Christians, and the church has become an "elect
race," it seems clear that Peter regards the Jews as com
posing its main body. In this connection it is interesting
to note the steady parallelism which the epistle draws between
the ancient prophecies of the glories of the Hebrew nation
and those of this ' ' elect ' ' nation. ' No distinct statement in the
epistle describes the relation of the church to the messianic
kingdom, but it was hardly needed. The members of the ' ' elect
nation" are obviously the subjects of the coming kingdom.
6. The resurrection lies in the background of the epistle
as a part of the salvation which awaits the believer. The
Christian's hope was one begotten by the resurrection of
ilPet.5:8,9. 21 Pet. 1:7; 2:12; 4:5.
31Pet. 4:5, 6. 4iPet. 1:7, 8; 4:13; 5:1,4.
siPet. 4:5, 6, where the reference includes the dead; 2:23; 4:17. This latter
reference is somewhat enigmatical. The reference is probably to the persecutions
under which the church was laboring, and which were to be shortly ended at the
appearance of the Christ ; 1 Pot. 1 : 6, 7 ; 5 : 10.
nPet. 1:5-10; 2:22. ' 1 Pet. 2:23 and 4:5; c/. Acts 10 : 42.
8 For instance, the hope for the /t^ijpoi-ojiia, as in Lev. 20:24; Deut. 19:10; 20:16,
reappears in 1 Pet. 1:4. Cf. also 1 Pet. 3 : 9.

The Messianism of Primitive Christianity 153
Jesus the Christ from the dead, and so could be called a
living hope — that is to say, a hope which looked forward
to life,' and that life was to be like that of God."
7. Jesus throughout the epistle is always conceived of as
the Christ. He is at the right hand of God, and supreme
over all angels and other heavenly beings.' Yet his glory
is to be seen only when he is revealed in the last time.*
How far Peter had moved away from Pharisaism is to be
seen, however, in his Christology. This is precisely what is
to be expected. The insistence that Jesus was to fulfil the
messianic hope would of necessity tend to center attention
upon him. Sach facts, therefore, as actually lay in his life
would of necessity be given large value. How far this could
be carried into systematic thought will appear in the discus
sion of Paulinism. It is enough now to recognize the fact
that in 1 Peter the death of Jesus is regarded as a means of
redemption,* and that all his sufferings are held to have been
in accordance with messianic prophecy.* The Petrine Chris
tology is strictly messianic. It is centered, not in any meta
physical conception of deity, but in the divine spirit which
was in Christ, spoke by the prophets, and was accordingly
pre-existent. It was this spirit that raised Jesus from the
grave,' and it was in the spirit — that is, with his human
spirit anointed with the divine spirit — that between his
death and his resurrection, Jesus, without his physical body,
preached to the spirits "in prison" in order that his mission
might include the dead as well as the living.'
U Pet. 1:3; c/.l:23; 5:4. 21 Pet. 4: 6, 13; 5:1.
31 Pet. 3:22; c/. 4:11. 11 Pet. 1:7, 8; 4:13; 5:1.
6 1 Pet. 3 : 18, 19-24 ; 3 : 18. 6 1 Pet. 1 : 11.
'1 Pet. 3:18.
8 1 Pet. 3 : 19 f. Cf. Acts 2 : 27, according to which the spirit of the Messiah could
not be left in Sheol. For the force of " in prison " cf. Apoc. Baruch, 23 : 4 ; i Esdras,
7 : 85, 95. This passage in 1 Peter has given rise to a large literature. Chief among
others, reference can be made to Stevens, Theology of the New Testament, pp. 304-11 ;
Spitta, Christi Predigt an die Geister; S almond. Christian Doctrine of Immortality'^,
pp. 450-86.

154 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament

The Peter of the epistle is at one with the 'Peter of Acts
in holding that this same spirit came to the believer. From
this divine source came the Christian's power and impulse
to service and to endure persecution. Thence, too, came
the certainty of the blessings of life in the messianic king
dom.' From the spirit came also sanctification," with its
attendant forgiveness and salvation. That the epistle does
not elaborate this aspect of the Christian life should not
obscure the fact that matters of religious experience are
recognized. Here, as throughout the thought of the New
Testament, we can clearly distinguish between the phenom
ena of spiritual life and their interpretation.
Ill
It is only in the sense that it is not Pauline that the
epistle of James can fairly be correlated with primitive
Christianity. Even more than in the case of 1 Peter is it
probable that it represents chronologically a period much
later than the apostolic times. External evidence all but
forces us to such a conclusion.' That the book was written
by the brother of Jesus is an honor which it never claims,
nor indeed could claim, for itself. It is an early homily,
with more or less polemic purpose against Paulinism. It is
more concerned with conduct than with hope, and the mes
sianic element in it is all but missing.* None the less, back
of the exhortations of the epistle lies the expectation of the
new age which is to come when the believer is to have a
crown of life ;* and, furthermore, the judgment and the judge
were always to be expected.* The kingdom was to come to
UPet. 4:6, 10, 11, 14. 21 Pet. 1:2.
3SeeO. Cone, "Epistle of James." in Encyclopcedia Biblica. An independent
judgment can be readily formed by examining the evidence in Charteeis, Canonicity.
To the contrary see Maioe, Introduction to the Epistle of St. James. Bacon's dis
cussion in his Introduction, pp. 159 ff., is a lucid presentation of the essential
elements of the problem.
4 This wholly apart from the question of the genuineness of "Iijcrou Xpto-ToC in 2 : 1.
!> James 1:12. 6 James 4: 12.

The Messianism of Primitive Christianity 155
those who loved Jesus as Christ,' and condemnation was to
come to those who broke the law." Jesus the Lord was to
come soon.' These elemental matters of Christian hope
had become by the time the letter was written the source
of inspiration and a basis for warning in the matter of con
duct. Christian life was paramount to Christian profession,*
but the work of the spirit is all but unmentioned.*
IV
At the opposite extreme from the scantiness of data in
the epistle of James is the wealth of material in the Apoc
alypse of John. The time of its composition is now pretty
generally held to be in the reign of Domitian, and at first
sight it may seem, therefore, a mistake to use it as a source
for primitive Christianity. At the same time, it is certainly
not controlled by Paulinism, and its Jewish element is very
pronounced. In fact, it is now commonly held to be com
posed of a number of Jewish apocalypses which have been
rewritten and united by a Christian author into a strikingly
unified Christian production.*
1 James 2 : 5.
2 James 2 : 11. It is worth noticing, however, that this " royal law " (vs. 8) or law
of liberty (vs. 12) is subjective — something far more authoritative than Mosaism.
Cf. QODLD, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 110-18.
3 James 5: 7, 8. 4 James 2: 14 f.
5 James 4:5. This passage is capable of two renderings, but in either case it
refers to the residence of a irreSfia in the Christian which is the gift of God.
6 See Bousset, art. "Apocalypse of John," in j:mcy.Bi6.,andPoETEE,art. '^Reve
lation," in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible. For various partition theories see
Bousset, Der Antichrist (Eng. trans.. Legend of the Antichrist) ; and works by
Spitta, Die Offenbarung Johannis; Vischek, Die Offenbarung Johannis; Schmidt,
Anmerkungen fiber die Komposition der Offenbarung Johannis ; VOltee, Das Problem
der Apocalypse: Gunkel, SchOpfung und Chaos; Beiggs, Jfessiaft of the Apostles.
A good general account of these views is given by Baeton, "The Apocalypse and
Recent Criticism," in the American Journal of Theology, October, 1898. For our
present purpose we may well waive the decision of the vexed problem of authorship,
involving as it does the determination as to whether there were two Johns — the
apostle and the presbyter— the latter of whom may have written or edited the Apoca
lypse. The data at our disposal are too vague and the criteria are too subjective to
warrant complete certainty, and in any case the contents are intelligible enough to
be dated with considerable precision. The habits of the apocalypse writers would
lead one to favor the view that the work is pseudonymous, were it not for the per
sistent external evidence in favor of the Johannine authorship.

156 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
The general character of the book is clearly enough thai
of the other apocalypses. There are the same pictures oi
distress, the same promises of deliverance, the same use oi
symbols, and the same forecast of punishment for oppres
sors. Coupled with these strictly apocalyptic materials are
the letters to the seven churches which are intended to show
the ideal which should obtain among those bodies of Chris
tians who are awaiting their Lord's return to establish a
messianic era. It is to be expected, therefore, that, more
than in any other book of the New Testament, the Revela
tion of John should conform to the general messianic scheme
of the apocalypses. Nor are we disappointed. In it are
the chief elements which belong to all Jewish messianism,
with the exception that the kingdom is not expressly limited
to Jews. Yet even its pictures of the New Jerusalem
followed the general Jewish scheme. It was to have twelve
gates, one for each tribe of Israel.'
The main purpose of the book is to describe the misery
of the church, its assured deliverance by its Christ who is
to return from heaven, the punishment which he will infiict
after a desperate struggle upon his enemies, and the bless
ings of the redeemed, especially of the Christian martyrs.
More particularly, the main elements of messianism are
always in evidence:
1. The two ages are clearly recognized."
2. The present age is under the control of Satan, who
besides being active is represented by anti-Christ, false
prophets, and the Beast.'
3. The kingdom is to be established in the near future
by Christ, not by social evolution. The attitude of the
1 Rev. 21 : 10-12.
2 There is no use of the two contrasted terms oJtos 6 aiiiv and o ii.i\\uiv aiiiv, but
the entire scheme of the book involves the end of one era and the beginning of
another. Most of the book is devoted to portraying the events accompanying and
preceding the transition.
3 Rev. 12 : 9, 12 ; 20 : 2. Cf. the references under paragraph 4 below.

The Messianism of Primitive Christianity 157
believer is one of prayer that it should come quickly.'
Already prepared in heaven, it is shown to the seer by an
angel, and its glories are described in detail."
4. The period of judgment is very elaborately defined.
Here, even more than in the other portions of the New
Testament, the struggle between the two kingdoms is
elaborated. Satan is to be bound for a thousand years, and
Christ is to reign with those who, because of martyrdom,
are first to share in the resurrection.' This is the only
passage in the New Testament in which there is any refer
ence to the reign of Christ for a thousand years upon the
present earth.* Subsequent to this period of joy there is to
be a fearful struggle, when Satan is to be loosed and the
nations, under Gog and Magog,* are to make a terrific onset
upon the messianic kingdom . They are to be utterly destroyed
by God, and the devil with the Beast and false prophets are
to be cast into the lake of fire.* This period of struggle
leads immediately to the establishment of the great judg
ment by God of the living and the dead. In accordance
with the Jewish expectation,' the records of every man
are in the heavenly books, and the judgment is pronounced
by God in accordance with these records.' As a result
of this judgment the wicked are sent to the lake of fire,'
lEth. Enoch, 90:27-29; Slav. Snocft, 55 : 2 ; 4Esdr., 19:26; 10:27 f.; 13:36; Apoc.
Barwcft, 4:2-6; 32:2.
2 Rev., chap. 21. This view of course assumes that the New Jerusalem is to be
identified with the messianic kingdom. See Pss. Sol., 17 : 33, 34. For rabbinic refer
ences see VOLZ, JUdische Eschatologie, 334 f . The figure of Jerusalem as the bride of
the Messiah is not found in Jewish apocalypses, 4 Esdr., 7:26, being probably a
Christian interpolation.
3 Rev. 20:1-6.
4 The nearest approach to it is 1 Cor. 15:24-27. The origin of a "thousand
years," as has already appeared, is to be seen in Slav. Enoch, chaps. 32, 33.
5 Cf. Ezek. 38 : 2 ; 39 : 16. 6 Rev. 20 : 7-10.
7 See the important discussions of VOLZ, JUdische Eschatologie, pp. 93 f . ; Bousset,
Religion des Judentums, p. 47.
8Rev.20:llf. C/. Eth. BnocA, 47:3; 90:20; 97:6; 4Esdr.,6:W.
9 Rev. 21:8.

158 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
while the righteous are raised and sent to paradise. The
wicked thus pass into the second death or endless period of
torment.' 5. The kingdom is not to be Jewish, but Jews are repre
sented as forming an integral part of the redeemed."
6. The resurrection of the righteous is clearly taught
and is one of the chief things which distinguish their
future from that of the wicked, who apparently are only to
be brought from Sheol to the judgment. There are in
Revelation two resurrections ; the first preceding the mil
lennium, and the second following. At the first resurrec
tion the martyrs alone are raised, while in the second all
the righteous are raised to live in the new heavenly Jeru
salem.' This new Jerusalem is established in the new
earth, the old earth and the old heavens having passed
away.* Throughout this glorious period the distinction
between the Jews and the gentiles is not to be removed, but
they are both alike to enjoy the privileges of the new
universe in which joy is supreme.*
The chronological relation of these resurrections with
the judgment is not elaborated, but a probable order seems
to be : the parousia and the triumph over earthly foes and
binding of Satan ; the first resurrection (of martyrs) ; the
millennium, the messianic conquest of evil spirits, the second
resurrection ; the general judgment ; the punishment of the
' It is to be borne in mind that this concept of the second death is not one of
annihilation, but is in accordance with the general expectations of Jewish thought to
which reference has already been made. Cf. VoLZ, JUdische Eschatologie, pp. 270-92.
It means the final determination that death is to be unrelieved. It is a hopeless con
dition in which punishment is to be put upon those who are wicked. It is further to
be borne in mind that there is no consistent eschatology in this book, and that pas
sages might be quoted which would give a different future to the wicked; e. g.
Rev. 22 : 14, 15.
2 Rev. 7:1 f. The new Jerusalem was to have twelve gates (Rev. 21:12). There
is no evidence that the seer expected that all Israel would be saved.
3 Rev. 20 : 4, 5, chap. 21. 4 Rev. 21 : 1, 5.
6 This distinction does not injure the universalism to which the older Jewish
material has been adapted. Cf. Rev. 7 :4-17.

The Messianism of Primitive Christianity 159
wicked and reward of the righteous ; the new world with
the new Jerusalem.'
So far the interpreter can go with the conviction that he
has grasped the main elements of this wonderful piece of
literature. But minute interpretation — as, for instance, of
the seals, bowls, trumpets, plagues, the woman, and even
Babylon itself, the new name, the white stone, and the
hidden manna — is confessedly fraught with serious difficul
ties. For our present purpose minute identifications are
not required. It is enough to see that behind this apoca
lyptic vocabulary and schema were undoubtedly realities
that contemporary readers would grasp. For, in the light
of other apocalypses, as well as in that of such identifica
tions as seem probable, it is apparent that the Apocalypse
of John, like all the literature of its class, was intended to
encourage pious souls — in its case Christians ^during
moments of persecution. Whether the persecutors were
Romans (as seems most likely") or Jews (a view hard to
substantiate), the followers of Jesus were to look forward to
their defeat. The forbidding pictures of the Beast and of
the False Prophet, the strange armies that afflict the earth
— these are clearly drawn from life, and their defeat meant
as truly political changes as do the pictures of Daniel.
Only the end was not to be a new world-state such as the
older apocalypses had expected. Human life in its ordi
nary forms was to end in a great cataclysm, or, rather, series
of cataclysms, and the eschatological kingdom of God, with
out the need of temple or sun, with its subjects no longer
clothed in flesh and blood, was to close human history.
IFor the order in apocalyptic literature see VoLZ, JUdische Eschatologie,
p. 256. It is a fair question, however, whether some of the references given there
(e.g.,4 Esdras, 7 : 32 ; Sib. Or. , iv, 180 ; Apoc. Baruch 42 : 7 f. ; 36: 10), do not show Chris
tian influences. For references to rabbinic belief as to a temporal reign of the
Messiah and a first (and limited) resurrection, see Webee, JUdische Theologie, pp.
364f. As to the rewards, see Bachee, Die Agada der Tannaiten, Vol. I, pp. 15, 16.
2 See especially chap. 17.

160 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
Nor is the probability of historical identifications
destroyed by the recognition in the book of elements drawn
from Babylonian mythology. Indeed, it is all but certain
that back of the seven spirits of God,' the twenty-four
elders," the struggle with Satan and the dragon, lie the
figures impressed upon Jewish thought by Babylonian liter
ature.' This, however, is not to say that these figures were
consciously used by the writer of the Apocalypse without
historical allusion. The book is not an academic product
concerned with abstract questions of future centuries. On
the contrary, like all other apocalypses, it impresses the
reader with its intense interest in the historical circum
stances and persons that were causing misery to the Chris
tian church. The origin of a concept and of a vocabulary
is not to be confused with the usage accorded them by a
writer living in later centuries. No historical interpreter
would think of the book except as one intended to bring
the hope of coming glory to bear upon conscious misery.
Whether or not the pictures it uses were first found in
Babylonian literature, the book is not archaeological, but
practical. From its letters to the seven churches to the last
apocalyptic vision it is full of instructions and exhortations
to actual Christian life.
Such considerations as these lead one into the real heart
of the Apocalypse. No more than any other of the writings
of the New Testament does it make mere dreams and words
supreme. That to which it finally looks is not the introduc
tion of the messianic kingdom ; it is the Christian's achieve
ment of eternal life. The great reward to him that overcomes
is to eat of the tree of life, and to wear the crown of life.*
iRev. 1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6; c/. Eth. EnocTi, 90: 21.
2Rev. 4:4, 10.
3 See especially Gdnkel, SchOpfung und Chaos; Stave, Parsismus; Bousset,
The Anti-Christ Legend ; and various articles in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, Hastings's
Dictionary of the Bible, and the Jewish Encyclopcedia.
4 Rev. 2 : 7, 10.

The Messianism of Primitive Christianity 161

To have one's name taken from the book of life is equiva
lent to supreme misfortune,' and this life is clearly the
opposite of that second death, so terrible in its limitations
and in its misery, which is to come to those who have not
accepted Jesus as Christ." As presented in the Johannine
Apocalypse, this life is conceived of eschatologicaUy, and the
Christian apparently does not enjoy it while living in the
body. This fact, however, is not to be interpreted as indi
cating any radical difference from other New Testament
thought regarding the present life of the believer. In it, as
in the Petrine teaching, it is the Holy Spirit that watches
over the churches,' and the real witness of Jesus is the
spirit of prophecy.* Faith in Jesus as Christ involves some
thing more than the mere intellectual conviction, viz., actual
moralitv. Entrance into the New Jerusalem is refused those
who live evil lives.* Those who are to inherit the glorious
future are the saints,* whose good works follow with them to
the judgment and into eternity.' In fact, in the Apocalypse
we get a very satisfactory combination of the idea of the
relation of faith and of works.' Men are not saved by their
good works, but, having faith, they are to live righteously
despite all temptation and persecution. And, finally, the
writer of the apocalypse, like Peter and all the other New
Testament writers, is so possessed with the sense of human
imperfection that the Christian's salvation is wholly one of
grace. He becomes clean only by the blood of the Lamb.''
Thus even in this apocalypse, with its insistence upon the
messianic eschatology, we find also a recognition of the
vicarious death of the Christ, and the belief that eternal
iRev.3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12,15; 21:27. 2Rev.2:ll; 20:6,14; 21:8.
3 Rev. 2 : 7, 11, 17, 29 ; 3 : 6, 13, 22. * Rev. 19 : 10.
BRev. 21:8; 22:15. 6Rev. 5:8; 8:3, 4.
'Rev. 14:13.
SForexample, Rev. 2:5, 16,21,22,26; 3:8,11,19; 12:17; 14:12.
9 Rev. 7 : 10, 14 ; 12 : 10 ; 19 : 1 ; cf. extreme statement in 21 : 27.

162 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
life is possible through the union of the believer in the mes
siahship of Jesus with God. Glorious as is the future to
be, the seer uses it as a basis of appeal for purity and holi
ness of life and obedience to the guidance of the Spirit. All
the elaborate details of the book center about this. The
idea of the historical Jesus has been submerged in that
of the glorious Christ now in heaven but reigning over his
followers upon earth. The Christian life is not a mere
following of rules, but one in accord with the spirit of the
heavenly kingdom rather than that of "Babylon." The
conflict among the superhuman beings has its counterpart
in the believer's soul. And, what is more, just as there is
the certainty of victory when the two kingdoms come into
conflict, so is there certainty of victory on the part of even
the humblest of those who live the life of faith. The ethical
appeal is based upon rewards and punishments, but, none
the less, it is the ethical appeal that is the real heart of the
book.

CHAPTER II
THE ESCHATOLOGICAL MESSIANISM OF PAUL

The similarity existing between the messianic hope of
Paul and that of contemporary eschatological messianism
becomes at once manifest when we make our accustomed
comparison. 1. The entire Pauline scheme is conditioned upon the
belief in the two ages. The apostle's terminology is some
what varied, and he does not seem to have any single term
to denote the new age. Generally, the ordinary terminology
is to speak of the pre-messianic epoch in which he himself
lived as "this age" or "this present age."' This age
(«o'cr/u,o9) is passing away." Occasionally the thought of the
future is extended in the later epistles, and we have the
idea of accumulated ages.'
2. The present age is evil.' It is not expressly said to
be under the control of Satan,* but the entire thought of
Paul is that the Christian — the citizen of the coming king
dom — is opposed by superhuman powers which God is to
overcome.* 3. The age which is to come, the messianic age, is to be
introduced by the appearance of Christ. The new kingdom
iRom. 12:2; 1 Cor. 1:20; 2:6, 8; 3:18; 2 Cor. 4:4; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:21; c/. 2:2; 1
Tim. 6:17; 2 Tim. 4:10; Tit. 2:12.
21 Cor. 7:31. Paul never uses the correlate of "this age," i. e., "the coming
age," o iJiiWuv aliiv, but the distinction between the two aeons is distinctly implied by
the one term he does employ. See also Eph. 1 : 21 ; 1 Cor. 10 : 11. In addition to the
passages given above, cf. Rom. 8 : 18 ; 1 Cor. 3 : 19 ; 5 : 10.
3Eph. 2:7. 4Gal. 1:4.
sunless it be in Rom. 16:20; 2 Cor. 4:4; c/. 1 Cor. 2:8.
eRom. 16:20; 1 Cor. 7:5; 2 Cor. 2:11; 11:14; 12:7; 1 Thess. 2:18; 2 Thess. 2:9.
See also Eph. 2 : 2. les

164 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
to be established is eschatological, not dependent upon
social evolution.' It is to be inherited," and men were
"called" into it.' In a certain sense Paul believed that the
pre-messianic age had already begun. It was a time of
"present distress."* In this particular he is at one with the
belief of primitive Christianity that Christians were living
in the "last days."
The term •q ^acnXeia rov Oeov is sometimes used by Paul
with an eschatological connotation,* but it obviously exposed
the Christian movement to misinterpretation outside of Pal
estine, and it is not often in evidence. A belief in the
appearance of the kingdom, however, is one of the assump
tions which the entire Pauline literature makes, and the
hope of sharing in it becomes the basis of ethical appeal.*
It is clearly a mistake to hold that in Paul the iKKXijaria
and l3aa-iXeta are essentially identical. The members of the
church, it is true, are to enter and inherit the kingdom, but
the two concepts are complementary rather than identical.
The church was the body of Christ in the sense that he
exercised authority over it from his heavenly throne.
The hypothesis that Paul distinguishes ^aatXeia tov
iThe truth of this statement is apparent in the light of the entire attitude of
Paul, as indicated in his social teachings, which will be considered in detail later.
Especial attention, however, should be called to passages given below dealing with
the coming (irapovcrta) of Jesus as Christ.
2Gal. 5:21; ICor. 6:9f. 31 Thess. 2:12.
41 Cor. 1:26; cf. 4 Esdras, 5 : 8 ; 6 : 21 ; Eth. Enoch, 99 : 5. This passage, however, is
not in the text as given by Charles. •
5iThess.2:12; 2Thess.l:5; 15:24,.50; Gal.5:21; c/. 2 Tim. 4: 1,18. The AieTJcrTijirep
in Col. 1 : 13 is not necessarily proleptic. The kingdom had not come to earth, but
the believer on earth was already a citizen of the kingdom that was in heaven. Cf.
Phil. 3 : 20. Similarly, the force of (coAoSi-to! in 1 Thess. 2:12. See also the references
given below. 1 Cor. 4 : 20 evidently refers to the evidence of the believer's participa
tion in the already existing (but not yet visible) kingdom, as seen in the gifts of the
Spirit. It is also probably true (with Kennedy, St. Paul's Conceptions of the Last
Things, p. 290) that Paul clothed the idea of the kingdom in various guises; e. (?.,
the idea of the family (Rom. 8:17.).
6Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:20; 6:9,10; Gal. 5:21; Col. 1:13; Eph. 5:5; c/. Rom. 8:17.
It will be noticed that these passages all have an eschatological force. For rabbinic
parallels see Dalman, Worte Jesu, pp. 97 f.

The Eschatological Messianism of Paul 165
Xpia-Tov from l3aa-iXeia toO Oeov has already been considered.'
It is enough here to say that the idea is out of keeping with
the entire Pauline scheme. The kingdom of Christ is the
kingdom of God in its judicial and punitive period. The
work of the Christ is for a definite period" and intended to
establish the absolute and unopposed reign of God.
4. Between the two ages was to be the judgment estab
lished by the Christ as the representative of God.' In fact,
as will appear later, the entire Pauline soteriology centers
around this expectation of the judgment. As with the other
Christian evangelists, he endeavored to bring men to repent
ance by bringing them face to face with the certainty of
that dread event of the future.* It was then that punish
ment was to be assigned* and rewards given.* This judg
ment was still future and is always conceived of eschalo-
logically in connection with the parousia of Jesus.' It is
interesting to notice, further, that Paul distinctly states that
the saints are to share the work of the Christ in judging
the angels.'
As in the case of contemporary Jewish thought, Paul
sometimes joins to the idea of judgment that of a great
struggle which is to precede the final decisions of the mes
sianic conqueror. The idea of anti-Christ does not play
1 p. 77. See, in general, J. Weiss, Predigt Jesu, etc. The chief passage is 1 Cor.
15:24-37. 21 Cor. 15:24.
sRom. 2:16; cf. vss. 1-11; 3:5, 6. While it is true that the Christ is represented
by Paul as sitting in judgment over all the world, it is clear from such passages as
Rom. 2 : 16 ; 3:6; 1 Cor. 5 : 13, that God also is regarded as a judge. There is really no
inconsistency in such a duplication, for, it will be recalled, the messianic hope did
not distinguish sharply between the work of God and his Christ. The Christ always
was doing God's work. See Volz, JUdische Eschatologie, pp. 260, 232-34. VoLZ
(p. 260) declares that the Christ is never represented as the world-judge in the apoca
lyptic literature, but of angels and devils. The distinction does not seem to me to
be vital. Cf. Eth. Enoch, chap. 62.
4Acts9:20, 22; 13:38-41; 17:31. 5Rom. 1:18; 2:8,9.
6Rom. 2:7; c/. 8:18-39.
7Rom. 3:5, etc.; 2:12; 13:11,12; 16:3-6; 1 Cor. 3:13; 4:5.
siCor. 6:2, 3.

166 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
quite the same rOle in Pauline thought as it does in that of
the Revelation of John, but it none the less is present.' It is
difficult to say whether the reference to the man of Lawless
ness is immediately to Rome or to the Jews," but probably
it is to the latter.
Similarly, too, Paul agrees with certain aspects of cur
rent Jewish messianic hope in believing that the time imme
diately preceding the beginnings of the messianic age — the
last days of the primitive church — that is to say, the actual
time in which Paul was living — was to be one of suffering
and distress.' The coming of the messianic age and judg
ment Paul certainly believed was to be soon.*
Paul was also at one with current expectations in believ
ing that the time of the messianic appearance and judgment
was in some way conditioned by the condition of a wicked
humanity.* The penalty which was to be inflicted in the judgment
was the ordinary one of Jewish expectation — suffering, but
more particularly it is negative — death; that is to say, the
dead sinner was not to share in the resurrection which was
to mark the beginning of the ineffable joy of those who
were to enter the messianic age.* This matter will be con
sidered later and at length, as it is a central point in the
Pauline thought.
1 2 Thess. 2 : 7-9.
2 Cf. Chaeles, Eschatology, p, 383 ; Thackeeay, Relation of St. Paul to Contem
porary Thought, pp. 135-41; VoLZ, JUdische Eschatologie, passim; Webee, JUdische
Theologie, pp. 365 f.; Kennedy, The Eschatology of Paul, pp. 49f., 215-19; Bousset
Anti-Christ; and "Anti-Christ" in Ency. Bib. ; Religion des Judentums, pp. 242-45.
31 Thess. 3:3, 4; cf. Dan. 12:1; Eth. Enoch, 48:8, 10; 50:2; Apoc. Baruch,10;
Assump. Moses, 10; Jubilees, 23. All Jewish literature, however, does not join such
woes to the age preceding the coming of the Messiah as are suggested in 1 Cor. 7:26.
But as to the perils of married women in the time of messianic struggle, see 4 EsdraS'
5 : 8, 6, 21. Cf. Eth. Enoch, 99 : 5.
41 Cor.7:29; 10:11; 15:51; 16:22; Rom. 13:11; lThess.4:15; Phil.4:5. A belief
in the speedy coming of deliverance is an essential of apocalyptic, and seems to
have been common among the Jews of New Testament times.
5 2Thess. 3:1, 2. 62 Cor. 5:3; Rom. 5:12, 14, 17; 6:23.

The Eschatological Messianism of Paul 167

5. Paul breaks with Jewish messianism in that he holds
that the messianic kingdom is not to be limited to Jews.
This is, of course, one of the fundamental points in Paulin
ism and hardly requires explication. This universalizing
habit may in a measure explain why he does not constantly
use the term ^aatXeia. As has already appeared, the term
is no stranger to him, and the concept is to be felt even
when not explicitly referred to.' The fact that he conceived
of Jesus as the Christ carries with it in itself the concept of
the kingdom," and the entire Pauline literature is addressed
to those who are awaiting the coming of God's kingdom.
The apostle's chief purpose is to be seen in his effort to
draw out the ethical implication of this element of Christian
faith' and to meet certain objections which arise on the side
of those who would limit the blessings of the new age and
kingdom to the Jews. For this reason, as well as for the
danger of the misinterpretation of the term as one implying
political revolution, Paul is more concerned with the prospect
of assuring the followers of Jesus of acquittal at the mes
sianic judgment and of entrance into eternal life than he is
with the kingdom itself. At the best, the phrase ^ /3acn-
Xeia Tov Oeov was Jewish, and liable to perpetuate the struggle
in which Paul was for so many years engaged. In this
particular we see the general tendency of the New Testa
ment thought inaugurated by Jesus and completed by the
Fourth Gospel to divert attention from the kingdom itself
to the qualities of life which are demanded of its subjects.
6. The resurrection of those who are to share in the
messianic age is perhaps the most striking element in the
teaching of Paul. It is invariably placed over against the
I Cf. TITIUS, Neutestamentliche Lehre von der Seligkeit, Vol. II, p. 32. For a
study of the possible influence of the teaching of Jesus upon Paul in this particular,
see Peine, Jesus Christus und Paulus, pp. 170-74.
2 C/. Acts 17: 7.
3 See, for example, Rom. 14 : 17.

168 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
uarelieved and miserable state of death which is the punish
ment of sin.' The details of this expectation will be con
sidered presently.
7. Jesus was the personal Christ. He was in heaven,"
from which he was to come to bring salvation and to establish
judgment. Thereafter there would be a messianic reign.'
The chief argument for believing that Jesus was the Christ
is to be seen in his resurrection.* Just the course of argu
ment by which Paul found evidence of the messiahship of
Jesus in his resurrection, it is at this distance a little diffi
cult to say, unless it be that of Acts, chap. 13.* It is to be
noticed that this argument does not make the resurrection
the origin of the belief in Jesus as Christ. This already
had appeared; the disciples believed him to be the future
Christ before his death. It does argue, however, that the
resurrection would become a support and corroboration of
this faith in messiahship. Nothing could be more untrue to
the position of the apostle than the speculation that Paul's
belief in the resurrection can be reduced to a conviction
that God would not let so good a man as Jesus be annihi
lated. Paul did not believe that Jesus was immortal because
he was the Christ, but that he was the Christ because God
had raised him from the dead. He was not thereby made
the Christ; he had been such during his earthly life, and
indeed from before time. The resurrection simply exhibited
this glorious fact and laid a foundation for the apostle's
iRom. 5:21; 6:20-23. See also Acts 13:46-48; Rom. 2:7; 5:12-21; 6:5, 22, 23;
7:5, 6; Gal. 6:8; 1 Cor. 15; and innumerable other passages. The explicit term
^ui^ aiiu;'ios is used as the supreme good in Rom. 2:7; 5 : 21 ; 6 : 22, 23 ; Gal. 6 : 8 ; 1 Tim
1:16; 6:12; Tit. 1:2; 3:7.
2 Rom. 8:34. 3 1 Cor. 1 : 15, 24-28. 4 Eom. 1:4 and often.
5 The elaborate and ingenious argument of Baeton, " The Spiritual Develop
ment of Paul," New World, March, 1899 (pp. 111-24), deserves consideration. Its
most important element is : The ordinary messianic belief recognized the resurrec
tion only of the righteous and the release from death of such as Enoch, Elijah, and
Moses. They would be " children of God " as well as sons of the resurrection (Luke
20:36). Hence Jesus would have had the same experience only on the ground that
his claim to messiahship were true.

The Eschatological Messianism of Paul 169
faith.' This resurrection of Jesus will be seen to play a
very large r8le in the Pauline thought. In fact, from one
point of view, the Pauline soteriology is a generalization of
the experience of Jesus. In view of this fact, it is idle to
belittle the historical element in Paulinism.
It appears from this comparison that Paul shared largely"
in the eschatological messianism of the apocalypses. When
one comes to consider his views in detail, it will appear
that eschatology is really the center of Pauline thought.
He, like the Christians of Jerusalem, found the begin
ning of his Christian life in the conviction that Jesus was
the Christ, destined to return from the world of spirits
where he was already in supreme authority, to do the work
of the expected eschatological Messiah upon the earth.
How far he was forced by the facts of the belief of Jesus and
by his own experience to modify the pharisaic messianism,
and to transfer the emphasis from the interpretation of
Jesus to the significance of Jesus himself and to the Spirit,
will appear presently. II
For in the case of Paul, as in the case of the other New
Testament writers, it would be a serious mistake to overlook
the radical changes which came in the messianic concepts
which he had inherited because of the positive data afforded
him by the historical career of Jesus. The Christ with
Paul was not a speculation or the product of faith. He was
real. Inevitably, therefore, with him, even more than with
the other apostles, the facts connected with the historical
1 The argument of Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verstdndnis des Neuen
Testamentes, that the belief in the resurrection of the Christ was included in con
temporary unofficial messianism, is untenable in view of Gunkel's own statements.
Cf. op. cit., p. 79.
iCf.'WB.TSOE,AufgabeundMethode der sogenanntenNeutestamentUchen Theologie,
p. 66, "There is a Pauline doctrine of redemption .... but there is — to speak
cum grano salts — no Pauline angelology and eschatology, but only a Jewish or
primitive Christian." There are both truth and error in the statement.

170 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
career of Christ set certain conditions which led to the
modification of an a priori expectation. The inherited mes
sianic concept was but the starting point of the new Chris
tian thought which Paul inaugurated.
First among these modifications were those resulting
from the humiliation to which Jesus had been subjected.
The Christ, notwithstanding the fact that he was next in
importance to God,' had submitted to the humiliations of
humanity and had suffered the extremes of suffering, con
tumely, and death. The doctrinal consequences of this fact
are, perhaps, the most profound contribution made by Paul
to religious thinking — a contribution which needs only to
be estimated in a truly historical light to be recognized as
possessing supreme evangelical value. Here, as in so many
other instances, Paul was dominated by a reverence for his
torical facts which some of his modern interpreters might
well emulate. And here, too, he was at one with the early
apostolic Christianity. There was a mystery in the unex
pected appearance of Christ, and there were unanswerable
problems from the point of view of Judaism and of
philosophy," but in it was limitless help for those oppressed
by the problems of human suffering and by the appre
hension of death. It was not a mere man who had died; it
was the Christ.
A second modification, again already made by primitive
Christianity, was the inevitable outcome of the same regard
for historical reality. The fact that the Christ had died in
no way diminished his messiahship. It rather opened up a
more magnificent vista of authority. Dead, he had been
raised, the first-fruits of all those in whose life the spirit of
God was working. It may well be emphasized that, with
Paul, the resurrection of Jesus was a historical fact and not
a product of faith. Paul did not come to the messianic
1 Phil. 2:5-11. 2 1 Cor. 1 : 23, 25.

The Eschatological Messianism of Paul 171
conviction as to Christ by precisely the same path as that
followed by Peter. The early apostles had believed that
Jesus was the Christ by virtue of their association with him,
and this conviction had been confirmed by his resurrection.
Paul, on the contrary, had found it impossible to believe
that the Nazarene who had been crucified was the Christ
until the evidence that he had been raised from the dead
declared to him that messianic quality.' But, if raised
from the dead, Jesus was already Christ in the spiritual
world. Through the spirit he was already exercising his
authority from heaven. Thence he would presently appear
to do upon the earth those things which the eschatological
expectation of the Christ in a general way prescribed. This
expectation of the return of Jesus was therefore in Paul's
case, as in the case of the apostles, a corollary of the
messianic interpretation. The argument was simple and
convincing: Jesus was the Christ; he had not done his
messianic work ; he had gone to heaven ; and therefore he
must return to earth to perform his proper work." It was
this return and the belief that those who had accepted him
as their messianic king would at the Christ's appearance be
made perfect members of the messianic kingdom, and so
saved, that became one of the dominant elements in Paulinism.
Holding fast, on the one side, to the Davidic descent of
Jesus,' Paul yet saw the real significance of his Lord's work
in his future manifestation in the body of the resurrection.
The question of the times and the seasons when he should
return upon the earth to exhibit the messianic authority
and glory he was already exercising in heaven, is one about
which Paul does not particularly speculate. He was con
vinced that it would be soon.* In his earlier career he
IRom. 1:4. 2 Phil. 2 ; 20, 21. 3 Rom. 1:3.
4Rom.l3:ll;lCor.7:29; 15:51 (c/. 12:26; 16:22) ; IThess. 4:15; 5: 2; Phil.4:5. See
Teichmann, Auferstehung und Gericht, pp. 13 f.; Holtzmann, ifeMiestomen«Jc7ie
Theologie, Vol. II, p. 188. The rabbis also believed that the coming of Messiah would
be soon. Cf. Webek, JUdische Theologie, pp. 334 f. Kennedy, St. Paul's Conceptions

172 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament

evidently expected it to be in his own lifetime. Later this
expectation seems to have become somewhat modified by the
delay in the fulfilment of his hope, and he seems to have
expected that he himself might die before the parousia.'
But he never abandoned his general expectation that the
time was short and that the kingdom was at the door. It
was merely a question of his own individual experience —
as to whether he would be among those who slept and so
be actually raised from the dead, or among those who were
not to die, but who "were left,"" and were to be "changed."'
When Paul came to describe this appearance of Christ
and the kingdom, he was without historical data, and the
details he gives are probably derived from contemporary
expectations both Christian and Jewish. The Lord was to
descend with a shout of an archangel at the "last trump."*
As has already appeared, the apocalyptic hope always
implied existing misery quite as much as deliverance. The
apocalypses were always the messengers of hope to men in
distress. It would be easy, therefore, for those possessed
of that hope in the apostolic times quite as truly as in later
times to see in any increase of misery, whether or not it was
the work of the persecutors, the evidence of the approach
ing end. Thus Paul explained the appearance of persecu
tion in the Thessalonian church. As has been noticed, he
introduced the idea of anti-Christ already engaged in a
struggle with the Christ.* In view of the fact, therefore,
of the Last Things, p. 163, very properly refuses to hold to developing stages in the
Pauline eschatology. Chaeles, Eschatology, chap. 12, certainly fails to substantiate
the opposite view. Really to appreciate Paul's expectations of the time of the
parousia attention should be given to a great number of passages in which he refers
to it and the judgment in a general way. See, e.g., Rom. 8:23; 2 Cor. 5:1-7; Col.
1 ; 22, 28 (irapao-T^o-ai) ; 3 : 4. The hopes of Israel's conversion before the parousia in
Rom., chap. 12, are to be interpreted from this point of view.
1 Rom. 11 : 25 ; Phil. 3 : 11. 2 1 Thess. 4 : 15. 3 Rom. 14 : 8.
41 Thess. 4:16; 1 Cor. 15:51. Cf. 4 Esdr., 6:20-23. Webee, JUdische Theologie,
p. 369, gives parallels from rabbinic thought. See also Kabisch, Eschatologie des
Paulus, pp. 238 f.
5 2 Thess. 2 : 1-10 ; cf. 1 Cor. 7 : 26-28

The Eschatologioal Messianism of Paul 173
that persecution was coming upon the church because of
its loyalty to the Christ, as well as in view of the evident
struggle of Christ against the demons evinced in the
power of those possessed of the Spirit, Paul was convinced
that he and all those to whom he wrote were living in the
last days.
Paul in speaking of the irapovaia evidently does not con
tradict the recorded sayings of Jesus, however he may deal
with other matters than those treated by Jesus. Indeed, in
the light of 1 Thess. 4:15, it would not be impossible to
hold that the apostle's thought was directly affected by
the teachings of his Lord.' Whether or not he derived his
conviction as to the speedy return of Jesus from his Lord's
own words can probably never be satisfactorily answered.
It is not improbable that in some degree the belief did rest
on some of the words of Jesus recorded in Mark," but there is
no absolute need of discovering such an origin. All apoca
lyptic hope looked for speedy deliverance, and the Christians
of the New Testament as a class expected the coming of
Jesus within their lifetime. Ill
The facts already noticed direct us to the proper point of
approach to Paulinism as a system. Historical orthodoxy,
as represented by the older Protestant theologians and prac
tically all those of the Roman church, has come closer to
the center of the apostle's thought than those later inter
preters who have made the mystical union of the believer
with Christ or faith as an incipient and potential righteous
ness the center of Paulinism. Even a superficial study of
Paul's thought will convince one that there is much truth in
1 But see Teichmann, Auferstehung und Gericht.
2 P. 117 above. Even MuiRHEAD, Eschatology of Jesus, 135 f., though explaining
away all personal reference, admits that Jesus expected'the fall of the Jewish state
and the introduction of a new age during his own generation.

174 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
these later views. The apostle certainly believed in the
union of the believer with Christ, and quite as certainly
believed faith in Jesus as Christ to be the condition of
moral advance. But neither of these two conceptions forms
really the center of his thought. Both by his experience
and his antecedents Paul could hardly have made anything
but eschatological messianism the co-ordinating schema of a
system that centered about a belief that Jesus was the Christ.'
He had been a Hebrew of the Hebrews; a Pharisee, as touch
ing the law blameless." As regards experience, his accept
ance of Jesus as the Christ' was the turning-point of his
career. Evidently the content of the predicate "Christ" would
be a vital element of his new thought. Jesus he had known
at least by reputation.* Conceptions of the character and
office of a Christ he had derived from Judaism. He had
but to bring the personage and the conception together, that
is, have faith. In this he was at one with the other apostles.
He was interpreting a historical character in terms of inher
ited concept. The faith that Jesus was the Christ was the
beginning of the apostle's Christian life. From it followed
those deeper experiences which he describes in terms of the
Spirit. When Paul came to extend this new faith and this
experience into something like a system, his writings at once
1 It is interesting to notice that in the same proportion as investigators have
freed themselves from dogmatic presupposition and have come under the influence
of the historical spirit, they emphasize this thought. In his preface to his admirable
volume, St, Paul's Conceptions of the Last Things, Kennedy has this significant sen
tence : " In an investigation of Paulinism, undertaken for another purpose, I had
been growingly impressed by the vital bearing of St. Paul's eschatologioal outlook
upon his theology as a whole. His conceptions of the Last Things were manifestly
factors of supreme importance in the organization of his religious thought." Ken
nedy goes on to insist that Paul has no systematic eschatology. In this, as may
appear, he is both right and wrong.
2 Phil. 3:5; Acts 23:6; cf. Gal. 1 : 13, 14.
3Gal.l:15,16; Acts9:15; 22:21; 26:17,18.
4 2 Cor. 5:16. However this passage maybe interpreted, it is certainly impos
sible to doubt that he who was persecuting people for accepting Jesus as Christ
should have known something about Jesus.

