¦I..giveiAeff Bootes Mndingif iCdiige in th^ Coten Bruce, St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, New York, 1894; Charteris, Rainy, Orr, and Dods, The Supernatural in Chris tianity, Edinburgh, 1894 2; Sanday, Inspiration, London, 1894; Forrest, The Christ of History and of Experience, Edinburgh, 1897 ; Somerville, St. Paul's Conception of Christ, Edinburgh, 1897 ; Adeney, The Theology of the New Testament, New York, 1894. William Mackintosh has reproduced in Scotland the more rationalistic phase of German criticism ; in our country Orello Cone is reproducing a phase of this criticism which represents the Pfleiderer circle, and consequently more closely attaches itself to the Neo-Hegelian tendency in Great Britain. 102 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM reached where it must not only be admitted that this fundamental philosophy has to be reckoned with in the handling of present-day criticism, but where the question must be answered as to how far this development phi losophy may have to be taken up and adopted in securing critical truth. Is Germany all wrong in this basal philosophy of hers ? Is modern criticism all wrong in admitting it at all into its processes and allowing it at all to control and influence its points of view? Are docu ments an impossibility in and of themselves? Must the Synoptic Problem be solved a priori apart from written document sources? Must a possible travel document be kept out of the Book of Acts on principle? Must we refuse the influence of a primary Jewish Apocalypse or a Babylonian myth upon the Book of Revela tion, whether or no ? Is the impression of envi ronment upon the Apostolic mode of thought out of the question ? Is there no such thing as Dogmengeschichte in the Apostolic Church? Tubingen ignored the personality of the New Testament writers in order to emphasize the connection of their writings with the surround- THE PROBLEM OP THE PHILOSOPHY 103 ing history. Must we, in spite of the death of Tubingen, still refuse to consider the person ality of the writer, or to connect it with the historical development of which it may form a part ? Tubingen held to a progress of Church history which accorded with its philosophic ideas of antithetic and synthetic growth. Now that this idea is given up, must we refuse to hold to any progress in the Church's history at all? Evolution works on the principle of deintegration- and reintegration. Must we refuse to recognize any such development as possible in the Church's growth? These are vital questions. They must not only be asked ; there must be an honest effort made to answer them. In the direction of their answering, it must be admitted that there are no a priori reasons why we should deny the possibility of develop ment in the Apostolic Church's life and thought. Such possibility must be freely acknowledged in the life and the thought of the Church generally; there is no reason why it should be denied in the life and the thought of the Apostolic Church, even though 104 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM that Church, in its thought and life, was under special divine control. If evolution generally can be theistic and yet be evolutionary, Apos tolic development specifically can be inspira tional and yet be developmental. ¦ There is nothing to prevent the divine mind conceiving and the divine will working out a plan which should be characterized by growth, We can think of a God as creating the world, and yet not find it impossible to think of him as devel oping his creation along lines of selection and survival of the fittest. We can think of a Christ in control of his specially inspired Church, and yet not find it impossible to think of him as developing that Church with a growth which would allow for an evolution, both of life and thought, from germinal begin nings to matured completion, and for influence of environment upon that evolution. God does not give up his control over the universe, nor over the Church, by the use of a plan in his controlling, and the plan of development is as possible of divine use as any other plan would be. It is simply a question as to whether the facts in the case point to its pres- THE PROBLEM OF THE PHILOSOPHY 105 ence. We are not called upon indeed to enter on the discussion of its possible presence in the history of the universe, though we shall not be going very far astray if we assume such presence as proven, to a very large degree. The question before us however is its possi ble presence in the history of the Apostolic Church, — the history of its life and of its thought. The Book of Acts gives us the history of this life of the Apostolic Church, and gives it in a very significant way. Suppose it be briefly stated. We may hold, without critical objec tion, that the author of the Third Gospel and the author of the Book of Acts are one and the same person, and that these two Books were written to and for the same reader, who was a Christian of the Gentile type.1 1 While the name Theophilus, from its composition, might easily lend itself to literary use, as the designation of a purely imaginary recipient of the writings addressed to him, its common usage among both Jews and Greeks would make it quite easily the name of an actual person, which is strongly confirmed by the title attached to it in the prologue of the Gospel, Kpirio-re, — a title which, from the author's usage of it in Acts (23 : 26, 24 : 3, 26 : 25), would seem to indicate official rank. That this person was a Christian of Gentile 106 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM If this is so, then the relation between the purpose behind the writing of the Gospel and the writing of Acts is interesting. The Gospel was written evidently to give to