The Eschatological Messianism of Paul 175
make evident how formative in his thought was his early
training. Eternal life, as enjoyed in its initial stages, was
co-ordinate with the historical Jesus as a focus of all bis
thought. Nor do the Thessalonian letters represent a passing or a
local phase of the apostle's thought. Eschatology, buttressed
as it was by the historical data furnished by the experiences
of Jesus, always conditioned it. All Paul's converts, not
merely those at Thessalonica, had been taught concerning
the new king Jesus,' and had left their former gods or cult
to wait for the appearance of God's Son from heaven." To
this event, as not only the supreme moment of human his
tory, but also as a supreme motive for right living, Paul
repeatedly returns.' For that day* of the revelation of Jesus
Christ* with his angels* he and all his converts looked, wait
ing for the adoption, viz., the resurrection of the body.'
Then was to come the judgment for all men.' Then were all
things to be tried by fire.^ Then were to be assigned the
two great awards: "vengeance to those who know not God,
and to those that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus, who
shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the
face of the Lord and from the glory of his might'"" —
"wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish;"" but
eternal life with all the blessings of the resurrection to those
"who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and
incorruption.'" To be worthy of the new kingdom then to
be established is Paul's repeated prayer for himself and his
converts." While in it alone, through the possession of a
1 Acts 17:7; c/.l Tim. 1:1. 21 Thess. 1:10; 2:20; 3:13; c/. Phil. 1:6, 10.
3Rom. 8: 23-25 ;1 Cor. 6:9, 10; 15: 23. 41 Cor. 1:8; 3:13; 2 Cor. 1:14.
61Cor.l:7,8; Phil.l:6,10. 62Thess.l:7.
'Rom. 8:18-25.
8 Acts 17: 30, 31; Rom.2:6,16; lCor.4:5. C/.Rom.2:16; 14:10 f.; 2Cor.5:10.
91 Cor. 3:11-15. W 2 Thess. 1:8, 9.
11 Rom. 2:8. I2 Rom. 2:7.
13 1 Thess. 2 : 12 (cf. vs. 10) ; 2 Thess. 1 : 5 ; Gal. 6 : 7-9 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 58.

176 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
"spiritual body"' was to be ended that struggle between the
a-dp^ and the TrvevfAa which was the tragedy of the unbeliever,
and the cause of continuous discipline and struggle on the
part of the believer. And finally, Paul's entire teaching con
cerning justification by faith is conditioned by this eschato
logical judgment.
1 Rom. 8 : 23-25 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 44.

CHAPTER III
THE THEOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF PAULINE MESSIANISM
To ADD an eschatological expectation to an otherwise
complete system is one thing; to make eschatological mes
sianism the correlating thought of an entire system is quite
another. Recent speculative theology is inclined toward
the former treatment of the matter, but Paulinism is an
example of the latter. The two great elements of the
apostle's thought were, first, as has already been said, the
belief that Jesus was the eschatological Christ, and, second,
the experience of the Spirit which came in consequence of
such belief. All of Paul's thinking was an ellipse about
these two foci. How far the messianic scheme controlled
his speculations and arguments is now to be considered.

With all the early Christian writers, Paul made ethics
depend upon religion, and deep within the religious con
cept was that of rewards and punishment which were to be
determined at the judgment.'
Paul's starting-point for all his evangelic thinking is
that of the prophets — human guilt. Liability to punish
ment was, however, a matter not of national, but of individ
ual concern. While it is very probably an overstatement
to declare that such a concept was a necessity because of
Paul's apologetic presentation of Christianity (Wernle), it
is none the less apparent from the first chapter of the letter
to the Romans that condemnation to punishment was to be
iSee Kabisch, Eschatologie des Paulus, chap. 1; Kennedy, op. cit., chap. 1;
TiTius, Neutestamentliche Lehrevon der Seligkeit, Vol. II, pp. 68-70, has a discriminat
ing discussion of the real significance of eschatology in the Pauline teaching.
177

178 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
feared by all. Theoretically, it is true, Paul would recog
nize the possibility that a man might so live as not to be
liable to punishment which came to those who broke God's
law, but practically both Jew and gentile were without
excuse and in danger of punishment.' In this recognition
of the finality of moral law he was in advance of most of
the Jewish theologians of his day. They were not oblivious
to sin or to the " evil impulse," but their profound conviction
as to the exceptional favor to be shown the descendants of
Abraham tended to add ethnic to genuinely moral estimates
of conduct and future conditions."
The origin of sin which brought guilt to the individual
can hardly be said to have been discussed by Paul in detail,
but the controlling concepts are to be found in his psychol
ogy. Untechnical and empirical as it is in its broad lines,
it is essentially that of pharisaism. Christian personality
included two elements: flesh and spirit. Flesh may be
defined in a general way as the survival of animalism in
humanity. It includes not only the physical body, but also
such impulses and habits as characterize the animal struggle
for existence. As physical it is corruptible, and as physico-
psychological it is the ready instrument of sin.'
IRom. 2:1-16.
2 It is easy to overstate matters at this point and to overemphasize rabbinic
minimizing of ethical matters. It should be borne in mind, however, that national
ism with the Jew had in itself ethical elements. The Jew had the Thorah; the
gentiles had it not, and were consequently evU. It would be exceedingly difficult to
prove that any reputable Jewish teacher seriously held that mere birth, apart from
religious and moral relations, was to be a basis of acquittal at the judgment. For
the most favorable presentation of the matter of talmudic morality, see Lazaeus
The Ethics of Judaism. See Eilso Bousset, Religion des Judentums, pp. 391-401. The
Jewish literature sometimes states the genuinely ethical character of the judgment
clearly. Cf. Apoc. Bar., 13:8; (Jer.) Pea 26. On the other hand, some of the later
rabbis completely shut the door of hope to the gentiles. See references in Webee
JUdische Theologie, chap. 6.
31Cor. 2:11; 5:5; Gal. 3:3; 4:29; 5:16 f.; 6:8; Eom. 8:2; 9: 13. See Gunkel,
Fleisch und Geist. For an elaborate lexicographical study of terms, but in which no
use is made of anthropology, see Schoemakee, " The Use of n^T and of wvtO^a in
the Old Testament, and of irveSjia in the New Testament," Journal of Biblical
Literature, Vol. XXIII (1901), pp. 13-67. 1 Cor. 15:50-54 shows the corrupt nature

Theological Aspects of Pauline Messianism 179
On the other hand, the spirit is that element of man that
is not physical and is essentially of the same character as
God. It would hardly be safe to deny that Paul conceived
of the spirit as in some attenuated way material, or that he
believed that it could exist in a bodiless form.' Whether
Paul would hold that the unregenerate man had a spirit is
doubtful. Any final statement seems excluded by the fact
that the apostle is chiefly concerned with psychology in its
moral and religious sides, and is not in the least interested
in it in a purely scientific way. In view of the current
anthropology of his day, it might be presupposed that he
would hold to a dichotomy of body and spirit (soul). Such a
passage as 2 Cor. 7:1, which speaks of the "filthiness of
the flesh and spirit," as well as 1 Cor. 2:11, where the
"spirit of man" is spoken of in a genuinely psychological
sense, argue that Paul did hold that a man before his recep
tion of the Holy Spirit had a spirit of his own." But the
apostle never elaborates this view, even if he never actually
contradicts it. All but exclusively -n-vevfia is used of Chris
tians, and in such relations as tend to obscure its distinction
from the Holy Spirit. Perhaps it could be defined material-
and future of the flesh. See, in general, HJdemann, Anthropologic des Apostels
Paulus. The distinction sometimes drawn between i^ux'J and iri/eCfia is not to be
found in Paul except in 1 Thess. 5 : 23, where the tripartite formula is used in a loose
sense. But see Delitzsch, Biblical Psychology, and Laidlaw, Bible Doctrine of
Man. See also. Cone, Paul, The Man, The Missionary, and The Teacher, chap. 10;
Pfleideebe, Paulinism, Vol. I, chap. 1 ; Thackeeay, The Relation of St. Paul to
Contemporary Jewish Thought, chap. 2, which gives a number of interesting parallel
isms between Paul and pharisaism. On the Jewish psychology see Volz, JUdische
Eschatologie, pp. 146-4S.
iCf. "naked," 2 Cor. 5:3; Pfleideeeb, PattZimsm, Vol. I, pp. 201; Kabisch,
Eschatologie des Paulus, pp. 113. The current Jewish belief was also dichotomous
(Eth. Enoch, 108 : 7 f . ) . Human personality consisted of body and spirit. The latter
is pre-existent and immortal. (See Baeton, Journal of Biblical Literature, 1902,
pp. 78-91. ) The former is corruptible. The two were united at conception, the spirit
being brought from the " treasure house " in the seventh heaven by its guardian angel
(Webee, JUdische Theologie, p. 212). They were separated at death. After death
souls went to Sheol. For the figure of clothing and unclothing with reference to life
and death, see Slav. Enoch, 22 : 8 ; Eth. Enoch. 62 : 15, 15 ;_ 4 Esdras, 2 : 39.
2 So, too, Eom. 8:16.

180 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
istically as that portion of the Holy Spirit "given" to each
individual Christian; and more psychologically as the moral
and religious elements of human personality brought into
new consciousness and power' through their union with the
Spirit of God;" or from another point of view, it is God in
human consciousness.
Our discussion, however, would not be complete without
a consideration of a second line of contrast, viz., between
o-&j/xa and vov';. In a general way, this contrast is parallel
with that between a-dp^ and irvev/jia, but it emphasizes psy
chological rather than moral elements. At the same time, Paul
regards the vov<; — at least that of the Christian — as pos
sessed of high moral ideals. It is that which wishes (im-
potently) to keep the law of God,' but is hindered by the
body ("members").* It is the mind that, when renewed,
transforms the entire personality* until the will of God is
known. On the other hand, its evil transformation affects
the personality for evil.* One might even define it as reason
exercised in and capable of moral distinctions. It would be
a mistake precisely to identify vov<; and irvevp.a,^ for in the
untechnical psychology of the apostle the two are contrasted
according as emphasis is centered upon the work of the Holy
Spirit. The spirit may exercise in fullest the divine afflatus,
and yet the rational faculties remain unsatisfied.' Similarly
(jSifia is not precisely the same as <ydp^, for it does not pos
sess those qualities which sometimes might be described as
¦\JrvxiKO'i as well as a-dpKivo<i. It is purely physical, destined
to disappear at death.
Yet it would be a mistake to draw the line of distinction
iQal. 5:22, 23.
2 For approximate parallels see Slav. Enoch, 30 : 8 ; Wis. Sol., 2 : 23, 24.
3 Eom. 7 : 22, Kara Toi/ eo-cu aveputirov, is equivalent to vods of vs. 23. Cf. further
Rom. 7:25.
4 Rom. 7 : 23 ; cf. vs. 24. 5 Rom. 12 : 2. 6 Eph. 4 : 17.
' But c/. 1 Cor. 2 : 14 with 2 : 16, and Rom. 11 : 34.
8 1 Cor. 14 : 14. Similarly Eph. 4 : 23, although the phrase is difficult.

Theological Aspects of Pauline Messianism 181
too sharply when Paul speaks of either aSifia and adp^ in
relation to sin.' The flesh is indeed formally made the
opposite of the spirit, and the body (with its members) the
opposite of the mind, but the two sets of contrasts are often
almost identical."
These two sets of parallel antitheses result from looking
at humanity from different points of view, and with two sets
of correlated ideas.' But a certain area is common to both.
Neither "mind" nor "spirit" is a property of the physical
nature; both "body" and "flesh" are separable from the
non-physical element, and both involve the punishment of
sin in the individual, viz., death. In a word, both are
mortal, and mortal because of sin. Whatever other matters
are connoted by his terms, it is this great difference that
controls the apostle's thought.*
It follows that perfection is that state of life in which the
spirit is freed from the flesh or the body, and lives in a body
especially adapted to it, that is, spiritual.* Doubtless Paul
was confirmed in this position by his knowledge of the resur
rection of Jesus.
Christianity, thus, as Paul conceives of it, deals not merely
with moral questions, but, if we may use the term, with onto-
I Eom. 8:9; Gal. 5:24; cf. Rom. 6:6, 13 with Gal. 5:19. See Holtzmann, Neu
testamentliche Theologie, Vol. II, p. 40; Cone, Paul, etc., pp. 228, 229.
2 In 1 Cor. 5:3, 4; Col. 2:5 the contrast is made between <rii>p.ii. and Tri/eSna, and
1 Cor. 5 : 5 speaks of the destruction of <rapj as a condition of the saving of the spirit
at the day of the Lord.
3 Perhaps one might even say that aiaiia. and roS; were the outcropping of a Hel
lenistic consciousness; o-apj and TrveS/ia, of a Semitic. And the two were never
systematized. 4C/. the "outer" and the "inner" man; 2 Cor. 4:16; Eph. 3:16; Rom. 7:22.
siCor. 15:44, 46. In this Paul is at one with the Pharisees who are said by
Josephus, Ant., xviii, 1:3; War, ii, 8:14, to hold that the souls of the righteous
after death pass into new bodies. Cf. 4 Esdras, 7 : 75 f . ; Eth. Enoch, 46 : 6 ; Sanhedrin,
10:1. Jewish eschatology, however, was not unanimous in this particular. Some
writers evidently believed in the actual reappearance of the physical body that had
been buried ; e. g.. Sib. Or., iv, 180 f . See Webee, JUdische Theologie, pp.i352 f . Apoc.
Bar., chaps. 49 and 50, on the other hand, holds that, although, for the sake of pre
serving and exhibiting personal identity, bodies should be raised with all their
peculiarities, those of the righteous would subsequently be changed.

182 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
logical as well. Sin worked changes in a man's mode of
existence. Salvation also must be concerned, on the one
side with a deliverance from death, and, on the other, with
the entrance into the larger and higher life possible for those
who are not restrained by the flesh. In such a concept as
this it is evident that psychological as well as moral consid
erations are of weight.
Paul does not conceive of the individual as originating
sin, but as an unhappy wretch who because of his flesh is
particularly liable to sin and its penalty.' Rabbinism had
within it an element which is here singularly attractive from
a speculative point of view, the evil impulse, y^n ^^''."
This was created by God and existed in all people.' It is
possible to show that this evil impulse was an element. in the
pharisaic anthropology, and it would be natural to appeal to it
as a means of elucidating the Pauline doctrine of sin. Unfor
tunately, however, evil impulse, though present, plays no
large role in Jewish thought contemporary with Paul, and
certainly was not so much an explanation as a representation
of the fact of evil in men. Nor does it necessarily involve a
contrast between body and soul. The apostle's hamartology
works along a different line. Sin is the outcome of Adam's
disobedience.* Sinners were "the children of disobedience. ' ' *
Since Adam's act sin has been a force in the world, workino-
its evil results upon humanity.* The law, Paul held, had
1 The rOle played by Satan, who is identified with the serpent, is seen in 2 Cor.
11:3. 2 For a discussion of this important element of rabbinic ethics see Webee,
JUdische Theologie, especially pp. 215-18 ; Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums, pp.
3'i4 f. EspeciaEy see the admirable essay by POETEE, " The Yejer Hara," in (YtJe)
Biblical and Semitic Studies, pp. 93-156.
3 Sirach, 17:31; 21:11; 15:14; Test. XII Pat. Asher, 1. This relegating of the
origin of sin to God was an element of perplexity to the rabbis, but they found some
relief in the belief that God had also created the Thorah as a remedy; Kiddushin,
306 ; Bachee, Die Agada des Tannaiten, Vol. II, p. 337.
4Rom.5:19. SEph. 2:2; 5:6; Col. 3:6.
6 For rabbinical views as to Adam's fall and sin cf. Sanday and Headlam
Com. in Romans, pp. 136 f . For parallel between these and Paul's see Thackeeay
Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, chap. 2.

Theological Aspects of Pauline Messianism 183
been given by God's grace in order to show to men what
things were sinful,' and thus to make it the easier for them
to avoid the punishment of sin — a view not unlike that of
the rabbis themselves." But men yielded to the force that
was working upon their personality seeking through the flesh
to control the spirit, and the law given in grace really
increased their unhappy lot. Sin became transgression, and
a man's punishment was consequently more severe.
In order to appreciate this conception of the working of
sin, it is necessary to recall that the Semitic mind was
incapable of thinking long with the aid of abstract defini
tions. Inevitably the most abstract conceptions were to a
greater or less degree personified. In the case of Paul it
was not merely that he regarded a man as in the midst of a
universe filled with superhuman beings seeking to work him
harm. Sin, the disobedience of God's law, whether known
or unknown, was also endeavoring, like a fearful spiritual
monster, to overcome every human being. It worked
through the flesh, which in itself is not sinful,' but is
susceptible to the influence of sin, and incapable of with
standing it or of avoiding its consequences. The working
of sin itself is traced by Paul in a variety of ways, but
perhaps never more strikingly than in the first chapter of
Romans, in which he describes the downfall of the heathen.
Ceasing to be obedient to God, and to such knowledge of
him as they had, they became vile in every particular and
suffered the natural consequences.* In his own experience
also Paul knew of the tremendous power which sin exerted
over a person through the intermediate agency of the flesh.*
In his "inner man" he wished to obey the law of God, but,
lRom.3:20; 5:13; 7:7f.; Gal.3:19f.
2 Cf. Webee, JUdische Theologie, pp. 20 f., for references.
3 Rom. 7:18. 4 Rom. 1 : 18-32.
5 Rom. 7 : 13-25. Cf. Weenle, Christ und SUnde bei Paulus, pp. 100-106.

184 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
because of the control exercised over him by sin, he was quite
incapable of moral freedom. He was therefore utterly with
out hope, needing deliverance from the body' quite as much
as from sin. II
The punishment which sin brought was death." There
has been no small discussion as to just what Paul meant
by this term.' On the part of those of a speculative tur-
of mind it has been thought that death was to a large exten
a figurative expression intended by Paul to set forth th
moral decay of a personality, and the suffering which wouL
therefore ensue. Such a conception is more akin to Gree^
thought than to Semitic, and there is no clear reason fo
giving the term such an abstract force. The Pauline con
ception of death springs from the Pauline conception of th
constitution of man. Sin caused the separation of the twi
elements of personality. Adam had disobeyed. Throng]
his disobedience sin had entered into the world, and physical
death through sin.* Such a concept as this is not abstract
but thoroughly concrete. The spirit was separated from thi
body, the body decayed,* the spirit remained "naked,"' ant
after the judgment, unless delivered, was to suffer misery as
well as deprivation of .the joys that belonged to such spirits
as were provided with "new" bodies and entered into the
enjoyment of the new age. Moral degeneration is implied
1 Note the expression n's jiie puVerat «« toC o-u/iaTos roO Oavarov totJtou Rom. 7 : 24.
2Rom.5:12; c/.Gen.2:n; 3:19; Rom.6:14,23; 7:13; 1 Cor. 15: 55, 56.
3 For the Hebrew idea of death see Davidson, Expositor, Fifth Series, Vol, I,
p. 330. See also Kabisch, Eschatologie des Paulus, pp. 86-89.
4 Eom. 5:14.
6 Cf. the entire passage setting forth the contrast between Adam and Christ,
Eom. 5 : 12-21. Paul does not expressly say that Adam was immortal before the faU,
although such a view is a fair implication from his words. Nor does he discriminate
between the death of animals and the death of man.
6 1 Cor. 5 : 5 speaks of the o^eGpov toO o-apKos.
'In Sheol if, as is altogether probable, Paul shared in current Jewish beliefs.

Theological Aspects of Pauline Messianism 185
by mortality,' but it is not a part of death. Nor is death
annihilation. Death with Paul means simply death  a
change in, not a destruction of, personal existence. Life,
the opposite of death, is not an abstract or ethical term, but
eternal life — that sort of life which Jesus himself actually
is living since his resurrection. It has moral qualities, of
course, but it is fundamentally ontological. Sin working in
the non-spiritual element of humanity made it mortal, cor
ruptible. And this liability to death was humanity's in
heritance. Death was already in humanity, and hell with
its sufferings for evil doing was awaiting unrepentant
humanity." Ill
If punishment be something so concrete and unspecula-
tive as that death which so inspired the Hebrews with terror,
we should expect that, in the Pauline thought, salvation
would be something equally remote from abstract ethics;
nor are we disappointed. 1,corrjpia is clearly an eschatalogi-
cal term which in an inclusive way stands for deliverance
from death and all that the guilty man might fear as the
result of his approaching condemnation. Positively it also
connotes the entrance of the "redeemed," through the resur
rection of the body, into that glorious life which was to come
to those who believed in the Anointed King.' Here, as in
U Cor. 2: 14.
2 A similar result is gained by a consideration of such terms as inoiKeia and
oAedpos. Only by abandoning the entire Hebrew anthropology and by reading into
the words Greek abstractions can annihilation be found in them. The entire con
text, for instance, of the striking passage, Phil. 3:19-21, makes it clear that one
element of the dirmXeia awaiting those of whom Paul spoke was their non-participa
tion in the resurrection of the body. The force of oXedpos is to be seen in 1 Cor. 5 : 5.
Cf. 2 Thess. 1 : 9. The contrast between men with two contrasting futures is seen in
2 Thess. 2 : 10 ; 1 Cor. 1 : 18 ; 2 Cor. 2 : 15 ; 4:3; Phil. 1 : 28. See, further, Menegoz, Le
pichi et la redemption, pp. 78 f . Eeferences to Jewish literature in Volz, JUdische
Eschatologie, pp. 282, 383. bpyri (Bnov) is also an eschatological description of the
approaching punishment, but is given a very general force ; e. g., Eom., chap. 1.
3 The passage which is the starting-point for all interpretation is Eom. 13:11, in
which salvation is conceived of as future and is evidently correlated with the return

186 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
so much else of his messianic thought, one sees how the
apostle uses the terminology of the ethnic and national hope
to describe the future of the individual. The salvation
which the Jews of his time expected was that of a nation
delivered from its enemies.' With Paul the collective idea
is altogether secondary to that of the state of the individual.
The church was, of course, to be saved as the body of Christ,"
but the reward of each believer contributed to the welfare of
the social unit.
If we look to the apostle for more express statements as
to the content of this messianic salvation, it will at once
appear that fundamentally it is from the consequences of sin
rather than from sinfulness during the physical life. In
fact, Paul nowhere assures the believer of any release from
the struggle in his flesh so long as that flesh is existent.
His salvation was assured, but for that very reason he
must more vigorously enter into those struggles with the
kingdom of darkness which evinced the presence of the last
days.' The seriousness of this conflict was due, not only to
the nature of the Christian's enemies, but to the fact that
God was working in them* — a very expressive paraphrase
of the thought of salvation in terms of its "earnest," the
inworking of the divine spirit. But salvation was not
achieved by the believer, it was granted to those whom God
had "elected."* Salvation was a gracious gift of God.* For
of Jesus. Similarly in IThess. 1:10; 5:8; lCor.5:5; Phil. 3:20; 2 Tim. 4:18. Gal.
1 :14 expressly refers to a deliverance from an evil age. The same thought appears
in the synoptists, as, for example. Matt. 25 : 31, 46.
1 This appears in the Gospels in the messianic songs of Mary and Zachariah
Luke 1 : 46-55, 67-79.
2 Eph. 5:23. 3 Eph. 6 : 10-18. 4 Phil. 2 : 12-16.
6 2 Thess. 2 : 13. It is not necessary for the purposes of our discussion to consider
the questions of predestination which Paulinism certainly involves. This recogni
tion of the supremacy of God it is that gives the great power to the apostle's the
ology. That there are difficulties therein no one can deny, but no more difiaculties
than lie in the modern scientific equivalent of election — natural selection; or, for
that matter, in any other question of theodicy.
6 Eph. 2: 5, 8.

Theological Aspects of Pauline Messianism 187
those who believed in Jesus as Christ there was a "spiritual"'
body of the resurrection like the body already possessed by
Jesus." It was this sort of deliverance for which every Jew
with his horror of death, perhaps even more intense than
that shared by most other men, had hoped. From death,
with its inevitable misery, the Christian was to be delivered
through the resurrection, and, on the other hand, the joys
which Jesus the Christ was to introduce, the Christian was
to enjoy. While salvation in its precise sense could not be
conceived of as yet accomplished, all those who were to share
in the resurrection and the joys of the messianic kingdom
were already saved. They were sure of deliverance from
the punishment for sin ; they were sure of a share in the
messianic glory. It is in this way that the two concepts
present in Paul, one expressed by the noun and the other
by the verb,' are to be harmonized. The apostle is again at
one with his Master. As, according to the teaching of Jesus,
the kingdom of God was already present in that the conquest
of Satan's kingdom was in process, and some of the future
members of the kingdom were already known, so in the teach
ing of Paul was salvation present in the sense that those who
were to enjoy it were already in possession of an assur
ance to that effect. Such a deliverance from the punishment
of sin was not the common property of humanity, although
Paul called upon all men to enjoy it. The interpreter is,
however, taught caution here by Acts 24:15. Only those
who actually accepted Jesus as Christ could be counted as
1 (TS>ii.a mcvpLdTLKov, 1 Cor. 15 : 44, 46. While the term is obviously hard to define
positively— as indeed Paul admits— negatively it is not flesh but serves the iri-eO^ia
in some such way as the aHiia. i/ivxikoi' had served it.
2 Phil. 3 : 20. See also Eom. 8 : 29, where the ultimate goal of predestination is
distinctly stated to be conformity to the image of Christ, " that he might be the first
bom of many brethren; " i. c, partake in the resurrection and eternal life.
3 Generally speaking, the verbal form of <r<»^M is in form or in connotation future ;
e. g., Eom. 5 : 9, 10 (10 : 9) ; 1 Cor. 3 : 15 ; 5 : 5 ; 2 Tim. 4 : 18. Occasionally it is present as in
1 Cor. 1:18; 15:2; 2 Cor. 2:15. It is past only rarely, as in Eom. 8:24; Eph. 2:5, 8.

188 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
those who were saved,' and the evidence for the fact was very
distinct. They had as the first instalment of the heavenly
inheritance that Spirit of God which had raised Jesus from
the dead and would subsequently quicken their mortal
bodies." It is worth while to notice that the conclusion that salva
tion involves the renewal of the personality after death is
corroborated by the fact that Paul evidently believed that
it was not necessary for all men to die. Those Christians
who are alive at the coming of the Savior were not to die,
but be changed into his likeness.' Of the fate of others than
Christians Paul does not treat in detail, but such passages as
speak of the "faith of Abraham as being counted to him for
righteousness"* would lead us to infer that he would hold
that those who had faith in God before the appearance of
Jesus would also share in the Christian's salvation.
Finally, with Paul, as with Peter and primitive Chris
tianity, and with Jesus himself, to be saved is formally to be
aquitted at the judgment, and to share in the messianic
kingdom. Actually it is to be freed from death, and to share
in eternal life. The question of conduct before death is a
corroUary rather than a cause of such salvation. The Chris
tian is to be like Jesus on earth because through the gift of
the Spirit he is possessed of that higher order of life which
is now in its consummate form being lived by Jesus in
heaven.* 1 Eom. 3 : 22, 24. It is perhaps worth noticing that Slav. Enoch, 42 : 2, speaks of
the suffering of sinners in the eternal life. Sokolov's text, however, omits the
statement. 22 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph. 1:14.
3 1 Thess. 4 : 15 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 51, 52.
4Gal. 2:6, etc.
6 On the entire matter see Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Theologie, Vol.11,
pp. 106 f. It is gratifying to find so much corroboration for this view in Kennedy,
St. Paul's Conceptions of the Last Things, chap. 3.

Theological Aspects of Pauline Messianism 189
IV
Thus we are again brought back to the messianic signif
icance of Jesus, and to the meaning to humanity of the actual
facts which the messianic conception expresses. It is doubt
less true that the center of the Pauline thought is the adjust
ment of human life to divine conditions so complete as to
insure the enjoyment after death of all those blessings which
may be summarized in one term, life, and the avoidance of
all that misery and checked development which he calls
death. But as a historical phase of religious experience
Paulinism centers about the Messiah, Jesus. Certain recent
tendencies in theology have made it difficult to appreciate
the full significance of this fact. There has been a decided
effort to strip Christianity of those elements which were
paramount in the Pauline thought, and reduce it from a
religious to an ethical system. As a necessary element in
this plan there has been the elevation of the human side of
Jesus, and the strictly messianic qualities ascribed to him by
Paul have been ignored, or have been replaced by those
derived from a trinitarian theology. The loss resulting has
been considerable both for exegetical and practical purposes.
Jesus as a mere social reformer or ethical poet is interesting,
and the story of his life makes a good basis for rhetorical
appeals, but any careful and impartial student of his words
and character will say that, if this be all of his significance,
he is of no very large importance to modern life. Beautiful
and true as his principles are, they have been duplicated by
nearly every teacher who has voiced the best conclusions of
the moral experiences of any people, and like them would
stand in need of authentication. And it is only a natural
corollary of this reduction of Jesus to the rOle of example
and sage that there should appear the tendency to strip him
of something of ethical importance which even the first
generation of those favoring this course of interpretation

190 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
ascribed to him. It is more or less the fashion for the second
generation of these destroyers of New Testament ideals to
see in his teachings impracticable exhortations, and in his
own character serious moral blemishes.
The point of view of Paul is radically different. Christ's '
moral teaching, difficult as it may be for human realization,
is the expression of those great principles of conduct which
would assure in the messianic kingdom the ideal social con
dition. However difficult they may be of realization for
men in a lower stage of life, they yet represent that toward
which human development which leads to the glorious stage
beyond death must tend. Therefore it was that acts, words,
and deeds which seem out of place to those who see in Jesus
only the apostle of human sweetness and light got value.
They are the expression of divine judgment against human
sin, no more inconsistent with a supreme personality than
are death and suffering and the terrible calamity which
fell upon the Jewish state inconsistent with divine sover
eignty. Similarly, too, as regards the pre-existence of Christ.
The Jews were, if we may trust the few statements of rab
binic literature, believers in the pre-existence of all souls.
From such a point of view, therefore, it would be easy, and
for that matter inevitable, for Paul to conceive of Jesus as
also pre-existent, and as the pre-existent Christ." His
authority would have been from the beginning, when he was
1 Jesus is called by Paul xP'ttos 382 times. He is also called Kiipiot. In fact, to
confess that Jesus is Lord is made by Paul the specific prerequisite of the Christian
life. (ICor. 12:3; Rom. 10:9. See also Phil. 2:11; Col. 2:6; 4:1.) It is worth noti
cing that in 1 Thessalonians the phrase o Kvpio^ ij/jMiv 'Iijo-oCs xp^trro^ is very frequent.
Altogether he is referred to as itiipio; thirty-seven times in this first epistle. The term
is applied to Jesus 232 times in the entire Pauline literature. Gilbeet, The First
Interpreters of Jesus, p. 19. Acts 9: 22; 17:3; 18:18 are a precise representation of
the apostle's center of interest.
2 Phil. 2 : 6-8 ; Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4. To the contrary see the summary of arguments
by Gilbeet, The First Interpreters of Jesus, chap. 1, in which the contention is urged
that the Christ pre-existed ideally; i. e., as an element in the thought of God. See
also Stanton, Jewish and Christian Messiah, pp. 129-33.

Theological Aspects of Pauline Messianism 191
all but equal with God.' What his relations to the universe
were before his birth Paul does not discuss except in broad
terms; he was the agent of God in creation." However
foreign such an expression may seem to those who think of
God as an eternal personality permeating a universe which
is in constant process, for the Jews it was the one means
of describing the pre-historical supremacy of him who was
to be supreme in the historical period.'
The incarnation was therefore a natural belief of Paul.
Only, to be explicit, he speaks of the incarnation of the
Christ rather than of the incarnation of God.* The Christ
is presented by Paul as the eternal son of God,* not in any
strict sense of parentage but in the sense of Messiah. The
incarnation is presented in its simplest form. The Christ
took on the form of man* — the likeness of sinful fiesh' — and
thus emptied of honor and position, took up an actual life
of humiliation and suffering. Such an incarnation would be
lasting. The whole Pauline conception of the resurrection /
of Jesus demands that the Christ who is now exercising hislj
messianic authority in heaven anticipatory to his return to/
establish his messianic glory upon earth should be the his
torical Jesus. What may have been the mode of his exist
ence before the incarnation Paul never describes, but the
mode of his existence after death is sharply fixed in his
mind. He has been raised from the dead and in the body
of the resurrection.' Yet Paul never describes particulars.
iPhil. 2:5f. 2Eph. 1:10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16, 17.
3 Cf. The relation of wisdom to the world and God in Proverbs.
4 Gould, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 96-99, argues that Jesus
was the incarnation of the Spirit.
6 The full term vibj 9eoS occurs only in Eom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 2:20; Eph.
4:13; but he refers to him as the Son of God thirteen times also. The idea of Mes
siah embodies the primary conception.
6 Phil. 2:7. 'Eom. 8:3.
ePhU. 3:21. This position clearly lies behind the apostle's doctrine of the
resurrection.

192 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
The vision at Damascus apparently gave him no view such
as that which is reported to have come to the other disciples.
But Jesus appeared to him; and in such a way that his
description of the body of the resurrection must be regarded
as in some way its result. Jesus was the firstfruit of those
who slept; those who believed were to be like him; and
therefore to describe them is in some secondary way to
describe him. Here again do we see the importance of the
historical element in Paulinism.
The relation of this eternally incarnate Christ to man
kind as a race is not discussed by the apostle. Of the seed
of David according to the flesh,' Jesus was no typical man.
Paul does, indeed, speak of him as "the last Adam," or "the
second man,"" but it is untrustworthy exegesis that sees in
such terms a rehabilitation of some Alexandrine or rabbinic
philosophy.' Paul does not draw the parallel between
Adam and Christ except to show the relations of a primal
individual to a social group. In the case of Adam the
social group is humanity ; in that of Christ it is the body of
believers. The further analogy is wholly conditioned by
this general relationship. The result of disobedience on the
part of Adam was the death of mankind; the result of the
obedience of Christ was the life of the believers. To find
in this striking parallelism a general philosophy is to miss
the point of the entire passage.
What should be the final position of the Christ, Paul
does not discuss in detail. 5is eschatology is singularly
sane in that it rests upon the historical facts connected with
the risen Jesus rather than upon Jewish speculation. And
1 Rom. 1:3. 21 Cor. 15 : 44^49 ; cf. Rom. 5 : 12-21 ; 1 Cor. 15 : 20-22.
8 Cf. G. F. MoOEE, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. XVI (1897), pp. 158-61,
who shows how late are the rabbinic passages that speak of the Messiah as the
Second Adam. Schiele, "Die rabbinischen Parallelen zu 1 Cor. 15:15-50," Zeit
schrift fUr wissenschaftliche Theologie (1899), finds the origin of Paul's expression in
Philo. SoMEKViLLE, St. Paul's Conception of Chi-ist, elaborates this view into a
theological treatise.

Theological Aspects of Pauline Messianism 193
yet in the same proportion as Paul moves away from facts
into the region of implication from facts do we see the
influence of his inherited hopes. It would not be safe to say
that he believed in a millennium, but he clearly does hold to
the belief in a messianic reign of limited duration. After
Jesus as the Christ has put all enemies under his feet, he is
to give up his messianic reign and transfer all authority to
God the Father that God may be all in all.' Until his Ap
pearance he was exercising messianic rule over the church,
his body, caring for its organization and supplying its mem
bers with his Spirit." V
It is from this point that we must approach the apostle's
teaching concerning justification, that is to say, acquittal at
the coming judgment.' Obviously that great good is one
not of experience, but of anticipation and hope. The judg
ment has not taken place, and yet the Christian was assured
that he was to be acquitted when he appeared before the bar
of God. Paul taught that the basis of this acquittal was in
no way Judaism. The Jew as well as the heathen was with
out hope of acquittal. He had kept the law no more than
had the Greek.
In speaking of justification it is to be borne in mind that,
as in the matter of salvation, Paul does not deal with the
removal of sin, but with the removal of guilt ; that is, the
liability to punishment.* It is also to be borne in mind that
his entire doctrine is in the apologetic spirit against the
claims of the Jew and of the Jewish Christian. And, in
1 1 Cor. 15 : 24-27. 2 Eph. 4 : 7 f . ; 1 Cor. 12 : 11 ; Eom. 12 : 3, 6.
3 The act of acquittal is S"ci«'ioo-« ; the declaration of rightness, 6i/caiio(ia: the
state of those 5LKat6ij.evoi, StKaioirvvri.
4 Eom. 3:20, 21. The much-discussed phrase of Eom. 1:17, SiKaiocruVT) 9eov, is
most naturally translated," a state of acquittal given by God," not "righteousness
of God." The context makes it evident that the contrast is not between moral states,
but between guilt and acquittal. See Sanday and Headlam, Commentary on
Romans, in loco.

194 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
the third place, it should be borne in mind that justification
was not a matter of experience, but of assurance. The
believer is assured of the fact that he is not to be condemned
but is to be delivered at the approaching world- judgment.
In this sense he is justified.
It was this latter fact that lay behind the great discussion
between Paul and the primitive church. In each alike there
was the hope of acquittal at the messianic judgment. But
in Paulinism the assurance of such acquittal was complete
without recourse to supplementing virtues of Mosaism. Men
were justified by faith and by faith alone.'
What, then, was this faith on the basis of which the
judge would acquit the believer? The answer which Paul
gives is exceedingly simple: the acceptance of Jesus as
Lord — that is, as Christ — involving as it did the belief that
God had raised him from the dead." That this initiatory
acceptance of Jesus at the messianic valuation would grow
richer and more inclusive is beyond question, but there was
no condemnation for the man who had so accepted Jesus.
Faith is therefore with Paul not a matter of mysticism;
neither is it that which is something exclusively religious.
It is the yielding of one's entire life to an interpretation of
the historical Jesus. Strictly speaking, its ethical content
is derived from the character ef Jesus. He who believed
that Jesus is the Christ first of all needed to repent from
his sins, and, in the second place, found in Jesus' own life,
both on earth and in heaven, the basis of moral control. In
the same proportion as one's interpretation of Jesus grew
richer would his personality and the bearing of the facts of
his life upon conduct grow more intense. But this larger
faith was with Paul a matter of Christian growth, due to the
inworking of the Spirit. And in this spiritual life lay the
1 It is unnecessary to give references here in detail. The teaching of Paul is on
nearly every page of his letters. Gal. 2 : 15-21 is a good summary of his position.
21 Cor. 12:3, and particularly Eom. 10:9, 10.

Theological Aspects of Pauline Messianism 195
ground for assurance that the day of judgment was not to
disclose disappointment. All those who had accepted Jesus
as Christ and had been given the spirit were already treated
by God as members of the messianic kingdom. So much
was the indubitable evidence of their Christian experience.
They had the Spirit of God, the same Spirit that had been
in Jesus himself. It was inconceivable, therefore, that they
could be treated by God at the judgment as other than
members of the messianic kingdom. They could rest in
peace as they anticipated that great day of the Lord.
Thus back of the messianic schema at its most vital point
is seen the evidence of the religious life.' The judgment
day was inherited from Jewish messianism ; justification was
also; but the assurance of such justification was not an
inheritance — it was born of the conscious life of the Chris
tian. Again we are face to face with a fact and an interpre
tation. Only in this case the interpretation, when confronted
with the fact, gave rise to a problem. VI
There came from the junction of the indubitable facts of
Christian experience and the Jewish conception of Jehovah
as a God of law, a difficulty. The Christians were convinced
that they had been sinners, and that they were still doing
those things that were wrong; and Paul, on his part, was
convinced that such a liability to sin was to continue as long
as men were possessed of the flesh. And yet over against
this consciousness of continued desert of punishment was
the assurance of acquittal at the coming judgment. Had
then God become indifferent to his own moral requirements?
How could he have been just in declaring that the soul that
sinned should die, and yet permit certain sinners to overcome
death ? How could he at the same time prescribe death as
1 Gal. 3:1-6; cf. Eom. 8 : 33-39.

196 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament

a punishment and also make it a release from evil conditions
and the entrance into ineffable blessings ?
To this question, characteristic only of minds filled with
the survivals of Mosaism, Paul replied by an appeal to a
historic fact. As messianic expectation had given rise to
the problem, so the messianic faith gave its answer. And
this answer was very simple. Jesus died, not as an ordinary
martyr, but in his capacity as Christ. Any act, whether or
not technically messianic, when performed by him obtained
supreme value from the fact that the Christ performed it.'
Now the Christ had died ; that is, he had himself endured that
change which the law had declared should come as punish
ment for sin. As the Christ he had not himself committed
sin." The penalty of sin, therefore, death, came upon him
vicariously. As the head of a kingdom composed of all
those who accepted him as Christ, he could be regarded as
representing his subjects. Such a representative and vica
rious relationship' would have been familiar to all those who
recalled the history of punishment inflicted upon the king
of rebellious subjects.* Now, those who had accepted Jesus
as Christ are evidently treated by God as members of his
kingdom, for they had been given his spirit. As therefore
the king might bear the penalty for his subjects, Paul argued
that God could be just while acquitting those who accepted
Jesus as the Christ. The law that sin should bring death
was vindicated in that the Christ himself, "in the like
ness of sinful flesh"* the just for the unjust, submitted to
iThis enables us to appreciate th? significance of Paul's conversion. Ho did
not believe Jesus was the Christ because he had been killed. No such element lay
in the Jewish messianism of his day. But when convinced by the "revelation" of
Jesus that the Crucified One was Christ, he had in the events of Jesus' life
material for the construction of a new theology and for the solution of questions
arising from systematic treatment of the religious consciousness.
2 2 Cor. 5:21. 31 Cor. 11:24; 2 Cor. 5:15; Rom. 5:6-8; Gal. 1:4.
4 In the case of the Jews the punishment inflicted upon Aristobulus by Pompey
must certainly have not quite passed out of mind.
l>Eom. 8:3.

Theological Aspects of Pauline Messianism 197
it. At the same time God would be free to express that love
which wished to see all men saved rather than to see them
perish. Evidently, therefore, the basis for the acquittal
which the believer confidently expects, and the blessings
which he already in part enjoys, is not the individual's
righteousness, but the love of God as expressed in the death
of Christ as his representative and as the representative of
those who hold him to be the messianic king. In this
sense the death of Jesus was a part of the great plan of God
to deliver men from the death brought upon them by sin.'
Jesus was the Redeemer;" and, with a striking use of the
sacrificial figure, the propitiatory sacrifice of the world.'
This crucified and risen Mediator Paul made the center of
evangelization.* The Christ had not been forced to death by
divine decree. He had freely submitted to incarnation and
its consequent humiliation and sufferings.* The blessings
of divine acquittal came to a man, not because he was
incipiently righteous, but because he had accepted Jesus as
Christ. The death of Christ did not make God gracious,
but exhibited his right to be gracious.* A man was not to be
saved because he was good, but he was to be good because
he was to be saved — in fact, was already saved.
How thoroughly forensic this conception is has been
recognized by all interpreters who have not preferred to find
in Pauline thought more modern and less figurative elements.'
The origin of the concept has not so generally been recog
nized. Why the death of Christ was necessary Paul never
lEph. 1:4; Eom. 8:29. 2 Gal. 3:10, 13.
3 Bom. 3 : 21-31 ; discussed by Dalmann, The Words of Jesus, pp. 124-35.
41 Cor. 1:17, 18; 2:2; Gal. 3:1. Whether Paul made the doctrine of the atone
ment central in his evangelization is doubtful. It seems rather to belong to Chris
tian " edification." And even in his letters Paul's references to the matter are more
by way of allusion than by discussion. Compare his treatment of the atonement
with that he gives the resurrection of the believers.
6 Eom. 8:32. 6 Eom. 3:26.
'As, for example, Gould, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 66-79^
See also Eitschl, Justiflcation. and Reconciliation, especially pp. 38-85 and chap. 8.

198 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
discusses. He had the fact to use in the interest of Christian
hope and life. He did not and could not have reached his
doctrine of the atonement apriori. The modern mind, which
does not think of God's relation to the world in monarchical
and judicial terms, is naturally perplexed when it attempts to
reconstruct this section of Pauline teaching. But it will be
a sad mistake, if, because we recognize the fact that the
problem came from a controlling thought that has passed
away, we should ignore the Pauline teaching. The problem
to which Paul set himself is one which is much greater than
that particular form given it by the messianic schema of
thought. It is the everlasting problem of the relation of
the God of law to the God of love. In particular it is the
question of the meaning of death and of the possibility of
some sort of advance through death. Whether one may or
may not correlate the dissolution of personality with evil
conduct of Adam or of one's self, the fact remains that it is
the great enigma of human existence, for the modern man as
well as for the primitive Christian. And for both there is
hope in the death of Jesus. It is not merely that, in the
same proportion as one gives Jesus a higher value, he finds
encouragement in the thought that he submitted to inevi
table death without abandoning his faith in God as father.
That in itself is inspiration. But a far larger truth lies in
the fact that by submitting to death he has shown to the
world by his resurrection that, through the love of God, to a
life like his own, death is a step toward something larger
and happier. To such a life death is transformed into an
element of a beneficent teleology — one had almost said a
beneficent evolutionary process. The Christ who had taken
on the form of sinful flesh, i. e., had assumed the dual
personality of humanity — had, by virtue of the power of
his spirit' been released from the flesh and, sharing in
•Bom. 1:4.

Theological Aspects of Pauline Messianism 199
the new life of the "spirit," is the first fruits of all those
who, though in a less degree, honestly attempt to live the
sort of life which he lived. They too are to be freed by
death from the "flesh" to live in the "spirit" and the
"spiritual body." They too like him will experience the
joy that springs from the release of the spirit from the body,
and its rehabilitation in a higher mode of existence. It is
this that is set forth in messianic terms when Paul says that
if the believer was reconciled by the death of Jesus, much
more will he be saved by his life.' In this sense Jesus was the
new Adam. As Adam had been the first of a race of living
souls, raising his descendants above the beasts though also
bringing upon them death; so Jesus, by his resurrection
and by the revifying power of the spirit [irvev^ia ^onoivoiovv)
which he gives to men, is the first of a race of "spiritual"
personalities — the inaugurator of a new stage in human ex
istence superior to that of merely physico-psychical humanity."
Justification and the atonement are the messianic forms
taken by truths which are capable of any philosophical inter
pretation which correlates their content with a belief in the
historical Jesus — truths which make it possible for any man,
whether or not he be controlled by the messianic appercep
tion, to believe that the God of love is the God of law, and
that the God of law is the God of love. And this belief
comes through a knowledge of the death and resurrection of
Jesus.' VII
If we pass to the details of the Pauline forecast of escha
tological salvation, we are at once struck with the fact that
it is a generalization of his Christology. The immortality of
1 Bom. 5 : 10. This of course is his glorified life, not that lived in the flesh.
2 1 Cor. 15: 22, 45.
3 For a popular presentation of current theological thought on this subject see
The Atonement in Modern Thought, by a number of leading theologians.

200 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
the entire personality had been assured by the experience of
Jesus. That for which the believer waited was not merely
the triumph of right over wrong ; it was such a change in
his own personality as would make it possible for him to live
like the risen Christ, freed from the flesh, from attacks of sin,
and from suffering and death. To be "justified" was to live
in the joyous assurance of the certainty of this glorious
mode of personal existence revealed by Jesus.
Paul never shows himself more thoroughly sane than in
his discussion of the details of the Christian's future. It is
not difficult to see here the influence of the positive histori
cal data which were furnished by the resurrection of Jesus.
The apocalypses of Judaism never shrank from the wildest
sort of imaginations concerning the future. As a result
they were very often absurd. It would be hard, indeed, to
bring, for instance, the expectations of the Enoch literature
into line with facts made known to us by scientiflc investi
gation. While it would be presumptuous to say that there
is no difficulty in correlating the Pauline expectation of the
spiritual body with scientific facts, it must at the same time
be admitted that there is nothing absurd in his positions.
He distinctly' claims to be ignorant of just how the body of
the new life differs from the physical body. Resurrection
is certainly not re-animation. His controlling conviction is
that it belongs to a new order of life ; it is "spiritual" whereas
the body that is separated from the spirit at death is "psy
chical," i. e., animal. As stars differ in glory, so the body of
the resurrection will differ from the body that dies." No man
can read the Pauline forecast of the future, as we find it, in
his letters to the Corinthians, without sharing in the enthu
siasm with which he looks forward to the great change which
is to come to all men, either by death or by miracle. And
11 Cor. 15:30.
2 See the discussion in 1 Cor., chap. 15, and 2 Cor. 5: 1-10.

Theological Aspects of Pauline Messianism 201
for the man whose apperception is controlled by evolutionary
hypothesis, strangely enough, nothing seems more familiar.
It is the everlasting process of life from order to order that
Paul here recognizes. The life that he lived, according to
the intimations of the Spirit of God, will find itself passing
on to a higher form of existence in which the animal sur
vivals are wanting and the spirit is supreme.
And the basis of his recognition, and that which gives it
value above all apocalyptic expectation, is that it is built
upon the historical experience of the Christ. Christianity
as Paul presents it is something more than a religious phi
losophy. It is a generalization of certain distinct facts. It
is not merely a product of religious experience ; it is also the
source of religious experience. If it be replied that such an
interpretation puts the gospel at the mercy of historical
facts, the only reply is that to Paul's mind it was these his
torical facts that constituted it the gospel. If Christ were
not raised from the dead, then nobody was raised from the
dead, and the whole world was still liable to the results of
sin. The Christian himself was of all men most miserable,
because he had not only lost the hope of salvation, but he
had made God a liar, by asserting that God had raised Jesus
from the dead.
Dominated by this element of fact, the eschatological
forecast of Paul was of necessity conservative. It is note
worthy that he does not attempt any elaborate discussion of
the judgment, or of the condition of those who die before
the coming of the Lord, or of the reason for the Christ's
delay, or of the New Jerusalem, or in fact of most of those
matters about which Christian curiosity has always been so
keen. Paul was not a sensationalist in religion, nor was he
interested in satisfying the curiosity of humanity. He knew
that the future was dependent upon a man's relation to God.
He did not know exactly what the future life was to be, but

202 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
he did know that the man who had placed himself in the
right relation with God would find it blessed and like that
already enjoyed by Jesus.
Various attempts have been made to extract from scat
tered sayings and words of the apostle more precise details as
to the future. What, for example, is the relationship between
the body of flesh and the spiritual body? Some have
detected inconsistencies' in the various answers which Paul
gives to this question. ' On the one side he apparently
speaks of the physical body as being transformed by the
spirit so as to pass into a new body." On the other hand he
speaks of the body which is already prepared for the Chris
tian in heaven,' into which the permanent element of the
personality, after having left the physical body, will enter
and be clothed upon by the spiritual. If, however, one
refuses to push these various expressions into a system, this
inconsistency does not appear very great. In either case
they are phases of the common belief upon which Paul does
not dogmatize, that the personality continues, and that a
spiritual body replaces the physical, the struggle between the
flesh and the spirit is ended, and, through the power of
God, the believer lives in a new, a higher, and a more joy
ous order of life.*
So too as regards the condition of those who die. Do
they immediately take on the body of the resurrection, or do
they remain in an intermediate state awaiting the coming of
the Lord? Here again there is no express uniformity of
expression, but nothing of sufficient importance to warrant
one's believing that Paul's opinions went through radical
stages. Bearing in mind the fact that he expected that the
coming of Jesus would be soon, the matter was one of no
1 So, e. ff., Chaeles, Eschatology, chap. 11, espjecially p. 399.
2 Eom. 8:11. 32Cor.5:l-8.
4 1 Cor. 15 : 46 and indeed the entire chapter as well as 2 Cor. 4 : 7—5 : 10,

Theological Aspects of Pauline Messianism 203
particular importance, except as it involved the actual resur
rection of the dead. Evidently his position was different from
that of those who have come to believe that this so-called
intermediate state might continue for hundreds, if not mil
lennia, of years. In view of Paul's relationship to current
Jewish thought in general it is probable that, as he was con
vinced that flesh and blood could not inherit the kingdom
of God,' he must have believed that the dead Christians were
with all the rest of the dead in Sheol, whence they would be
called at the coming of the Lord; they would be raised
literally, not from the grave, but from the underworld.
Again as regards the question of the fate of the wicked,
there have been those who have found in Pauline expressions
ground for holding that all those who are evil would be anni
hilated, that the reign of Christ might be supreme. No
man can come to the Pauline thought from the study of its
Jewish antecedents and share such a view. Annihilation
is not to be found in the Jewish thought. The destruction
and loss which the wicked enjoy is that of the body, and of
the blessings of the messianic reign. So far from being
annihilated they remain in Sheol suffering punishment.
Paulinism involves a limitation of the resurrection, but there
is not one element in it that can legitimately be urged to
favor the annihilation of the wicked."
And, finally, the Pauline picture of the consummation of
all things is drawn with but a few lines. Here, as every
where throughout his teaching there is the reticence which
is born of a regard for facts. The messianic age proper was
1 ICor. 15:50.
2 On the other hand, attempts have been made to show that Paul expected that
all men would be saved. Such a view rests on Eom. 5:1; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22, 28; Eph.
1 : 10; but is contradicted by the entire scope of the Pauline thought. The universal
admission of the lordship of Jesus in PhU. 2:9-11 proves nothing to the contrary.
Even enemies would be forced to admit the messianic conquest. The iroAAoi of
1 Cor. 15:21, 22 marks simply the distinction between Adam and the Christ on the
one side and the social results of each one's act on the other. See good discussion
in Kennedy, St. Paul's Conceptions of the Last Things, pp. 309 f.

204 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
to pass over into the great period of God's absolute suprem
acy, and with this the apostle rested content.' With the
assurance of release from the flesh, from guilt, from punish
ment, from sin, from suffering, and from death, the future
held for him only an eternity of joy. Salvation was more
than a theological term, it denoted an actual condition and
mode of life into which he who had received the spirit of God
was to enter. Death had been overcome; had been swal
lowed up in victory. The believer was saved, not partially,
but as a complete personality." VIII
It therefore appears that eschatological hopes centering
in Jesus were dominant in Paul, and that in so far as the
apostle was without actual historical data to force modiflca-
tions, these hopes were essentially the same as those of the
general apocalyptic movement. It also is apparent that the
exposition and development of those elements of Paul's
thought that rested wholly upon the inherited messianic
interpretation will be really of power only in those ages in
which the religious apperception to which the gospel appeals
is the same as that to which Paul himself appealed. Speak
ing roughly it may be said that this religious apperception
continued with unimportant modifications until modern times.
Recently the rise of an entirely new conception of the uni
verse through the philosophy born of the new physical
sciences is rapidly removing this apperception. The ques
tion, therefore, as to whether Paulinism has any message to
the religious thought of today is one of critical importance.
11 Cor. 15:23-25. In my opinion it is idle to attempt to build up a complete
chronological program of the future from the words of these verses.
2 Was then this glorious heavenly kingdom to be on earth? There is no evi
dence that Paul so expected unless we determine a priori that his silence is to be
filled with the vocalizations of contemporary thinkers, e. f7.,Eth. £nocA, 72:1, or make
central such a passage as Eom. 8 : 18-23,

Theological Aspects of Pauline Messianism 205
Any answer to this question must consider those elements in
Paulinism which are the outcome not of the inherited mes
sianic concept, but of the actual facts of Christian experience.
Such facts rather than their interpretations can certainly be
correlated with other facts of any age whatever its temper,
and it is to these that we should now give attention.
For as in the teaching of Jesus a life of love and faith in
God was superior to messianic conceptions, and as in primi
tive Christianity the acceptance of Jesus as the Christ of
eschatological hopes led to new spiritual enthusiasm and
deepened religious experiences ; so in Paulinism the acceptance
of Jesus as Christ was but a forerunner of the reception of
the Spirit of Christ.

CHAPTER IV
THE NEW LIFE IN CHRIST ACCORDING TO PAUL
Eschatology, central as it is in Paulinism, is a hope.
Except in so far as it was a generalization of the experiences
of Jesus it was only a hope. We have seen to what extent
in the case of Paul this hope was a representation of the
inherited faith of his people, and the question immediately
arises as to the meaning of his thought to those who do not
share in such an inheritance. The answer to this question
has already been incidentally stated repeatedly. Eschato
logical messianism is not the material but the form of Paul
inism. Face to face with the questions with which men of
all times have grappled, he found his answer not in the
speculation of the apocalyptic writings, but in two great
groups of facts. On the one side was Jesus with his life
and teaching and resurrection; on the other was Christian
experience. The kingdom had indeed not appeared, but
eternal life was a fact. It is to this second element that
any student who attempts a systematic presentation of Paul
inism must give large attention. For as "salvation" was a
completion of life, so before the consummation he expected
one was to live the sort of life he awaited.

Attention has already been called to the fact that the
certainty of justification at the coming judgment is a matter
of inference from the fact of Christian experience. It is
not to be confused with the eternal life. The actual rela
tion of a justified man and God is described by Paul with
out recourse to forensic analogies in two ways. In the first
place, starting from the idea of the enmity which existed
206

New Life in Cheist accoeding to Paul 207
between the sinner and God during the time when the
former was liable to divine punishment, Paul describes the
new relation of the two as one of reconciliation. Which of
the two parties is conceived of by him as taking the initia
tive he does not state explicity, but probably, it would be
most in accord with his thought to think that the love of
God seen in the death of Christ had removed all obstacles,'
to the establishment of friendship between God and man
which sprang from the sovereignty of God. In such case
God may very properly be said to be reconciled to men, and
the apostle conceived of as being intrusted with the ministry
of reconciliation whose message would be a plea that men
be reconciled to God." At the same time, this reconcilia
tion would not be consummated until the man repented and
became a member of the heavenly kingdom through faith.
And it is never conceived of by Paul as merely figurative.
It is genuinely vital, the establishment of actual personal
relations between God and man. It is not an external affair;
it is as truly an interpenetration of personalities as is friend
ship, and even more pregnant with results. He who is
reconciled is "in Christ."
It is easy, therefore, to understand why Paul should
speak of the new relation of the Christian to his God as one
of adoption or sonship, vloOeaia.^ He is doubtless here
affected by two contemporary concepts: On the one side
there is the Roman adoption by which one who was not an
actual member of a family became such by the act of the
paterfamilias; and on the other hand he is in accord with
the Jewish idea by which members of the kingdom of God
were spoken of as sons of God.* But this filial relationship
is a reality of experience. It springs from the new
12 Cor. 5:18. 2 Eom. 5:11; 2 Cor. 5 : 18-20.
3 Eph. 1 : 5 ; Gal. 3 : 7, 26 ; Eom. 8 : 29. See Eamsay. Hist. Com. on Galations, on
SioS^iti) in Eoman and Syrian law.
i Pss. Sol., 11 -.SO; c/.Eom.9:4.

208 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
indwelling of the spirit of God — the realization of God in
consciousness. It is the spirit by which both Jew and Gentile
cried "Abba Father,'" and lead a Godlike life. Indeed,
Paul never utilizes the general philosophical thought of the
universal sonship of God to which he refers in the speech
at Athens." Sonship with him as with Jesus is a genuinely
religious concept, and one that involves the resurrection of
the body. Men are sons of God in that they are to be
saved; i. e., through having the Spirit they are to be trans
formed into a mode of life that is like God's, holy and
independent of the flesh.'
This twofold exposition of the relation of the believer
in Jesus and God is not inconsistent. Its two phases but
accent the fundamental element of salvation, the realization
of supreme personal welfare after death in a dual personal
ity (spiritual body and spirit) resulting from the working of
God in the personality before death. From this conception
of personal well-being and the possibility of eternal devel
opment, the approach to a genuine and peculiarly Christian
ethics is easy. Ethics becomes a formulation of directions
for the ever more complete adjustment of one's person and
conduct to the new element of consciousness won through
faith in Jesus as Christ — God.
Before discussing the center of the Pauline teaching as
to life and conduct, it will be advisable first of all to recall
distinctly the fact that while faith according to Paul is, in
its first exercise, the acceptance of Jesus as the Christ of
the apocalyptic hopes, the life of the believer was funda
mentally moral. Ethical ideals were inseparable from his
hope. "The word of the Lord" was as imperative now that
the Lord was Jesus the Christ as when the Lord had been
1 Eom. 8 : 14, 15 ; Gal. 4 : 6-15. 2 Acts 17 : 28.
3 Eom. 8:19-23, 29. Sonship was a familiar way of expressing moral likeness,
e.g., vtoi T7J9 aTret^eia?, Eph. 2 : 2 ; 5:6; vios 6ta^6\ou, Acts 18:10; vib? an-iuAeias, John 17 :
12; vIq\ (f)a)T6? Kcil viol Tjfjiepa^, 1 Thess. 5:5; cf. John 12:36.

New Life in Christ accoeding to Paul 209
Jehovah. Indeed nothing could be more contradictory than
to suppose that the very people who saw in Jesus the supreme
representative of the sovereign God should hold that his
teachings as regards conduct were without authority. The
fact that Paul does not often quote these teachings of Jesus
or refer to them should not blind us to the fact that they
were in possession both of himself and of his churches.'
His failure to appeal to them was undoubtedly intentional,
and due to his attitude toward law as a means of achieving
acquittal in the day of judgment, but really to believe in
Jesus as Christ was inevitably to undertake to live according
to his teaching. An unrepentant man could not believe in
Jesus, and a believing man would try to be good. Thus
faith, even in its inceptive form, presupposed and involved
morality. It was not only an intellectual conviction that
Jesus was the Christ; it was also to live as if he were the
Christ. The first Christian community was made up almost ex
clusively of those who had been associated with Jesus during
his work in Galilee. Therefore, however heartily they
accepted him as the one who was in the future to fulfil their
hopes of the Messiah, they must also have been affected to a
considerable extent by his religious instruction. To think
of them in any other way would be contrary to every prob
ability. It would be a most extraordinary contradiction if
those who preserved the tradition of the life and words of
Jesus should have been utterly unaffected by his teaching.
In accepting Jesus as Messiah they had passed through a
moral crisis, in the midst of which they had dedicated them
selves unreservedly to the service of their brotherhood, their
Master, and their heavenly Father.
During the life of Jesus this dedication on the part of
the group of men and women who constituted the nucleus
1 For a discussion of this matter in detail see Feinb, Jesus Christus und Paulus.

210 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament

of the Jerusalem community had taken the form of an
abandonment of daily occupation, if not of wealth, and some
attempt was made at rectification of wrongs done in earlier
days.' In any case, none would think of denying that the
acceptance of Jesus as Christ was accompanied by a moral
renewal. From the days of John the Baptist, preparation
for the coming judgment and the heavenly kingdom involved
a moral change that could find its guarantee in works of
mercy and righteousness. The first recorded message of
Jesus as he took up the work of the Baptist was the same
call to repentance. Faith in the new preaching was the
very antipodes of cold, intellectual assent. Indeed, Jesus
was eager to rid himself of men who were without this moral
renewal." Apostolic preaching like that of John and Jesus
made repentance the first requirement of the convert. Peter
and Paul were here at one. Moral revolution was indis
pensable for acceptance both in the kingdom and in the
church. In the apostolic age, faith in Jesus was uniformly fol
lowed by spiritual ecstasy and other striking experiences,
concerning which many questions naturally arise. If we
waive them for the present, the mere fact itself grows in sig
nificance. The initial experience of this sort is represented
in Acts as having occurred seven weeks after the resurrection
which finally fixed the apostolic faith in Jesus as Messiah.
But it is to be remembered that, according to the same
authority, Jesus was occasionally with the disciples during
forty days of this interval. Their complete possession by
the conviction of his final disappearance into heaven, that is,
of his complete messiahship, was therefore practically con
temporary with the beginning of new experiences. In the
iThus in the case of Zacchseus (Luke 19:8), though he never became one of the
intimate friends of Jesus.
2 Compare the remarkable instance in the sixth chapter of the fourth gospel, as
well as Jesus' explanation of his use of parables in Mark i : 12.

New Life in Cheist according to Paul 211
case of those who subsequently believed, these spiritual
phenomena followed immediately either the beginning of
faith itself or the act of baptism or the first laying on of
hands. Thus from the beginning of Christian history Christian
experience was the accompaniment and result of Christian
faith. The two were mutually supporting, and both were
elements of messianism as it appeared in apostolic Chris
tianity. It was characteristic of the new community that their new
experiences should have been given a messianic explanation.'
It was not enough simply to recognize the new impulses born
of a new and confident approach to God. Centuries before,
the prophets had foretold that then God would pour out his
spirit upon all men. This prophecy Peter and the other
disciples saw fulfilled in their new enthusiasm and ecstasy."
The Christ was, indeed, absent, but they had not been left
comfortless. During these days in which they awaited the
return of their Lord they had been given the Spirit, the first
instalment of their future inheritance.' From Pentecost the
reception of the Spirit was an integral part of the new
messianic hope. It was not only an argument for the newly
acquired authority on the part of Jesus ; to possess the Spirit
was the one indubitable evidence of one's justification by
God, and of one's certain membership in the coming king
dom.* 1 How generally a revival of prophetism was expected in the messianic period
may be seen possibly in the general hope of Elijah's coming, in the expectation of
some prophet (1 Mace. 4:46), and quite as plainly in the fact that the various popu
lar leaders of the first century presented themselves as prophets, e. g., Theudas
(Josephus, Ant., xx, 5:1), and the Egyptian (Ant., xx, 8:6); cf. GnNKEL, Wirhungen
des heiligen Geistes, pp. 53-56.
2 Acts 2:14-36; 3:21.
3 Cf. Eph. 1 ; 14 and Acts 20 : 32.
4 Acts 10: 44-47; 11:17,18; c/.15:8,9; Gal. 3:2.

212 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
II
In Pauline teaching and practice the elements of this
messianism of the primitive Christians are clearly evident:
the one formal and interpretative, derived from current
messianism ; the other experiential, the result of the religious
trust and consequent divine renewal induced by the accept
ance of Jesus as the fulfiUer of messianic hopes. The dis
tinction is fundamental in Paul, for with him the appeal to
spiritual experience is final. In his own case this experi
ence had been revolutionary. He had been "apprehended"
by the Christ, and in the change from his old to his new
life lay the subject-matter for much of his teaching. His
conversion had consisted in the substitution, not of one the
ology for another, but of one life for another. Reduce this
experience and its implications to words, and there is ob
tained one of the two great foci of Paulinism : the new life
of the believer, due to the presence of God.
It would be a grievous misinterpretation of the apostle's
thought if one should at this point identify the regenerate
life itself with the so-called "gifts of the Spirit.'" The
psychological conceptions of early Christianity are farthest
possible from those of today. The air that covered the flat
earth was full of bodiless spirits, some good, some evil, but
all, though especially the latter, liable to enter into men.
Demoniacal possession was, however, no more accepted as a
true explanation of phenomena like epilepsy, hemorrhage,
deafness, insanity, and boils, than the coming of God's
Spirit was believed to be the explanation of certain other
phenomena quite as remarkable, if less painful. We are too
far removed from the first generation of Christians, and the
data at our disposal are too vague, to warrant a very confi
dent constructive statement as to what these "gifts" may
1 See the elaborate article byScHMLEDEL in Encyclopaedia Btiijca on " Spirit
ual Gifts."

New Life in Cheist accoeding to Paul 213
have been, but we may confidently infer from the apostle's
words what they were not. When one sees the final editor
of Acts himself somewhat at a loss to understand "tongues,"
if one were to judge from his description of the phenomena
of Pentecost, caution grows all the more imperative in
explaining the gifts of tongues, interpretations, miracles,
and prophesying so familiarly discussed by Paul in his cor
respondence with the church at Corinth. Yet, however one
may confess his ignorance in the matter, however one may
speculate as to their precise symptoms, as to whether they
were pathological, as to whether they are properly to be
considered as permanent elements of Christian experience,
one thing stands out with perfect distinctness: Paul regards
them only as secondary and inferior evidences of the new
life. The least valuable of them all — "tongues" — was
unfitted for "edification;" while the most desirable—
"prophesying" — was itself far inferior to the "more excellent
way" of brotherly love.' In other words, Paul regarded the
work of the Spirit in human life as essentially moral. God's
life in those who had chosen Jesus as Christ, and who were
seeking to live according to his teaching, was destined to
produce moral change and growth; not sensational actions.
It was a source of character, not of omniscience."
Paul treats this new life from two points of view : (1) It
is conceived of eschatologicaUy as the earthly counterpart
and beginning [^eofj alrnvtos:) of the ideal proposed by his
messianic hopes. In the resurrection of Jesus Paul saw
something that was to be enjoyed by all believers. The
Christ had but anticipated his kingdom, and the time was
soon to come when all those who had accepted him were to
put on immortality and enter upon an eternity of righteous
ness made possible by the end of the tyranny of the body."
11 Cor. 12:1-14:39. 2 1 Cor. 13 : 9-12.
3 See Phil. 3:21 and the entire argument in 1 Cor., chap. 15.

214 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
During the brief period ' of waiting for this deliverance, the
Christian was to endeavor to live the sort of life which was
to be his in the new kingdom. Here is evidently a formal
ethical ideal which, though somewhat indistinct, has yet an
appreciable content for the believer in the risen Jesus.
Paul constantly uses it as a basis of ethical appeal. "If ye
are risen with Christ," he urges the Colossians," "think the
thoughts that pertain to things above where Christ sits."
He tells the Romans to subordinate physical pleasures, on
the ground that the kingdom of God is not to be character
ized by eating and drinking, but by love, joy, and peace in
the Holy Spirit.' And, perhaps as striking as anything, he
repeatedly urges that, as the Christian is a citizen of the
new kingdom, he is to live as if he already possessed the
privileges of that kingdom. His citizenship is in heaven.*
For the one who does so live, beating down his grosser
nature, living according to his future, reward is certain. He
who lived to the flesh was to die, but he who lived according
to the Spirit was to live the son of God, fellow-heir with
Christ, the future possessor of the redeemed body.'
But (2) the new life is also morally dynamic, and the
basis of the Christian's ethical imperative. He is not
wholly dependent upon the presentation of a heavenly ideal.
Incomplete though it was, the life to be lived in the full
presence of God had already begun in the believer. Due
as it was to divine influence, it was to be supreme in all his
conduct. Paul here carries to its legitimate ethical conclu
sions the doctrine of the Spirit's presence. His approach
is, as always, through his eschatology ; the Spirit is the first
instalment of the inheritance awaiting the members of the
coming kingdom. Through him it was that "gifts" came
to men, it was the Spirit that directed the church, that
1 Eom. 13:11-14; cf. 1 Thess. 4:15-17; 1 Cor. 15:51.
2 Col. 3:1. 3Kom. 14:17.
4 Phil. 3 : 20. 6 Eom. 8 : 12-25 ; cf. vss. 29, 30.

New Life in Cheist accoeding to Paul 215
reinforced the believer's spirit in its desperate struggle with
the "flesh," that pleaded with God for erring men, that
helped men's infirmities, that would later quicken their
mortal bodies into likeness with that of Jesus.'
It is at this point that we see Paul in his profoundest and
most infiuential mood. He shared to the uttermost in the
ethical passion of the Pharisees. Life with him, as with
them, got its full meaning in that completion which was to
be the outcome of the judgment day. Morality was, there
fore, not a matter of speculation as to the origin of the
moral sense, but one of determined endeavor to embody the
will of God in one's personal relations. The method by
which the Pharisee would accomplish this righteousness, or
at least acquittal, is well known. The judge who was to
determine the eternal destinies of mankind had graciously
given to the Jew his Thorah. He who kept that law would
live; and he who did not keep its provisions was already
cursed. Theoretically, therefore, the matter was very simple :
determine what the law demanded and meet its demands.
"The oral law" of the scribes was the result.
In their zeal to elevate Christian teaching, it has been
usual for Christian scholars to belittle the pharisaic and
rabbinic teaching at this point. It is, of course, possible to
adduce sentences from the Mishna, and especially from the
later rabbinic writings which are absurd and trivial, but he
is a poor interpreter who is content with an over emphasis
of such minutiae. Once grant pharisaism its great premise
that a man's eternal destiny is set by his observance of the
Thorah, and its attempt to extend the principles of that law
in minute regulations is not only inevitable, but it is benefi
cent. If it is necessary, for example, for a man to observe
the Sabbath by not working, it is certainly necessary for
him to know when the Sabbath begins, and what is work and
1 See admirable brief discussion in Sabatiek, Religions of Authority, pp. 3(B f .

216 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
what is not work. For such a necessity there is no act in
life which must not be defined as either permissible or for
bidden. The fact that the attempt so to "build a hedge
about the law" resulted in a mass of rules and regulations
which taxed beyond endurance memory and logical acumen
is not to be given undue weight. If the principle be final
that a man must do right because he is commanded to do
right, the Talmud is the gospel of heteronomy.
Further, the Pharisee just as truly as Paul saw the impos
sibility of keeping all the rules which were implied in the
law of Moses, and attempted to meet this difficulty by antici
pating the Roman Catholic doctrine of supererogation. The
absolute conformity to law being impossible, morality be
came a matter of accounting. If a Jew's good deeds ex
ceeded in number his evil deeds, especially if he had seen
suffering, the God of Israel could be trusted to let him enter
the heavenly kingdom. If he failed of the balance of good
deeds demanded, the excess virtues of Abraham and the
Patriarchs might be counted to their descendants to make
up the requisite proportion.' Such a morality is evidently
unsatisfactory from both the theoretical and the practical
point of view. Yet it contains in it a suggestion of an ele
ment which Paul himself appropriated, namely, the grace of
God. Only in Paul's case the fundamental principle of the
Pharisee was attacked. The acquittal could not come from
keeping the law, and must come in another way. This
acquittal we have already seen came to those who accepted
Jesus as Christ and so were treated even before the judg
ment as members of the messianic kingdom. The ethical
question which remained may be stated baldly thus: Why
should a man be good who no longer was afraid of death
and hell? In other words, what is the great moral impera
tive? 1 See Webee, JUdische Theologie, chap. 19.

New Life in Christ accoeding to Paul 217
Paul's significance as an ethical teacher lies in the fact
that he denied the finality of statutory law. Confronted
with the question as to the seat of moral authority, he
replied: It is God as he is known in the believer's life. It
is not merely personality that Paul thus makes the moral
autocrat; it is the Spirit — that element of the human per
sonality in which the human is surcharged with the divine.'
Paul's position at this point explains why he does not
appeal more strenuously to the teaching of Jesus. Having
abandoned his earlier hope of winning an acquittal at the
messianic judgment by conscientious observance of the law,
he would be the last man to replace the Thorah with a new
series of rules, either of his own devising or derived from
the words of Jesus. That would be to discredit faith, and
by faith, as he told the Corinthians in one of his most strenu
ous passages, the Christian stood." As long as one was true
to the faith he had professed in Jesus as the Messiah of the
future kingdom, he was beyond the reach of even apostolic
authority. At the same time, however, Paul gave his judg
ments as one who had obtained mercy of the Lord to be
worthy of trust,' and these "judgments" may very well have
been understood as authoritative advice regarding the form
and direction in which the new life of the Christian should
be given expression. Paul further magnified his official
position in matters in which the religious element was at a
minimum, and did not hesitate to deliver over to Satan an
evil-doer for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit
might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.* None the
less, however, even to the recalcitrant Corinthians he pro
tests that he was but a master-builder who laid foundations,
and that he and ApoUos and Peter were but the stewards of
1 The Christians in this sense are Tn/ev/ianitoi ; 1 Cor. 2 : 13-15 ; Gal. 6:1. So, too,
the body is to be irreu^uariKov after the destruction of the o-apj ; 1 Cor. 15 : 44, 46. Cf.,
for general statement, Eph. 1:3; Col. 1 : 9.
22Cor.l:24. 31Cor.7:25. 4iCor.5:l-5.

218 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
the Christ to whom all believers belonged.' The gospel was
not a new law, and the life of faith was not to yield to a
new legalism. It is "a perfect law of liberty" of which
even James speaks."
But even in the case of Christians Paul seems never to
have abandoned the idea of the judgment. For them as for
the angels it was inevitable. The presence of the Spirit
argued that Christians would be acquitted, but they were
not to be excused. They themselves because of their faith
in Jesus were to be saved — possibly "as by flre" — but
their works if unworthy of the Spirit were to be destroyed.'
However obscure such a distinction may appear, it is clear
that Paul did not teach that the Christian was outside the
region of moral law. Liberty was not to be an opportunity
to the flesh.* Morality was not a negative matter, but
positive, and in the same proportion as one followed the
Spirit would he be kept from yielding to the flesh, and live
the life of love.^ And this consideration brings us to the
heart of the Pauline ethics.
Once strip off Paul's peculiarly Jewish terminology, and
he is the very Coryphaeus of ethical autonomists. How
otherwise could one designate the man who declared law
had no more control over the Christian, whose letter to the
Galatians is a veritable declaration of moral independence,
11 Cor. 3:5, 8, 23; 4:1. The entire argument as to the apostolic prerogative in
1 Corinthians is well worth consideration upon this point.
2Jamesl:25; 2:12.
31 Cor. 3:13 f.; cf. Test. Abraham, 93:10; Apoc. Bar., 48:29.
4 Gal. 5:13.
5 It is noteworthy that, although Paul apparently does not conceive it possible
that one who has once believed upon Jesus as Christ would be condemned at the
judgment, the later New Testament writers are not possessed of the same assurance.
The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews believes that it is impossible to renew
one who sins wilfully after receiving a knowledge of the truth ; for him there is no
forgiveness, but a certainty of judgment, fierceness of fire ; Heb. 10 : 26, 27. Per
haps the basis of this is the author's belief that it is impossible to renew through
repentance those who fall away after having once partaken of the Holy Ghost, and
tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come ; Heb. 6 : 4, 8. 1 John
1 : 19 charges apostasy to hypocrisy.

New Life in Cheist accoeding to Paul 219

and who believed that the Christian had the mind of
Christ?' It is one of the curiosities of today's ethical
thought that he who even more distinctly than Plato mag
nified the necessity of "walking in the Spirit" should have
been utterly overlooked or relegated to the mercies of dog
matic theology. The neglect is, of course, due in large
measure to the modern sensitiveness over appeals to rewards
and punishments ; but even more, one cannot help believing,
to the unwillingness of ethical thinkers to accord religion
any determining place in morality. To such philosophers
Paul, with his insistence upon the active presence of God in
a man's life, can hardly fail to be of little importance. Yet
we venture to believe that Paul is near the heart of things
when he insists upon the moral results of the interpenetra
tion of the divine and the human personalities. If there be
a personal God, it is hard to see how he can be excluded
from personal relations; and why from such relations should
there not result, as Jesus and Paul taught, a new moral life
due to the effect of God's Spirit upon man's spirit?
The danger here clearly is that one who looks thus to
God for moral assistance should become morally inert.
Paul, however, avoids this danger by his recognition of the
distinction between influence and compulsion. Impulses
the religious soul must receive from God, but as the plant
is influenced by its environing sunshine. To make these
impulses of moral worth, they must be followed and thus
incorporated through volition into one's own personality.
The non-moral "charismata," like tongues and miracles, are
of value only when morally practiced." By following the
impulses received from one's approach to God through
faith, the believer becomes ethically a new man; old things
12 Cor. 1:22; 5:15; Eom. 8:23; Eph. 1:14. See also the profound discussion
in Eom. 8:1-13.
2 1 Cor., chap. 13.

220 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
pass away, all things become new.' As Paul said so strik
ingly, the new life he lived by faith was Christ living in
him." The ethical imperative becomes therefore clear: from
one point of view it may be expressed, "Grieve not the
Spirit;'" from another, "Walk in the Spirit;"* from still
another, "Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has set
you free."* Or, in un-Pauline words: Realize the new self
made possible by the new life with God. Such a self might
be described in non-messianic language as characterized by
faith in a loving God, free from fear or future ill, self-
sacrificing like Jesus, masterful over the animal instincts,
brotherly and serviceable, full of love and joy and peace.
It is characteristic of the apostle that he conceives of all
this strictly religious experience under the personal mes
sianic formula: The believer is in Christ and Christ is in
the believer.^ It is noteworthy that he does not use the
unofficial name Jesus. 'Ev 'Kptarm expresses, not a friend
ship between individuals, but the dependence of a subject
upon a king. Baptism symbolized something more than
an ethical resurrection. It portrayed the change in the
believer's personality by which he was assured of the resur
rection — i. e., of an experience like that of his Christ.' He
was in Christ in the sense that he had entered into the
"spiritual" as distinct from the "fieshly" life," was
redeemed,' and was already a subject of the heavenly king.
The relation was, therefore, less mystical than quasi-polit
ical.'" It was mystical only in the sense that the Christian
life as a whole was mystical, i. e., dependent upon the inter
penetration of the human and the divine spirits. For the
expression represents a fact of the Christian experience.
l2Cor. 5:17. 2(}al. 2:20. 3Eph. 4:30.
4Gal. 5:16f. 5 Gal. 5:1. « The classical passage is Gal. 2 : 2a
' Cf. Eom. 6:3-9. 81 Cor. 3:1; cf v. 3. 9C/. Eom. 8:24.
10 Eom. 12 : 5. Cf. the figure of the Church as the "body of Christ " with individuals
as its members, 1 Cor. 12 : 27. See also Gal. 3 : 2, 5, 14 ; Eom. 5:5; Eph. 1:13.

New Life in Cheist accoeding to Paul 221
Christ was in believers in the sense that the Spirit of Christ
— i. e., sent by him — was in them.' The apostle had "the
mind of Christ" in the sense that God had revealed "wisdom"
to him through the Spirit." Indeed, Paul mostly uses iv
X/JtcTTw as a sort of qualifying term expressive of the
believer's new relations in general."
But no one can fail to appreciate the reality in the
Pauline conception of salvation and the achievement of the
eternal life. Eternal life was, it is true, the supreme good
of the pious Jew,* but in the usage of Paul and all the New
Testament writers the term, like its correlate "kingdom of
God," was filled with a new and non-national content. It
was a state of the individual similar to that enjoyed by the
Christ after his resurrection, and waiting for those who had
been delivered from that death which was the result of sin.°
It was due ultimately to the realization of God in conscious
ness — a fact far above any philosophy by which it may be
expressed or interpreted. The acceptance of Jesus as the
supreme revelation of God contributed to such a new state
of consciousness, and in this sense as truly as in any other
he is Mediator. But any exposition must here be but rela
tive to the age which begets it. This highest good to which
the believer looked was not born of Jewish messianism, how
ever much it may be colored by messianic hopes. Nor was
1 The two expressions are identical in Eom. 8 : 9-11. The whole passage 8 : 1-17 is
of first importance in this connection.
2 1 Cor. 2 : 10-16. Paul carries this thought a step farther in 1 Cor. 3 : 1 f ., when he
declares that the Corinthians are only "babes in Christ" in the sense that they were
"carnal." 3Thus in Eom. 9:1; 15:17; 16:3,7,9,10; 1 Cor. 1:2; 4:10, 15; Eph. 1:3. For a
somewhat different view of this entire matter see Sanday and Headlam, Com
mentary on Romans, pp. 162-66.
4 Mark 10 : 17 ; Matt. 19 : 16 ; Luke 10 : 25. Bousset, Religion des Judentums, p. 399,
denies, but too absolutely, that Jewish ethics were controlled by eschatology. For a
truer statement see Volz, JUdische Eschatologie, pp. 326 f., 368, 369. Cf. Pss. Sol.,
14 : 10 ; Eth. Enoch, 37 : 4 ; 62 : 16 ; 65 : 10 ; Slav. Enoch, 42 : 3 (text of Sokolov) ; 4 Esdras,
7 : 48 ; Apoc. Baruch, 54 : 12 ; 57 : 2 ; 85 : 10 ; Berachoth, 286 ; Pirqe Abuth, ii, 7 f .
5 Eom. 6:23.

222 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
it the child of Greek philosophy, an abstract hope of ethical
victory. Nor is it born of a modern evolutionary philosophy.
Z(or) alatvio^ with Jesus, with Paul, and "with the modern
man describes a fact of consciousness, a generalization of his
toric phenomena. It is at bottom not moral, but ontological
with moral corroUaries. It is life — life in the fullest sense
in which the present dualistic personality is preserved, but
stripped of those animal survivals that pull men back to the
beast. The fiesh is to be forever gone — nay, one should
already live as if it were dead.' Holiness is involved in
such a life, but no more truly than is a process of develop
ment we can only call hyper-physical." And this highest
good, anticipated in part in the moral and religious growth
of the Christian, is the ground of obligation." The Chris
tian is a new creation* due to the transformation by the
Lord's Spirit.^ He is therefore to live as if already risen
with Christ.'^ Ill
Thus one comes to see more distinctly the relations exist
ing between Pauline and pharisaic messianism. The one is
undoubtedly derived from the other; but that which was the
essence of the older has become the interpretative medium
of the newer hope. It was the regenerate life, the new
religious dynamic born of the religious experience induced
by the acceptance of Jesus as Christ, that distinguished
Christianity from pharisaism, and which has given it his
torical vigor and pre-eminence. Paulinism as a fulfilled
pharisaic messianism might have had vast influence among
1 Eom. 8:12-17.
2 So, too, TiTins, Neutestamentliche Lehre der Seligkeit, Vol. II, p. 76: "Es ist
nicht eine rein etisch-religiOse, sondern eine zugleich hyperphysische Auffassung des
Lebens, die er [Paul] in der Mittelpunkt gesteUt hat." I am indebted to Titius for
the term " hyper-physical."
3 In general see Sokolowski, Die Begnffe von Geist und Leben bei Paulus
4 2 Cor. 5 : 17. 6 2 Cor. 3 : 8 ; Eom. 8 : 9-11. 6 Col. 3 : 1-17.

New Life in Christ accoeding to Paul 223
the Jews, proselytes, and "devout" gentiles of Palestine and
the empire at large; but Paulinism as the exposition of the
meaning, the blessings, and the ethical and ontological pos
sibilities of a life of trust in a loving heavenly Father is
bounded by no age or place or archaeological knowledge.
It is the veritable Christianity of Jesus himself.
As a teacher of such a life, dynamic because dependent
upon God, Paul has yet to come to his own. The historic
theologies have, it is true, never neglected it : but they have
made it secondary to an exposition of justification, an all
but universally admitted forensic element in the apostle's
thought, and one clearly derived from pharisaic messianism.
Historical exegesis will increasingly reverse the process, and
see, not in the survivals of pharisaism, but in the new life —
the eternal life of Jesus — the permanent and all-inclusive
element in Pauline teaching. Messianic faith led to a life
regenerated by God himself. To trace the apostolic exposi
tion of the ethical and social implications of this new life is,
therefore, to set forth essential Paulinism. But it is also to
do something far more important: it is to make easy the
process by which apostolic Christianity may be accurately
re-expressed in our own day. For this "life of the Spirit"
is interpreted, not caused by the Pauline philosophy and
world view. It will continue and will be experienced by
those who have faith in Jesus, whether they fail or succeed
in mastering the apostolic exposition.'
1 It has not appeared necessary to preface the discussion of Paulinism with any
general critical statement. Notwithstanding the tangential criticism of Van Manen
and his school, the above discussion has used without question Eomans, 1 and 2
Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, PhUippians, Colossians,
Ephesians, and Philemon. There are still questions of detaOs connected with all of
this literature, but not sufficient to warrant hesitation in its use as genuinely Paul
ine. The question of the Pastoral Epistles may still be regarded as open, but with a
tendency toward the recognition of a strong Pauline element.