this Gentile convert the facts in the life and death of this Jewish Jesus in whom he believed as the Redeemer of the world. He had been taught about him and he had believed in him on the basis of his needs of a Saviour for his soul. This Gospel was to instruct him more thor oughly in the earthly history of him in whom he had spiritually placed his trust. But there was a strange thing about the religion of this Jewish Christ, and this was that, almost as soon as his earthly mission was over and he had been received back into glory, — at least origin seems almost necessary from the Gentile spirit of both the Gospel and the Book of Acts. Positive knowledge of this Theophilus however we do not possess. There is the state ment in the Clementine Recognitions (10: 71) that he was at the head of the men of influence in Antioch (ita ut omni aviditatis desiderio Theophilus, qui erat cunctis potentibus in civitate sublimior, domus suae ingentem basilicam ecclesiae nomine consecraret). With this ancient testimony may per haps be in agreement the statement in the Apostolic Constitu tions (7 : 46) which speaks of a Theophilus as the third Bishop of Csesarea (Kcuaapelas Si ttjs TlaXmtTTlv-qs irp6rtpov /iky Za/c Xoioj SiroTe rtXiivrjs, /«fl' %v KopWJAios, Kai rptros ®(6ri, in which are not only contained terms that most naturally remind us specifically of later developed Gnostic catchwords (yvuais, Myvaais, nva-riipiov, 47 f. ; Die Lehre des Paulus, S. 1 f. McGiffert, Primitive and Catholic Christianity — Inaugural Address, New York, 1893, pp. 22 f., 33. Beyschlag, Neutestamentliche Theologie, Bd. I. S. 6-1 1, Bd. II. S. 17-19. Pfleiderer, Hibbert Lectures, London and Edinburgh, 1885, pp. 1-16, 52 f., 86 f. Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, Bd. I. S. 44 f. Cone, Gospel Criticism and Historical Christianity, New York, 1891, pp. 35, 345 f. a Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, Bd. I. S. 3, 8, 1 1-13. Wendt, Die Norm des echten Christentums, S. 41-44. THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND PAUL 135 this is simply begging the question. It will not do to appeal to patristics and say that the Fathers held themselves as much inspired as the Apostles, and if they saw no difference, it is not for us to create it ; x for, even granting this were the position which the Fathers held, — as few students will be able to admit that it was, — such a method would be, after all, allow ing outside opinion to take the place of per sonal claims, and this is a method which is not likely to lead to the truth. It will not do even to appeal to philosophy and say that the Apos tles were subjects of environment and educa tion; that Paul was a Pharisee before he was a Christian, and brought his Pharisaic theology into his converted life;2 for this is not the point at issue. No one is going to deny environment and education their place in the Apostolic life, any more than one would deny a development of that life itself. Paul was a Pharisee before he was a Christian, and his Pharisaic life and training had its effect upon 1 McGiffert, Inaugural Address, pp. 22 f. 2 Pfleiderer, Hibbert Lectures, pp. 47 f., 201 f. Wendt, Die Lehre des Faulus, S. 76 f. 136 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM his later thought; but the question is whether, along with all this, there are claims which Paul makes for his Gospel which can be ignored when we come to the discussion of this Gospel's authoritative inspiration. In other words, the question as to whether these think ers are right or wrong must depend upon a careful consideration of what Christ teaches regarding the Apostles, as reported to us in the Gospels, and of what the Apostles say of themselves, as laid before us in their Epistles. There must be an impartial study of the New Testament statements bearing on the question. Curiously enough however these critics do not object to this basis of discussion. They are willing to go to the Gospels and to the Epistles, and take up their statements and give them study ; but they say there is an important distinction to be made in studying them. They are willing to admit, for instance, that Paul claims his Gospel to be infallibly authori tative; but they say, not only does Christ not guarantee to the Apostles the infallible author ity Paul claims for himself, but this Apostolic claim shows itself to be exaggerated ; and when THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND PAUL 1 37 we ask how it does they say, by the differences from the Gospel of Jesus which Paul's Gospel itself discloses, — differences in some points so essential that they mark the Apostle's teach ings as being outside of any right to be a divine authority for our faith. They do not object to saying that Paul and Jesus agree in what might be called the main substance of their theologies, that their foundation views are very generally the same; but they hold that, from these common beginnings, Paul has developed his Gospel with such an arbitrary infusion of personal ideas and opinions, with such an overwhelming trend of personal thought, as to throw it out of the possibility of being considered a genuine development of Jesus' teachings, and so necessarily out of the possibility of an unreserved acceptance on our part.1 In view of this position of advanced criticism to-day, it becomes very interesting, and most important, to consider the results which a com parison of the teachings of Paul and Jesus really produces. On the situation, as represented by 1 Wendt, Die Lehre des Paulus, S. 11, 75-77. I38 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM this Apostle to the Gentiles, the emphasis of the critics rests, and so, with this situation, naturally stands or falls the whole relationship