CHAPTER V
THE MESSIANISM OP POST-PAULINE CHRISTIANITY
The history of Christianity after the death of Paul is in
deep obscurity. That churches were founded everywhere
about the Mediterranean is beyond question, but of their
founding we know practically nothing. So, too, as regards
the literature of the time. External as well as internal evi
dence forces us to assign a number of writings, mostly
anonymous, to the fifty years succeeding the death of Paul,
but it is as impossible to tell exactly the date of their com
position as to decide precisely as to their authorship.
To this group of literature belongs a number of the most
important writings in our canonical New Testament; among
them those now to be considered: the Synoptic Gospels (in
their present form), Hebrews, the Fourth Gospel and the
three epistles ascribed to John, the epistles of Jude and
Peter. I
In treating the teaching of Jesus it was shown that our
synoptic gospels are the result of combining various groups
of early collections of the words and the deeds of Jesus. At
that time a distinction was drawn between these original
materials and the present completed works. We have now
to consider the gospels in their present completed form as
indicating in themselves the general tendencies of the mes
sianic hope in the early church.
It is impossible to state with precision the exact time of
composition of the synoptic gospels.' Specific external
1 See in general JtjLICHEK, Einleitung (EngUsh translation. Introduction) and
the article by Schmiedel, " Gospels" in EncyclopaediaBiblia, as well as the parallel
articles in Hastinqs, Dictionary of the Bible. 224

Messianism of Post-Pauline Christianity 225
evidence is wanting till the middle of the second century,
and the critic is dependent, on the one side, upon quotations
and "echoes," and, on the other, upon the internal evidence
of the gospels themselves. Such data do not give us a
definite terminus ad quem, but make it probable that all
three' of the synoptic gospels reached their present form
subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem, 70 A. D. As
they now stand, they are finished compositions in which
the original material has been subjected, not only to edi
torial selections, but to other editorial treatment.
From the critical point of view, the strictly editorial
material in the synoptics falls into three general classes.
First, there are easily recognizable editorial additions in
the way of comment or explanation." In the second place,
there are variations in numerous sayings the original form
of which can approximately be determined by a comparison
of the various sources." And, third, there are details which
are added to the original statements of Mark* or material
which is substituted for sections of such material.^
In considering this material it is to be borne in mind
that it springs from the second generation of Christians.
The original materials of the gospels, as we have already
seen, may be accepted as the work of the disciples of Jesus
himself, but the synoptic gospels, as completed literary units,
represent to a considerable degree the point of view of the
church during the last quarter of the first century. Pauline
literature antedates the synoptic gospels in their present
iThisisgenerally admitted in the case of Matthew and Luke. Mark 13:20, to
my mind, is conclusive also as to Mark. In this connection it is also worth while
comparing Mark 13: 14 with Matt. 24: 15. In both cases the reference is most natur
ally seen to be to Titus's profanation of the temple. Luke 21 : 20, however, though
equally historical in its references is less objectional to a Roman world looking for
evidence of l&se majesti in Christians.
2AsMark 7:19; 3:30.
3 As in Matt. 16 : 16 ; Luke 9 : 20 ; c/. Mark 8 : 29.
4 As (Tw^aTtKcj) etSet in Luke 3:21. Cf. Mark 1:10.
6 As Luke 5 : 1-11 for Mark 1 : 16-20.

226 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
form, and its influence can hardly have been small. But
the general point of view of the synoptic gospels is that
which we have already seen in primitive and Pauline Chris
tianity. God's will was being done in heaven, but not upon
earth. Jesus was reigning as Christ in heaven, but was not
supreme yet over men, and death had not yet fully been
conquered, although the beginning of his new authority had
been established by the Spirit in the hearts of Christians.
They must maintain the strenuous struggles against the
enemies of the new kingdom, whether superhuman or
human.' The synoptists, therefore, came to all the sayings of Jesus
with a serene faith as to the final outcome of the conflict
with the powers of evil. To a considerable extent they are
interested in adjusting historical events to the general scheme
of God's conquest over his enemies. These enemies are
three: First, the devil, and supernatural beings. As Jesus
himself had pointed out, the conquest over them was already
in process, as indicated by miracles. Second, the Jews. The
conquest of the kingdom over them is seen in the destruc
tion of Jerusalem. Third, death, which, as Paul said," was
to be the last enemy overcome, was not yet subdued, but
would be at the resurrection.
These three enemies are not always speciflcally referred
to in the gospels, but constitute the elements in the point of
view from which the synoptists approach the interpretation
of the personality of Jesus. At the distance of a generation
the perspective of his work shaped itself more plainly and
his significance became more sharply defined. Whatever
he had done gained value because it had been done by the
Christ. 1 If J. Weiss be correct (Reich Gottes^, p. 97), this point of view appears clearly
also in Eev. 12 : 7 f . Michael is there represented as having conquered the dragon
in heaven, but the dragon had been cast on earth, where he was making trouble.
21 Cor. 15:26.

Messianism of Post-Pauline Christianity 227
The general tendencies of this synoptic interpretation,
whatever its critical form, are varied.
1. There is, first, the tendency toward messianic precision.
Thus, the work of John the Baptist is more distinctly seen
to have been of messianic significance. Not only is his
preaching regarded as the beginning of the gospel,' but his
birth is described as involving miracles of various sorts, indi
cating his future mission," and he himself, it is stated, was
regarded by the people as a possible Christ." His preaching
is summarized by Matthew as a message concerning the
coming of the kingdom of God,* rather than the more gener-
ically ethical call to the forgiveness of sins, contained in
Mark. He is, furthermore, distinctly identified as Elijah.'
Similarly in the case of Jesus we learn from the later
form taken by the gospel narrative that he was recognized
even as a babe as the future Christ,^ and that he was born
in Bethlehem in accordance with prophecy.' In the account
of the shekel found in the fish's mouth" we have additional
material intended to enforce the independence of the Christ,
and in that of the dead saints who rose at the time of Jesus'
resurrection an even later addition, originally probably in
the form of a gloss, intended to illustrate the power of the
Christ over the dead.° There are a number of cases in
which the evangelists in reworking Mark have made slight
changes to call attention to the real messianic significance
of Jesus.'" Perhaps most noticeable of these changes are
the addition of the terms "Son of man," "Son of God," and
other expressions intended to relate Jesus with God in the
I Mark 1:1 f. 2 Luke 1 : 5-25, 39-56, 57-80. 3 Luke 3: 15.
4 Matt. 3; 2, a rewriting of Mark 1 : 4.
5 Matt. 17 : 32. The identification is not in the original, Mark 9 : 13.
6 Luke 2: 21-39. ' Matt. 2 : 1-12. s Matt. 17:24-27.
9 Matt. 27 : 52, 53. Is this in some obscure way connected with the preaching to
the spirits in prison of 1 Pet. 3 : 19?
10 Matt. 4 : 23 ; cf. Mark 1 : 39. Luke 5 : 43 ; c/. Mark 1 : 38.

228 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
account of Peter's confession at Csesara Philippi,' the refer
ence of the "sign of Jonah" to the three days in the tomb"
the substitution of a question concerning the parousia of
Jesus for one concerning the fall of Jerusalem," and the
more precise form of the cry of the people at the triumphal
entry,* to which reference has already been made.' Distinct
references to the dependence of Jesus upon the Spirit are
also occasional.^ The primitive christology is to be seen in
the explanation appended by Mark to the section on the
unpardonable sin.' There are to be seen, also, frequently
slight editorial changes which can hardly be assigned to any
definite motive, but which would be very natural in the case
of those writing after Christian history had fairly begun, and
the messianic importance of Jesus had become a fundamen
tal element in Christian hope." Luke also adds material'
emphasizing the messianic significance of both Jesus and
the authority of his representatives.
2. There is further to be seen, especially in Luke, the
substitution of a somewhat more miraculous for a simpler
account, as for example, in the narrative of the baptism,'" and
that of the call of the four." While it is easy to lay too
much stress upon this characteristic of the third evangelist,
just as it is also easy to overemphasize his ebionitic and
universalizing tendencies, it is undeniable that the general
attitude of mind of early Christianity was favorable to
receiving miraculous narratives as supplementary to the
original record of the gospels. The Protevangelium and
1 Mark 8 : 27 f . ; Matt. 16 : 13 f . ; Luke 9 : 18 f . For other instances of the addition
of the term "Son of man," see Luke 17: 86; Markl0:45; Luke 19:10.
2 Matt. 12 : 40. 3 Matt. 24 : 3 ; c/. Mark 13 : 4.
4 See Matt. 21 : 9 and Luke 19 : 38 ; cf. Mark 11 : 10.
6 Pp. 98 f. above. 6 As Luke 4: 14. 'Mark 3:30.
8 For example, the origin of the word " apostle," Luke 6 : 13 ; cf., Mark 3:4; the
additional clauses in the Lord's Prayer, Matt. 6:10; the generalizing of the precise
formula, "Ye are Christ's," Mark 9:45, to "the name of a disciple," Matt. 10:42; the
attribution of Judas's wrongdoing to Satan, Luke 22 : 3.
9 22 : 2&-30. 10 Luke 3 : 21. 11 Luke 5 : 1-11.

Messianism of Post-Pauline Christianity 229
the entire mass of apochryphal gospels dealing with the
infancy and boyhood of Jesus illustrate this tendency
clearly. 3. There is further evident the desire in Matthew to
establish the messiahship of Jesus on the basis of an appeal
to the Old Testament. The passages to which appeal is
made are not those commonly used by the rabbis, but are
clearly suggested by various events in the life of Jesus him
self. These events are said to have occurred in order that
certain prophecies might be "fulfilled,"' but in not a few cases
the force of the argument is quite lost for the modem
interpreter." These passages disclose the general apolo
getic and interpretative purpose of all the canonical gospels.
Even Mark, though without formal statement, may be seen
to be built up about the purpose to exhibit the gradual
revelation and apprehension of the messianic character of
Jesus." 4. The chief interest of the synoptic writers is eschato
logical. That to which they looked forward is the return
of the absent Christ for the purpose of judgment and salva
tion. Writing, as they do, subsequent to the destruction of
Jerusalem,* their faith in the speedy return of their Lord is
quickened by that terrible event. From this point of view,
the difficulties which lie in the thirteenth chapter of Mark,
which has been used by both Matthew and Luke, to a
considerable extent vanish. That chapter, as has already
been pointed out, seems to be a combination of a group of
IMatt. 1:22, 23; 2:5,6; 2:15; 2:17,18; 2:23; 4:13-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:35; 21:4,
5; 27:9. In addition there is in Matt. 13:14, 15 the change to the result of the telic
form of Mark 4 : 12, and Matt. 9 : 13 is added to Mark 2 : 17.
2 See Toy, Quotations, and, for the contrary view, Johnson, The Quotations of
the New Testament from the Old, passim.
3 See Wendt, Lehre Jesu, Vol. I, and J. Weiss, Das Marcusevangelium, and
Das alteste Evangelium, pp. 99-109.
4 Mark 13 : 14, which lies back of Matt. 24 : 15 and Luke 21 : 20 ; Mark 13 : 20.

230 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
prophecies concerning the fall of Jerusalem,' and another
group of prophecies concerning the coming of the Christ.
Despite the objections of Wendt," both may safely be con
sidered as coming from Jesus himself. That he expected
the fall of Jerusalem is beyond question," and it has already
appeared that he regarded his return as in some way sus
ceptible to interpretation by apocalyptic figures. The criti
cal difficulty has always lain in discovering the motive for
the origin of the Jerusalem doom and for the combination
of these two sets of material in Mark, chap. 13. Is it only
an apostolic mistake ? If so, it is difficult to account for.
Beyond this passage there is no evidence that the early
church* saw in the destruction of Jerusalem evidence of the
messianic parousia. If, however, the two sets of prophecy
are genuine — and who would quite like to say so keen a
mind as that of Jesus would have failed to forecast the
inevitable outcome of the revolutionary Zealot messianism
we have seen characterizing so influential a section of his
people ? — an explanation is not altogether beyond our
reach. Its key lies in a comparison of the pronouns Tavra
in vs. 30 and i/ceivrj'; in vs. 32. The two contrasted pro
nouns refer respectively to the fate of Jerusalem and the
parousia of the Christ, and suggest that the two sets of
material are in such a relation that the one gives a basis for
1 Mark 13:7, 8 (9a), 14-20, 24-27, 30, 31 refer to Jerusalem, and the rest of the pas
sage, vss. 4-6, 96-13, 21-23, 28, 29, 32-37, to the messianic consummation, according to
Wendt. In my judgment vss. 24-27 should be transferred to the second source.
2 Lehre Jesu, Vol. I, pp. 10 f.
3 Luke 19:41-44. This passage may have been sharpened up by Luke, but such
a hypothesis is really gratuitous. Any picture of the doom of a city might easily run
into the conventional particulars of a siege. See also Matt. 23 : 37-39 (Luke 13 : 34, 35).
Compare also his doom of the Galilean cities (Luke 10:13-15).
4 Yet see Rdssell, The Parousia ; Waeeen, The Parousia. See also Schwaetz
kopff, The Prophecies of Jesus Christ, etc. ; Beet, The Last Things ; Weiffenbach,
Die Wiederkunftsgedanke Jesu; Beiggs, The Messiah of the Gospels, pp, 132-65;
Haupt, Die eschatologischen Aussagen Jesu, passim. A good summary with litera
ture is the article by Bbown, "Parousia," Hastings's Dictionary of tlie Biblo.

Messianism of Post-Pauline Christianity 231
confidence in the other.' The destruction of Jerusalem
showed the accuracy of Jesus' authentic forecast of its
approaching punishment. The judgment had begun with
the house of Israel, the second group of enemies of the
Christ. Such precise and terrible fulfilment of his prophe
cies regarding Jerusalem argued an equally certain fulfil
ment of his prophecies of messianic glory. Further, the
persecution Jesus had said" would come upon his disciples
just before the coming of their salvation was already being
suffered under the Roman state. It might also be trusted
to presage the coming of the Son of man." Thus the
parallelism led to faith in the speedy establishment of the
messianic kingdom. The generation within which all "these ' '
events — i. e., the political — were to take place had not yet
quite passed from the earth, and the woes which, as appears
from Jewish and Christian literature, were expected to pre
cede the coming of Christ, had already begun. Sustained
by these fulfilments of Jesus' words as regards Jerusalem
and their own persecution, the Christians who "read"*
might well "understand" and rest in supreme confidence that
Jesus' prophecies of the coming of the kingdom would also
be fulfilled. "These things" — the destruction of Jerusalem
— had, as foretold, come to pass before the generation who
heard Jesus' words had disappeared. As to the coming of
"That Day" Christians might be in ignorance, but they
were always to await it.*
iThis view is involved in the double question of the disciples. When will
Jerusalem be destroyed, and what are the signs of thy coming ? in Matt. 24 ; 3. In
Mark 13 : 4 both questions refer to Jerusalem. Matthew has given the second ques
tion the definite messianic form.
2 Vss. 9-13.
3 Vs. 29 (ravra yLv6p.eva) makes the siege of Jerusalem the sign of this greater
event. Cf, also the pronouns in vs. 24.
4 Vs. 14.
5 This interpretation would make it more natural to regard vss. 24-27 as belong
ing to the apocalyptic rather than to the political group of sayings, as in the analysis
of Wendt.

232 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
5. There are to be seen also traces of the evangelist's
general belief in the vicarious and sacrificial death of Jesus.
The passages referring to the death of Jesus as a ransom'
may possibly be a comment from the evangelist similar to
that concerning the "cleansing of all meats."" The words
of Jesus at the Last Supper are given distinctly mediatorial
reference by Matthew."
Just how far this insistence upon the vicarious nature of
the death of Jesus was due to the influence of Paul must always
be a matter of discussion, but the antecedent probability of
such influence is considerable. John Mark was one of Paul's
companions,* and his gospel was written after the Pauline
doctrine had been widely disseminated.* At the same time,
it would be a mistake to hold that every such similarity
between the evangelists' interpretation of the death of Jesus
and that of Paul was due to the direct or indirect^ influence
of the latter. As has already appeared, the germ of this
interpretation lay in the Christian faith of the earliest
period.' 6. As regards the personality of Jesus, two of the synoptic
gospels represent a point of view which is less strictly mes
sianic than that of Paul. Both Matthew and Luke" prefix
to the Markan gospel, accounts not quite consistent, of the
birth of Jesus. The christology of the original gospels, as
1 Mark 10: 45.
2 Mark 7 : 19. But see Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, Vol. II, pp. 227 f .
3 Matt. 26:28.
4Actsl3:5, 13; 15:37, 39; Col.4:10; Philem.24; 2Tim.4:ll. Holtzmann, A''eM-
testamentliche Theologie, Vol, I, p. 424, note 2, criticises Holsten's extreme position on
the point. See J. Weiss, Das alteste Evangelium, pp. 94 f., for discussion of entire
matter. 5 That Paul used the Markan gospel seems apparent from 1 Cor. 7 : 10, which
finds a pareillel only in Mark 10 : 12.
6 For example, through 1 Peter.
'It would be a mistake to regard all additional matter in Matthew and Luke as
mere reflections of the evangelist's own faith. Much of it is clearly that of Jesus
himself. Compare, e. g., the words of Jesus to Peter in Mark 8 : 32 f . ; Luke 12 : 49 f.
8 Matt. 1 : 18-25 ; Luke 1 : 26-56 ; 2 : 1-20.

Messianism of Post-Paultne Christianity 233
has already appeared, is exceedingly simple. Jesus was the
Anointed One ; the Spirit of God came upon him at his bap
tism. In the new form taken by the synoptic material in
Matthew and Luke this experience of the baptism is retained,
but another explanation of the personality of Jesus is found in
the miracle wrought by the Holy Spirit in causing his birth
without a human father. The figure of unction is thus re
placed by that of paternity. The messianic quality is
further said to have been recognized in Jesus while he was
yet an infant.' In the Matthean account of the baptism
there is introduced" a conversation between John and Jesus
which brings the two concepts together. John recognizes
Jesus as one not in need of baptism, and Jesus receives the
rite as a means of fulfilling all righteousness." Further
than this there is no attempt in either Matthew or Luke to
adjust the two explanations of the divine character of Jesus,
if indeed it is fair to say that even this addition of Matthew
is such an attempt. In other material prefixed by Luke to
Mark,* Joseph and Mary are said not to understand the
reference which the boy Jesus made to God as his Father.
Yet it would be hardly safe to argue that for these reasons
we are to declare off-hand that these early chapters are late
and legendary. No reference is, indeed, made to their con
tent throughout the New Testament, but at the same time
these sections contain messianic psalms which cannot be
referred to Christian influences. The songs of both Zacharias^
and Mary" are thoroughly Jewish and represent a messianic
concept which it is quite impossible to derive either from
the facts of the career of Jesus or from the early Christian
hopes, but which is precisely what might have been expected
of their authors at the time they are declared to have been
1 Luke 2: 21-29; Matt. 2:1-23. 2 Matt. 3 : 14, 15.
3 The Gospel of the Hebrews represents Jesus as hesitating to seek John's
baptism because of his ignorance of any sinfulness in his life.
4 Luke 2 : 41-50. ^ Luke 1 : 67-79. 6 Luke 1 : 46-55.

234 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
uttered. The critic, therefore, finds himself in difficulty in
seeking to arrive at any final opinion as regards these infancy
sections. From the point of view of strict messiahship, they
are not needed to account for the personality of Jesus and
are not used by the writers of the New Testament, or indeed
by the early Christian writers before Ignatius.' At the same
time, it is difficult to discover any motive for inventing their
strong pre-Christian coloring. Possibly their origin may lie
in the evangelist's desire to explain the term " Son of God"
which in Paul is used as equivalent to Messiah, but which
in the Grseco-Roman world might more naturally be inter
preted from the point of view of current beliefs in divine
paternity. Possibly, also, these section may be the outcome
of an attempt to emphasize the actual rather than the merely
apparent humanity of Jesus. In any case whether they are
to be treated as resting upon safe critical foundations or not,
they represent a phase in the development of the messianic
interpretation of Jesus which does not appear in primitive
Christianity or in Paul.
7. A somewhat similar difficulty meets the student as he
compares the Pauline doctrine of the resurrection with the
material in Matthew and Luke dealing with the appearances
of Jesus. Mark, it will be recalled, contains no story of the
appearances of Jesus. His gospel closes with the terror of
the women to whom angels have brought the news that Jesus
was risen." This abrupt ending can be accounted for only
by the destruction of the original ending of the gospel. In
Matthew and Luke, however, we have two independent cycles
of narratives dealing with the resurrection, one locating the
event in Galilee," and the other,* in the vicinity of Jerusalem.
' See Hoben, The Virgin Birth. May there have been some reference to them
on the part of the heretic Cerinthus ?
2 Mark 16:1-8. All that follows Mark 16:8 is now admittedly an addition by
some later Christian.
3 Matt. 28 : 1-20. 4 Luke 24 : 1-53.

Messianism of Post-Pauline Cheistianity 235
In both cycles are materials which it is difficult to harmonize
with the Pauline dictum ' that fiesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of God. The Christ who visited the disciples
in the upper room" had fiesh and bones and could eat solid
food. The Matthean cycle records that the disciples took
hold of Jesus' s feet." Yet at the same time there is other
material in Luke which is in accord with the Pauline con
cept. The Christ suddenly appeared* and vanished* before
his disciples. In view of these inconsistencies, one is forced
to recognize the possibility that the second or third genera
tion of Christians sharpened up certain elements in the
accounts of the appearances of the risen Christ as they
increasingly emphasized the reality of the resurrection. As
apart from these particular narratives the historical resur
rection of Jesus is sufficiently attested, it would be unwise
to dogmatize concerning their details. But the reference to
the flesh and bones of the risen Christ introduces problems,
both critical and philosophical, which are very perplexing;
and yet which are more or less involved in the datum of the
empty tomb. For our present purpose final decision is not
demanded. Whatever position one takes as regards the
authenticity of the details of these accounts, it is indisput
able that they indicate the belief of the early church in the
continued incarnation, if one may use the expression, of the
Christ. The risen Jesus is not diffused through the uni
verse, as is the Spirit, but, as Paul and Peter insist, is in
heaven, whither he had gone by the ascension." And the
Christ who went to heaven disappearing in the clouds was
not a mere spirit; he was a real personality possessed of
spirit and some sort of body.
It cannot have escaped notice, however, that in these
expositions and reworkings of the evangelists, no attempt
1 1 Cor. 15 : 50. 2 Luke 24 : 36-43. 3 Matt. 28 : 9.
4 Luke 24 : 36. 5 Luke 24 : .31. 6 Luke 24 : 51 ; Acts 1 : 1-11.

236 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
— except in the case of the infancy sections — is made at
adjusting the strictly messianic interpretation of Jesus to
other than the strictly messianic apperception. Such re
adjustment was inevitable and appeared in several of the
most important of the later books of the canon.
II
All questions as to the authorship of the epistle to the
Hebrews are confessedly open, yet it bears unmistakable trace
of the influence of Paul. Without the ordinary salutation to
be found in letters,' it is also anonymous. Who could have
written it has been a favorite subject of speculation from the
days of TertuUian, who ascribed it to Barnabas." This view
has obtained general acceptance in modern times. Clement
of Alexandria and Origen conjectured that its ideas were
from Paul and the composition from a disciple, possibly
Clement of Rome or Luke" — a position that was given weight
by the Textus Receptus and passed over to orthodoxy. Other
conjectures have been Clement of Rome, Luke (as inde
pendent author), ApoUos, Prisca.* But no choice can be
more than tentative. The noble writing continues to raise
the perplexing question: How could so great a man as its
author must have been become unknown to the early Fathers ?
and to suggest caution in denying culture to the Christians
of a period about which we evidently know so little."
The general purpose of Hebrews is apologetic." The new
Christian hope is restated from the point of view of ritualis-
1 That it is none the less an epistle seems clear from 6 : 10 ; 10 : 32-34 ; 13 : 7, 9, 18, 19
23,25. '
2 De Pudicitia, 20.
3 EnSEBins, Hist. Eccle., iii, 28 ; vi, 25.
4 Haenaok, Zeitschrift fUr die neutestamentlische Wissenschaft, Vol. I (1900),
pp. 16 f.
'In general see JOliohee, Einleitung; and art. "Hebrews," Encyclopcedia
Biblica. oBeuce, art. "Hebrews" in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible.

Messianism of Post-Pauline Christianity 237
tic Judaism, yet it distinctly presupposes that those to whom
it is addressed are Christians who should be well grounded
in the first principles of their religion: repentance, faith,
baptism, laying on of hands, resurrection, and judgment.'
Back of these " first principles" are to be seen further the con
trolling concepts which we have already traced as they have
passed from Judaism into early Christianity.
1. To the writer of Hebrews, as well as to other mes
sianists, time fell into two great divisions. Although he
does not use the expression "this age,"" his eye is constantly
setting up "the age to come." " Living himself "at the end," *
during the consummation of the ages,* he looked forward to
that glorious sabbath rest which was drawing near," of which
Jesus was the High-Priest.
2. The power of Satan in the present age is to be inferred
from the fact that he has the power of death.'
3. The kingdom of God was still future," although in a
sense already possessed by those who awaited its coming.'
There is in the book absolutely no suggestion of any coming of
the kingdom through social evolution. It cannot come until
the cataclysm prophecied by Haggai is past.'"
4. The judgment is always before the mind of the writer
and is that for which all men are to prepare. Indeed, with
repentance it is one of the first principles of the Christian
faith." 5. The Jews are those to whom the letter is especially
addressed, and they are evidently conceived of as the true
members of the kingdom. Israel is the oIkos @eov to which
1 Heb. 6:1,2. 2 i koshos, however, occurs in Heb. 11 : 7, 38 ; 10 : 5.
3 Heb. 6 : 5 ; c/. 9 : 11, 15. *eiT' eo-xarov ratv ijfiepSiv, Heb. 1 : 2.
i> Heb. 9 : 26. This expression is interesting in its bearing upon the belief in the
speedy coming of the Christ.
6 Heb. 4:9; 10 : 25, 36-38 ; cf. icaipb? {lopeiio-ceos, 9 : 10.
'Heb. 2:14. s Heb. 13:14. o Heb. 12:28.
10 Heb. 12 : 26, 27 ; cf. Hag. 2:7. " Heb. 6 : 2 : see also Heb. 9 : 27 ; 10 : 26, 31.

238 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
the author and his fellow Christians belonged.' Christ
assists not angels, but Jews," and the New Jerusalem is the
New Zion." At the same time, there is in the letter no
retrogression toward primitive Christianity, only belief that
Israel can partake of the heavenly calling,* and the letter
appeals quite as strongly to gentiles as to Jews. The extra-
canonical literature of early Christianity shows plainly that
even in the gentile churches the method of exposition fol
lowed by the book would be thoroughly satisfactory. Early
Christian writings. Like 1 Clement and Barnabas, which
closely resemble Hebrews in many ways, appeal more con
stantly to the Old Testament and the fulfilment of prophecy
than they do to peculiarly Christian literature.*
6. The resurrection of the Christ is constantly referred
to, and in a certain way is made a type of that of the believ
ers." But no detailed reference is made to a general resur
rection, and belief in it does not belong to the "wisdom of
the perfect," but rather to the first principles' presupposed
on the part of those to whom the letter is addressed.
7. The Messiah is the central point of interest in the
epistle. He is in heaven on the right hand of God," but was
pre-existent,° and above the angels in that he was Son rather
than a servant.'" He is to appear again unto the salvation
of those who wait for him." Hebrews, however, shows clearly
the beginnings of the third stratum of early Christian
thought. Paulinism had systematically treated the impli-
1 Heb. 3:2-6. 2 Heb. 2:16.
3Heb. 12:22. 4Heb. 3:1; 4:14; 13:10-12.
sTo this may be added the entire contrast drawn between the old Hebrew king
dom and that of the new dispensation.
6 Heb. 6 : 20 ; cf. also 10 : 32-38, where the Christians are urged to endure persecu
tion because of the coming reward.
'Heb.6:2. SHeb. 8:1, 2; 12:2.
9 Heb. 1:2; c/. 1 : 9. There is no reference here to a miraculous birth.
10 Heb. 1:1-14; 3:6; 5:8; 7:28.
11 Heb. 9 : 28. It is interesting to notice that in Heb. 13 : 20 Jesus is described in
conventional messianic terms as the shepherd of the sheep.

Messianism of Post-Pauline Christianity 239
cations of Christian faith in its relation to Hebrew religious
philosophy. Hebrews begins the process of finding and
defending interpretations of Christian theology in other than
messianic terms. Messianism is indeed in the background,
but the main purpose of the writing is twofold, viz. : to show
how the Christ fulfils the types of sacrifice and High-Priest
as they exist in the Old Testament, and to encourage the
early Christians to larger faith and hope in the midst of
persecution. In treating of the Christ as an anti-type of the temple
worship, the author distinctly asserts that Jesus was not a
High-Priest in the Old Testament sense. If he were on
earth, he would not be a priest, since he was not of Aaronic
descent,' but rather after the fashion of Melchizedek." At
the same time, he insists that the priesthood of the old dis
pensation was the forecasting of the actual deeds of Jesus
who by dying went behind the veil, after having offered
himself as a sacrifice." It is natural, therefore, to find the
vicarious character of the death of Jesus strongly emphasized
in Hebrews.* By it there was established a new covenant
easily understood, written in men's hearts rather than upon
statute-books, and thus superior to that of Moses, which was
provisional.* Jesus was the priestly mediator of this cov
enant, his historical appearance marking the pre-messianic
age at the end of which the writer conceived of himself liv
ing." Just what that covenant is in particular the writer of
Hebrews does not say, but' it is evidently the promises which
they have received, which include the entrance into the sab
bath rest" and the resurrection of the body. Indeed, it is
iHeb. 8:4; c/. 7:25. 2Heb. 7:5f.
3 Heb. 8 : 1-13 ; chap. 9, especially vss. 23 f. ; 10 : 1.
4Heb.2:9; 5:7-9; 9:11,15; 10:11-18. 5 Heb. 7 : 18, 22 ; 9:19-22; 12:24.
6 Heb. 12:24.
7 Cf. Heb. 13 ; 20, where the risen Christ establishes a SiaSi^Kriv aiuviov.
8Heb. 3:7— 4:10.

240 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
possible to argue that, like Paul, the author of Hebrews saw
in the death of Christ the promise of the conquest of the
spirit over the flesh, not only in his case, but in that of all
those who believed.'
Obviously this interpretation of Jesus as the great High-
Priest is not derived from, but is superimposed upon his
messianic significance. Another tendency in the Christology
of the epistle is even more remote from messianism. It is
the epistle's metaphysical valuation of the personality of
the Christ. This concept, as has just appeared, is in the
term "Son." The method followed by the writer is worth
consideration. Instead of proceeding from an assumption
as to the nature of the pre-existent Christ to the historical
person Jesus, he argues backward from the (historical) ele
vation of Jesus to the messianic dignity to the original nature
which he must have possessed in order to have made such
exaltation possible. That is, the metaphysical Sonship is an
inference from the messianic power now exhibited by the
historical but risen Jesus. How great he must have been to
have achieved such supremacy ! The thought is not devel
oped far, but is obviously on the way to Nicea."
An important characteristic of the epistle is, therefore,
its general tendency to present Christianity systematically
from the point of view of a reinterpretation of the messianic
estimate of Jesus. The original material, so to speak, from
which Christian thought is drawn is that common to primi
tive and Pauline teaching, but the mind of the writer,
obviously under the influence of the Alexandrian school of
iHeb. 5:7-9, 14.
2 aTTavyiuTiia. t^s Sd^Tjy; xap««T7ip Ti}? viroffTdiTew? avTov (1:3) remind one of Alexan
drine modes of thought as weU as Wis., 7:25, 26; Bkuce, " Hebrews," in Hastings,
Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. II, p. 335 ; cf. Ehibm, Lehrbegriff des HebrOerbriefs, pp.
409-14. This methaphysical tendency is more clearly shown at the beginning of the
epistle than in its later chapters; cf. especially chap. 1. Weiss, Biblical Theology,
Vol. II, p. 189, note, very properly says: "On these expressions .... Beyschlag's
attempt is irredeemably wrecked, to understand the pre-existence of Christ as that
of an impersonal principle."

Messianism of Post-Pauline Cheistianity 241
thought, is not content to leave matters where Paul left
them. He is dealing with a different theological appercep
tion. Jesus and Peter and Paul brought the gospel into
relations with essentially and all but exclusively Judaistic
thought. The author of Hebrews has another audience, and
consequently another problem. The Hellenistic Judaism
and Christianity of the time demanded that Christian "flrst
principles" should be restated and recombined, and sub
jected to new inductions. Hebrews does not mark the
reworking of these "first principles" from the genuinely
Hellenic philosophy, but it does mark the same method.
Messianism now appears in the process of passing into
theological equivalents. It is a point of departure, not, as
in earlier Paulinism, a final interpretation. The incarnation
of the Christ is given a new value, although one already
presaged in Pauline teaching. It is something more than
an incident in his humiliation and re-exaltation. It is a part
of a general philosophy. The Christ became incarnate as a
part of his messianic preparation. He became incarnate
and suffered that he might become thoroughly in sympathy
with humanity.' His offering of himself as the Sacrifice
was through the Holy Spirit," which is also in the believer.
By virtue of his incarnation he was liable to, and was sub
jected to, temptation, but by virtue of his Sonship he did
not, like the priest of the Mosaic covenant, commit sin."
Thus perfected through the experience of humanity, and
through humble trust in God,* the Christ became not only the
High-Priest raised from death to the heavenly kingdom, but
the great Inspirer and Captain of all those who believe in
him and receive his Spirit."
It is on this basis of a conviction grounded in this high-
priestly interpretation of the Christ that the writer incites
IHeb. 2:9-18; 4:15; 5:7-9. 2Heb.9;14. 3Heb. 4:15; 9:14.
4Heb.2:13. 6 Heb. 2:10; 12:2, 3.

242 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
his readers to endure persecution, holding fast to the faith
which is theirs, and of which Jesus is the great Captain.'
In the interest of stimulating this consistency, he introduces
the noble list of martyrs who, although they had not received
the promise, yet preferred holding to such faith as they had,
to saving their lives or the lives of their friends. The
reward is so certain for the Christian as to make persecution
endurable." The very Christ had to suffer in order that,
like humanity, he should be made perfect through suffering."
As a corollary of this generalizing and equivalenting
process is the epistle's teaching as to faith. It is no longer
so much the acceptance of Jesus as Christ as "faith toward
God."* Those who, like the Old Testament saints, "had
not received the promise" — i. e., participation in the his
torical revelation of the messianic salvation — believed God
quite as truly as those to whom the letter is addressed.*
While Paul had anticipated this conception in his references
to the faith of Abraham, he had not elaborated its religious
and generic elements, but had rather confined it to the
messianic definition. Hebrews in some degree turns back
to the more general thought of Jesus himself, and treats
faith as an attitude of trust in God and a self-sacrificing
devotion to moral ideals. In this, as in the reinterpretation
of the messianic idea itself, there appears a step toward the
dejudaizing of the definitions and concepts intended by
Christianity. The eternal value of Jesus was thus set forth
in terms and by methods already dominating the minds of
those to whom the exposition was made. Christian theology,
like Paul, is thus seen becoming Grecian to Grecians as it
had been Jewish to Jews.
It is perhaps inevitable that, because of the strong
emphasis laid by the epistle upon Jesus as an example and
1 Heb. 13 : 1. 2 Heb. 10 : 32-38. 3 Heb. 5 : 7-9.
4Heb.6:2. 5 Heb. 11 : 39, 40 ; c/. 6 : 2.

Messianism of Post-Pauline Christianity 243
upon the generic character of faith, the Spirit should be less
prominent. To a considerable extent Hebrews, like James,
represents Christian "wisdom." Conduct is made more
dependent upon one's own volition than upon the following
of the better spiritual impulses due to the conscious presence
of God. None the less back of the "wisdom" of Hebrews
as back of the forensic theology of Paul there is the expe
rience of the Spirit. Through the Spirit Jesus had been
raised from the dead;' from the Spirit the believer had
received "gifts,"" and the worst of all sins was doing despite
to the Spirit of Grace." But farther than these hints at the
great presupposition of Christian life the author does not
go. His aim is too philosophical, too ethical, and too
apologetic. He would convince his already Christian readers
as to the significance of their Christ; he is content to trust
their new conviction to express itself in moral endeavor.
Ill
The Johannine literature includes the Gospel according
to John and the three epistles ascribed to the apostle. Of
these four writings the second and third epistles are very
brief, and for our present purpose are of comparatively
small doctrinal importance.* The first epistle and the gospel
exhibit, however, a phase of Christianity which has always
appealed powerfully to the religious consciousness of the
church. The critical questions concerning this literature
are well known, and have been for two generations the
source of an almost boundless literature.* While it would
be unsafe to say that any unanimous decision has yet been
1 Heb. 9 : 14 ; cf. Eom. 8 : 11. 2 Heb. 2:4. 3 Heb. 10 : 29.
4 2 John, vs. 7, defines antichrist as one who denies that Jesus Christ " comes in
the flesh." 5 See Introductions by Holtzmann and JUlichbr. A good brief statement will
be found in Bacon, Introduction, and from a more conservative point of view in
DoDS, Expositor's Greek Testament, Vol. I. The article by Reynolds in Hastings.
Dictionary of the Bible, is also valuable.

244 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
reached regarding its authorship, the limits of the problem
are very much more distinctly seen today than ever before,
and there is a tendency toward a compromise view which
harmonizes the data upon which opposing schools have
based their confiicting conclusions. Without entering into
any detailed criticism, it may be said that it is impossible to
believe that the author of the Epistles of John was any
other than the author of the last chapter of the Fourth
Gospel ; but just as certain does it seem that the author of
the Fourth Gospel in its present form, could not have been
the apostle.' He was rather a sympathetic expositor of
material which came from the apostle."
Whether or not one agrees with this particular critical
position, there is no gainsaying the fact that the Fourth
Gospel represents a different type of exposition from that of
the synoptists. And this peculiar type is due to the evan
gelist rather than to a change in the teaching of Jesus. He
has so reworked and discussed the teaching of Jesus as to
make it something very different from the pregnant picto
rial words of the synoptist. Yet, notwithstanding its change
of form, one would hesitate to say that it is any less true to
the teaching of the Master, either in the words of Jesus it
records or in its much larger element of comment and expo
sition. It has proceeded farther even than Matthew along
the road of apologetics and theology, but its representation
of the gospel, so far from being untrue, is rather an attempt
at adjusting the teaching and life of Jesus to a different
order of thought from that of the Jew. Eschatology and
the eschatological salvation are fundamental to it." In fact,
1 John 21 : 22-24 clearly implies that the death of John preceded the writing of
this chapter. 2 See pp. 59-61 above, and Bueton, A Short Introduction to the Gospels.
3 John 5:19-21, 22-29; 6:40-58 deal with the contrast between life and death,
notably that of the resurrection. The judgment is treated in 3:17; 5:22,23,27; 9:39;
16 : 47. Salvation is spoken of as opposed to perishing in 3 : 17 ; to being judged, 3 :18 ;
12 : 43, 50 ; and the wrath of God, 3 : 36. Flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of
God, 5:6; and a man must be born again — i. c, by the resurrection? — to enter the
kingdom of God, 3 : 3.

Messianism of Post-Pauline Cheistianity 245
as far as we are able to distinguish the editorial material
from that which is unquestionably from Jesus, we see how
true the author is to the purpose he himself states. The
book was written that men might believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God, and believing, have life in him.'
The life to which the evangelist refers is, of course, the
eternal life, which we have seen already to be the center of
the Pauline thought and the supreme good in the teaching
of Jesus. This eternal life is certainly something more than
a merely ethical matter, however much it may involve moral
qualities. Wherever it is mentioned it is introduced with
an eschatological connotation, often as a contrast with pun
ishment which is inclusive of death." It unquestionably
therefore refers to that new and completer life that awaits
beyond death the personality in which the Spirit is working.
It is in this sense of an actual experience of God through a
moral life in accord with a supreme definition of Jesus that
the evangelist speaks of eternal life as a knowledge of God
and of Jesus Christ." Faith in the Fourth Gospel, as with
Paul, is, in the first instance, the acceptance of Jesus as
Christ, and results in eternal life.* In fact, the general plan
of the gospel centers about such a confession. Its various
sections, which were very probably originally independent
treatises, have as a general plan an incident in the life of
Jesus which leads up to a discussion which results in the
hearers of Jesus taking a decided position relative to him,
either accepting him or rejecting him as the Christ. If we
had only the Fourth Gospel, it would seem as if the chief
thing which Jesus endeavored to accomplish was to have
men accept him as the Christ."
1 John 20:31.
2 John 3:16, the opposite of perishing; 5:24 (the words of Jesus), 5:26, 29, where
the reference is that by the evangelist to the resurrection ; c/. 11 : 25 ; 12 : 50.
3 John 17 : 3. For a non-biblical, pantheistic conception that approaches this of
the evangelist, but minus the expectation of personal immortality, see, PiCTON, Reli
gion of the Universe, pp. 303, 304.
4 John 1:50; 4:39; 6:29; 9:22; c/. 12:42. 6 C/. John 7 : 25-29 ; 10:22-39.

246 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
This point of view is certainly not that of the synoptic
gospels, but it is precisely that of a devoted disciple, who,
looking back upon the career of his Master through the
course of years, would be quick to see how constantly Jesus
was in reality presenting himself as a subject of definition.
There is nothing impossible in the statements that the
people' and the Pharisees were in perplexity concerning
him, and there is everything in favor of the correctness of
the interpretation given by the evangelist to Jesus' attitude
toward this perplexity.
The Fourth Evangelist, however, is not content to have
human destiny determined by what might be interpreted,
however incorrectly, as an act of mere intellectual assent.
The acceptance of Jesus as Christ is fundamentally a moral
act and expressive of a moral state. It was a moral criterion.
If a man came to the Light, it was because he was doing
truth ; if he turned from the Light, it was because his deeds
were evil." Even the miracles of Jesus would have no
meaning to those who could not see in them "signs" of the
divine love."
But this reverting to fundamentals, this effort to adjust
the new faith of the Christian to the philosophical rather
than the Jewish attitude of mind, is carried farther by the
evangelist. It extends to an accommodation or redefinition
of messiahship itself.
How far removed the readers of the gospel must have
been from unalloyed Jewish or primitive Christian messian
ism is to be seen in that the author translates the word
Messiah for their benefit.* But such interpretation is of
slight importance compared with that larger purpose to
revalue the messiahship of Jesus in terms which would
1 John 7 : 25-27, 40-44. 2 John 3 : 18-21 : cf. 1 John 1 : 6.
3 See in particular chap. 6 entire.
4 John 1 : 42 ; 4 r 25. Cf. his similar explanation of other Jewish terms, like
"rabbi," and customs, like those of the feast and defilement.

Messianism of Post-Pauline Christianity 247
make it intelligible to the religious consciousness of the
non-Jewish philosophical world.
All critics are agreed that the work was written at the
very end of the first or at the beginning of the second cen
tury, and was intended for those who were not controlled by
those concepts which prevailed in the primitive Christian
communities. The Prologue to the gospel' seeks to dis
cover a point of contact between the new faith and the cur
rent Logos philosophy. It is here that the gospel comes
close to the modern mind. The Logos of the later Greek
philosophy was strikingly like that half-personified Law
that plays so large a rSle in today's religious and philo
sophical thought. For the Logos was God conceived of as
intelligible revelation, sometimes cosmic, sometimes more
individually. It would not be correct to say that the Johan
nine Logos was derived from that of Philo. As has been
repeatedly shown," there are decided differences between the
two. At the same time, it would be just as incorrect to say
the Johannine Logos philosophy was an independent devel
opment without genetic relations with the general concept
that had become socialized by Stoicism throughout the world
quite as truly as by Philo in Alexandria. The Fourth Gos
pel is the outcome of a desire to present the significance
of Jesus as the Christ to those people who were dominated,
not by the messianic, but by this Logos concept. It was
the Logos rather than, as in Paulinism, the Christ that was
incarnated." Just as in Hebrews there is an importation of
a metaphysical divine sonship into the messianic designation
of Jesus, so in the Fourth Gospel the messiahship of Jesus as
presented to the gentile world includes elements not deriva
ble from pharisaism. At the same time, he is still called
1 John 1:1-18.
2 For a brief summary see Hakn AOK, History of Dogma, Vol. I, pp. 109-28.
3 John 1:14.

248 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
the Christ, and there is no attempt to substitute the term
"Logos" for the term "Christ." A new significance and a
new content are simply given the later term.
Similarly, in the first epistle of John there is a develop
ment of the broader and more philosophical implications
and relations of the original Jewish faith. The reality of
Jesus is assumed and vigorously affirmed to be a source of
the believer's hope and his new sense of fellowship with the
Father,' but the ultimate significance of this historical per
son, although it still includes the chief elements of the
messianic concept, is enlarged to something that moves on
beyond even the cosmic significance as ascribed to Jesus in
the Pauline letters of the imprisonment. Whoever denies
that Jesus is the Christ is a liar," and whoever denies the
Father and the Son is an Antichrist, and the reason for this
severe judgment lies in the entire philosophy of the epistle
and of the Fourth Gospel." The Christian partakes of the
divine nature,* and this divine life is genuinely ethical,
expressing itself not merely in protestation of the love of
God, but also in the actual love of man." As a life it is
derived from the indwelling of the Spirit," sent by God to
those who believe Jesus to be the Son of God.' As in Paul,
this eternal life, which is the result of the union of the
human and Holy Spirit, reaches its consummation in a new
mode of life at the time of the reappearance of the Christ,
when all those who have the spirit and are the children of
God are to be like their Christ." This future life, already
possessed in part, furnishes a basis for Johannine ethics as
truly as for the Pauline.'
1 1 John 1 : 1-4. 2 1 John 1 : 22. 3 John 3 : 18-21.
4 1 John 3:9, 10. 5iJohn3: 15-24. 6 1 John 3 :24 ; 4 : 12-16.
' This concept furnishes a new confirmation for the interpretation given above
of the significance of the Pauline expression "in Christ," as equivalent to having
the Spirit which Christ had sent.
81John3:l,2. 9i John3:3; 5:5; 4:15-21.

Messianism of Post-Pauline Christianity 249
The advance that the epistle makes toward a later for
mulated theology is further to be seen in the incidental ref
erence to the threefold witness of the spirit, the water and
the blood.' IV
No one can pass without a sense of retrogression from
the magnificent Johannine literature, with its profound
appreciation of human motives and of religious dynamics,
to the last two books of the canonical collection, the Second
Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude." In them we
have an echo of that fierce chiliasm which dominated a
certain section of the church of the second century, and
which found more satisfaction in the Jewish elements
of Christianity than in its fundamental character as a
religion of the spirit made possible through the revelation
of God in Jesus and the incoming of God himself into
human life. In this literature we see something of the
same temperament, wo rid- view, and even personages" which
are to be found in the Slavonic Enoch, the Shepherd of
Hermas, and those other and even cruder apocalypses of
early Christianity and rabbinism. Far more than in any
other portion of New Testament literature do these writings
exhibit the desire for the punishment of the enemies which
marks the Jewish apocalyptic literature as a whole.* In
them, further, do we see that marked tendency of history to
emphasize as literal truths the apocalyptic eschatology of
Christian hope." Far more than in the case of the Johan
nine or Pauline literature, or the Epistle to the Hebrews,
does the Christian hope become unworldly, and gloomy,
U John 5: 8.
2 See especially Holtzmann, Einleitung; Haenack, Chronologic etc. A good
summary of the discussion relative to the interdependence of Jude and of Peter
will found in Bacon, Introduction, pp. 166-74.
3 Jude, vss. 9, 14. 4 Jude, vss. 11-16 ; 2 Pet. 2 : 1-22.
6See, e. ff., 2Pet.3:10-13.

250 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
while the disappointment and doubt resulting from the
failure of the Christ to appear during the lifetime of his
generation are met by recourse to a forced exegesis which
made a day with the Lord as a thousand years.' Yet the
fundamental elements of Christian life born of the experi
ences of the Holy Spirit, are not quite overlooked," and
the hope of eternal life is as always an incentive to holy
living. V
Thus in the later phases of the New Testament teaching
we find, as in Paul, the emphasis upon the messiahship of
Jesus and the implied elements of the future messianic age
side by side with the equally clear recognition of eternal
life, the result of the believer's actual possession, though
normal spiritual processes, of the life of God. We see
further, the beginning of that steady process of accommo
dation of messianic values to the needs and preconceptions
of a non-messianic philosophy. How far this revaluation
was to proceed, any student of Christian thought can testify.
Nicsea and Chalcedon are far enough removed from the
elemental Christology of the Jerusalem community but they
were implicit in more than one of the later New Testament
books. But Christian theology, however complete its sub
jection to a contemporary metaphysic, has never quite failed
to see that the end of faith is something other than faith
itself, and that the most rigorously logical creed is only a
means of bringing men to God and God to men. Jesus,
however interpreted, has been a Mediator and a Savior.
But early Fathers, like TertuUian and Justin Martyr, even
the unknown author of the exquisite Epistle to Diognetus,
make less edifying teachers for today than the New Testa-
tament writers. And for this reason : they were too much
1 2 Pet. 3 : 3-9. 2 Jude, vss. 20, 21 ; 2 Pet. 2 : 4-11.

Messianism of Post-Pauline Christianity 251
given to edifying their own unmodern contemporaries. Far
enough they seem from our way of thinking. The later
New Testament writers, to some extent, share in this remote
ness, but in inverse ratio to their emphasis of the facts
of the gospel and to the new life of the spirit. With them,
even with Paul, began that struggle of this inner life to
which God came, with those current ways and norms of
thinking through which God came. Christian faith is funda
mentally a means of life with God; theological philosophy,
in so far as it did not further that life, checked it.
To this struggle between an inherited messianism and
eternal life, as it is recorded in the pages of the New Testa
ment, we must now give consideration.

PART IV
CHRISTIAN MESSIANISM AND THE CHRISTIAN
RELIGION

CHAPTER I
THE MESSIANIC FRATERNITY
Christianity has never been merely a philosophy ; it has
always been, as its earliest adherents held, a Way — that is
to say, a Life. And life means history. Any study of the
New Testament would be incomplete that did not trace the
faith and the experience of the early churches in their rela
tion to the larger life of that society in which they lived.
To treat New Testament Christianity as anything other than
a life dominated by a belief and by a hope would be a
serious error. Especially is this true in any attempt to dis
tinguish between the formal or inherited and the essential
elements of early Christianity. It has been repeatedly urged
in the preceding pages that the apostles, while thoroughly
believing in the messianic character of Jesus, regarded the
actual regenerating experience of God induced by accepting
Jesus at the messianic valuation as the fundamental element
in their gospel. We are now to see that the same results
come from the study of the life of the Christians in their
social relations. After all, the test of Christianity was, in
apostolic days as it always has been, its capacity to produce
lives filled with love and goodness. It will appear from the
study of the social expression of Christianity that strictly
messianic elements were so far from being essential as to
have been hardly more than economic. They furnished the
point of contact for converting the world, but they also to
some extent checked the expression of that regenerate life
which came from the believer's experience of God. To a
considerable extent, consequently, they passed into desue
tude. The Christian church, beginning as a sect of the
Jews, during the New Testament times developed into a
255

256 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
cosmopolitan movement, but it did not break with the
messianic movement from which it developed. Brought into
touch with a world which was only partially under the
Jewish influence, it yet held to the Jewish messianic expec
tation in so far as it lived again in the Christian teaching,
but accommodated itself as best it could to the various social
environments in which it found itself.

Judaism was the social apperception — if one may use
such a figure — to which the Gospel appealed. Without the
Jew it is hard to see how there could have been a Christian ;
without the Jewish Dispersion it is hard to see how there
could have ever been a Christian empire.
Yet the presence of the Jew throughout the Roman
empire was but one expression of that flood-tide of cosmo
politanism of which the new faith took fullest advantage.
Among all the striking phenomena that accompanied the
evolution of the Roman empire, none is more marked than
the migration of different cults. Generally speaking, these
cults were national or ethnic, and their diffusion was the
natural outcome of the new commercial conditions that led
to a widespread immigration of oriental peoples into the
western parts of the empire. With the Egyptian immigra
tion went the worship of Serapis, Isis, and Osiris; with the
Phrygian, that of Sabizius (Bacchus) and Cybele; with the
Persian, that of Mithra with its fascinating mysteries.' By
degrees these oriental faiths spread over the entire empire,
and, as inscriptions testify, had their temples and devotees
from the Tigris to the Atlantic and from the Rhine to the
African desert. Their success was due, not merely to their
1 This was by far the most important rival of Judaism and Christianity to the
Roman empire. Cumont, The Mysteries of Mithra (see abstract of his Textes et
monuments relatifs aux myst&res de Mithra), Open Court, 1903. In general, see the
excellent chapters (4-6) of Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius.

The Messianic Fraternity 257
novelty, but to their undoubted moral and religious
superiority to classical heathenism. The culture of the
period had long since outgrown mythology, and readily wel
comed the more or less absolute monotheism which was the
common property of the invading cults. Quite as potent in
their spread, also, was their insistence upon morality as
inseparable from religion. Sin and repentance, punishment
and forgiveness, were integral parts of all these oriental
cults, and those who would accept them and be initiated
into their mysteries were subjected to rigorous probation
and highly dramatic initiatory rites. The ethical neutrality
of the Roman and Greek mythologies could not for a
moment survive before the moral passion, however distorted,
of men who would submit to the bloody baptism of the
taurobolium. If one recalls that in addition these new cults
regarded the individual as something more than a member
of a nation, and made immortality, with its rewards and
punishments, central in all their teaching, their success is
easily understood.
It was characteristic of these religions that their followers
should form communities. The vocabulary that is being
discovered by the study of papyri' is rich in words dealing
with such groups of coreligionists. Their members were
"brothers" (aSeX^oi); they had their mysteries, their pass
words, prophets, sacraments, common meals, their priests
and "elders."" Between scattered fraternities there sprang
up correspondence, bits of which have survived, while their
members were always certain of a hospitable reception from
their brethren in whatever city they might chance to arrive
as travelers or pilgrims.
The Jewish Dispersion was, therefore, by no means unique
in an age of interpenetrating peoples and religions. Possibly
1 See, for instance, Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 87, 88.
2 Deissmann, St6!e StMdies, pp. 233-35 (pp.368f.). He even finds an inscription
in Caria throwing light on the white robes and palms of Eev. 7 : 9 f .

258 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
it was the most widespread,' but from some of the evidence
at our disposal it would seem as if it were by no means the
most prosperous or possessed of the greatest contemporary
influence. In Graeco-Roman society the emigrant Jew,
though exceptionally favored by the empire, was an object
of no small hatred and derision." His unwillingness to eat
food highly prized by heathen epicures, his refusal to work
upon the sabbath, his apparent readiness to traffic in miracles,
his religious pride, all served to remove him from the easy
going toleration of the current religious eclecticism. Yet
Judaism was by no means without its influence upon the
society into which it had penetrated." The same readiness
to accept a monotheistic religion promising forgiveness of
sin and a blessed immortality which made the non-Jewish
oriental cults popular throughout the empire, led many per
sons, and that too by no means exclusively from the unedu
cated and lower classes, to become followers of Moses. In
addition to such proselytes, there were many gentiles over
whom Judaism exercised a greater or less influence. The
Judaism of the Dispersion was less rigorous than that of
Palestine, and was ready to tolerate, if not to encourage,
1 Yet one must make large allowance for exaggeration in the words of Josephus,
Against Apion, ii, 39.
2 See, for instance. Hoe ace. Satires, 1:4, 142 f.; Peesius, Satires, 5:178-84;
Juvenal, Satires, 3:12-16; 14:96-106. On Jews as exorcists see Gebhaedt and
Haenack, Texte, VIII, last part, 107 ; Justin Maetye, Apol., 26 ; Trypho, 31. On the
anti-Semitism of Alexandria see VON DoBSCHtlTZ, American Journal of Theology,
October, 1904.
3 The influence of Hellenism on Judaism is just now a rather favorite subject
of study. Pfleideeee (Urchristhenthum^) has discussed the matter in detail, and
Gunkel has published the brochure already referred to, Zum religionsgeschicht
lichen Verstandniss des Neuen Testaments, in which the results of his earlier studies
are concentrated upon this particular thesis. The works of Bousset and of Bacon
(The Story of Paul) may also be mentioned. In my judgment, however, little has
resulted as yet from these investigations which would justify one in magnifying the
Hellenistic influence in the case of Paul. With Philo it is, of course, very different.
But Pharisaism, in its broadest sense, best accounts for those phenomena of the
apostle's thought which are not derivable from the evangelic facts. When we
enter the second century, and especially when we meet Gnosticism, the case is
radically different.

The Messianic Featernity 259
those who would accept its teachings as expressing a new
religious philosophy, while refusing to become completely
identified with it as a cult. Thus around the "community"
or "synagogue" of the Jewish colony in the various cities
there sprang up two groups of non- Jewish converts : the
proselytes and "those who feared God"' and observed the
general Mosaic regulations for keeping the sabbath and
maintaining ceremonial purity.
Nor was the religious influence of Judaism restricted to
these limits." Even if one be indisposed to accept seriously
the belief of some of the Jewish writers that Plato drew his
teachings from Moses, there can be no doubt that the strong
morality and uncompromising monotheism of Pharisaism
was felt throughout the Grseco-Roman world quite outside
the limits of those who were even loosely connected with
the synagogue. Otherwise it would be hard to understand
the literary warfare, offensive and defensive, carried on by
Josephus and other Jewish apologists against heathen oppo
nents, and quite impossible to give proper credit to the
literary output of Philo and the Alexandrines." Even more
perplexing would be the observance of the sabbath in differ
ent parts of the empire by gentiles presumably not connected
with the synagogue.*
It is this widespread influence of Judaism that explains
iThey are termed ^o^ovixevot rbv deov in Acts 10:2, 22; 13:16, 26; (re^6p.evot rbv deov
in Acts 13:43; 16:14; 18:7; Josephus, ^»t., xiv, 7 : 2 ; or briefly o-e^ofiei-oi as in Acts
13:50; 17:4, 17. The expression of Acts 13:43, aefioiicvoi npoarjkvToi, is unique and
cannot be said to vitiate the above interpretation. See for full treatment (including
discussion of parallel expressions of the inscriptions) ScHtJEBE, Geschichte des
jUdischen Volkes (3d ed.), Vol. Ill, pp. 122 f., esp. n. 66, and his essay, " Die Juden
im bosporanischen Reiche und die Genossenschaft der irep6p.evoi rbv Oebv ili/no-rov
ebendaselbst," in Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1897, pp, 200-225 ; Eamsay,
Expositor, 1896, pp. 200 f . Yet contra see Beetholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten und
der Juden zu den Fremden, passim.
2 See the article on "Proselytes " in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible.
3 Cf. Phelo, Vit Mos, 2:4; Josephus, Against Apia, 2 : 29.
4 See SchOeee, Geschichte der jUdischen Volkes^, Vol. Ill, p. 116, n. 45. In
general see Beetholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden;
Feiedlandee, Das Judenthum in der vorchristlichen griechischen Welt.

260 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
in large part the rapid growth of Christianity during the
apostolic period. When brought face to face with a heathen
ism unaffected by Jewish thought, the promise of an aquittal
at a coming world-judgment, the story of a risen Jesus who
was the flrst-fruits of all such followers of his who should
die before the establishment of a glorious but un-political
kingdom, made but little impression.' To appreciate Jesus
as Christ it was first necessary to have some knowledge of
what the Christ should be, and this, at least in the Disper
sion, could be gained only through a knowledge of pharisaic
messianism." As Acts and the Pauline literature make clear,
the original members of the Christian communities were
almost exclusively Jews, or gentiles who had either come
under the infiuence of the Judaism of the synagogue or
through the diffused influence of Jewish thought had a
predisposition to the messianic program. The first great
problem faced by the new faith was its relation to Judaism
as a whole, notably to the observance of the Thorah ; the
second was that of adjusting a faith in Jesus as the Christ
soon to establish his kingdom, with the various non-Jewish
or but semi-Jewish religious conceptions that obtained in
Asia Minor and those cities of Europe in which oriental
mysteries and cults had begun to regulate religious phi
losophy. This difference in apologetic and exposition is
plainly seen by a comparison of Paul's letters to the Gala
tians and the Colossians, but it is even more pronounced
when the Revelation of John is compared with the prologue
of the Fourth Gospel. Patristic theology shows similar con-
1 Compare the reception of Paul's preaching by Athenians, Acts, chap. 17. It is
hard to see why one should be forced to regard this speech as untrue to Paul's
thought. Even if one were to rewrite history on a priori methods, what other kind
of speech would the uneven spread of messianic Judaism make probable?
2 This statement is not intended to imply that there were no differences between
the messianism of the Dispersion and that of the " Hebrew " Jews. But the evidence
to be found in Sib. Oracles and the early Christian " Visions " make it evident that
it was Pharisaic rather than Zealot hopes that were to be found in the Dispersion.

The Messianic Featernity 261
trasts, but throughout its earlier phases its apologetic consists
largely of arguments showing that Jesus as Christ fulfils
the prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures.' It was only
when Christianity passed into the hands of professional
philosophers and men of their spirit that its Jewish relations
and heritage were neglected and replaced by the generalizing
methods of the schools."
The importance of the preparatory rSle played in apostolic
Christianity by pharisaic Judaism is evidenced by what the
author of the letter to the Hebrews calls "the matter of the
beginning of the Christ," or "the foundation,"^ viz.: repent
ance from dead works and faith upon God, the teaching
concerning baptism and the laying on of hands, the resur
rection from the dead and the age-judgment. Quite as
plainly does it appear in the references in the Pauline litera
ture to the initial acts of those who formed the new com
munities. All such had abandoned evil courses to wait for
the coming of God's Son and his kingdom.* The faith that
introduced the convert into the new relationship with God
was thus easily formulated; it was the acceptance of Jesus
as the one who should do that expected of the Christ by
Judaism, in so far as this expectation was not modified by
the actual experiences of Jesus. In a word, the Christian
churches were composed of those who sought justification — ¦
acquittal in the approaching messianic judgment — by faith
— i. e., accepting Jesus as the eschatological Messiah. And
this is no more true of Pauline churches than of the church
1 See, for instance, the crude arguments of Barnabas and the elaborate treatise
of Justin Martyr thrown in the form of a dialogue with a Jew Trypho.
2 On this in general see Weenle, The Beginnings of Christianity, Vol. II, chaps.
7 and 8 ; Haenaok, History of Dogma, Vol. I, Bk. i, chap. 3.
3 Heb. 6:1, tbv t^» ipx^s rov XpiarQV \6yov.
4In particular see 1 Thess. 1:10; 2:20; 3:13; Phil. 1:6, 10; Acts 17:7; Rom.
8:23-25; 1 Cor. 1:8; 3:13; 6:9, 10; 15:23. Jews were undoubtedly members of these
"gentile churches;" Gal. 2:9. Cf. the account of the founding of various Pauline
churches in Acts.

262 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
at Jerusalem. Its members also sought "salvation" by
repentance and the acceptance of Jesus as the Christ who
would admit them into his kingdom."
It is not difficult, therefore, to realize the character of the
first Christian communities. They were composed of those
who believed in the necessity of being acquitted in the
coming judgment, who had repented of their sins, who had
accepted and professed Jesus as the founder of the coming
kingdom, who attempted to embody in daily life the prin
ciples believed to dominate that kingdom, who had received
new spiritual experiences, and who had joined themselves
together into little communities in which the new spiritual
gifts and capacities might better express themselves.
II
In a way the church in the apostolic teaching is an equiva
lent of the non-eschatological conception of the kingdom of
God, held by Jesus, although this equivalence is not formal
or recognized. Historically the church of the centuries is
the perpetuation of that little band of disciples gathered by
Jesus in Galilee. This group of disciples must have carried
over — actually did carry over— into their new brotherhood
the ethical and religious, as well as the eschatological, teaching
of their Master. They endeavored to live in his spiritual
companionship as they had lived in his bodily presence, and
their very meals were made sacred by the memory of a
glorified Master and the thought of his unity with them
selves. They were those who were to be saved — the mem
bers of the approaching kingdom. Their bond was one of a
1 Here again the demands of the historical process give new credibility to Acts.
The early chapters of the book in the main express precisely what would be expected
of persons under the influence of messianism. Whatever allowance one may make
for redaction, it is impossible for one acquainted with Judaism to accept the dictum
that a belief in justification by faith is an unfailing evidence of Pauline influence.
If faith in Jesus did not help one past the coming judgment, for what conceivable
reason should a Jew have accepted him as Christ ?

The Messianic Fraternity 263
common hope, a common enthusiasm, and a common experi
ence of God. As the older messianists had expected that
Israel under the Messiah would be a chosen people, an
instructed nation, a holy community, and a God-fearing
generation,' so the Christians became a community of those
who were eternally to be with the Christ — the true Israel.
Yet Jesus himself cannot be said to have originated the
term "church." The Greek Old Testament had long before
given it currency as the one word that represented the
Hebrew people in its mingled aspects of nation and wor
shiping congregation. After the rise of scribism the word
became a part of the vocabulary of Judaism. Evidently its
content was very vague. In some general Jewish sense of
"community" must Jesus have used the word, if, indeed, it
ever passed his lips." He had, in fact, very little use for
it. His group of disciples were not a congregation to be
removed from the world; they were inceptively a new
humanity. It is doubtless the fact that Jesus did not use
any special word for his band of disciples except the "king
dom of God" that accounts for its absence in the vocabulary
of the earliest Christian community. So completely were
the apostles possessed of the eschatological conception of the
kingdom as never to use it to denote their community, and
for a short time the new movement seems to have lacked
any recognized name. The disciples were first called Chris
tians at Antioch;' at Jerusalem, during the first months of
the new movement's life, they were not spoken of as a con
gregation, but, if any word was used except "they,"* they
were styled "brethren,"^ "they that believed,"^ "the com
pany,'" "the disciples,"^ as "those of the Way.'" Soon, how
ever, the need of some self-designation made itself felt, and
iPss. Sol., 17:32-42; 18:7-9; Eth. Enoch, 39:6; Sib. Or., v, 431.
2 Matt. 16 : 18 ; 18 : 17. 3 Acts. 11 : 26. 4 Acts 1 : 23, 26 ; 2 : 1, 4.
5 Acts 1:15. 6 Acts 12: 44. 'Acts 4: 23.
8Actsl6:l. 9Acts9:2. This term was never abandoned ; c/. Acts 19 ; 9.

264 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
it was but natural that eicicXr]<T[a — "the community" — should
have suggested itself. At all events the word appeared,
though innocent of its later content. The Christian brothers
still thought of themselves as a religious community, though
not as one distinct from Judaism. They still worshiped in
the temple, still attended synagogues, still kept the law.
Anything like a distinctive organization, except for purposes
of charity, was at first not needed. The Christians were
Jews who had added to their Judaism a belief that Jesus
was the Christ and saw in that fact no reason for abandon
ing, in any particular, their old life. Their common meals,
their sharing of property with the poor, their devotion to
the "apostles' teaching," were wholly consonant with the
loyalty to their older cult.
The rise of this undifferentiated group into a social insti
tution distinct from Judaism can be accounted for only by the
success of Christianity in cities outside of Palestine. The
church, like Pauline Christianity and the New Testament
canon, was the product of missions. As long as they were
hemmed in by Jewish environment, the " brethren " from the
point of view of Judaism were but Sectaries. Out in the
great Graeco-Roman world they were forced into a process of
social evolution, and they were Christians. When, as always,
the synagogue in which some apostle had first preached was
closed to his converts, it was but natural that they should
meet in some house or public lecture-hall for the social wor
ship and instruction.' There again they adopted Jesus'
word and were disciples or brothers. As the brotherhood in
Jerusalem resembled in some particulars Jewish societies,
so elsewhere it was superficially" not unlike the fraternities
among the lower classes of the Roman empire which met
regularly for various purposes, notably for the maintenance
1 Acts 19: 9.
2 This modification is decidedly important. The similarities between the two
sorts of fraternities may easily be over-emphasized.

The Messianic Fraternity 265
of a burial fund. Each fraternity of this sort would have
had a fraternal meal, and some more or less rudimentary
initiation.' The Christians had this memorial meal and their
initiatory baptism. But the Christian brotherhood was
vastly different from those it superficially resembled. Al
though later it apparently found legal protection as a burial
society, during its first years it was exclusively a religious
fraternity composed of men and women who had accepted
Jesus as the Christ, and who met to recall his death and his
promises of speedy return. Their meetings, if one may
judge from the words of Paul, Pliny, and even of Justin
Martyr, were not mere banquets, but for religious purposes.
Nor were the churches rigidly organized. Once gathered,
the brothers seem to have been under no ritualistic bonds,
but each was at liberty to express the new life of the spirit
according "as God had given to each man a measure of
faith." Nothing could have been more informal — one sing
ing, another exhorting, another prophesying, another inter
preting the otherwise unintelligible utterances of a brother
"with a tongue." Indeed, there was even danger that such
meetings should become a babel, and Paul never showed
clearer administrative sagacity than when he advised that
all religious gatherings should be carried on decently and in
order." It would be a serious mistake, however, to think of the
Christian fraternity, or eicKXricria, as having no more organic
unity than a neighborhood prayer-meeting. As an actual
group of men and women it antedated its assemblings. In
this it more closely resembled the communities of the Jewish
and Syrian dispersion than the burial fraternity. The com-
1 On the churches as collegia see Eamsay, The Church in the Roman Empire,
pp. 431 f . ; BoissiER, La Religion Romaine, Vol. II, pp. 338 f. ; Renan, Marc-Aurile,
pp. 375f.; SCHILLEE, Geschichte der ROmischen Kaiserzeit, Vol. II, pp. 417f. Dill,
Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, chap. 3, gives a good general account
of the collegia.
2 See this discussion in 1 Cor. 14 : 26-40.

266 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
munity existed even when dispersed, and its members were
always to live as the followers of their Christ, the fellow-
heirs of his glory.
By origin, therefore, social, it was inevitable that social
evolution should have soon begun within a church. As the
fraternity grew, the need of officers was felt, and, under the
guidance of the apostles, the fraternity undertook to supply
its need. With the exception of the shadowy attempt to
maintain the number of the Twelve by the choice by lot of
Matthias, in the entire differentiation of the officials of the
different fraternities there was no appeal to any directions of
Jesus. To make such an appeal to authority would have
been contrary to the spirit of Paul, but not to that of the
Jerusalem church, and it is therefore safe to say that Jesus
had left no directions for church polity. The little congre
gations were free to organize as fast and as far and in such
ways as they saw fit. This absence of specific directions
from Jesus accounts for the course taken by the organization
of the various Christian groups. In the church at Jerusa
lem, dissatisfaction with the apostles' administration of
charity funds led first of all to the choice of seven men whose
duty it became to attend to such matters. They, however,
like the apostles, soon preferred preaching to charity work,
and a few years after their appointment we find the "con
gregations" of the Christians organized like the synagogue
"congregations" of the Jews, with an executive committee
known as the "elders." In other words, left by Jesus
without any specific directions for organization, the early
Christians followed the natural course, and turned to the
synagogue as a model. The "elder" was the characteristic
officer of the East, whether one looks to Egypt' or Judea;
but in Judea especially was he an official with distinct ad-
1 Cf. Hatch, Organization of the Early Christian Churches, pp. 55 f. ; Deissmann,
Bible Studies, pp. 154 f., 233-35.

The Messianic Fraternity 267
ministrative functions. Nothing was easier, therefore, than
for the Jewish Christian fraternities to appoint their elders,
and to model the order of service in their meetings after that
of the synagogue. Among the gentile Christians the reasons
for the appearance of elders is not far to seek. In most
Grseco-Roman cities the governing body was known by some
word implying seniority, and similar terms were applied to
teachers of philosophies and probably to the heads of various
heathen fraternities. If we add that the gentile churches
were commonly founded and organized by Jews, it is not
difficult to see that among them also the body of elders
would be the administrative organ most to be expected.
Difficult as it is to trace church organization in the later
New Testament books, we can still see that by the time the
letter to Philippi was written it had evidently proceeded
some distance toward its later form, for we find bishops' and
deacons." In the Pastoral Epistles, although new officials
are not clearly named, there is evidence of marked advance
in the precision with which the duties of the various officials
are described.'
Just what functions the elders or bishops performed is
apparent from a number of statements in the New Testa
ment. They had the general superintendence, they were
the ^yovfievoi of the churches; in the Pastoral Epistles at
least they were teachers; but most of all were they the
pastors of the flocks God had intrusted to their care.* Such
a union of responsibilities made toward officialism, and even
in an apostolic father like Clement the presbyter and bishops
are of recognized rank, and to reduce them to the plane of
the ordinary church member warranted serious expostulation. '^
1 The eTTiff/coTTos, among the Greeks, was a communal ofiicer, who (at least in the
case of Rhodes) held a religious office ; Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 230. It would
be natural for it to come into use among Greek Christians as npetr^vrepo^ did among
the Jewish. 2Phil. 1:1. SForinstance, ITim. 3:lf.; Tit. 1:7.
4 See 1 Pet. 5 : 1 ; 1 Tim. 3:8. 5 j Clement, chaps. 1-3.

268 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
But the elders were but one class of officers in the early
church. Then, as always, there was a constant tendency
toward a division of labor along the same lines as later
marked the cleavage between the laity and the clergy, the
secular clergy and the monks. As the apostles had pre
ferred the ministry of the word to the ministry of tables,
and as Philip the administrator of charity became Philip
the evangelist, so the elders seem to have gradually dele
gated their charity work largely to deacons. But they were
not the only persons who ministered to the churches in spir
itual things. Alongside of the executive committee of the
Christian congregation were many men — and some women
— whose duty it was to exercise their "charism" and to
prophesy, to teach, to catechize, and to provide in various
ways for the religious life of the community. It is impos
sible to say when such classes of workers first appeared, but
doubtless almost from the start, for in Paul's letters to the
Corinthians we find them catalogued at length. Thus clearly
was Christianity from the start constructively social.
Such an evolution of an organization by the differentia
tion of officers is certainly a common enough phenomenon,
and might very well be dismissed thus summarily, were it
not for the interpretation given it by Paul. He sees in it
all something more than mere utilitarianism. It is all the
work of the Spirit, in other words, of the new life of the
individual believers. The unification of believers in any
city was not the only expression of the Christian life;
besides it there was the distribution of ;]tapto-/xaTa. By one
classification' there were accordingly apostles, prophets,
teachers, miracle-workers, healers, helpers, administrators,
those who spoke with tongues; by another" and simpler,
apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. This
distribution of gifts, however, Paul insists was economic,
11 Cor. 12: 28. 2 Eph. 4:11.

The Messianic Fraternity 269
intended, not for the happiness of those who possess them,
but for the building up of the church. He even carries
his thought farther, and not only sees that all the xopt'cr/iaTa
— of wisdom, knowledge, faith, gifts of healing, working of
miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, tongues and inter
pretation of tongues' — the work of "the one and the same
Spirit," are given for "ministration," but also declares that
apart from love they are worthless. Thus with him, as with
Jesus, the final test of life is not its ability to receive, but
to confer, benefits. It is no mere happy coincidence that in
his words to the Ephesian elders he used an otherwise lost
saying of the Master: "It is more blessed to give than to
receive."" Ill
It is from the point of view of the church as a corporate
expression of the regenerate life influenced in its organiza
tion by its environment, but not by messianism, that we can
best appreciate the further teaching of Paul concerning the
church as — with excuses to the sociologists — an organism,
or, to use his own word, a body. In this conception there
is to be seen something like a development in the Pauline
thought. In the Roman letter, while he is especially swayed
by his messianic predilections, he insists mostly upon the
individual believer's functions, not so much as a member of
a social group as one who is presently to be granted the
completion of his hopes in the resurrection of the body and
the entrance into the heavenly kingdom. Yet even there is
to be seen in a summary form the conception of the church
as the body of Christ. "As we have many members in one
body, and all members have not the same office, so we, who
are many, are one body in Christ and severally members
one of another."' This analogy he had previously elabo-
11 Cor. 12:7-11. 2Acts20:35. 3Rom. 12:4,5.

270 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
rated most strikingly in his letter to the Corinthians.' The
Christian community, he says, is the body of Christ — i. e.,
that within which the Spirit of Christ dwells ; but a body is
a unity only in the sense that it is a combination of mem
bers, each of which performs its own and indispensable
functions. So is it with the individual in the church : his
function, be it apparently never so humble, is legitimate,
and therefore the individual himself is needed for the effi
ciency of the body of which he is a member. The very
bread and wine of the memorial meal, he reminds the
Corinthians, are symbols of, or rather the means of main
taining, the common life of individuals with their Lord."
This may appear culpable high-churchism on the part of the
apostle, but he has something more advanced to teach.
This union with Christ through the church is no mere
rhetorical matter; it is as real as the living of a man with a
prostitute.' Of isolated Christians, of unattached Chris
tians, of Christians who would willingly give up their
fellowship — Koivcovia — with their brethren, the apostolic
age could not conceive. To cast a member forth from the
body of Christ was to turn him over to Satan for the
destruction of the flesh.* Later, unless we quite mistake
Paul's views, in the letters of the imprisonment, this eccle
siastical thought became even more prominent. As the
messianic kingdom was the mediating concept by the aid
of which Paul arrived at his conception of the atonement of
Christ, so the church became almost exclusively the medi
ating concept by which he arrived at his thought of the
relation of the individual Christian to Christ as a matter of
actual life.^
If this be the thought in the more messianic epistles,
one is justified in expecting that it will be all the more
1 1 Cor. 12 : 12-27. 2 1 Cor. 10 : 15-17. 3 1 Cor. 6 : 15.
41 Cor. 5:5. 6Eph.l:23; 4:1-16; 5:29-32.

The Messianic Fraternity 271
prominent when the apostle writes under the influence of
Judaic-Grecian philosophy. Nor will such expectations be
disappointed. The transition has been made almost uncon
sciously from the consideration of the separate churches scat
tered over the empire, each with its own peculiar ;;^a/3t<7jLtaTa,
to the genuinely Greek conception of the generic church
involved in the various local bodies. The Church has sup
planted the churches. But the figure — if one may, indeed,
call it a figure — of the organism is also carried to its inev
itable completion. As the individual Christians constitute
the body of the local church, so now they form the Church
universal, and Christ is now head, not of the individual
man, as in 1 Cor. 3:1, but of his body, the Church.' From
this the step was easy to the thought of the church as essen
tial to the Christ. It was his "fulness." Yet still the
economic idea is maintained. God again spoke through
prophets that men may be "edified." The church shared
in the life of the Christ only that it may more perfectly
carry on his work. And this work, it will be recalled, was
itself organized, different individuals performing the various
functions allotted them by the Spirit. Thus Christ worked
through the social unity resulting from Christian life in
different individuals. It is this thought that is expressed
in perhaps the boldest expression of the thought of a social
organism ever given by any writer — the prayer of Paul for
the churches to whom the Ephesian epistle was written.
He prays that they may "grow up in all things into him
who is the head, even Christ, from whom all the body, fitly
framed and knit together through that which every joint
supplieth, according to the working in due measure of each
several part, maketh the increase of the body unto the
building up of itself in love.""
1 Eph. 5:23.
2Eph. 4:15, 16.

272 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
IV
A fact of the first importance here comes into light.
This social organism, composed of regenerate men each per
forming his special function under the direction of the Spirit,
is not human society as a whole, but the church, a community
within society. The relation of the church to society at large
was one of election for salvation. It was indeed a commu
nity whose real interests were "other worldly." God had
graciously selected them from the world. For the world
at large was evil. It had lost its God,' and in consequence
was full of vices." The nearest approach Paul makes to a
general social philosophy, however, is here. The fact of sin
leads him away from individualism to a generic human soli
darity. Humanity as a unit sinned in Adam ; and in Adam
all died. Characteristically, too, Paul makes sin the social
ized result of the prostitution of the religious nature. The
heathen world entered upon the hideous conditions por
trayed in the opening chapter of the letter to the Romans
by turning from a knowable God to idols. Every other sort
of prostitution followed. To reverse this condition of affairs,
to reinstate the religious nature to its normal position, is
the work of Christ. But despite certain of his expressions
that sound contradictory, Paul teaches that the new society
formed by Christ is not composed of all men and is not
created en masse. It grows, as has already appeared, through
individuals as such assuming through faith in Jesus the
proper relation with God {KaTaXXayrj) and, in obedience to
the new life, joining one another in a social group in which
the new life in Christ finds its expression.
Such a philosophy immediately carries a modern thinker
across to the hope of a gradual transformation of society by
this new and evidently dynamic group. But apostolic Chris
tianity never took the step. The church was not conceived
1 Eph. 2 : 12. 2 Eom. 1 : 19-23, 24-32.

The Messianic Fraternity 273
of as a source of social transformation. It was itself "an
elect race, a chosen priesthood, a holy nation,"' but it was
not the salt of the earth. In the apostolic literature one
will look in vain for a single injunction to convert the
world, or to save the world. Individuals were to be saved
from the world and enter the new kingdom when it should
appear; but the world itself was lost.
UPet. 2:5-9.

CHAPTER II
THE MESSIANIC FRATERNITY IN AN EVIL AGE
When one considers in more detail the relations of the
new Christian fraternity to the age and society in which it
lived, the contrast between inherited messianism and Chris
tianity as a life becomes even more evident.

It is only what might have been expected both from the
temper of Jesus and from their own insistence upon the
eschatological kingdom of God, when we find the apostles
possessed of a conservatism in social matters amounting
almost to indifference. The early church was not a society
for ethical culture, much less a society for social reform. It
was a body of religionists devoted to their faith in a revealed
plan of God for their salvation, who were awaiting the coming
of their salvation from the "flesh" and death and sin, and
were endeavoring in an evil age to live as if citizens of
heaven. As such its members at times ran dangerously near
to antinomianism, and at other times to legalism, but always
because of their devotion to their religious convictions.
Throughout the apostolic age Christian morality was the
outgrowth of religious faith, and social duties were therefore
derivative rather than primary.
But morality was by no means secondary. Repentance
was as truly demanded as faith. A bad man could not be
a Christian, and a Christian ought to be a good man. The
prophecies had been fulfilled; the law had been superseded;
the new life begotten of faith in God's love was now to- be
lived. Therein lay the supreme duty of the Christian while
he waited for the appearance of the kingdom.
274

Messianic Fraternity in an Evil Age 275
From this point of view one appreciates both the genetic
and the fragmentary character of the apostolic teachings
upon matters of conduct and social convention. They are
not a new legal code, or speculations upon the social bear
ings of the new faith ; they are solutions of definite problems
with which early Christianity was confronted. As in the
case of the churches of Thessalonica, Galatia, and Rome cir
cumstances forced Paul to develop the theological content of
the new messianic faith, so in the case of these and every
other church the necessity of actually living in accordance
with a faith in the messiahship of Jesus led the apostles to
point out the ethical and social principles it involved.
Throughout Paul's correspondence his instructions consti
tute less a system or program than the advice of a practical
man based upon the teaching of Jesus and his own spiritual
illumination.' His temper of mind is the farthest possible
from that of a social doctrinaire. He was not endeavoring
to reform society, to legislate for all time, or to champion a
paper utopia. He was simply endeavoring to make plain to
men and women who had but recently shared in the practices
of the heathen society of which they were still members, the
lines of conduct consonant with their new life and their
faith in a rapidly approaching kingdom. One may, indeed,
be even more specific: the social ethic of the apostles, and
especially of Paul, consists in directions as to how a member
of a Christian church should live in the various cities of the
Roman empire during the first century of our era, that life
which he expected to live in the coming kingdom. To
understand such teaching one must understand the actual
historical conditions it was intended to meet.
The problem before the student, therefore, is quite as
much historical as exegetical; or, rather, just because it is
exegetical it is historical, and any complete presentation of
I Cf. 1 Cor. 7 : 10 with 12, and see also 1 Cor. 7 : 25, 10.

276 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
the apostolic thought must rest, not upon a collection of
detached teachings, but upon a careful estimate of such
teachings in the light both of the apostolic messianism and
of the social environment of those to whom they were
addressed. As soon as one takes this historical point of view, one
characteristic of the apostolic teaching becomes apparent.
So far from resembling the efforts of many others who have
attempted to induce men to adopt the same standards of life,
it favored no eccentricity, it proposed no revolution. The
kingdom of God, with its regenerate institutions, was in
heaven and not on earth. The apostolic ethics, in so far as
it concerns social relations, is always formulated with the
intent of preserving Graeco-Roman society as far as possible.
If we except the church itself, neither Paul or any other
apostle introduced a new social institution. The early Chris
tians, so far as we know, were born, married, toiled, and
were buried as were their fellow-citizens of the empire.
Like their master, the apostles were constantly on their
guard lest their converts should mistake enthusiasm to
reform other people for Christian character. Such an atti
tude of mind was not only the outcome of that indifference
to existing evils born of their belief in the speedy coming of
Christ. It was undoubtedly that in large part, but it also
involved an appreciation of the actual situation in which the
Christian communities found themselves. The Roman empire
looked with increasing suspicion upon fraternities of all sorts
— barring perhaps burial fraternities — and Paul especially
knew only too well the danger which lay in any social
extravagances. He would not even consent to destroying
such conventionalities as the length of a Christian's hair, or
a woman's wearing of a veil.' Above all, he tried to keep
his converts free from even an appearance of social unrest.
11 Cor. 11:14-16.

Messianic Fraternity in an Evil Age 277
"Let each man abide in that calling wherein he was called,"
he told the restless Corinthians. " Wast thou called being
a slave? care not for it. Was any man called being cir
cumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Hath any
been called in uncircumcision ? let him not be circumcised.
Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art
thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. The time is
shortened, that henceforth both those that have wives may
be as though they had none; and those that weep, as
though they wept not; and those that rejoice, as though
they rejoiced not; and those that buy, as though they
possessed not ; and those that use the world, as not using it
to the full; for the fashion of this world passeth away."'
And all apostolic teaching was to the same effect. "Be sub
ject to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake," "Let
no man suffer as a meddler in other men's affairs,"" are
hardly the words of an agitator. Even when an outraged
heart breaks forth in apocalyptic visions foretelling the
doom of the beast whose number is 666 — the Roman empire
itself — there is no call for revolt, but rather a eulogium of
the martyrs who cry to God from beneath the altar.*
It would be a misinterpretation of early Christianity,
however, if at this point we should declare with Paulsen*
that the early Christians belittled courage and opposed
aggressive struggle with enemies. Such a position has, it is
true, a superficial justification in the maxims of Jesus against
contests, and in the well-known willingness of the Christians
U Cor. 7:18-24, 27-31. And yet Paulsen (Ethics, Eng. trans., p. 66) declares that
" true Christianity may always be recognized by the fact that it seems strange and
dangerous to the world." See also the even more exaggerated statement of Leslie
Stephen, Social Bights and Duties, Vol. I, p. 22.
21 Pet. 2:13; 4:16.
3 Clemen, "Die Zahl des Tieres, Apoc. 13 : 18," Zeitschrift fUr die neutestament
liche Wissenschaft, 1901, pp. 109-14. For a curious error in this article, which,
however, hardly affects its main position, see Biblical World, Vol. XVIII (1901), p. 76.
4Rev. 6:9; 13:18. ^Ethics, Eng. trans., pp. 69 f.