between the Apostolic teaching generally and that of Christ. We confine ourselves therefore to a compar ison between Jesus and Paul. If this com parison brings us face to face with such differences as will allow the belief that the Apostle's thought, in a perfectly true and natural way, holds itself in developed line with that of Jesus, then it would seem as though the authority of the Apostle's Gospel must be fully recognized. We may admit development within Paul's thinking, and yet receive Paul's claim of a divine authority for his thought. The two things may go together. However supernatural we may understand inspiration to be, we may not understand by it anything that divorces a man from himself and the laws that govern the processes of his mind. So we may admit a development of Paul's thinking from that of Christ's, and yet hold Paul's claim of authoritative inspiration for his own theology. Paul's truths may have come to him from God, THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL 1 39 and yet have come to him in stages which were developmental from the teachings of Christ, as they continued to come in stages which were developmental within themselves. The vision on the way to Damascus may have been an objective, supernatural event; the great truth of Jesus's Messiahship given in this vision may have been a truth of absolute revelation ; this initial truth may have been followed by others of like revelatory kind, given in equally super natural ways, and yet there have been in the whole experience a developmental element which not only made Paul's theology a pro gressive thing within itself, but a progressive thing on from Christ's own teachings. The world by wisdom may not have been able to find out God, yet God did not need to make the revelation of himself rationally erratic in order to make it above reason's self -production. If however this comparison presents to us such differences as will not permit this belief of a true and natural development from Jesus to Paul ; if it shows us an arbitrary infusion by Paul of ideas and views which are foreign to Christ's thought, — that have their source in I40 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM Paul's Pharisaism or in his pagan philosophical surroundings, rather than in Jesus's teaching, and that lead Paul's thinking away from Christ's, so that in the end his Gospel stands out of harmony with the Master's, — then Paul's claim of divine authority for his Gospel must be given up. We cannot admit Paul's think ing to have been out of concord with Jesus's teaching, and yet believe him when he says his Gospel came to him by revelation from above. Truth cannot be out of agreement with itself and still be true. Paul cannot teach a Gospel which shows itself to be a distortion of Jesus's Gospel and be authoritative in what he teaches.1 The discussion thus would seem to gather around the single question, as to whether Paul's Gospel is such a development from that of Jesus as to lead to an essential agreement with it in its results. Our task consequently stands very clearly before us. It is not to discover whether there are differences in Paul's teachings from those of Jesus; for differences there must be in the teachings, unless we pro pose to ignore all differences in the teachers. 1 Wendt, Die Norm des echten Christentums, S. 33, 36 THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND PAUL 141 It is not to discover whether these differences are the result of development; for Christ standing, as he does, at the beginning, and Paul standing, as he does, at the close, it is hardly possible that the differences between them should not be due to development, as well as to the men themselves. The task is rather to discover what sort of development has taken place, — whether it is, so to speak, a purely arbitrary development, in which Paul may indeed have taken leading ideas presented by Christ, but have handled them in such a Pharisaic, such a pagan, such a purely specu lative and scholastic way that, though what he produced may have been developed from what Christ began, it holds no relationship to it after the development is over; or whether the development from which these differences come is one that leads along the line of an essential harmony with Christ, — in other words, whether the differences which we find between Paul and Christ are due to a develop ment that is out of line or in line with Christ. I. In this task, which necessarily must be limited in its scope by the necessities of these 142 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM lectures, the doctrine which first presents itself to our consideration is that which may be desig nated the doctrine concerning the relation of man to God. This is a term which represents a general group of statements concerning man's condition outside of and within the Kingdom of God, and might perhaps be more accurately divided along this line of the Kingdom's mem bership. But what is lost in accuracy is gained in impression ; for by this grouping we secure a more definite view of where Paul's thinking regarding general salvation matters stands as related to that of Christ. But when we take up this group it seems as though we had, at the very outset, come upon a radical difference between the Master and his Apostle ; for Christ appears to make the rela tion between man and God one of nature, while Paul seems to make it one of law. Jesus seems to have come into his ministry with a vital conviction of his unique relation of Sonship to God. Indeed we see it, even before his min istry began, in his boyhood's rebuke to his parents as they found him in the temple among the doctors of the law: "How is it THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND PAUL 143 