278 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
to suffer martyrdom. But courage, or, better, virility, is
something other than militarism, and in its moral sense is
the constant watchword of the New Testament writers.
"Quit yourselves like men,"' "fight without beating the
air"" "put on the whole panoply of God"' — -these are cer
tainly not the words of a man who could suffer and submit,
but nothing more. The difference between the Greek and the
Christian courage is not so much in the attitude of mind as
in the enemies one must withstand. The Greek or Roman
found his enemies in the enemies of his state; the enemies
of the Christian were just as real, but they were not flesh
and blood, but angels and devils and evil passions.* It was
against these, and not against an existing society in any of
its phases, that the early Christians struggled. They could
die for their faith, but they would not draw the sword for its
defense. The Lord with his kingdom was at hand to destroy
the lawless one with the breath of his mouth °
II
It was wholly consonant with this anti-revolutionary
attitude toward society, the invariable accompaniment of
apocalyptic messianism, that one chief aim of the apostolic
ethics was to preserve as pure as possible the new life which
had been awakened in the Christian. As may well be
imagined, innumerable dangers threatened Christian morality
from its social environment. Grseco-Roman civilization in
Paul's day had not, it is true, reached its period of decadence,
nor were its morals quite as dark as Seneca and the satirists
would have one believe ; yet it was by no means calculated
to help one live the life of the spirit. Animalism was either
magnified or treated as morally neutral by men not at all
vicious, and in every city the masses almost inevitably grew
ilCor.l6:13. 21 Cor. 9:26. 3Eph. 6:llf.
4 Eph. 6 : 12. 6 2 Thess. 2 : 8 ; C/. Pss. of Sol. V: 39.

Messianic Fraternity in an Evil Age 279
debased. Today's society threatens strikingly similar dan
gers to Christian idealism, but never were programs more
opposed than that of the twentieth-century reformer and
that of the apostles. The modern reformer endeavors to
make honesty, purity, and other Christian virtues more
easily realizable by changing the social environment in
which men struggle. As Jesus might have said, he seeks
to increase the harvest by improving the earth in which the
seed of the kingdom is planted. But this recourse to a
regenerated society as an aid to the individual Christian,
Paul and the other apostles never made. As far as we can
learn, no one of them ever proposed to make Christian
morality more practicable through the destruction of the
evils to which it was exposed. There was to be no com
promise with the world, but neither was the world to be
converted. Yet asceticism, the last resource of pessimistic righteous
ness, was never urged upon the struggling Christian com
munities. It is, indeed, rather common to find the opposite
asserted,' but at the expense either of a definition of asceticism
or of a true exposition of apostolic thought. The point of
view of the apostles was not that of those who regard misery
as the royal road to holiness, or of those who would have
men leave social life in order to live to God ; but rather that
of those who have adopted a new standard of values. For
them that alone in life is of importance which was to extend
over into the heavenly kingdom. The application of such
a standard will give results which superficially resemble
asceticism, but which are really nothing of the sort. For
instance, it is not an injunction to asceticism to tell a person
who knows the moral impulses that come from religious
experiences and whose highest ethical imperative is "where-
unto you have already attained by that same standard walk,"
iSo, for instance, by Paulsen, Ethics, Eng. trans., pp. 91 f., and Thilly, Intro
duction to Ethics, p. 190, note.

280 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
that there are distractions in marriage, and that since the
Lord is soon to appear and to end the marriage relation, one
ha^ better choose a life in which he can more completely and
easily devote himself to moral endeavor.' Asceticism would
say that marriage is contaminating, or that there is merit in
celibacy, and such opinions neither Paul nor any apostle to
our knowledge ever held." The insistence of Jesus upon
the necessity of his disciples remaining in the world rather
than becoming recluses or monks is echoed repeatedly in
Paul. He is insistently opposed to anything that would
detract from neigborliness or the legitimate enjoyments of
those whose Master both in words and practice had rejected
asceticism. It is the same standard of values that explains the indif
ference of the earlier interpreters of Jesus to social evils
like slavery and prostitution. Jesus had indeed said nothing
directly against either evil, but it is clear that the man who
would love his neighbor as himself could not long endure to
see his neighbor either a slave or a prostitute, and, as Chris
tian history shows abundantly, must endeavor to end both
institutions by law. We should have expected that an
apostle would have been as eager for such reforms as a
modern philanthropist, and, as will presently appear, within
the limits of the Christian community itself equality and
social purity were unceasingly, passionately urged; but in
all the apostolic literature both slavery and prostitution are
accepted as abiding elements in a wicked world. They
would perish only with the age. There is no more striking
picture of a radical submitting to a social evil he saw was
incompatible with his own ideals than that furnished in the
little letter of Paul to Philemon in which the apostle
ilCor. 7:29, 31, 32.
2 While we cannot deny that Paul regards the unmarried state as superior to the
married, the entire discussion contained in 1 Cor., chap. 7, will dispossess a fair
mind of any predisposition to discover within it genuine asceticism.

Messianic Fraternity in an Evil Age 281
recounts how, as one result of having converted his friend's
runaway slave Onesimus, he was sending him back "a
brother beloved'" to a slavery from which he had safely
escaped. The apostles have, indeed, many words of counsel
and exhortation for both master and slaves. The master is
not to threaten his slaves, since they both have one Master
with whom there is no respect of persons," and he is to treat
them with justice and equality.' Directions for the conduct
of slaves are also numerous, as one might expect, but all to
the same effect. Slaves are to be obedient,* as servants of
Christ. A position in which a man was both a slave and a
brother was certainly anomalous, and, had it not been for
the hope that the new age with its readjustments was close
at hand, unendurable. Some slaves must have seen this, as
possibly the runaway Onesimus; but more certainly those
Christian slaves who, as we know from 1 Tim. 6:1, were
tempted to look with contempt upon a Christian master who
did not emancipate them.
That, notwithstanding his refusal even to hint at eman
cipation, Paul could also write that "in Christ there is
neither bond nor free"* shows the difference between the
standards when applied to the coming kingdom and when
applied to the age that was to end within the lifetime, pos
sibly, of the slave himself. That the two conceptions did
not affect one another is the clearest possible evidence of the
failure of Paul to see the social bearing of Christianity.
The attitude of the apostle toward prostitution and other
evils which depended upon sin rather than upon misfortune
and law is not radically different from that displayed by
them toward slavery, though no fornicator or otherwise
licentious person was to be permitted to live within the
Christian community or could hope to enter the kingdom of
iPhilem. 16. 2 Eph. 6:9. 3 Col. 4:1.
4Eph.6:5; Col.3:22; Tit.2:9; 1 Pet. 2 : 18-25. 5Qal.3:28.

282 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
God.' Yet, so far as we know, no effort was made by the
apostolic church to reduce or control prostitution and other
vices by law, or in any way except by the conversion of the
evil-doers themselves. Apostolic Christianity at this point
was thoroughly individualistic. The Christian as such was
to be chaste; society would always be licentious. Paul
expressly implies that prostitution is a permanent factor of
un-Christian society, and that it is impossible for the Chris
tian, in Corinth at least, to avoid associating with fornica
tors. In such a case he must needs go out of the world —
a saying which marks the nearest approach to cynicism
contained in apostolic literature.
In matters which' involved neither the distinction between
the flesh and the spirit, nor the liability to charges of revolu
tion, Paul's attitude is singularly moderate. The majority
of the members of his churches had been heathen. Before
their acceptance of Jesus as Christ they had shared in the
beliefs which characterized the masses of the Graeco-Roman
world. Few of them had been cultured," and can hardly
have been possessed of that indifference to the minutiae
of conventional religion which marked the freethinkers of
the empire. Idolatry and the mass of customs which it
engendered had been the real forces in their lives. Now
they had abandoned idols and turned to the worship of the
living God. But they had no more withdrawn from their
world than had the primitive Christians withdrawn from the
Jewish world. But their situation was far more perplexing
than that of the Jerusalem community. They were still
living in the environment of the innumerable customs which
pagan society had inherited with its cults. First of all was
the idol itself. What should be the attitude of the Chris
tian toward it? The answer which the apostolic church
made is very simple and to be expected. Idolatry was radi-
11 Cor. 5:9, 10; 6:9; Eph. 5:5; Heb. 12:16; 13:4; 1 Tim. 1:10; Rev. 21:8; 22:15.
2 1Cor. 1:26, 28.

Messianic Feateenity in an Evil Age 283
cally different from Judaism, and Christians were to keep
from all worship of idols.' The reasons for such an attitude
seem patent enough, but they are not those of Paul. He
argues at length to show that while an idol, as every Chris
tian would realize, was nothing at all," since there was no
God but one, at the same time the things which the millions
of the empire sacriflced to idols they sacrificed to demons.
Idolatry was, therefore, impossible for the Christian. How
could he drink the cup of Christ at the Lord's Supper and
the cup of demons ? That would be to provoke the Lord to
jealousy.' But such general instruction, even if literally
followed, could not prevent a complication of social life.
Much of the meat which had been offered for sale in the
shops had been previously dedicated to some idol. Should
the Christian eat it and so far recognize the idol as an ex
isting fact ? The Corinthian church divided on the ques
tion: There were the "weak brethren," and the "strong
brethren." The Pauline position was distinctly that of the
latter.* The Christian could eat anything, provided he did
not make it a matter of conscience. Even when at a dinner
he was not to ask questions of his host for conscience' sake,
but was to eat what was set before him without attempting
to discover whether or not his meat had been dedicated at
some heathen shrine. If, however, some "weak" brother
was troubled by this superiority to moral casuistry, the
brother who was "strong" was not to eat. His self-denial,
1 1 Cor. 10: 14; 1 John 5: 21. The hatred of idolatry shown by the early church
is seen in such passages as 1 Cor. 5 : 11 ; 6:9; 2 Cor. 6:16; Gal. 5:20; Eph. 5:5; Col.
3 : 5 ; 1 Pet. 4:3; Eev. 2 : 14, 20 ; 21 : 8 ; 22 : 15. The degeneration that followed idolatry
is realistically traced in the first chapter of Romans. A somewhat less severe
picture is given in Acts 14 : 8-18. Whether Paul would actually identify idols and
demons we may well doubt, but the worship of idols was not of them (for they were
nothing), but of the demons with whom the Christian was always at war.
2 ICor. 8:4.
3 1 Cor. 10 : 20, 22. More fundamental is Paul's classification of idolatry with the
works of the aip(. Gal. 5 : 20 ; but this conception is not exploited, although a hint
of it may be found in Eph. 5 : 5 ; Phil. 3 : 19. In this connection also see Rev. 9 : 30.
41Cor.8:lf.; 10:19; c/. Eev. 2 : 14. 20.

284 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
however, is clearly declared by Paul, not to be for his own
advantage, but for that of the "weak brother,"' and an ex
pression of Christian love. Knowledge (yvaarLf) was indeed
desirable, but, unless controlled by love, it might lead to
unchristian arrogance."
For love was the fruit of the Spirit.' Faith itself was
energized by it,* and love alone gave value to the "gifts"
the Christian might expect to possess.* Nor was there to be
any limitation in the expression of the virtue. If apostolic
Christianity felt no responsibility for establishing a Chris
tian civilization, it most emphatically did feel the respon
sibility of treating all men, whether or not of the house
hold of faith, with self-sacrificing love. The apostolic
literature abounds in exhortations to treat all men in the
spirit of Christ. "Avenge not yourselves, beloved," says
Paul to the Romans,* "but give place unto the wrath
of God; for it is written. Vengeance belongeth unto me; I
will recompense, saith the Lord. But if thine enemy
hunger, feed him ; if he thirst, give him to drink. Be not
overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." And to
the Galatians' he wrote: "Let us work that which is good
toward all men." With humanity once possessed of such a
spirit, the new age would indeed have dawned.
Ill
The fact is, however, that the apostolic thought does not
carry this great principle of Jesus to its logical conclusion.
Apostolic teaching regarding social relations concerns the
1 The issue here is not that of Eom. 14:13-22, but the underlying and controlling
principle is the same. Cf. 1 Cor. 10:23, 33; 11:1. On vegetarianism in the ancient
world see Von DobschOtz, Die urchristliche Gemeinde, pp. 274^-76.
JlCor. 8:lf. 3Gal. 5:22.
* Gal. 5:6. 5 1 Cor., chap. 13.
« Eom. 12 : 19-21. Note the recurrence of the judgment motif,
'6:10. C/. Eom. 15:2; Heb. 12 : 14 ; 13 : 2.

Messianic Fraternity in an Evil Age 285
church and its members rather than society at large. The
ethical and social teachings of Peter and Paul would have
been almost meaningless to any but those who shared in
their faith. A Christian society was evidently expected by
them to result from the segregation of Christians, rather
than from the transformation of an empire. Christian
civilization, paradoxically enough, was a by-product of
apostolic Christianity.
The reasons for this surprising fact do not lie in any
indifference of the early Christians to others. Where could
one find more devoted servants of their time than the
humble men who faced all the perils of their time, rejoicing
in opposition, nay death itself, if only Christ were preached
and so the "time be redeemed" by bringing to others
the news of the possibility of their salvation? Or where
more noble directions to do good to all men? Or where
can" we find a more passionate lament than that of Paul
over the indifference of the Jews to his gospel? He is
ready even to be accursed for their sakes, and, what is more,
out of his sorrow and his belief in the divine absolution,
constructs a prophecy, not yet fulfilled, that at last, moved
with envy at the sight of gentiles enjoying the blessings
properly their own, the Jews as a people will repent and
join the Christian community. Indeed, he is even ready to
postpone the second coming of Christ until this glorious
consummation is attained.'
No, the reasons are quite other, and in the explanation
do we see again the fundamental contrast recognized by the
apostle between Christian life and Christian messianism. In
the first place, the division of labor, so to speak, within the
church was wholly dependent upon the Spirit. If he gave
some person the gift of apostleship or of evangelization,
such a one attempted, not to reform society, but to induce
1 See Rom. 10: 1—11:32.

286 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
individuals to accept Jesus as the Christ and join the church.
The entire process, therefore, was neither of man's choosing
nor centrifugal. A man might be as passionately devoted
to the preaching of the gospel as Paul, and yet be of almost
no significance as an infiuence upon the society of the empire
at large; while, on the other hand, the church had been
redeemed from a present evil age, and it was to have as little
as possible to do with that age.
The second, and far more important, ground for the
indifference of apostolic Christianity to the establishment of
a Christian civilization that would replace the heathen, lay
in its conception of an eschatological kingdom. It believed
implicitly and explicitly that civilization, as it existed in the
empire, had not long to survive. Across the entire horizon
of the future the early Christians saw the messianic judg
ment and the beginning of a new age in which men were to
live only in the bodies of the resurrection. So far from
planning for posterity, they could hardly believe that there
was to be any posterity. The Lord was to return shortly,'
even during the lifetime of their own generation;" believers
if dead were to be raised, if alive were to be changed in the
twinkling of an eye ; the judgment was to be set, the king
dom established, the wicked destroyed. The time was short,
and ever growing shorter.' Maran atha. The Lord comes.
The end of all things was at hand.* The judge stood before
the doors.* Why, then, plan social revolutions, or even
social ameliorations? The Christian's wrestling was not
with flesh and blood, but with rank upon rank of angels,
the powers of the air.* It was better to endure patiently
the days of waiting, for in the Day that was to come all
earthly differences would be effaced.
1 Eom. 13 :11, 12 ; 16 : 20 ; 1 Cor. 7 : 29 : Phil. 4:5.
21Thes. 4:15-17; 5:1, 23, 24; 2 Thess. 1:7; Eom. 13:11, 12; 1 Cor. 1:7,8; 7:29;
11:26; 15:51,52.
3 Rom. 13 : 11, 12 ; 1 Cor. 16 : 22 ; Phil. 4 : 5 ; Isa. 5 : 8 Heb. 10 : 25, 37.
41 Peter 4: 7. 5 James 5: 9. ^ Eph. 6:12.

Messianic Feateenity in an Evil Age 287
The perception of the hopelessness of attempting to con
vert all individuals before this awful day of Jehovah awoke
not only thankfulness that there were those who were already
saved as brands from the burning, but profound sorrow,
amounting in some cases to pessimism. "All that is in the
world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eye, and the
vainglory of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world,
and the world passeth away and the lust thereof,"' says
1 John, and a little later," "we know that the whole world
lieth in the evil one." The wild joy over the destruction of
sinners that runs through the Apocalypse of John is but the
natural outcome of the recognition of an inherent hostility
between the new groups of God's elect and the wicked, per
secuting empire in the midst of which they lived. And
long after, when the delay of the coming of Jesus was
beginning to cause doubt and scorn, the unknown person
who wrote in the name of Peter' could hold to the Enochian
belief that the present heavens and earth had survived the
Noachian flood, stored with fire reserved against the day of
judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
But again the writers of the apostolic age were unable to
bring their hopes born of their new life quite into subjection
to this narrowing eschatology. At least Paul could not.
The salvation to which his passionate heart looked was some
thing too great to be limited to the few men of lowly calling
he found at Corinth and the other cities he had evangelized.
The rulers of this age might pass away unsaved, but in
moments when his heart rather than his logic spoke, he could
see all creation groaning and travailing together in pain,
waiting for the adoption — the resurrection of the believer;*
he could see all creation brought into subjection to Jesus
Christ, every knee bowing to his great name.* Just how he
U John 1:17. 21 John 5:19. 32 Peter 3:7.
4 Eom. 8 : 19-22. 6 Phil. 2 : 10.

288 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
would co-ordinate this thought with his general teachings it
is impossible at this distance to say. Perhaps, as he was a
very great man, he would not try to co-ordinate them. At any
rate, there they are a tribute not only to a masterly imagina
tion, but to the power of the new life the social capacities
of which, because of his own historical limitations, he could
not fully appreciate. Yet, with him as with Jesus, Christian
life must be social in order to be true to itself. Strip from
his teaching its enswathing eschatology, and we have the
non-messianic elements in the teaching of Jesus. God and
men had found each other. The divine life complemented
the human. Each man was made alive and was to be kept
alive by the Spirit of God. This body of Christ, what is
it, if one ceases to believe it but a temporary thing, but the
beginning of a redeemed humanity ? And this new life
that is drawn from the Spirit, what is it but the eternal life
of which Jesus speaks, which will refuse to look merely to
the rescue of individuals from an evil age, and as soon as it
discovers that its hope for the immediate return of the Christ
is a disappointment will go out to the rescue of institutions
and the conquest of the empire itself ?
Christian civilization was the inevitable result of the new
life taught by Jesus, experienced by individual Christians,
organized by the Christian communities, and interpreted by
the apostles in the vocabulary and concepts of Pharisaism.
The interpretation was transitory; the divinely imparted
life, eternal. He who would see the heart of apostolic
Christianity must find it in this work of the Spirit in the
lives of those who believed Jesus to be the Christ and
accepted his teachings as the everlasting principles of ethical
and religious living. With the apostles, as with their
Master, the essentials of Christianity lie in personality, and
not in formula ; in the Spirit and not in the letter.

CHAPTER III
THE FAMILY AND THE AGE
This conception of the church as a fraternity within the
Roman empire makes it easy to appreciate the effect of the
messianic hope upon the Christian conceptions of life. The
apostles were not social philosophers, but they did set forth
what the members of the church should consider proper
customs for themselves. Thus in each department of social
life their teaching is affected both by practical considerations
resulting from the actual environment of the Christian, and
also by the regulative conceptions of their eschatology.
Eternal life was being lived, but it was not to be without
its ethical formulas. And these formulas were in part
derived from the conventionalities of the civilization in
which the messianic fraternities found themselves.

The family did not originate with Christianity. So far
as we know, apostolic Christianity did not attempt any
change in its form or ceremonies in the different countries
into which it spread. Yet this by no means is to be inter
preted as arguing that Paul approved of the Grseco-Roman
moralists in matters relating to the sexes. On the contrary,
it is patent that he found in heathen society a distinct
danger to the pure life which the Christian should attempt
to live. In fact, the greatest danger that threatened the new
communities lay in the social ideals and customs that pre
vailed throughout the Graeco-Roman world.
Thanks to the over-zealous efforts of certain apologetes,
we have grown so accustomed to the portrayals of the
depravity of the heathen society of the first century that it
289

290 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
is difficult to realize that an empire that had yet hundreds
of years to live, and was not to reach its greatest prosperity
for a century, was neither decrepit nor rotten. Especially
hard is it to realize the simple distinction between the
capital and the provinces, and to believe that throughout
the provinces there was a sturdy, self-respecting middle class
which, however its members may have enjoyed occasional
gladiatorial sports, was yet maintaining a conventional
domestic morality by no means greatly inferior to that of
any modern nation. Just as the letters of Pliny tell of
beautiful home life among the official class in the capital,
the gravestones are noble defenders of bourgeois morals.
Men were not all like the heroes of Petronious and Apuleius,
and women were not all like that notorious matron who
counted years by her husbands rather than by the consuls.
Throughout the empire there was developing a new concep
tion of the rights of married women. Gradually they had
passed out from the restrictions of the old in manu marriage
and were permitted to study, if not to practice, learned pro
fessions, to control their own property, and in many other
ways to break from the restraints set by the old conceptions
of the subjection of the wife to the husband. All this dis
turbed the minds of conservatives of those days, just as
similar tendencies disturb conservatives in the present day.
For those who were admirers of old Roman ideals, as many
of the fashionable writers profess themselves, there was
indeed sufficient ground for lamentation; yet, nevertheless,
the emancipation of women advanced steadily. It even
possibly aided the Christian conception of the ideal position
of women as one of equality with men. But, unfortunately,
the abolition of restraints seems to have been followed by
no moral uplift. Alongside of this emancipation of women
of the wealthier classes there persisted the old ideas of the
veniality of sexual impurity on the part of men, as well as a

The Family and the Age 291
growing tendency to divorce. The upper classes were not
marrying, and the number of children in case of marriage
was growing less, notwithstanding the government's effort
to check the evil by the establishment of privileges for those
who had three children. What was worse, there was spring
ing up a sort of legalized concubinage that was neither
prostitution nor marriage.
In addition to these tendencies in the Graeco-Roman
family, there was also the recognition of prostitution as an
element in the social life of all cities. It is impossible to go
into this matter in detail, but the readers of the polite litera
ture of the empire know only too well how heathen society
regarded the matter. If few Roman philosophers would
take the position of Cato, they seldom censured the practices
he advised. The other and nameless form of licentiousness,
which played such havoc in the moral system even of a
Socrates, was not only prevalent, but actually a matter of
academic debate. Plutarch has a lengthy dialogue as to
the relative merits of the love of boys and the love of
women.' Such a fact as this makes very evident the public
opinion in the midst of which the first gentile churches
sprang up. Practices like these, abhorrent though they
were to Jewish and Christian morality, were sharply dis
tinguished by the ethical writers of the day from lust and
ignoble passion of all sorts. No one would accuse Plutarch,
for instance, of favoring orgies or debauchery. Temperance,
or self-control, was the greatest of personal virtues both for
him and for all men of his type. But chastity on the part
of men was a matter of preference — a practice of a semi-
ascetic morality. Confusing as are the implications of such
a statement, the historical student must admit that the
great and good men of the Greek and Roman type distin
guished marital faithlessness from prostitution, and regarded
1 Morals (Eng. trans.), "On Love."

292 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
what today would be considered licentiousness as morally
neutral. That such a conception ever was outgrown must
be laid largely to the credit of the Christian teaching we
are considering. Chastity of both men and women, not
merely the maintenance of the married vow, was an ideal of
all Christian teachers. The triumph of this ideal is a
tribute to the wisdom of those called to confront a problem
which at the outset must have appeared all but insoluble.
A second fact that gave the early Christians difficulty as
regards marriage was the Christian teaching itself. Jesus
himself had taught that in the approaching kingdom men
were neither to marry nor to give in marriage, but were to
be like the angels.' Indeed, he had even said that unless a
man hated his father and mother he could not be his
disciple." Paul, with his persistent emphasis upon the
"fiesh" as the point of attack of sin, must have deepened
the uncertainty of his converts as to the rightfulness of
maintaining, much more entering upon, matrimony. The
matter became so vital that the Corinthian church wrote to
the apostle for light.' Should Christians mjirry, and, if
married, should they live together as husband and wife ? If
one of the married pair were not a Christian, should the
marriage be broken?
These were the questions forced upon the church by both
its social environment and its own teachings. The answer
that Paul makes to them is clearly determined by its general
conception of the relation of the Christian to the world and
the kingdom, and by his belief in the shortness of the time
to elapse before Christ returned. It will be found in extenso
in 1 Cor., chap. 7. His positions may thus be stated: (a)
1 Mark 12: 24. "The sons of God, children of the resurrection," Luke 20: 36.
2 Luke 14: 26.
3 The suggestion of Ramsay, Historical Commentary on Corinthians, in loco,
that the Corinthians were considering universal marriage as a panacea for the
prevalent morality, can hardly be considered seriously. See Massib, Journal of
Theological Studies, July, 1901, pp. 527, 528.

The Family and the Age 293
marriage is a lawful thing for a Christian; (6) it is to be
justified wholly from the side of physical appetite, as a sort
of prophylactic against licentiousness;' (c) for those who are
able to withstand appetite, celibacy is preferable, since, if
married, they will be likely to be more devoted to their hus
bands or wives than to the Lord; (d) the general position
governing his teaching, he frankly says," was not obtained
from any teaching of Jesus, but is given as his own opinion
(rfvcofitj), as one who had received mercy from the Lord to be
trustworthy. How far he was governed in this teaching by
his eschatology is evident.' "By reason of the present dis
tress [i. e., in the storm and stress period before the reappear
ance of the Christ] it is good for a man to be as he is.* Art
thou loosed from a wife ? seek not a wife. But and if thou
marry, thou hast not sinned." Thus, again, it appears that
Paul does not regard it as any part of his work as an apostle
to develop a philosophy of marriage, or, in fact, any social
program, for persons who are so soon to be living in condi
tions in which only the spiritual elements of life are to sur
vive. Marriage he regards as a temporary institution, to
pass away with the age.*
Yet it would be a serious injustice to the apostolic thought
to leave the matter here. One must consider, also, the closely
1 Yet even in marriage the husband and wife are to live apart occasionally for
religious growth, 1 Cor. 7 : 5.
21 Cor. 7:25. 31 Cor. 7:26.
4 Teichmann, Die paulinische Vorstellung von Auferstehung und Gericht, p. 20,
holds, on the basis of 4 Esdr., 5 : 8, that Paul advises against marriage because of the
general belief that childbirth would be especially dangerous during the period pre
ceding the advent of the Christ. So, too, Thackeeay, St. Paul and Contemporai-y
Jewish Thought, 76. Such a view is by no means impossible, and becomes the more
probable when one recalls that there was no persecution or other specific danger
threatening the church at Corinth at the time Paul wrote these words. For refer
ence to Jewish literature see p. 166, n. 3, above.
5 Yet it is temporary only as the age itself is temporary. The society in which
it is abolished is not earthly, but heavenly. As an institution it is as permanent as
the age. Of that hallucination which has often overtaken good men and induced
them to attack marriage, as an unjustifiable conventionality to be outgrown in the
progress of civilization, he happUy has no trace. Apostolic Christianity is no cham
pion of free love, no matter under what euphemisms it may masquerade.

294 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
allied theme of chastity, so unavoidably forced into notice
by any study of the social conditions in which apostolic
Christianity developed. As we should expect, here is no
mere balancing of two possible goods; far less a recognition
of the moral possibility of any such question as that debated
by Plutarch. No moralist ever struck out more boldly at
that laxity which, to modern eyes, is the worst feature of the
Roman civilization. The doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which
was the same as that of Balaam,' leading directly to licentious
ness — how anxiously is it censuredin the Apocalypse of John."
The most superficial reader of the opening chapter of
Romans feels the heat of Paul's hatred of heathen vice. The
matter in his treatment becomes again one of contrast between
a-dp^ and TTvevfia — of the supremacy of the spiritual life, and
the supremacy of the moral imperative found in the nature of
that life. Brushing aside all casuistry, he puts the case
frankly: it is a choice between living after the flesh and
reaping corruption, or of living after the Spirit and reaping
eternal life.' The fornicator cannot enter the kingdom of
God.* Thus even here there is no appeal to law, either of
Moses or of Jesus. The Christian must be pure because he
is a Christian. He is to live in the flesh the sort of life that
is to be his after the resurrection. Social ethics were never
more directly based upon religion. No man could appeal to
higher motives. As Marcus Aurelius might summon the
thought of Nature to assist him in early rising, Paul made
the Christian's union with God's spirit the basis for personal
purity. "As for fornication, let it not so much as be named
1 Numb. 31 : 16, cf. 25 : 1-15.
2 Eev. 2 : 6, 15, cf. the teaching of the woman Jezebel, Eev. 2 : 20.
3Gal. 5:16— 6:10; ICor. 5:9.
4 Eph. 5:5; c/.l Thess. 4 : 4 f . Weenle, Christ und Siinde bei Paulus, pp. 129 f .,
compares the various catalogues of sins given by the apostle in Rom. 1:29; 13:13;
1 Cor. 5:10, 11; 6:9; 2 Cor. 12 : 20, 21 ; Gal. 5 : 19 f. ; Col. 3:5, 8; Eph. 4:31; 5:3, 5. In
all but two reference is made to licentiousness. See also VON DOBSCHtlTZ, Die ur
christliche Gemeinde, p. 283.

The Family and the Age 295

among you!' Know ye not that your body is a temple of
the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have from God?
Glorify God therefore in your body."" Only thus could the
resurrection of the body and the achievement of the life of
complete triumph over the flesh be guaranteed. Nothing gave
him more anxietyconcerning the churches in Thessalonica and
Corinth than the danger that threatened in this regard from
heathen society ; and the great struggle in which the apostle
engaged with the Corinthian church seems to have had one of
its main roots in the unwillingness of the church to discipline
a member who had broken even the lax conventionalities of
heathen society. And it may well be noticed that the apostle
demands this chastity of men quite as much as of women.
Possibly one might say he was even more insistent upon it
because of the attitude of the Grseco-Roman mind to which
reference has already been made.
Thus the family in the apostolic teachings appears a sec
ondary good. On the whole it was wise, Paul thought, not
to establish one for oneself. It is true, to be able to live
unmarried was evidence of a special divine charism,' but he
himself had a right to be married as well as Peter, yet pre
ferred celibacy (or shall we say widowerhood ?) and could
wish that all men were of the same mind.* And this applied
to women quite as truly as to men.* Similarly, the Seer of
Patmos saw the 144,000 who had not defiled themselves
with women standing with the Lamb, the first fruits unto
God and the Lamb.* It is not difficult to see how such a
disparagement of marriage would lead to the aceticism of
the next century after the apostles.
1 Eph. 5: 3. So, too, Heb. 13:4. 2 1 Cor. 6 : 19, 20.
31 Cor. 7:7. Jacoby, Neutestamentliche Ethik, p. 31, note, refuses to classify the
Xapurp-a of this text with xap'VfiaTa in general. His position seems hardly justifiable
in view of the general position of Paul concerning the "gifts." It would seem as if he
meant by them special and characteristic powers possessed by various believers, which
in accordance with his usual tendency he explained as resulting from the working of
the Holy Spirit.
41Cor.9:5f. 5 1 Cor. 7 : 39, 40. 6Eev.l4:4.

296 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
II
If now we pass from the apostles' treatment of the relation
of the sexes to that accorded the family as an institution, we
discover at once that they are true children of this age.
Paul's conception of marriage as a purely physical matter,
advisable as a means of preventing irregular alliances,
could hardly fail to be accompanied by frank and unques
tioning statements concerning the inferiority of woman in
the family. It is true that "in Christ" there was to be no
distinction, but not so in the church. There the women
were to be silent.' They were to remember that the woman
was made from man, and not man from the woman;" that
veils were necessary still on account of the angels.' The
husband was the head of the wife* and, supposedly at least,
capable of giving her all such instruction as was needed by
the weaker vessel.* The wife, finally, was to be subject to
her husband.* And all the apostolic teaching is to the same
effect.' In Paul's eyes, also, the unmarried woman was subject to
her father. He could prevent her marriage, and as a lesser
good he could permit it. After becoming a widow, however,
the same woman was, in accordance with the spirit of the
age, given new rights. She could marry whom she chose,
only ev Kvpta, i. e., probably, within the circle of believers.'
Later advice given in his name makes remarriage obligatory
on young widows."
Yet though he might thus treat the family as a secondary
good, and though he might thus insist upon Christians con
forming to the social conventions of their day, Paul's teaching
concerning divorce is that of Jesus himself. ~ The question
1 1 Cor. 14 : 34, 36. 2 1 Cor. 11 : 12.
31 Cor. 11 :10. The meaning of this enigmatic saying is probably to be found in
Gen. 6:2-4 and the evil which sprang from the union with angels mentioned there.
4 1 Cor. 11 : 1-16 ; Eph. 5 : 23. 51 Cor. 14 : 35.
6Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; c/. 1 Cor. 7 ; 39. 'IPet. 3:1, 7.
81 Cor. 7:36-40; 9:5; 2 Cor. 6:14. 91 Tim. 5:14.

The Family and the Age 297
as to the separation of married persons from unbelieving
partners was a very natural one for Christians of the type of
those in Corinth, and the matter was treated by Paul
explicitly. Again he works from a general principle that is
far more important than its particular application. Chris
tians thus married are certainly to maintain the home for
the benefit of each other and their children ; for the unbeliev
ing husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving
wife is sanctified in the brother; else were their children
unclean.' Whatever else this last clause may mean, it cer
tainly exhibits strikingly Paul's regard for the unity of the
home, and especially for the children."
Brought face to face with an actual separation of husband
and wife, Paul speaks in the name of Jesus: "the wife shall
not depart from her husband, but and if she depart, let her
remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband ; and
let the husband leave not his wife."' Here is the one clear
instance in which the apostles quote Jesus as an authority
in ethical matters, and it is worth attention that it is at the
one point at which the social content of Christianity cannot
change except for the worse. If there is anything in all
the specific social teaching of Paul that may be said to have
transcended the historical situation in which it was uttered,
it was this concerning the family : the union of a man and
woman in marriage is a primal fact of humanity ; it is not a
matter of contract, it is an actual status. Separation may
be permitted, but not remarriage to other persons. Divorce
is neither instituted nor permitted by New Testament ethics.*
11 Cor. 7:14.
2 On this latter point see also the position taken as to the saving quality of
child-bearing; 1 Tim. 2:15; cf. 5:14.
3 1 Cor. 7 : 10, 11 ; cf. Mk. 10 : 12.
4 It is worth noticing that this use of the saying of Jesus by Paul furnishes a
critical control of the saying itself. In Matt. 5 : 32 ; 19 : 9 the exception clause TropenTos
Ad-you iropveia? or (xij «"¦"' TopreiV is found, but not in Mark 10:11 or Luke 16:18. On
general critical principles, therefore, the clause would likely be dropped, but the
decision is strengthened by the absence of any such exception in the teaching of
Paul. Cf. Jacoby, Neutestamentliche Ethik, p. 356. To the contrary (mistakenly),
Mathews, Social Teaching of Jesus, p. 87,

298 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
There remains the matter of apostolic directions for the
control of the inner relations of the Christian family. These
are given so repeatedly as to indicate that the matter was
regarded as of first importance. They are not in accord
with modern ideas in some points, but are clearly such as
would have made the Christian family ideal in the society
of the first century. In general they are the outcome of
the positions already described. Wives were to be in sub
jection to their husbands;' children were to obey their
parents ; fathers were not to provoke their children to wrath,
but to nurture them in the chastening and admonition of
the Lord." It is not difficult to see in these directions a
modification, but not a destruction, of the parental authority
so universally recognized in both Jewish and Roman civiliza
tion. To make these essentially local and historical applications
of Christianity universal and authoritative in matters of the
family is to check the growth of the Christian spirit in
social affairs at the limit reached by these civilizations.
Such a check, however, so clearly possible only as long as
one lived under the control of an eschatological conception
soon to be made untenable by the failure of the Christ to
return to usher in the expected messianic age. Christian
history shows was short-lived. In the family, as in all
things, it was the ideal element of Paulinism, not its specific
application, that proved permanent. And in these matters,
at least, most Christians are agreed. He would be a rare
man who would today attempt to make the Pauline teaching
as to Corinthian women operative in western Christendom.
But to understand Paul completely one must also consider
his attitude toward the family as a social unit, wholly apart
from its basis as a union of persons of opposite sexes. It
is here that the apostle comes nearest to the thought of Jesus.
lEph.5:22f.; lPet.3:l. 2Eph.6:lf.; Col. 3:18-25-

The Family and the Age 299
It will be recalled that with the Master the family became
the formal concept of the kingdom. God was Father, dis
ciples sons and therefore brothers, and all who entered the
kingdom were to become like little children. Paul, in his
less practical moments, when he is dealing with ideals and
not with questions of church discipline, has similar expres
sions. God is a loving Father' quite as much as a dread
sovereign," and most beautiful of all the Pauline expressions
is that in the Ephesian letter, "I bow my knees unto the
Father from whom every fatherhood in heaven and on earth
is named."' Other figures fall hardly below this. The
church is sometimes conceived of as the bride of Christ;
sometimes as a virgin to be kept spotless till the coming of
her lord. The man who could so use a social institution can
hardly be said to have disparaged it, however much he may
have regarded it as a secondary good.*
Ill
Thus if one were to summarize the apostles' teaching as
to the family, it would be something like this: Except in
the case of divorce, and then under the direct influence of
Jesus, they did not attempt to introduce any new conception
of the family. They rather treated the Jewish and the
heathen marriage from the Christian point of view, as an
institution to be preserved. As a result they held up ideals
for families in the Grseco-Roman life of the first century.
Only in so far as these ideals involve universal principles
are they of importance to today's life. The new Christian
life, possessed as it is by the very genius of corporate
expression, has worked out, within the limits set by these
general principles, such particular social institutions as it has
judged necessary and human imperfections have permitted.
Thus again the application of historical criteria enables
IRom. 8:14-17. 2 c/. Eph. 4:6. 3 Eph. 3:14, 15.
4 As a matter of curiosity, it might be added that there is no evidence that the
Christian pastors performed wedding ceremonies.

300 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
us to distinguish the essential and the pedagogic elements
of the apostle's thought. Long hair and veils, silence in
religious meetings, subjection to their husbands — these are
but elements in the apostle's adjustment of the external life
to a Grseco-Roman civilization. So, too, his treatment of
marriage as a purely animal survival. Under the domina
tion of a formal and ethnic thought, he undertook to prepare
men for another world. In his estimation the present age
was hopelessly evil, its surviving animalism and such of its
members as did not live according to the spirit, doomed to
certain destruction. From this point of view, it was idle to
attempt reform or to assist social evolution. Christians,
though not to abandon this world, were to live as citizens of
another. Thus the family was a matter of but secondary
importance, and women, though ideally equal with men, were
in point of fact treated as inferior.
In so far apostolic Christianity was temporal. But in
this social teaching Paul was giving but an interpretation of
something that he knew and preached as neither Jewish nor
temporal; and that something was life, born of an actual
faith in God. This life it was that formed the basis of his
moral teachings, and which, he urged, should be allowed to
express itself in acts of love to men. Those who held God
as Father would treat men and women as equal members of
the new fraternity. And it was this essential Christianity
that outgrew the specific social directions of the apostle. In
Paul's noble conception of the religious worth and respon
sibilities of a man's body with all its passions, in his insist
ence upon love between man and wife, in his refusal to regard
marriage as a mere contract capable of dissolution, in his
recognition of the rights of children — in a word, in his
recognition of the domestic implications of the new moral
and religious life, Paul was opening up the permanent force
and ideals of subsequent social evolution.

CHAPTER IV
THE ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL BEARING OF ETERNAL
LIFE
The years in which Christianity first began its history
were years of prodigious economic and political change.
The growth of the Roman republic had of necessity broken
down and established trade routes quite as truly as it had
recombined kingdoms into the first empire. Commercial
intercourse between Asia and Africa was supplemented by
the enormous traffic between cities like Alexandria, Antioch,
Tarsus, Ephesus, Corinth, Marseilles, and Rome. Industries
were developed to the very limits allowed by slavery.
Enormous banking houses sprang up all over the empire ;
Judea itself, after having for centuries shared but little in
the economic life of its neighbors, then sought its place in
the world-commerce. At the same time there was an extra
ordinary redistribution of wealth. The enormous booty of
the eastern wars at first had fallen into the hands of a few
wealthy Romans. The standard of living set by them had
controlled the habits of the wealthy classes throughout the
provinces, and in consequence there, as in the capital itself,
ruinous prodigality was soon epidemic. Uninvested wealth
is pretty certain to find its way into the hands of middlemen,
and the Roman empire offered no exception to the rule.
Shopkeepers grew into capitalists; slaves into freedmen;
freedmen into millionaires. The entire age grew commer
cial. At the same time it grew imperial. The multitude of
small kingdoms and city-states that had composed the an
cient world had become things of the past, and in their
stead there had arisen the ever-developing empire. For the
301

302 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
first time in human history the civilized world was at peace
with itself, and united against the barbarians of the forests
of Europe, the steppes of Asia, and the plains of Arabia and
Africa. It was impossible for the imagination of any
thoughtful man to rest unstirred. So it was that there
seems to have arisen throughout the empire bands of men
who sought either to carry the political transformation still
farther, or to check the progress of a movement toward the
complete centralization of power in an irresponsible monarch.
So much, at least, looks out upon us through the stern regu
lations of the age against all sorts of sodalities. "Societies
of this sort," wrote Trajan to the younger Pliny who had
recommended forming a fire company in Nicomedia,' "have
greatly disturbed the peace of the province. Whatever name
we give them, and for whatever purposes they may be
founded, they will not fail to form themselves into factious
assemblies, however short their meetings may be." The
same danger Trajan discovered in large meetings called to
receive contributions of money." Throughout the entire
legislative and imperial rescripts a similar fear of political
disturbance is evident. To speak against Caesar was the
worst of crimes.
Into this commercial empire Christianity came, with a
message that from the point of view of the empire itself
must have been suspicious. It taught another king, Jesus,'
and it sought to make its followers live as if citizens of
another kingdom. As long as such teachings were seen
through the medium of a highly protected Judaism, they
might very well pass among the Romans as a part of the
impossible religion of the Jews; but when once Christians
left the synagogues and made devotion to their king and
kingdom the supreme test of loyalty to their own fraternities, it
is clear that Roman officialism could not fail to be alarmed.
1 Pliny, Letters, bk. x, 43 2 Ibid., bk. x, 94 3 Acts 17 : 7.

Economic Bearing of Eternal Life 303
To adjust the new life of the church to an aggressive com
mercialism, and at the same time to preserve it from being
misconceived as a political movement, were problems requir
ing no small sagacity.
Yet, after all, from the point of view occupied by Paul,
its solution was not difficult. The new value given life by
eschatological messianism, the spirit of laissez-fairein politics
which obtained in his pharisaic training, suggested at once
the conduct to be advised. How opposed to anything savor
ing of revolution this conduct should be has already appeared.
We have now to examine the positive teachings of the apostles
concerning the ethical principles obtaining in economic and
political matters.

The teaching of Jesus upon wealth was set forth in
language which might be easily misunderstood to indicate
hostility to wealth as such. He realized the moral difficul
ties which lie in the possession of property, and, above all,
the constant temptation of the rich man to grow independent
and superior to his fellows. It was because of this that he
so insisted upon the fraternal use of property. Wealth was
a small good for a man face to face with eternity. It is
true that his teaching is not strictly economic. Doubtless
because of the circumstances of the time in which he lived,
beyond saying that one cannot serve both it and God, and
that one is to seek first God's kingdom and his righteous
ness, he has left no utterance concerning the matter of the
production or, strictly speaking, the distribution of wealth.
He was rather concerned with its consumption. But even
here his words are not those of the economist, but of the
moralist. Indeed, he has left no economic program. In
the case of wealth, as in the case of all human matters, he is
concerned with moral relations, and it is from this point of

304 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
view that his words have permanent value. With Jesus
wealth is a good, but a secondary good. By being used in
the spirit of love, and for the purpose of building up a fra
ternal humanity, it gains its only worth.' And this means
that it should be given freely and as one is confronted with
others' needs." In fact, so strong are his expressions con
cerning the duty of charity that, were it not for the correct
ive of his other and more general teachings concerning
love, one might be justified in adopting the interpretation
of his words so often championed, that Jesus taught that all
wealth should be given away. Interpreted in their genetic
relations with the fundamental principles of his teaching,
however, these injunctions to charity appear in their true
light. They are the one application of such principles to
the historical conditions in which Jesus found himself.
And as such charity reappeared in the apostolic frater
nity. For one cannot be far from the truth in holding that it
was the recollection of their manner of life with Jesus a few
months previous that led the apostles in the early days of
the Jerusalem church to favor the continuance of an arrange
ment in which no limits were set upon the devotion of wealth
to the needs of the community. And thence resulted the
outgush of Christian love which led to the sale of land and
other property, and the devotion of the proceeds to the
maintenance of a common fund which was devoted to sup
plying the needs of poor Christians.'
Many* have seen in this spontaneous KotvmvCa, in which,
1 Luke 16: Iff.
2 For instance, Luke 6 : 30 ; 12 : 33 ; Mark 10 : 21. In general see Mathews, Social
Teaching of Jesus, chap. 6; Peabody, Jesus Christ and the Social Question, chap. 4;
RoGGE, Der irdische Besitz im Neuen Testament ; CoNE, Rich and Poor in the New
Testament, chaps. 1-5 ; Hecvee, Jesus' Teaching concerning Wealth,
3 There is no need of supposing that the entire membership of the church sat
down to a common meal. The numbers, as well as Acts 2 : 46, preclude this.
4 For instance, Nitti, Catholic Socialism, p. 62. A number of quotations are
given in Peabody, op. cit., p. 26, note.

Economic Bearing of Eternal Life 305
as one of the two accounts of Acts says, no one thought of
his own property as his own,' a form of communism. It is
very difficult for one who would use words accurately to
assent to such an opinion. Communism consists in some
thing more than self-sacrificing charity. If words mean
anything, to give one's coat to a tramp is not to constitute
oneself a disciple of Fourier. No more were the Christians
at Jerusalem communists because they ministered to their
poor. There is not the slightest indication that they ever
united in a common productive effort, ever uttered a word
against the institution of private property, or gave their
assent to any peculiar theory of the distribution of wealth.
The situation was much simpler. These Christian messian
ists expected that their Lord was soon to come to establish
his heavenly kingdom. This faith constituted a bond of
union both with Jesus and with each other. They were
brethren. Some of their number were in need of assistance.
It was but an expression of the fraternal love which charac
terized the new life when those who had property should
minister to their less fortunate brothers. The time in which
property would be of use was rapidly shortening, and for
that reason, if for no other, wealth might well be put to its
best use. Such an explanation so satisfies all the conditions
that it seems almost supererogation to call attention to the
fact that the mother of Mark seems to have owned her
house," and that in the story of Ananias and Sapphira, what
ever may be its historical value, there is no evidence that its
writer supposed that in the Christian church there was ever
any compulsory charity.' The two wretches die as liars, not
as breakers of a communistic compact.
But even such consistent, if indeed, under the belief of
his speedy return, too literal, following of the teaching of
lActs 4:32; c/. 3:44, 45. In the Didache, 4:8, and in the Epistle of Barnabas,
19:8, this statement becomes a command.
2 Acts 12:12. 3 Acts 5:1-11.

806 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
Jesus was but short-lived in the church. His words were
interpreted to refer to charity rather than to general eco
nomic life, and charity became throughout the different
Christian communities what it has since become — a giving
of a certain portion of one's income to the poor, chiefly
those, doubtless, at Jerusalem. Wherever one can trace
Paul there one can also discover his indefatigable effort to
raise money for poor Christians.' However much this effort
may have depended upon some politic motive, like main
taining the good- will of other.wise proselyting Jewish Chris
tians," there can be no question as to the importance he
accords charity as a Christian virtue. Even the common
meals furnished the poor of the Jerusalem church were per
petuated in the meals of the Grseco-Roman churches like
Corinth.' It is true that this meal soon became symbolical*
rather than eleemosynary, the expression of a fraternal
unity rather than of charity; but even thus its origin does
not seem to have been quite forgotten, for alongside of the
memorial supper there seems also to have been a more sub
stantial meal. In other ways, also, the teachings of Jesus
upon charity seem to have received especial attention. Paul
admonishes the elders of Ephesus not to forget their Lord's
word, "It is more blessed to give than to receive* and the
poor-fund raised in his churches seems to have been suffi
ciently large to warrant a system of treasurers like Tychicus
and Trophimus.*
Yet there is no suggestion that Paul thought it necessary
ilThess.4:ll; Rom. 15 : 26-33 ; lCor.l6:l-4; 2 Cor. 1:8 ff.; 8:4; 9:lff.; Gal.2:10.
2C/. ICor. 16:1, 3; 2Cor.9:l. siCor. 10:16; 11:24.
4 The influence of the Greek mysteries may here be traced, but it is easy to give
undue importance to this element in the universalizing of early Christianity. Cf.
Hatch, Infiuence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, chap. 10;
Cheetam, Mysteries, Pagan and Christian; Weenle, Beginnings of Christianity,
Vol. II, pp. 123 f .
6 Acts 20:34,35.
6 Acts 20 : 4, 5 ; cf. Acts 24 : 17 ; Rom. 15 : 25, 26 ; Gal. 2 : 10. See Rendall, Exposi
tor, 1893, p. 321. The technical word for this contribution was Sianoi-ia.

Economic Bearing of Eternal Life 307

for all his converts to beggar themselves in order to assist
others from beggary. "Let thine alms sweat within thy
hands until thou knowest to whom thou art giving it," says
the Didache,^ and Paul was quite as much opposed to indis
criminate charity. He insisted that the Christian should
keep within the ranks of the wealth-producers. "We hear,"
he wrote the Thessalonians, "of some that walk among you
disorderly, that work not at all, but are busybodies. Now
them that are such we command and exhort in the Lord
Jesus that with quietness they work and eat their own
bread." "If any will not work, neither let him eat,"" he
also commanded the Thessalonians, as if in the very spirit
of modern philanthropy. In several of his letters' he recalls
to the mind of his converts his own habit of life, how he
worked daily in order that he might not become a burden to
any, and that, too, while he distinctly recognizes his right
along with other religious teachers to be supported by the
community to which he ministered in spiritual things.*
Perhaps at this point we find Paul in his most interesting
position. The custom of the rabbis, and far more of the
philosophers, favored the giving of presents to teachers.
Thus, as a teacher, to say nothing of his being an apostle,
he might have claimed the privilege of being supported by
his disciples. This, as has already been said, he declined to
do, but his declination was made in such form as really to
strengthen the right of other teachers to be paid. Whether
or not such persons had abandoned their ordinary vocations
we cannot surely say, but probably they had. Only on this
supposition can we account for Paul's anxiety that those who
were over his converts in the Lord and who ministered to
them in spiritual things should be cared for in material
11:6. 22Thess.3:10.
31Thess.2:9; 2Thess.3:7, 8; lCor.9:l-18; 2Cor.ll:7; 12:13
4 1 Thess. 5 : 12, 13 ; 2 Thess. 3 : 9 ; 1 Cor. 9 : 1-14.

308 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
things. The very Scriptures taught the lesson, he insisted,
when they taught that a man was not to muzzle the ox that
trod out his grain.'
This insistence upon charity and self-support, as well as
upon the payment of teachers, by others as well as Paul"
argues strongly for the presence in the early churches of
others than those who were poor or essentially proletarian.
And this conclusion is corroborated by many hints in the
apostolic and subsequent literature, not to mention the
archaeological testimony of the second and third centuries.
Poor there were, but also those who were well to do; pos
sibly, since there seems to have been a city treasurer, even a
few rich.
To appreciate, however, the general social status of the
churches outside of Judea, at least, one must think of com
munities composed of small shopkeepers, artisans, slaves, all
being kept by the influence of their leaders steadily at their
daily toil, doing heartily whatever they undertook, as unto
the Lord, and all contributing to some fund which was
applied to the needs of the other "saints." It is certainly a
charming picture of simplicity and generosity — the farthest
possible removed, on the one side, from any communistic
propaganda, and, on the other, from mere commercialism.
But the leaders of the early church, if devoted to sobriety,
industry, and charity, were none the less suspicious of the
rich. In Paul's later letters he repeatedly warns his con
verts against covetousness, likening it to idolatry,' and
rigorously excluding the covetous, with fornicators and
thieves and drunkards, from the heavenly kingdom.* And
it is worth noticing that this suspicion of the rich did not
pass away. The epistle to Timothy declares* that the love
of money is the root of all evils, and the author of He-
ilCor.5:9. 2Heb.l3:17. 3Col.3:5.
4 1Cor. 5:10, 11: 6:11; Eph. 5:5. BiTim.6:10.

Economic Bearing of Eteenal Life 309
brews' bids Christians to be free from the love of money.
Far more severe is the author of the epistle of James,
which, whether it represents pre-Pauline Christianity or not,
certainly represents the un-Pauline point of view. In all
folk-literature there is no sterner denunciation of wealth
or of that obsequiousness which even in the brotherhood
of Christ gives special honors to the well-dressed and
wealthy man. "Go to now, ye rich, weep and wail for your
miseries that are coming upon you. Ye have laid up your
treasure in the last days. Behold the hire of the laborers
who mowed your fields, which is of you kept back by
fraud crieth out."" In these stern words we see, however,
not merely a hostility to wealth as such, but to the un
righteous and oppressing rich; and it is noticeable that
even here there is no word of revolution, but a trust in the
retribution to come in the day of judgment.
Despite the progress of Christianity among the wealthier
classes, confidence in the poor man as over against the
rich man, and the desire that all men should give to
charity, may be said to characterize the first century of
the life of the church. Once we even seem to catch some
echo of the old communal charity of the ancient church,
when in the Two Ways we read:' "Thou shalt communicate
in all things with thy neighbor ; thou shalt not call things
thine own: for if ye be partakers in common of things
that are incorruptible, how much more should ye be of
those things that are corruptible;" but the context makes
it likely that the words urge only charity.
The church as a whole seems never to have committed
itself to other than the Pauline view of industry, private
property, and charity in proportion to God's prospering.
By the time we reach the second century we find the church
I Heb. 13:5. A reason for the minimizing of economic ambitions is almost a
paraphrase of Matt. 6 : 31-34.
2 Jas. 5:4. ^ Epistle of Barnabas, 19.

310 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
fathers discussing the paradoxical teachings of Jesus with
much the spirit, and oftentimes with the same casuistry, as
the writers of today, while a little later Chrysostom urges an
academic communism on the ground that all money put into
the common fund would be divinely increased!
If now we seek for the motives that induced the apostles
thus to inveigh against wealth while urging industry and
charity, they will all be found either within the traditions of
those who had lived with Jesus, or else within the general
messianic expectations of the early church. It is hardly
possible to suppose that the churches which preserved the
records of Jesus' teaching that go to make up our gospels
should have been utterly indifferent to the repeated injunc
tion of Jesus to make wealth a secondary good and to
practice charity. Just as impossible is it not to perceive
that the expectation of a speedy return of Jesus to establish
an ideal but unearthly society would have tended inevitably
to minimize the value set upon wealth. The leaders of the
church, with remarkable exceptions like Augustine, have
always seen a Christian use of property in the endowment
of ecclesiastical institutions. But an endowment presup
poses a permanent institution, and this was just what the
eschatology of the apostles made impossible. Their charity
funds were for immediate consumption, not for permanent
investments. Even the apostolic injunction to industry was
primarily called out by an indifference to earthly conditions
born of the eschatological hope. To erect the apostolic
teaching into legislation is therefore impossible. As a whole,
it is not even the expression of fundamental principles.
Yet none the less — perhaps one should say all the more — is
it valuable, for it discloses one fundamental fact, viz.:
Christianity has no economic program. And another great
fact emerges from the apostolic treatment of a commercial
age: Economics, like all other aspects of life, is to be con-

Economic Bearing of Eternal Life 311
trolled by love — love that helps the less fortunate; love that
refuses to judge a man by his possession or lack of wealth ;
love that refuses to make its possessor become through
idleness a burden upon society.
But these are not rules. They are the elements of a
Christianity that is dependent upon no theory of the second
coming of Christ, or upon any formal messianism. Essen
tial Christianity needs no such motives, and may even thrive
better without them, for it is an expression of the new life
that is born from the contact of a soul with its God,
and is nourished and directed by the teaching of Jesus.
II
The infiuence of eschatological hopes in producing the
conservative spirit shown by the apostles in the matter of
wealth is even more marked in their words concerning
politics. Jesus had left no teaching regarding the state.
The nearest approach he made to the matter was his general
reply to the Jews, to render unto Caesar the things that are
Caesar's;' and to Pilate: "Thou couldest have no power ex
cept it were given thee from above."" Any man who
attempts to erect a theory of politics upon two such state
ments will need considerable imagination, and deserves small
credence. The fact is that in politics Jesus adopted a
thoroughgoing policy of laissez-faire, refusing to complicate
his real purpose in life with any consideration of political
difficulties or reforms.
The same general attitude seems to have characterized
the teaching of the primitive church. It is true that, as far
as one can judge from the early sections of Acts, the first
Christians judged that they were free to disobey the com
mands of the authorities whenever they interfered with
1 Matt. 22 : 18-22.
2 John 19:11. In general see Mathews, Social Teaching of Jesus, chap. 5.

312 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
what seemed to them to be clearly Christian duty,' but
Jesus himself may be said by implication to have counte
nanced the same view, when he told to his disciples that
they would be brought before kings and governors, for his
sake, and promised them the aid of the Spirit in making
their defense." But the persecutions which came upon
the church at Jerusalem were not so severe as to lead to
any distinct attitude of hostility on the part of the Chris
tians, either to the Roman or to the Jewish officials.
Paul seems to have had a good knowledge of law, both
imperial and, if one may judge from the niceties of his
references in his letter to the Galatians, local. He also,
doubtless, realized the difficulties which beset the man who
could be represented as in anyway dangerous to the Roman
empire. Yet he knew the advantage of Roman citizenship,
and, from one point of view, the entire book of Acts is an
argument for the legitimacy of Christianity because of the
repeated protection shown Paul by various Roman officials.
Perhaps it is in part for this reason that he seems to have
been remarkably courteous in his references to the imperial
power. He tells the Romans that the state is of divine
origin,' and that it is to be obeyed implicity under fear of
just punishment: "Let every soul be in subjection to the
higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the
powers that be are ordained of God." "For for this cause
ye pay tribute also; for they are ministers of God's service,
attending continually upon this very thing." And this of
an emperor like Nero! Similarly Peter in addressing the
Christians scattered throughout the empire bade them
beware of being arrested for disorderly conduct, and to
"honor the emperor."* At the same time Paul believed
that all governments were but temporary, and that the rulers
1 See the words of Peter and John, in Acts 4: 19.
2 Mark 13: 9-11. 3 Rom. 13: 1-7. 4iPet. 2:17.

EooNOMio Bearing of Eteenal Life 313
of this age, both Jewish and Roman,' were to come to
nought." His attitude in general was not in the least,
therefore, that of co-operation with the state, but that of
submission to its requirements. In fact, he does not, ap
parently, think that the state is a matter in which the Chris
tian has any particular share. This appears clearly in his
strong words to the Corinthians against going into heathen
courts, with their interfraternal troubles. The state might
be appealed to for protection, but never to decide the differ
ences of Christians.' It was bad enough that there should
be dissensions within the Christian brotherhood, but they
should be settled within the Christian community " by some
wise man able to judge between brothers." Christians
should never appear before the heathen judges to plead their
difficulties with each other. "Do you not know," he asks
indignantly, as he recalls them to their messianic hopes,
"that the saints are to judge angels?"* and that "men who
are unjust cannot inherit the kingdom of God?"
Here again we evidently have teaching that can be ad
justed only to certain distinct historical conditions. Neither
Peter nor Paul is drawing out a theory of the state.
Each is endeavoring to show his converts how to live in an
existing empire while waiting for the coming of the Christ.
To elevate this work into lasting doctrine is to be untrue to
historical conditions. It was not that all government was
right; it was simply a divinely ordered element of a period of
waiting. The true Christian citizenship was not in earth,
but in heaven. The heavenly kingdom was not to be set up
on the earth by any transformation of the Roman empire.
1 1 Thess. 2 : 16 ; Eom. 9 : 22 ; 11 : 1-36.
21Cor. 2:6; 15:24; c/. Acts 17:7.
3 Acts 28: 19.
41 Cor. 6: Iff. Cf. the saying attributed to Jesus, according to which the
Twelve were to sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel, Matt. 19: 8; Luke
22:30.

314 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
It was to come suddenly, miraculously. Had Paul returned
to life at the beginning of the fourth century, there could
have been no more surprised man than he upon reading the
proclamation of Constantine. Persecution he could under
stand, for it was to be expected that an evil age would pursue
the followers of the Christ it had killed;' but an earthly
government gradually recognizing the civil rights of both
Christians and heathen, with Christian officials and Chris
tian legislation, was something of which he never dreamed.
It was, in fact, something of which few Christians dreamed
for two centuries after the apostle's death.
It is obvious, therefore, that we cannot regard the apos
tolic teaching concerning the state as of lasting significance.
So to treat it would be to end political evolution. To sub
mit to governmental oppression has been often the most un-
Christian of acts, and Paul himself was to fall a victim to
his own refusal to allow his rule of passive obedience to
extend over matters of conscience. The paradox of the po
litical significance of Christianity never was more striking.
On the one hand stand these directions of the apostle to
submit to the imperial power, and on the other is the mani
fest fact that Christianity, in the same degree as it has been
unaffected by tradition and authority, has always made
toward political change. How may the paradox be resolved ?
By a resort to the facts which condition the teaching. It is
inconceivable that Paul should have thus taught, had he per
ceived a social and political future before Christianity. It
was because he believed in the cataclysm attending the re
turn of the Christ that he urged the Christians to hold aloof
from the state. Once free a man from this belief, and the
apostolic teaching is impracticable. And this is precisely
what happened in the process of time. The Christ did not
return ; Christianity could not hold itself from politics. It
11 Thess. 1:6; 2:14,15.

Economic Beaeing of Eternal Life 315

remade the Roman empire; it has remade every state in
which it has been allowed free scope.
Has, then, apostolic Christianity no political significance ?
Before a categorical answer is given one may well decide as
to which apostolic Christianity is meant: that which deals
with a religious ethic, or that which deals with a specific
application of such ethic to an age believed to be rapidly
moving toward its end? If the latter is meant, apostolic
Christianity had a political message for its own day; but
that message passed with its day. To enforce it again
would mean to sanction tyranny. If the former is meant,
then apostolic Christianity has no specific political message.
Christianity in the teaching of its great apostles as in that
of its Founder, is a life and not a political system. It may
have political effects; it cannot have a political program.
A government is Christian, not when it is a republic rather
than a monarchy, or a monarchy rather than a republic; or
when its subjects are either indifferents or martyrs. It is
Christian when its institutions embody the spirit and are
regulated by the principles of Jesus. And that this may be
true, revolutions, despite Paul's word to the Roman church,
may sometimes be the most sacred of Christian duties.
Thus again by a resolution of its historical form it is easy
to discover the fundamental ethic of apostolic Christianity.
Its highest good is the living of the eternal life of the Spirit,
and its highest imperative is born of the need of living
according to the measure of that spiritual life already
possessed. Although, therefore, formally the apostolic ethic was
dominated by apocalyptic and eschatological concepts,
essentially it was the life of Spirit — a moral life based upon
religion. Formally, therefore, the church was a group of
messianists awaiting a kingdom that never came and indiffer
ent to all customs of society except those that were evil;

316 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
essentially the church was a group of men and women
endeavoring to let the new religious and ethical life that had
come to them from God through accepting Jesus as Christ
express itself in social relations.
And the life lived. Jesus was greater than the men who
interpreted him, even when they interpreted him aright, and
it is he and his work, and the life with God he revealed, that
formed the strength of historical Christianity. The new
life must needs be expressed in temporary vocabularies and
concepts, but it could not be restrained by them. It con
quered them — the mighty systems of an Augustine, an
Origen, a Justin, even of a Paul. And thus inevitably,
because it was the social expression of a life, the church
became the parent of a Christian civilization; the Christian
woman of a Graeco-Roman civilization became the Christian
woman of a Christian civilization; the Christian family of
the first century grew into the Christian family of today ;
the Christian fraternity, loyal to an imperial tyranny, became
the champion of a Christian democracy that, with all its
revolutionary power, even as yet has not come to its own in
either politics or economics.

SUMMARY
The results of our investigation may now be summarized
with a view to their use in constructive processes which lie
outside our present purpose.'
1. An impartial comparison of the New Testament litera
ture with the contemporaneous and immediately preceding
literature of Judaism shows an essential identity in the
general scheme of the messianic hope. In the New Testa
ment as in the Jewish literature we find that the general
scheme of deliverance by God involves the two ages, the two
kingdoms of Satan and God, the coming of the kingdom in
the future by cataclysm, the establishment of the day of judg
ment, the resurrection of the dead, and the personal Christ.
2. The New Testament literature modifies this general
scheme of Judaism only as it is compelled so to do by the
actual facts connected with the life of Jesus. Thus it recog
nizes that the Christ has suffered and died, and that his
death is vicarious. Its belief in the resurrection is no
longer a theory, but a generalization of the fact in Jesus'
own career. Its understanding of a personal Christ is now
supplemented by a knowledge of the historical career of
Jesus as a preacher and exponent of divine love as well as
sovereignty. The new Christianity also magnifies the Spirit
— the actual interpenetration of the divine and human per
sonalities. At the same time such elements of the older
hope as are not affected by these facts appear in the New
Testament as a part of the hope of the coming kingdom to
be established by Jesus. The new messianism of the New
Testament is essentially eschatological, a matter of hope.
1 This constructive work has been sketched by me in various numbers of Christen
dom, Vol. I (1903), and will be found further developed in my forthcoming book. The
Gospel and the Modern Man. ,317

118 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
3. This identity between an older and a later expectation
hows that, in so far as the Christian messianism is not con-
rolled by the actual facts of the career of Jesus, it is an
nheritance from Judaism. It is therefore an interpretative
oncept which, like the cosmological concepts of the time, is
without a basis of experience^ — ^the means of expressing and
nterpreting facts of experience and of history. This inter-
)retation as used by Jesus of himself becomes the expo-
ition of a consciousness of a divine personality, and as used
if Jesus by his disciples is the ultimate valuation of a per-
onality they recognized as the exponent of God. This
lersonality rather than its interpretation is, especially in its
wo-fold historical revelation of God-in-man and of the
esurrection, the first great essential of the Christian gospel.
4. In the case of those Jews who could see in Jesus such
personality as would warrant their interpreting him in
lessianic — i. e., in ultimate — terms, there followed a gen-
inely moral adjustment with God which resulted in a radi
al experience of the divine Spirit. This spiritual life,
rhich was correlated with the expected messianic future and
tie immortal life, is an indisputable matter of experience,
nd one that is regarded (with varying emphasis) by the
Tew Testament writers generally as the evidence of the cre-
ibility of their messianic hope: in particular as the basis
ar their confidence in their acquittal in the cominsr iudg-

were valued and brought to a generation under the control
of the messianic expectation. We should not be justified in
saying that the interpretation was necessarily incorrect. It
will be efficient, however, only with those in whose apper
ception it already exists, and the New Testament itself con
tains abundant evidence of a process of redefinition of the
messianic interpretation of Jesus for the sake of those who
needed some more philosophical valuation of his divine per
sonality. A definition is thus at once the result, the expres
sion, and the cause of an ever increasing vital faith.
6. The history of the Christian community as found in
the New Testament indicates clearly that the new life result
ing from faith in Jesus and the consequent actual inter
penetration of the human and divine personalities, was
checked in its expression by the survivals of Jewish mes
sianism in the Christian communities. But it could not be
and was not destroyed. The fundamental impulse of that
life is one of self-sacrificing love like that of God, and this,
rather than an inherited eschatology, turned out to be the
dominant element of the new religion. Its history modified
the messianic expectation and gave to some of its terms
new definitions born of the philosophical apperception of
western peoples. Such redefinition, so far from being a
loss, was inevitable and beneficent to believers who were not
Jews. It furnished mediating concepts and valuations
which enabled the new converts to bring themselves into the
same relationship with God that the Jewish messianic con
cept had enabled the Jews to attain. But the Christian life
itself, and the real nature' of faith, were not changed. Both
grew in the same proportion as men came to God through a
supreme definition of Jesus.
7. We have thus suggested the method presupposed by
any theological reconstruction that in any true sense is loyal

320 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
to the historic Gospel. The theologian must be a historian.
There must be, first, a precise interpretation of the Gospel
as it stands in the New Testament, in its own terms and
from its own point of view. Second, there must be a dis
crimination between the messianic and kindred interpretative
formulas and concepts, on the one hand, and, on the other,
the facts in the records of the life of Christ and of Chris
tian experience which fair-minded criticism, psychology,
and sociology will regard as assured. Then, third, there
will be the presentation of these facts, through the use of
such interpretative and pedagogical concepts as will do for
today what the various concepts of the New Testament did
for their day.
Such a method judges historical facts by genuinely his
torical criteria, and therefore distinguishes between the
essential and purely economic elements of Christianity
without abandoning scientific limitations. From it there
must result a new confidence and appreciation of that his
torical gospel which gave rise to faith rather than was
caused by faith. For while the method will recognize to
the full the fundamental verities of Christian experience,
it also will give full value to historical facts. In these it
will find data for the same moral stimulus and the same
religious hope they have always aroused during the centuries
of Christian history. On the one side, this method avoids
that assertion of the perpetual authority of interpretative
concepts and that dogmatism which have always proved
fatal to the spontaneous and persuasive expression of the
Christian spirit; and, on the other hand, it avoids that
mysticism which belittles the historical facts which really
have made Christian assurance possible. Such an historical
method prepares the way for religious psychology and leads
to a theology at once scientifically positive in its reliance
upon objective facts, consonant with the known laws of per-

INDICES

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Acts : criticism of, 138 f .
Adam: "flrst" and "second," 192, 199.
Adoption, 207, 287.
Ages, two: an element in Jewish mes
sianism, 52; in teaching of Jesus, 71;
in speeches of Peter, 141; in 1 Peter,
151; in James, 154; in Revelation, 156,
in Paulinism, 163 ; in Hebrews, 237.
Akiba, 20, 54.
Alexandra, 26.
Amos : Day of Jehovah in, 21.
Angels, evil, 36, 37, 39, 40; to be judged,
218.
Angels, good, 39.
Annihilation of the wicked, 49, 50;
not in Paulinism, 203.
Antiochus Epiphanes, 28.
Apocalypse, "little," of Matt., chap.
25, 101.
Apocalypse of Baruch : criticism of, 45 ;
messianic hope of, 45 f.
Apocalypses : rise of, 21 f . ; due to the
Day of Jehovah modified by Hellenistic
influences, 22; Babylonian influence
in, 23.
Apocalyptic element in the teach
ing op Jesus: theories concerning,
74 f.
Assumption of Moses: messianism of,
44 f.
Atonement : early form of doctrine, 154 ;
in Paulinism, 195 f.
Babylon: influence of on apocalyptic,
23.
Baptism op John : messianic significance
of, 65 ; of Jesus, 88 f . ; a symbol, 220.
Birth of Jesus, 88, 288, 233.
Bath Qol, 90.
CsiSAEEA Philippi : incident of, 96.
Chaeity : in apostolic churches, 306 f .
Cheist: term not used by Jesus, 106;
force of, determined by that of "King
dom of God," 114; as an expression of
the self-consciousness of Jesus, 126 f.
(See Messiah.)
Christian : force of word, 263.
Christianity, apostolic: not revolu
tionary, 275 ; nor ascetic, 279.
Church: origin of conception, 263; or
ganic conception of, 269; and society,
272.
Churches : composition of, 261, 262 ; rise
of, 264 f . ; organization of, 266 f ., 269 f .
Collegia : and the churches, 264, 276.

Communism: not in apostolic Chris
tianity, 304 f .
Ceitical presuppositions concerning
the synoptic gospels, 58 f. ; critical
analysis of Mark, 13, 229 f . ; concerning
Acts, 138 f.
Cybele : worship of, 256.
Daniel : knowledge of, amon^ Jews, 20
n. ; resurrection in, 24 ; messianism of,
31.
Day OF Jehovah: general history of
belief in, 20 f. ; in Amos, 20 ; in Zepha
niah, 20; in Ezekiel, 21; relation to
messianism, 22.
Deacons, 268.
Deaconess, 268.
Death: the punishment of sin, 184;
borne by Jesus the Christ, 196.
Demoniacs : interpret Jesus, 94.
Divorce: apostolic teaching concern
ing, 297.
DiSPEESiON, the: influence and impor
tance of, 256 f.
Earth : to be renewed, Eth. Enoch, 35.
Economic teachings of the apostles,
302 f.
EcCLBSiASTicus : reference to immor
tality in, 24.
Elders, 266 f.
Elijah : return of expected, 29, 54 ; John
refuses identification with, 66.
Enoch (Ethiopic}: character of, 34;
messianic hope m ground work (chaps.
i-36, 72-104) , 35 ; in dream visions (chaps.
83-90), 36 f. ; in visions, 39 f.
Enoch, Secrets of (Slavonic): messianic
hope of, 45.
Eschatology: apijearance of, 24; truth
of, 122; place of, in teaching of Jesus,
117 f . ; of Paul, 175 ; based on knowledge
of risen Jesus, 199 f . ; of the synoptists,
229 f . ; in John, 244 ; check of expression
of regenerate life, 286, 310.
Esdras, Fourth: messianic hope of, 45.
Eternal life, 123; In Paulinism, 212 f.,
223; in Fourth Gospel, 245.
Exile : effect on messianic hope, 7.
Ezekiel: ideal kingdom of, 6; Day of
Jehovah in, 22.
Faith: in Paulinism, 194; ethical as
pects of, 209 f .
Family, the: in apostolic teaching,
289 f ., 298, 299.
Felix : disorders under, 17.

325

326 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament

Gessius Florus, 18.
Gospels, synoptic: critical examina
tion of, 57 f., 225; messianism of, 227.
Hebrews, epistle to: criticism, 236;
messianism in, 237 f.
Hell : divisions of, 50.
Hellenism : in Judea, 9 ; an element in
apocalyptic, 22.
Heeod I : messianism under, 14.
HosEA : messianic hope in, 5.
Idumi:ans, 19.
Immortality: appearance of hope in,
24; restricted to members of the king
dom, 29; restricted to the righteous,
49, .50; denied by Sadducees, 50; taught
by Pharisees, 5i.
Idols : Christians and, 282 f .
Incarnation : in Paulinism, 191.
" In Christ," 220.
Isis : worship of, 256.
James, epistle of : criticism, 155.
Jerusalem: to be capital of messianic
kingdom, 36.
Jesus: messianism of, compared with
that of Judaism, 71-74, essential ele
ments of, 120 f. ; teaching on the
present kingdom, 67-69, 80-82; on the
eschatological kingdom, 69 f . ; harmony
of the two concepts, 74-82; messianic
self-consciousness or, 84-119; periods
of his messianic work, 115-17 ; death of,
118 ; in what sense the Christ, 129 f . ;
vicarious death of, in primitive Chris
tianity, 148, in 1 Peter, 153, in Paulin
ism, 170 f., in synoptic gospels, 232;
birth of, 228, 233; resurrection of, 2M
(see Resurrection); in heaven, 235;
High-Priest, 239 f.
John the Baptist : messianism of, 62 f. ;
questions Jesus, 95.
John, epistles of, 248.
John, gospel of, 59 f., 243; critical ques
tions as to early messianic faith in,
84-87.
John of Gischala, 18.
John Hyrcanus, 26; in messianic hope,
33.
Jubilees, Book of: messianic hope in, 40.
Judas of Gamala, 15.
Judea : messianic attempt in, after Re
turn, 8, 9.
Judgment : in Eth. Enoch, 35, 37; two
judgments, 53; in teaching of Jesus,
73 ; m speeches of Peter^l42 ; in 1 Peter,
152; in James, 157; in Paulinism, 165,
218; in Hebrews, 237. (See also Day of
Jehovah.)
Justification : in Primitive Christian
ity, 142 f . ; in Paulinism, 193 f .
Kingdom of Christ, 76 f., 165.
Kingdom of God : meaning of the term,
68 n. ; among Zealots, 15 ; to come by

cataclysm, .54; to be Jewish, 53; in the
preaching of John the Baptist, 64; in
the teaching of Jesus, 67-83; definition,
82; present and social, 67-69; eschato
logical, 69 f., esp. 73; relations of the
two concepts, 74 f . ; modifications given
the term by Jesus, 108-14 ; in speeches
of Peter, 143; in 1 Peter, 152; in James,
154; in Eevelation, 156; in Paulinism,
164 f., 167 ; in Hebrews, 237.
Law : in Paulinism, 182.
Logia : collection of, 57f .
Logos : in Fourth Gospel, 247.
Luke, gospel of: 57 f., 228.
Maccabees, First : messianic hope in, 12.
Maccabees, Second, 13.
Mark, gospel of, 57 ; chap. 13, 229 f.
M.\rriage : apostolic teaching concern
ing, 292 f.
Matthew, gospel of, 57 f.
Mithra : worship of, 256.
Messiah: not in all Jewish messianic
literature, 3, 44, 45, 54; in Ethiopic
Enoch, 37, 38, 29; as the Son of man, 39;
in Psalms of Solomon, 43; in Apoca
lypse of Baruch, 45; in < Esdras, 45;
reign of, limited, 53; Jesus as Christ,
73, 84-119 ; in what sense was Jesus re-
farded as Christi 86; evidence that
esus considered himself the Messiah,
84^119; eschatological, 114; periods in
Jesus' life as, 115; in speeches of
Peter, 144; in 1 Peter, 153 f. ; in Paulin
ism, 168 f., 189 f. ; in Hebrews, 238; use
made by Paul of concept, 174 f . ; rein
terpretation of term in Hebrews, 239 f.;
in Johannine writings, 246f. (See also
Messianism, Pre-existence.)
Messianic self-consciousness of
Jesus: 84-119; objections to, 84 f.; de
fined, 89 ; distinguished from prophetic
inspiration, 91 f., 127; an evidfence of
incarnation, 126 I.
Messianism : deflned, 3 ; correlative with
nonism, 3 ; in Hebrew literature, 4 f . ;
in Hosea and prophets, 5; after the
Exile, 6; in Ezekiel, 6; original ele
ments of, 10; two forms of later, 11;
revolutionary, 31-20; in iMaccabees, 12;
in Sibylline Oracles, 12, 33, 46; under
Herod I., 14; of Zealots, 15 f.; of Theu
das, 16 ; relation to Day of Jehovah,
20 f . ; appearance of doctrine of im
mortality in, 24; of Pharisees, 27, 33,
43 f.; of Judith and Tobit, 29; of
Daniel, 31 f . ; under later Asmoneans,
32 ; of Ethiopic Enoch, 34 f. ; of Book of
Jubilees, 40 f . ; of Psalms of Solomon,
41 f . ; of Assumption of Moses, 44 ; of
Apocalypse of Baruch, 29, 45 f.; of
4 Esdras, 45 f.; Slavonic Enoch, 45;
mixture of political and transcendental
elements in, 48 ; involves the resurrec
tion of the righteous, 5i; essential
elements in that of apocalyptic litera
ture, 52, 53 ; of Jesus compared with
that of Judaism, 71-74; essential ele-

Index of Subjects

327

ments of, 120 f. ; of primitive Chris
tianity, 137 f . ; in speeches of Peter,
138 f . ; in 1 Peter, 151 f . ; of James, 154 f . ;
of Eevelation, 156 f. : of Paul, 163 f. ; of
synoptic gospels, 227 f. ; in Hebrews,
237 f . ; in Johannine writings, 244 f . ; in
2 Peter and Jude, 249 ; a check to ex
pression of eternal life, 286, 288; sig
nificance of to theology, 317 f . ; essential
and interpretative elements in that of
Jesus, 119-33. (See also Messiah, Jesus.)
vov^ : in Paulinism, 180.
Paulinism : pharisaic messianism of,
163 f . ; modification of same, 169 f .
Parousia of Christ: in teaching of
Jesus, 117; in that of Paul, 171 f.; in
Mark ch. 13, 229 f. ; effect of the hope
of, 286.
Peter, first epistle of: criticism,
1.50; messianism in, 151.
Peter : messianic confession of, 96, 97 ;
messianism in speeches of, 141 1.
Pharisaism: in Jerusalem church, 143.
Pharisees : origin of, 25 ; political po
sition of, 26 ; messianism of, 27, 33 ;
political laizez faire of, 43 ; belief in
immortality and the resurrection of
the righteous, 50.
irvevp.a: in Paulinism, 179.
Pre-existence of Christ, 190 f., 240.
Prophetism: messianic hope in, 5;
Jesus' appreciation of, 124 f .
Prostitution: attitude of apostles
toward, 281.
Psalms of Solomon ; messianic hope in,
13; details of messianic hope, 41 f.
Eeconciliation : in Paulinism, 206.
Eetuen : messianic hope of, 7 ; messianic
hope after, 24.
Eesurrection : iu Enoch (Eth.), 38; as
an element of Judaism, 49: taught by
Pharisees and denied by Sadducees,
49-51; an element of the messianic
hope, 54 ; in teaching of Jesus, 73 ; of
Jesus, 130, 132; in speeches of Peter,
144; in 1 Peter, 1.52; in Revelation, 158;
in Paulinism, 168 f.; as a part of sal
vation, 187; in Hebrews, 238.
Revelation of John: criticism, 155;
messianism of, 156 f . ; ethical elements
of, 161.
Eioh : early suspicion of, 308 f .
Sabizius : worship of, 256.
Sadducees : on immortality, 50.

Sanhedbin, 26.
Salvation: first use of, in Christian
sense, 142; not universal. 149; content
of term in Paulinism, 182, 185 f., 204.
crapf : in Paulinism, 178.
Satan : kingdom of, 28 ; in Jubilees, 40 ;
belief in, due to Parsic influences, 52 ; in
teaching of Jesus, 72; in speeches of
Peter, 142 ; in James, 156 ; in Paulinism,
163; in Hebrews, 237.
Secrets of Enoch, see Enoch.
Serapis : worship of, 256.
Servant of Jehovah, 6.
Sheol : as hell, 50.
Sibylline Oracles : messianic hope in, 12,
30, 46.
Sicarii, 16.
Sirach, son of : see Ecclesiasticus.
Simon ben Shetach, 26.
Sin : in Paulinism, 177 f ., 182 f. ; punish
ment of, 184.
Slavery : not abolished by apostles, 280.
Son op God : term not used by Jesus,
106 ; in Hebrews, 240.
Son of Man : in Daniel, 31, 102 f . ; as a
self-appellation of Jesus, 102-6.
Spiritual body, 182 f., 200 f.
Spirit, Holy : in primitive Christianity,
147; the cause of the resurrection of
Jesus, 147, 198; of the resurrection of
Christians, 198; gifts of, 210, 212 f.; as
source of organization of the church,
268; love the fruit of, 284.
State: apostolic teaching concerning,
311 f.
o-ujaa: in Paulinism, 180.
Theudas, 16.
Temptation of Jesus, 91.
Temple : cleansing of, 99.
Tongues : speaking with, 147.
Wisdom literature : origin of, 22.
Wisdom of Solomon : resurrection in, 49.
Women : apostolic teaching concerning,
296 f.
Yeqer haea, 182.
Zadduk, the Phaeisee, 15.
Zealots : rise of, 15 ; messianic hope of,
17.
Zechariah : flrst apocalyptist, 23.

INDEX OF REFERENCES

I. OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis —
2:17  184
3:19  184
6:2  28
6:2-4  296
Exodus —
4:22,23  47
Leviticus —
20:20  152
Numbers —
25:1-15  294
31:16  294
Deuteronomy —
14:1,2  47
19:10  152
20:16  152
1 Samuel —
16:18  Ill
2 Samuel —
7:14  47
17:8  HI
1 Chronicles —
17:13,14 .... 47
22:10  47
28:3  Ill
Psalms —
2:2-4 . . . . 4
2:7-10  4
2:7  46,47
45  4
72  4
72:8 . .... HI
89:20-37 .... 47
110  4
Ezra —
7:12  44
Nehemiah —
10:29-31  8
Isaiah —
2:2  151
2:2-4  5
4:2-fi . ... 5
5:8 . . ... 286
8:16-18  5

Isaiah —

9:2-7 ....

5

10:5 

7

11:1-9 ....

5

11:4 

47

19:19-25 ....

5,7

24-27 . . .

3

26:1-19. . .

?4

30:23f 

J»

35:5,6

95

42:1 ....

146

44:28 ....

7

45:1 

7

52:7 

146

52:13 

6

53:12

6

60:1-22. . . .

8

64:1 ....

146

65:20-22 . . .

38

Jeremiah -

7:1-15 ....

6

31:31-34 ....

6

33:17-22 ....

6

Ezekiel —

11:14-20 . . .

6

26:7 . ...

44

30:2f 

?.?,

34:12 

22

37:21-28 ....

6

38:2 

157

39:8 

22

39:16 

157

Daniel —

2:37 ....
44
2:45 ... 1
1,20
3:54 ....
68
7:8 ....
31
7:13 . 20,101,104
105
7:20-26 ....
31
7:56 
105
8:23-25 . . .
,S1
9:25 ....
20
11 
20
11:21-45 ....
31
12 
20
12:1 f  24
166
Daniel —
12:2  30
Hosea —
2:19-23  5
11:1  47
14:1-8  5
Joel —
2:18-27  22
2:28,29  8
Amos —
2:6-8  21
3:9-15  21
5:10-13  21
6:4r-8  21
Micah —
2:10  142
3:1  142
4:1  142,157
4:1-5  5
4:5,6  149
Zephaniah —
1 : 2-18  21
2:4-15  21
3:8,14-20 , ... 21
Haggai —
1:13  8
2:6-9  8
2:7  237
2:23  8
Zechariah —
2:1-5  8
2:10-13  8
3:8  8
4:6-10  8
6:11,12  8
8:1-8  8
8:12  8
8:20-23  8
9-14  23
12:5-9  30
14  30
9:9,10  31
Malachi —
3 : 23, 24  29
II. THE LITEEATUEE OF JUDAISM
1 Maccabees —
1:.53  17
2:31-38  17
2:42-70  32
2:57  12,29
4:46  12
5:55-62 .... 32
5:62  13
7:9  42
7:13,14  12
1 Maccabees —
9:27  42
9:19  42
14:41  12
17:26  42
2 Maccabees —
7:9,11,14,19,23,29, 3.5-37 . . 13, 29
7:14  29
329
2 Maccabees —
6:11  17
6:26  29
10:6  17
12:42-45  29
12:43,44  13
14:15  29
Judith -
16:17
29,33
330 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament

Tobit —
13:11-13,16-18 . .29,33
14:6,7 . . . .29,33
13:1  68
Ecclesiasticus —
1:5,6  148
4:15  53
15:14  182
17:31  182
21:11  182
32:18  33
33:lf  33
33  3
35:18,19  24
37 : 25  29, 33
44:13  29
47:11 ... 24,29,33
48:10,11 . . . 24,29
50:23,24 ... 24,33
The Assumptionof Moses—
1:12  27
1:14-17  27
1:18  44,53
8  28, 44
9:4^7  17
10  29,166
10:1 .... 28,29,92
10:1-10. . 44,50,68
10:8  17
10:9,10  17
12  53
Slavonic Secrets of Enoch
9:lf  45
10:3-6  45
18:1-6  45
19:1-5  45
22:8  179
30:8  180
32  45,157
33  157
133:2  45
42:2  188
42:3  221
46:3  45
48:8,9  45
55:2  157
61:2f  45
65:6-10  45
65:8-10  45
Ethiopic Enoch —
1:4  35
1:6-9  35
1-36, 72-104 .... 35
1-36  35
5:9  35
6-11  36
10:6, 12 f  28,35
10:10 ... 35
10:17 . ... 35
10:20  36
10:20-22  36
12:1  36
14:5  28
15:8-12  28
16:1-4  28
16:1  35
19:1 . . . 28, 35
21  50
21:10  28
22  35
22:4, 11 f  35

Ethiopic Enoch—

Ethiopic Bnoch-

_

22:1-14. .

. ... 50

69:26,29  104

22:11,13 .

. . . 36

70:3,4 .

. . . 54

25:4 . . .

. ... 35

70:1 . .

. .104
25:5 . . .
. ... 35
71:16 .
. . 39
25:6 . . .
. ... 35
71:16,17
. . . 54
25:3,5,7 .
. ... 68
72:1 . .
. . 204
27:2,3 . .
. ... 50
84:4 .
. . 36
27:3 . . .
. ... 68
86:88 .
... 36
27:4 . . .
. . . 35
89 . .
. . 27
37:4 . . .
. ... 221
89, 90 .
. 36
37:71 . .
. . 39
90:15,21-2
. . 28
39:3-12. .
. ... 54
90:1 f. .
. . 28
39:5-12. .
. ... 39
90:18-20
. . 36
39:6 . . .
. . . .263
90:18-20
. . 37
40 ...
. ... 27
90:20 .
. .157
41:lf. . .
. ... 68
90:21 .
. . 160
41:2 . . .
. ... 39
90:24-27
. . 37
41:9 . . .
. ... 28
90:26-27
. . 50
45:3 . . .
. 29
90:27-29
. 157
45:3-5 . .
... 39
90:28,29
. . 37
45:4r^ . .
... 39
90:30-33
. 37
46:1,2 . .
... 39
90:37,38
37,146
46:2-4 . .
... 104
91:12-17
. . 37
46:16 . .
, . 181
93 . .
. . 37
47:3 . . .
. 39, 157
97:6 . .
. . 157
48:2 . . .
... 104
99:5 . . .
164,166
48:3,6 . .
. . 39
99:15 .
. . 37
48:8 . . .
. . .166
99:11 . .
. 38,50
48:9 . . .
... 50
100:5 . .
. . 38
48:10 . .
. . .166
102 . .
. . 37
49:3 . . .
... 146
103:4 . . .
. . 38
49:12 . .
... 39
104:5 . . .
. . 37
50 ...
. 39
105:2 . . .
. 38,46
50:2 . . .
. 166
108:3 . . .
. 38,50
50:4 . . .
... 39
108:11,12 .
. 38.71
51:1,2 . .
. . 39,71
51:4 . . .
... 39
Psalms of Solomon—
52:4 . .
... 68
1  42
53: If. . .
... 28
1:5-9  13
53:3 . .
... 28
2:3,5,8  13
53:6,7 .
... 39
2:7,8,17. ... 42
54:1,2 . .
. . 50
2:30,31  42
54:4 . . .
... 28
3:13-15 .... 42
o4:5f. . .
28, .39, 71, 72
3:16  42
55:4 . . .
. .53
4:5  13
58:lf. . .
... 28
5:21  68
57 .
... 39
7:2  13
.58:3 . . .
. 39
8:9-14  13
60:8-23.
... 54
10:9  143
61:7,11 .
... 146
12:7  143
61:8 . .
. . 53
13:10  42
61:12 . .
... 54
14:1-3,7  42
62 ...
. . .165
14:6  42
62:2 . . .
. . 39, 53
14:10  221
62:5 . . .
... 39
15:11  42
62:5-9 . . .
... 104
17  42
62:7
... 39
17:4  68
62:12,13 . .
... 50
17:25,26  43
62:15 .
. 179
17:27  43,47
62:16 . .
. . 221
17:28  43
62:63 . .
. . 39, 49
17:30 .... 43,207
63:6 ....
... 49
17:31  43
63:6-9 . .
... 39
17:32  43
63:10 .
. 71
17:33  43
63:11 . . .
... 104
17:34 . . . .157
64 ....
. .28,39
17:.S2^E  263
65:4 ....
... 90
17:35,36  43
65:10 . . .
... 221
17:37  44
68 ....
... 28
17:36-39  33
68:2 ....
. . .146
17:39 .... 47,278
69:29 . . .
... 39
17 : 42 .... 43. 146
69:27 . . .
... 53
18 . .
. . 42
Index of Refeeences

331

Psalms of Solomon —
18:7-9 . .
18:8 
Book of Jubilees—

263 146

l:2« . . .

. . 41

4:26  41

5:10  28

10:8 . . . . 28,40,52

17:15 . . .90

17:16 ... .52

23  116

23:1-23

41

23:11 . . .

41

23-15 ...

. . 40

23:26-28 . .

. 41

23:26,27 .

. 40

23:29 . . .

28,40

23:31 .

41

31 : 18-20 .

41

Wisdcmi of Solomon —

3:1-3  49

3:1-5 . . . . 142

3:8  53

3:9,17-14 . . .49

3:23,25 . . . . 180

6:5 . . . 68

10:10 . . .68

15:2,3 . ... 49

iii, 655-97, 710-42, 755-

60, 766-72, 930 . .30

iii, 97-807 .... 46

286  53

652-794 .... 33

iv, 180 ... 159, 181

V, 431  263

Philo—

Quis Rer. Div. Her. 146

Nobil  146

Deealog .... 146

Testaments of the XII Pa

triarchs —

Abraham 93: 10 . .218

Asher 1 . .182

2:3 . .68

Levi 18 ... 29

19 . . 52

Dan. 5 . 29, 52, 68

Naph. 8 ... 29

2:3 . . 52

Issa. 6 ... 52

The Ascension of Isaiah —

3:73—5:1 . 48

4:14 . . . . 68

7:22  53

7:12  72

8:26  53

9:10-13,18,24,25 . 53

10:12 . . . .72

11:40 . ... 53

Apocalypse of Baruch—

2:34,35  29

4:2-& . . . 45,157

5:1-9 . . . .29

6:24 . . 117

9:3  117

13:1  90

13:8  178

14:18  27

20:6 . . .

. . 144

Apocalypse of Baruch
22:1 .
23:4 .
27:2,730 .
32:2 .
32 : 2-4
32:636:10

90
153 117 46
157 45
46
159 48
46

39,4040:3 .
42:7f.44:8-1544:12 . . . 46
48:29  218
48:32,34,37 . . 117
48:5049:50 .
50:2 .
51:1-12.51:3 .
51:8 -
54:12 .
57:2 .
70 . . .
70:2-8 . .
70:7-10.72:1-6 .
73,7474:3 . .
83:1,4 .
85:5
85:10
4 Esdras —
2:39
4:35 5:3 .
5:8 .
5:9 .
5 : 11, 12
5:16 .
6:5 . .
6:8-10. 6:13 . 90
6:20 ... .157
6:20-23 . ... 172
6:21 . . . 164,166
6:26 ... .46
6:55,59 ... .27
7:11  27
7:26 .... 47,157
7 : 28, 29 . . . 38, 46
7:29,30 .... 47
7:31-35 ... .47
7:32  159
7:33,34 . . .54
7:48  221
7:75f  181
7:85 . .153
7:95 . . . .153
8:52-59 ... .47
10:27f  157
10:55 . . .47
12:11 . . . • «
12:31-34 ... .47
13:2  46
13:3 . ... iS, 105
13:5 . . . 46,105
13:12 . .103
13:25 . 46,105
13:26  46

4 Esdras —
13:32 13:3613:37 .
13:37,3813:39-4713:. 51 .
13:5214:9 . .
14:9 .
19:26

. 46
47, 157
. 464747
. 105
. 46
35,46 46
. . 157

Josephus —
Antiquities of the Jeivs

X, 10:411:7

46

Xll,

:4

. 181

4:11

46

6:2

. . 46

xiv.

7:2

46

9:2
46
9:3
. . 221
9:4
. 221
15:4,5
. . 165
XV,
1:1
. 117
8:3,4
. 46
10:4
. . 46
xvi.
9:1,2
. . 46
XVll,
2:4
. . 46
6:2,4
. . 117
10:5
46
XVII
11:1,2
. . 221
XVlll,
1:1 1:1,6 1:3
. . 179
1:3-5
54
4:1
. . 48
5:2
164, 166
8:1,6
. . 117
XX
5:1
. . 43
5:2
. . 99
5:3
47
XX
8:5
8:6
The War of the Jews
20
19,20
48,54 9
2217
. 259 14
. 15
. 26
. 14
. 26
. 14
14,26 . 14
13,26 14
. 15
18, 26
16,27 15, 27
. 181
. 50
. 16
. 62
. 15
. 15
. 16
. 16
. 16
. 16
4:2,3 5:lf.8:18:2-148:14
12:1,2
13:2,3 13:413:513:614:1 17:217:417:617:920:1-321:1,2
, 3:6-83:9 f.
4:1,5 5:25:4,55:56:16:3 7:2
9:5
1414
15,27 . 50
50, 181 16161617
. 1717 18
. 18
16,19 19
. 18
18
. 19
. 27
18,1918,26 191819
. . 19
. 16
. 16
332 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament

Josephus-
The War of the Jews—

5:2
5:35:4 . . .
6:3 . .
vii, 8:lf. . . .
Against Apion —
li, 39 

19,20 . 19
. 14
19,54 16

. 258

Josephus —
Life —
5  26
7  18,26
13  18,26
65  15
Talmud —
Aboth .... 68, 221
Berachoth . . 6, 68, 221

Talmud —
Bereshith Rabba
ChagigahPea . . .
Pesitta
SanhedrinShekualinSiphre 486
Sota . .

6
90
. . 178
. . 53
53, 68, 81
. . 6
. . 6
. . 6

,12

Matthew —
1:11:18 .
1:18-25
1:22,23 2:1-J2
2 : 1-23
2:, 5, 6 .
2:15 .
2:17,18
2:23 .
3:2 . .
3 : 7-12
3:14 .
3:15 .
3:16,174:1 . .
4:1-114:8,9,11
4:13-164:174:23 .
5:3-12
5:32 .
5:44-48
6:10 .
6 : 31-34
6:33 .
8:118:179:13
9:m
10:23 .
10:24,25 10:3210:40 .
10:42 11:2,3
11:2-1911:2 .
11:11,1211:14 .
11:18,19
11:1911:2712:10,1112:17-2112:22-37
12:2612:28 .
12:28,3212:3212:40 .
12:41,4213 : 14, 15
13:24-3013:24.29
13:35 .
13:36-43
13 : 39 .

. 106
. 106
. 232
. 229
. 227
. 233
. 229
. 229
. 229
. 229
72, 227
. 63
. 233
72,233 89
. 90
. 91
. 72
. 229
. 72
. 227
. 112
. 297
. Ill
72,228

72
. Ill
. 229
. 229
... 70
76, 100, 117
. 92, 117
. 74
92
. 228 6464
. 106
. . 68, 71
. . 73
. 103
. 109
. 92
... 109
. . 229
... 72
... 72
68, 72, 92
90
... 71
101, 113, 228
. . 91
. . 229
. 68,73 70
. . .229
. . 68, 73
... 70

III. NEW TESTAMENT

Matthew -
13:41-43 13:44-4713:47-50
14:28 .
14:28 .
14:62 .
16:13 .
16:16 .
16:17-19
16 : 18 .
16:20f. .
16:21-23
16:27,28 16:27 f. .
17:10-12
17:24^2717:32 .
18:17 .
18:2319:8 .
19:9 .
19:16 .
19:28 .
19:27-2919:28
19:28f. 20:1 .
21:4,5
21:9 .
22:1-14 22:2 .
22:14-3322 : 18-22
22:23-33 23:2 .
23:5 f. .
23:10 .
23:23-2523:34 .
23:37-39
24:3 24:11
24:1524:24 . .
25 . .
25:1 . . .
25:13
25 : 41 . .
25:31-46 .
25:34,40,4126:2826:29 .
26:57-66 .
26:64 . .
27:9 . .
27:52,53 .
28:1-20 .

45

28:19

. 73
70,72
. 68,73 . 73
. . 78
117, 119
106, 228
107, 225
. . 97
. . 263
. . 97
. . 148
73, 119
. 76
. 73
. 227
. 227
. 263
. . 70
. 313
. 297
. 221
. 71
. . 73
. 73
. . 7670
98, 229
98,228 . Ill
. 70
110311 73
108109 92
109100
100,230
228,230 . . 16
. . 229
. . 16
. . 73
. 117
. 117
. . 49
76, 101, 186
. . 101
113, 232
. . 76
. 102
. . 76
. . 229
. . 227
. . 234
. . 235
. . Ill

Mark —
1:1 .
1:1-3 1:4 .
1:6 .
1:7 .
1:8 .
1:9-13
1:101:121:14-201 : 16-20
1:24 .
1:34 .
1:38 .
1:39 .
2:15,162:17 .
2:18 .
2:18-222:23-273:2f. .
3:4 . .
3:11 .
3:15 .
3:22 .
3:23 .
3:23-273:24 .
3:28 3:30 .
3:37 .
4:12 .
4:15 .
4:17 .
4:26-294:315:7
6:15 .
7:lf. .
7:8-13.7:19
8:27 .
8 : 27-30
8:28 .
8:29 .
8:31-338:33 .
8:34-398:38 .
8:31 .
8:31—9:1
8:32f. .
9:1 . .
9:9,109:119:13 .
9:30-329:45 .
10:1 . .

9, 106, 227
. 63
. 227
. 63
. 106
. 146
. 91
. 225
. 90
. 92
. 225
. 94
. 106
. 227
. 227
. 109
. 229
. 93
. 110
. 109
. 108
. 229
94,106 . 82
. 72
. 72
92,95 72,90 . 71
90, 225, 228 72
210, 229
. 72
. 117
68, 70, 73
101
94,106 12
109 109
225,232 106,228

12
107,225 . 97
. 97
. 97
. 103
. 101
. 113
. 232
72, 117
. 148
73,97 . 227
113, 148
. . 228
. 93

Index of References

333

Mark—

Luke —

John—

10:12 .... 232,297

5:1-11. .

. 225,228

1:1-6 .. . fi?

10:11 . .

. 297

6:13 .

. 228

1:14 . .

9A1

10:17 . .

. . .304

6:30 .

.... 304

1:1-18.

. . .247

10:21 . .

.... 221

6:40

.91

1:19-27 .

. 66

10:28 . .

... 73
7 : 18-21 .
.64
1:29 . .
... 63
10:28-30 .
. 98
7:18-35 .
64
1:30-34 .
. 89
10:30 . .
71
7:22,23 .
... 90
1:32,34 .
. 127
10:32-34 .
. 148
7:28 .
.... 68
1:33
. 146
10:34 . .
. . .101
7 : 33, 34
.... 102
1:42 . .
. 246
10:35-37 .
. . 97
8:12
.... 72
1:46
... 92
10:a5-45 .
. . 98
9:11
.... 72
1:49
. 106
10:43 .
. 117
9:18 f.. .
.... 228
1:50 . .
. 245
10:44,45
. . 103
10:11 . .
. . 68
2:13-22 .
. . 94
10:45 .
. 228, 232
10:13-15 .
. 230
2:13f. . .
99
10:46-48
. 98
10:17 . .
. . 72
2:20 . .
99
11:1-10.
. . 97,98
10:17 . .
.82
2:46 . .
. 304
11:10 .
. . 228
10:18 . .
72, 82
3:3 . . .
. 2U
11:15-19
99
10:21 . .
. . 90
3:16 . .
'. ' 1 245
12:18-27
73
10:22
92
3:17 .
. 244
12:24 .
. . 292
10:25 . .
.... 221
3:18 .
. 244
12:25 .
72
11:2 . .
... 72
3:18-21 .
... 246
12:35 .
. . Ill
11:14^23
. . 72
3:20 .
. 92
13 . . 7
5, 76,100, 229 f.
11:20 .
. . 72
3:36 . .
... 344
13:9-13.
. . 231
11:31,32
91, 102
4:4-43. .
... 93
13:4 . .
. . 228,231
11:1 .
. . 93
4:35 . .
... 70
13:4-6, 96-13, 21-23,
11:18
95
4:1-3 . .
. 94
28, 29, 32-37 ... 230
11:49
. 100
4:25 .
. 246
13:9-11. . . .312
12:8
. 74
4:25,26
... 106
13:10  100
12:10
. 90
4:39 .
. . .245
13:7-9a, 14-20, 24r-27,
12:32 .
. 72
5:6 . .
. . 244
30,31, 76,100,117,230
12:33 .
. 304
5:lt. .
. 109
13:14 . . . 229,231
12:35
. 117
5:19-21
. 244
13:20 .
. 229
12:46 .
. 117
5:22 .
... 244
13:22
. 16
12:49 f..
. .232
5:22-29
. 244
13:24 .
. . 230
13:11 f..
. . 72
5:23 .
. 244
13:24-27
230, 231
13:16
95
5:24 .
. 245
13:29 .
. . 231
13:22
. . 93
5:26 .
.245
13:32 .
. . 117
13:34-35
. 100,230
5:27 .
. 244
13:35 .
. 117
14:16-30
96
5:28 .
. 73
14:24 .
. . 112
14:26 .
. . .292
5:29
." 73,245
14:25
. . 73
15:1 . .
. 109
6
. . .246
14:53-64
. . 102
16:1 f. .
. 304
6:29
. 245
14:61,62
73
16:8 . .
. . 72
6:39 .
73
14:62 .
78
16:9 .
. . 71
6:40 .
. . 73
14:61,62
. . 87
16:16 .
. . 68
6:40H15
. 119
14:62 .
. . 103
16:18 .
.297
6:40-58
. 244
14:61 .
. . 106
17:8 . .
... 228
6:44
. 73
15:1-15 .
. . 102
17:20 f..
. 70,72,117
6:54
73
15 : 39 .
. . 106
19:8 . .
.210
7:22f. . . .
. 109
16:1-8 . .
. . . 234
19:9 .
. . 73
7:25-27
. 246
19:10
. . 103,228
7:25-39 . .
. . .245
Luke —
19:38 .
. . . 98,228
7:40-44
. 246
l:26-.56  232
19:39,40
99
9:1 f. .
. 109
1:35 .
. . .107
19:41-44
. . 230
9:22 .
. 245
1:46-55
. . . 186.233
20:34 .
. . . .71
9:39 .
. 244
1:67-79
186, 233
20:27-38
... 73
10:22-39
. . 245
1 : 69, 71, ¦¦
7
. 143
20:36 .
. 47, 168, 292
10:36 .
. . 106
2:1-20 .
. ... 232
21:20
. . .229
11:4 . .
. . 106
2:21-29
. ... 233
21:5-58 .
. . 72
11:25 .
. . 245
2 : 41-50
... 233
21:28 .
. . 71
^Vi'J ¦
98
3:7-9 .
.63
22:3 . .
. . 228
12 : 13 .
. . 98
3 : 10-14
.65
22:16-30
. . . 73
12:31 .
. 7Z
3:15-17
. . 66
22:19
. . . 73
12:36 .
. 208
3-21 .
225, 228
22:28-30
. . 228
12:42
. . 245
3:22 .
3:38
.89
22:30
. . 73,313
12:43 .
. . 244
107
22:31
. 72
12:. 50 .
244, 245
4-1 .
90
24:1-53 .
. 234
13:12-16
. . 92
4 ; l-is '.
. . 72
24:13-27
 148
14:lf.
. . .119
4 ¦ 1-13 .
.91
24:31 .
 235
14:30
... 72
4:14 .
4:18 .
4:41
. 90, 228 90
. 106
24:36 .
24:36-43 24:. 51 .
.235
. . 235
. . .235
16:1116:47 17:3
. 244
. . 545
334 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament

John —

Acts —

Romans —

17:12

.208

13:16 . .

. . . .2.59

5:9,10.

... .187

19:11 . .

.... 311

13:24,25 .

.... 62

5:10 .

 199

20:31 .

... 245

13:26 . .

142, 143, 259

5:11

. . . . 206

21:20-23 .

. . 117

13:38-41 .

. . 165

5:12 .

. . . 166,184

21:22-24 .

.244

13:43 . .

.... 259

5:12-21

. 168, 184, 192

13:46-48 .
.... 168
5:14 .
 166
Acts —
13:50
. 259
5:17
.... 166
1:1-11 . .
.... 235
14:8-18. .
. . 283
5:19 .
 182
1:3 .
.... 143
15 .
. . 143,151
5:21 .
 168
1:6 .. .
. . 97
15:1 .
. . 112,143
6:3-9 .
. . . .220
1:13 . .
.... 141
15:5 . . .
. 143,144
6:5 . .
. . . .168
1:15 . .
.... 263
15:8,9 . .
. . .211
8:6 .
 181
1:22
.... 62
15:37,39 .
. . .232
8:13 .
 181
2:14r-21 .
.... 142
16:1 . . .
.263
6:14 .
. . . .184
2:14-36 .
.... 211
16:14
.... 259
6:20-23
. . . .168
2:21 . .
. . 142,143
17
. 260
6:22 .
. . .168
2:22,23 .
.... 148
17:3 . . .
.... 190
6:23
. 166, 168, 184
2:25-31 .
.... 146
17:4
. . .259
7:7f. .
 183
2:27 . .
.... 153
17:7 167, 17E
, 261, 302, 313
7:13 .
 184
2:33
. . . .142
17:17 . .
.259
7:13-25
.... 183
2:35
. 142
17:28
.... 208
7:18 .
. . 183
2:39 .
. . 143
17:30 . .
.... 175
7:22
. . 180,181
2:40
.143
17:31
165, 175
7:23 .
. . .180
2:46
.141
18:7 .
. . 259
7:24
. . . .184
3:1
.... 141
18:10 .
. 208
7:25
.180
3:6 .. .
. . .142
18:18
. . 190
8:1-13 .
. . . .219
3:16 . .
.... 142
19:9 .
. 263,264
8:1-17 .
. 221
3:18 . .
... 148
20:4,5
.306
8:2 . .
.... 178
3:19 . .
.... 148
20:32
. . 211
8:3 . .
190, 191, 198
3:19-21 .
. . 142,149
20:34
.... .306
8:9 . .
.... 181
3:21 . .
.... 211
20:35 . .
269,306
8:9-11.
. . 221,222
3:22 . .
.146
21:20
.144
8:11 .
. . 202,243
3:37 . .
.... 142
21:38 . .
. . 16
8:12-17
.... 222
3:40 . .
. . 142
22:21
.174
8:12-25
. . 214
3:44,45 .
. . 137,305
23:6 .
.174
8:14,15
.... 208
4:8-12 . .
. . 142
24:3-42. .
. 72
8:14-17
. . 299
4:10
.... 142
24:15
. 187
8:16 .
.... 179
4:12
. 142,143
24:17
. ... 306
8:17
. . . .164
4:19
.... 312
25:1 . .
70
8:18
.... 163
4:22 .
.... 143
25:1-45. .
. . . 72
8:18-25
. . 175,204
4:23 . .
.... 263
25:34 . .
. 72
8:18-39
.165
4:27,28 .
.... 148
25:41 . .
. . . 71, 72
8:19-22
. . .287
4:32 .
.305
26:17,18
. ... 174
8:19-23
.... 208
4:32-35
.137
28:19 .
. ... 313
8:23 .
. . 172,219
5:1-11. .
.... 305
8:23-25
175, 176, 261
5:3 . .
.... 142
Romans —
8:24
. . 187,220
5:30-33
.... 142
1
. . 185
8:29
187, 197, 207,
5:41 .
. . . .137
1:3
. 171,192
208, 214
5:42 .
. . 144
1:4 . 168,
171, 191, 198
8:30 .
. . . .214
7:36 .
.... 148
1:17 . .
. ... 193
8:32
.197
7:56 . .
.... 105
1:18 . .
. . .165
8:33-39
.... 195
8:35 . .
.... 149
1:18-32 .
. . .183
8:34 .
. . 168
9:2 .. .
. . .263
1:19-23 .
. . .272
9:1 .
. . .221
9:15 . .
.... 174
1:24^32
. . .272
9:4 .
.... 207
9:20 . .
.... 165
1:29 . .
. . .294
9:13
.... 178
9:22 . .
. . 165,190
2:1-11 . .
. . 165
9:22 . .
.... 313
10:2 . . .
. . 259
2:1-16.
. . .178
10:1-11:32
... 285
10:9-16. .
.... 144
2:6 .. .
. . .175
10:9 .
. . 187,190
10:26 . .
. . 259
2:7 .. .
165, 168, 175
10:9,10. .
.... 194
10:28 . .
.... 144
2:8,9 . .
2:12 .
185, 175
11:1-38. .
. . . .313
10:36-38
.... 146
. . .165
11:25 . .
.... 172
10:37 .
. ... 62
2:16 . .
. 165,175
11:34
.... 180
10:38 . .
. .89,91,95
3:5,6 .
. . .165
12:2 .
72, 163, 180
10:42 . .
142, 152
3:19 . .
. 183
12:3 .
. . . .193
10:43 . .
. ... 148
3:20 . .
. 183
12:4,5
.269
10:44-47 .
. . .211
3:20,21 .
. . 193
12:5 . . .
.... 220
11:17,18 .
. . .211
3:21-31 .
. . .197
12:6 . . .
. . .193
11:28 . .
. . .263
3:22-24 .
. . .188
12:19-21 .
.... 284
12:12 . .
141, 305
3:26 . .
. . .197
13 : 1-7
. . 141,312
166, 171, 185
165, 286
12 : 44 . .
5:1 . . .
... 203
13 : 11 !
13:5 . . .
5:5 .. .
... 220
13:11.12 '.
13:13 . .
! ' ' ! 232
5:6-8 . .
. 196
13:11-14 .
.... 214
Index of Refeeences

335

Eomans —
13:13  294
14:8 .... .172
14:10  175
14:13-22  284
14:17 . 164,167,214
15:2  284
15:17 ... . 221
15:25,26  306
15:28-33 .... 306
16:3  221
16:3-6  165
16:7 . . . . 221
16:9,10  221
16:20 .... 163,286

Corinthians —

1:2 .. .

. . 221

1:7, 8 . .

175, 286

1:8 .

. . 261
1:15
. . 168
1:17
. . 197
1:18
185, 187, 197
1:20 .
72, 163
1:23 .
. . 170
1:24-28
. . 168
1:25 .
. . 170
1:26-28
. . 282
2:2 .
. . 197
2:6 . .
. . 313
2:6,8 .
72. 163
2:10-16
. . 221
2:11 .
178, 179
2:13-15
. . 217
2:14 .
180, 185
2:16 .
. . 180
3:1 . .
.¦<i2
), 221, 271
3:3 . .
. .220
3:5 . .
. . 218
3:8 . .
. . 218
3:13 . :
65,1'
5, 218, 261
3:15 .
. . 187
3:18 .
2 163
3:19 .
. 163
3:23 .
. . 218
4:1 .
. . 218
4:5 . .
165, 175
4:10 .
. 221
4:15 .
. . 221
4:20
. . 164
5:1-5
. . 217
5:3,4 .
. . 181
5:5 . .r
8,18)
,184,186, 187, 270
5:9 . .
. 294
5:9,10
. . 282
5:10 .
16
3, 294, 308
5:11 .
285,294
5:13 .
. 165
6: If. .
. . 313
6:2,3 .
. . 165
6:9 . .
2>
2, 283, 294
6:9f. .
164, 175
6:11
. . 308
6:15 .
. . 270
6:19,20
. . .295
7 .
. . .292
7:5 . .
163, 293
7:7 .
. . 295
7:10 .
. 232,275
7:10,11
. 297
7:12
. 275
7:14 .
. 297
1 Corinthians 7:18-24 7:257:26 .
7:26-287:27-317:29 7:317:32 .
7:36-407:39 7:40 .
8:lf. .
8:4 .
8:6 .
9:1-18 .
9:5f. .
9:26 .
10:11 .
10:14 .
10:15-17 10:16 .
10 : 19, 20
10:22 .
10:23 .
10:3311:1 . .
11:1-6 .
11:3 .
11:1011:12 .
11:1411:14^16 11:24 .
11:25 f. .
11:26 .
12:1—14:12:3 .
12 : 7-11 .
12:11 .
12:12-27 12:26 .
12:27 .
12:28 .
13 . .
13:9-12 .
14:14 .
14:28-4014:34^3615 . .
15:2 . .
15:3 . .
15:20-2215:21 .
15:22 .
15:22,2315:23 .
15:23-2515:24 .
15 : 24, 25
15:24-2715:25f.15:2615:28 15 : 35 .
15:44 .
15 : 44-49
15 : 45 .
15:4615:50 .
15:50-54 15:. 51 .
15:51,52
184,
166, 171,
. . 277
217, 293
166, 293
. 172
. . 277
280,286 163, 280
. . 280
. . 296
295,296 275, 295
283,284 283 191307
295, 296
278
163,166 283270 306283283 284284
. 284
. 296
. 181
. . 296
. . 296
. 163
. . 276
196, 306
. 113
. 286
. . 213
188, 194
. 269
. 193
77, 270
. 171
. . 220
219, 284
. . 213
. 180
. 265
. . 296
2C0, 213
. 187
. 148
. . 192
. . 203
199, 203 77
175, 261 204
165, 313 77
165, 193 77
225 203200
176,181,187,217 192199
202, 217
203, 235
. _ 178
171, 172
188,286
164,
157,
181, 187,
. 164, :
'. 166,
1 Corinthians —
15 : 58  175
16:1  306
16:1-4 . . . 306
16:3  306
16:13  278
16:22 . . 166,171,286
2 Corinthians- 1:8 f.
1:14 1:191:22 1:242:102:11 2:153:8 .
4:3 .
4:4 .
4:7-5:104:16 .
5:1-7 .
5:1-86:3 .
5:5 . .
5:105:15 .
5:16 .
5:17 .
5:18 .
5 : 18-20
5:21 .
6:146:16 .
7:1 .
8:4 . .
9:lf. .
11:3 . .
11:7 . .
11:14 .
12:7 .
12:13 .
12:20,21
Galatians 1:4 . .
1:13,141:14 .
1:15,161:182:6 .
2:9 .
2:9-14 2:9 .
2:10
2:122 : 14-26
2:15-213:1 .
3:1-63:2 . ,
3:3 .
3:5 . .
3:7 .
3:103:133:143:26 3:284:4 .
4:6-154:29
. . 306
. 175
. . 191
188, 219
. 217
. 200
. . 163
185, 187
. 222
. 185
72, 163
. 202
. 181
. 172
. 202
. 188
. 188 175
196, 219
. . 174
220, 222
. 207
. 206
. 196
. . 296
. 283
. 179
. 306
. 306
. 181
. 307
. 163
. 163
. 307
. 294
72, 163, 196
. 174
. 186
. 174
. 151
. . 190
. . 261
. . 151
. . 261
. . 306
. . 143
. 143
. . 194
. 197
. . 195
211, 220
178
. 220
. 207
. 197
. 197
. 220
. 207
. 281
. 190
178
336 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament

Galatians —

Philippians —

1 Timothy —

5:1 .. .

. . . .220

3:19-21

 185

2:15

.... 297

5:6 .

.284
.... 218

3:20

. . 77,164,186, 187, 214

3: If. . .

.... 267

5:13 . .

3:8 .. .

.... 267

5:16 f.. .

. . 178,220

3:19-21

 185

5:14 . .

. 296,297

5:18-6:10

. . 294

3:21

. . . . 191,213

8:10 . .

.308

5 : 19 . .

. . 181,294
.... 283
.... 164

4:5 . . . 166,171,286
Colossians—

6:12 . .

.... 168

5:20 . .
5:21

6:17 . .

. . 163

5:22 . .

.284

1:9 .

 217

2 Timothy—

5:22,23 .

.180

1:13

 164

2:15 . .

.187

5:24 . .
6:1 . . .
6:7-9 . .
6:8 . .

.174
. . 217
.... 175
. . 168,178

1 : 16, 1

;  191

4:1 . .

. ... 164

1:22

 172

4:10 . .

. ... 163

1:28

 172

4:11 . .

. ... 232

2:5 .

. . . .181

4:18 . .

. . 164,186

6:10 . .

.... 284

2:6 .
3:1

.190 214

Titus —

Ephesians —
3:l-i7
! . ! ! 222
1:2 .. .
. ... 168
1:3 .. .
217, 221
3:4 .
 172
1:7 . . .
. . .267
1:4 .. .
.... 197
3:5 .
. . 283, 294, 308
2:9 . . .
... 281
1:5 . . .
.... 207
3:6 .
3:8 .
3:183:18-25
 182
 294
 296
 298
2 : 12 . .
. ... 163
1*10
191 203
3:7 . . .
. . . .168
1:13 '. '.
1:14 . .
! '. . .'220
. . 188,219
Philemon —
1:21 . .
. ... 183
3:22
. . 281
vs. 16 . .
.281
1:23 .
. . 77,290
4:1 .
. . 190, 281
vs. 24 . .
. 232
2:2 .. .
2:5 .. .
2:7 . .
163, 182, 208
. . 186,187
. ... 163
4:10
1 Thessal
 232
jnians —
Hebrews —
1:1 .. .
1:2 . . .
1:3 .. .
1:9 .. .
1:14 .
2:4 .. .
2:9 .. .
2:9-18. .
2:10 . .
... 142
. 237,238
... 240
2:8 .. .
. . 186.187
1:6 .
. . . 175,314
2:12 . .
.272
1:10
 175
3:14,15 .
3:16 . .
. ... 299
. ... 181
1:102:9 .
. . . 186,261
 307
. 238
. 238
... 243
. . .239
. . .241
4:8 .. .
. ... 299
2:12
. . 164,175
4:7 .. .
4:11 . .
. ... 193
. ... 268
2:12-162:14, 15
. 186
 314
4:13 . .
. ... 191
2:16
... .313
. . .241
4:15,16 .
.271
2:18
 163
2 : 13 . .
. . .241
4:1-16. .
. . . .270
2:20
. . . 195,261
2 : 14 . .
... 237
4:17 . .
i ... 180
3:3,4
 166
2 : 16 . .
. . 238
4:23 . .
. . 180
3:13
. . . 175,261
3:1 . .
. 238
4:31 . .
. . 294
4:4 f.
... .294
3 : 2-6 . .
. 2)8
5:3 .. .
. . 294, 295
4:11
 306
3:6 . . .
... 238
5:5 .. .
164, 282, 283,
294,308
4:15
. 166,171,172, 173, 188
3:7—4:104:9 . . .
4:14 . .
... 239
... 237
5:6 .. .
. . 182,208
4:15-17
. 73, 214, 286
. . 238
5:22 . .
5:23 . .
. . 296,298
186, 271, 296
4:165:1 .
. . 172
. . 288
4 : 15 . .
5:7-9 . 239,
. . . 240
210, 241, 242
5:29,32 .
. ... 270
5:2 .
. . .171
5:8 . . .
... 238
5:30 . .
. ... 77
5:5 .
.... 208
6:1 . .
. . .261
6:lf. . .
.298
.281
5:8 .
 186
8:1, 2 . .
6:2 .. .
. . .237
6:5 .. .
5:12,13
 307
. 238, 242
6:9 .. .
. ... 281
5:23
. . 179, 286
6:4 . . .
. 218
6:10-18 .
.188
6:5 .
. 236
6:llf. . .
. ... 278
2 Thessalc
)nians —
6:8 . . .
. . 218
6:12 . .
. . 278, 286
1:5 .
. . . 164,175
6:10 . .
. . .237
Philippians —
1:7 .
. . . 175, 286
8:20 . .
7:5f. . .
... 238
1-8 9
. . . 175
. 239
1:1 .. .
. ... 267
1:9 .
. . '. '. 185
7:18 . .
.239
1 : 6, 10
. . 261
2:1-10
... ! 185
7:22 . .
... 239
1:6 . . .
. . . .175
2:7-9
 166
7:25 . .
. 239
1 : 10 . .
. ... 175
2:8 .
. . . . 278
7:28 . .
... 238
1:28 . .
2:5 .. .
2:5-11. .
2:6-8 . .
. 185
. ... 191
. ... 170
. . 190
2:9 .
... 163
8:1,2 .
8:1-13 . .
8:4 .. .
9:10 . .
... 238
2:102:13 3:1,2
. 185
... .186
 166
. . .239
. . .239
. . .237
2:7 . . .
. ... 191
3:7, 8
. . . 307
9:11 . .
. 237,239
2 : 9-11 . .
. 203
3:9 .
. . 307
9:14 .
. 240,242
2 : 10 . .
. ... 287
3:10
 307
9:15 . .
237,239
2 : 11 . .
. ... 190
9:19-22 .
... 239
2:20,21 .
. ... 171
1 Timothy
—
9:26 . .
. 237
3:5 . . .
. ... 174
1:1 .
 175
9:27 . .
. . .237
3:11 . .
. . .172
1:10
... .282
9:28 . .
... 238
3 : 19 . .
.283
1:16
 168
10:1 . . .
. 239
Index of Refeeences

337

Hebrews -
10:5 . .
10:11-1810:25 10:26 10:2710:2910:3110:32-3410:32-38 10:36-3810:3711:711:38 11:39,4012:2 .
12:2,312:1412:1612:2212:24 .
12:26,27 12:2813:1 .
13:2 .
13:4 .
13:5 .
13:9 .
13:10-1213:1413:17 .
13:18,19 13:20
13:2313:25
James —
1:121:25 2:1 .
2:5 .
2:82:112:122:14 f.
3:184:5 .
4:125:3 .
5:4 .
5:7,85:9 .
5:10
1 Peter—

2 .
3 .
4 .
5-75-107,8
1119,20235-9

. . 237
. . 239
237, 288
218, 237218 243237236
238,242 . 237
. 286
. 237
. 236
. 242
. 238
. 241
. 284
. 282
. 238
. 239
. 237
. 237
. 242
. 284
282, 295309

, 237 308
236
238,239 . 236
. 236

154 218154155155155
155, 218
. 155
. 154
. 155
. 154
. 142
. 309
. 155
. 286
. 154

. . 154
. . 153
. . 152
. . 151
. . 152
152, 153
. . 153
. 151
. . 153
. . 273

1 Peter- 2:122:132:172:18, 2:18-2:222:23 2:243:1 .
3:7 .
3:9 .
3:18 3:193:224:3 .
4:5,14:7 .
4:10 4:11
4:13 4:144:165:1 .
5:1,5:4 ,
5:8,! 7:17

2 Peter -
2:1-22
2:4-11 3:3-93:7 .
3:10-13 3:1-10

1 John —
1:1-41:6 .
1:171:19 1:22
3:1,23:3 .
3:9,103:15,243:18-213:24 .
4:12-164:15-215:5 . .
5:8 . .
5:19 .
5:21 .
2 John —
vs. 7 . .

. . 152
141, 277
141, 312153 281152 1,52153
298, 298296 152 153
153, 227
. 153
. . 283
152, 153, 154
151, 286
. . 154
153, 154
152, 153
. . 154
. . 277
153, 267
. . 152
. . 153
. . 152
. . 152

, 249
. 250
249
. 287
. 249
. 144

, 248
, 246
, 287
, 218
, 248
, 248
, 248
. 248
, 248
. 248
. 248
. 248
. 248
. 248
. 249
. 287
. 283
. 243

Jude —
vs. 9 .
vss. 11-16
vs. 14 .
vss. 20, 21
1:4 . .
1:13 .

. 249
. 249
. 249
. 250
. 160
. 105

Eevelation —

2:5 .. .

. . 161

2:6 

. . 294

2:7 

160, 161

2:10 . . . .

. . 160

2:11 . . .

. 161

2:14 . . .

. 283

2:15 . . . .

. 294

2:17 . . . .

. . 161

2:20 . . . .

283, 294

2:21,22 . .

. . 161

2:26 . . .

. . 161

2:29 . . .

. . 161

3:1 ...

. . 160

3:5 ... .

. .161

3:6 ... .

. . 161

3:8 ...

.161

3:11 . . .

. 161

3:13 . . .

. . 161

3:19 . . .

. . 161

3:22 . . .

. . 161

4:4 ... .

. 160

4:5 ... .

. 160

4:10 . .

. . 160

5:6 ... .

. . 160

6:9 ... .

. .277

7:lf. . . .

. . 158

7:4-17. . .

. . 158

7:10 . . .

. 161

7:14 . . .

. . 161

9:30 . . .

. 283

11:13 . .

. . 158

12:7 f. .

. . 225

12:9 . . . .

. . 156

12:10 . . .

. . 161

12:12

. . 156

12:17 .

. . 161

13:8 . . .

. . 161

13:18 . . .

. 277

14:4 . . .

. . 295

14:12 . . .

. . 161

14:13 . . .

. . 161

14:14 . . .

. . 105

17 . .

. . 159

17:8 . . . .

. . 161

19:1 . .

. . 161

20:1 ....

. . 157

20:2 ....

. 156

20:4,5 . . .

. . 158

20:8 ....

. . 157

20:7-10. . .

.157

20:11 f.. . .

. 157

20:12 . . .

. . 161

20:15 . . .

. . 161

21 .

157, 158

21:1 ....

. . . 158

21:5 . . . .

. . 158

21:8 . . 158,16

1, 282, 283

21:10-12 . .

. 156

21:12 . . .

. . .158

21:27 . . .

. . .161

22:14 . .

. . .157

22:15 . 157,16

1, 282, 283

Horace —
Satires, 1, 4 , .
1, 142 f.

, 258
, 258

IV. miscellaneous
Juvenal —
Satires, 3:12-16 . . 258
14:96-106. .258

Persius —
Safires, 5:178-184.

258

338 The Messianic Hope in the New Testament
Tacitus— Barnabas— Justin Martyr-
Hist., V. 13 14 19  309 Trypho, 31 . . . .258
19:8  305 122,123 . . 6
Pliny- Apology, 26 . . . .258
Letters, x, 43 ... 302 Didache — _
x,94 . . ..302 1:6  307 Teetullian-
4:8  305 DePudicitia ... 236
Suetonius- ... Origen—
Caesars Vest., 4 . 14 Ignatius— a„ Cels^ui i v, «
Smyr  89 ^^- ''^'*^' '' ^^ • • o
1 Clement- Magn. . . 89 Eusebius —
1-3 ... . . 267 Eph  89 Hist. Ecc. . . 144, 236

^

¦

to

« > * t

K ul A M ^

w'i

my

ii'

,»&«*

r>7,

•r-tS-fet
f^'
^-Ti*
SK -:
<'M2
ss?*^
•-"•»5
If^X-v
^