that ye sought me ? wist ye not that I must be in my Father's house and busy about my Father's affairs?"1 Its presence, as the con trolling conviction with him, seems to be im plied in the tempter's testing propositions in the wilderness: "If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones become bread ; cast thyself from the temple's pinnacle; fall down and worship me,"2 — propositions that would not have been made had it not been known what he knew himself to be, and propositions that are upheld by him in all the dignity and realness of their meaning; so that it is per fectly natural, when he comes in his first Jeru salem visit to the cleansing of the temple, that he should say, plainly and distinctly: "Make not my Father's house an house of merchan dise."3 All this is at the beginning of his work, and the Fourth Gospel shows how it con tinued to be the same until his work was over.4 Now this idea of Sonship Jesus seems to have carried over into the relationship of his 1 Lk. 2 4». ' Mt. 4 ""I ; Lk. 4 *-™. 8 Jno. 2 M. 4 See Forrest's able presentation of Christ's consciousness of his divine Sonship, The Christ of History, Lects. I.-III. 144 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM disciples to God, so that God is placed before them as their Father. Read the Sermon on the Mount and see how this Father character of God runs through it from beginning to end,1 and then, at the other end of his ministry, take up his valedictory address to his disci ples, and see how it constitutes the basis also of that ; 2 until, upon the resurrection morn, he can say to Mary: "Go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." 3 And this Fatherhood of God Jesus seems to have extended generally to men; so that when he talks to the Samaritan woman he says to her: "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father. Ye worship that which ye know not : we worship that which we know : for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true wor shippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers,"4 as though this were an 1 Mt. 5-7 ; Lk. 6. 2 Jno. 14-17. 8 Jno. 20 ". 4 Jno. 4 a-s». THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL 1 45 absolute relation which God sustained gener ally to men. It is true that, according to Jesus's teaching, those who are his disciples enter into this relationship, as those who are not his disciples do not,1 — just as the Prodigal Son entered into his Father's relationship to him, when he came to himself, as he had not done when he departed into a far country.2 Indeed, according to Jesus, the world denies this relationship, and acts towards the Son practically as though the relationship did not exist. "If God were your Father," Jesus said to the boasting and unbelieving Jews, "ye would love me. " 3 But, just as all the time the Prodigal was in the far country he was still the Son, and the heart that yearned for him at home was the Father's heart, so the relationship of Father and Son exists, in this absolute sense, between God and man generally, though it is only as we acknowledge it, by coming into the Kingdom, that we understand and enjoy it. This, at least, the teaching of Jesus would seem to imply. Jesus's idea there fore of the relation between God and man 1 Mt. 11 OT. 2 Lk. I5"-". 8 Jno. 8«. 10 I46 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM seems to be one of nature, though man's nature has to be regenerated before it can discover itself. "Except a man be born anew — from above — he cannot see the Kingdom of God," — cannot come into an understanding of this filial relation to God.1 Over against this, Paul has given us an entirely new idea, which seems to be utterly foreign to the teachings of Christ, — the idea that the relationship between God and man is one of law. It is quite true that the idea of Fatherhood and Sonship is not absent from the teachings of Paul. It is perhaps not as fre quent with him as , it is with Christ, but it is there, and there in as general a way as with Christ.2 To Paul, as to Jesus, God is the Father of him who believes, and the believer is God's child. " For ye received not the spirit of bondage again unto fear," he writes to the Romans, "but ye received the spirit of adop tion, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, 1 Jno. 38. 2 See Mead, The Fatherhood of God, AJT, July, 1897, pp. 588-590, 595. THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL 147 that we are children of God. " a To Paul, as really as to Jesus, God can be said to be the Father of all men. " I bow my knees unto the Father, from which every family in heaven and on earth is named."2 But, granting this, granting even that Paul may be said to use the term " Father " in the absolute sense, and so extend the Fatherhood of God generally over mankind, — granting this all, — it is clear that to Paul there seems to have been one great fact, — the law of God. This fact is present with all men, — with the Jew in the written enactments of Sinai ; 3 with the Gentile in the convictions and consciousness of the heart.4 The keeping or breaking of this law deter mines man's moral status before God. If he keeps it, he is righteous ; if he fails to keep it, he is a sinner.5 And this moral status carries its own consequences with it. God will render to every man according to his deeds, — to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile. The doers of the law shall be justified in God's sight, and 1Rom.81U. 2Eph. 3w-. 8 Rom. 2 " {; 3 \ 9 4. 4 Rom. 2 14-W. 6 Rom. 2 6"18, 26"27, 4 *, 10 6 ; Gal. 3 12. I48 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM those who sin against the law shall perish under its judgment. And this condition of affairs is not essentially altered by an entrance into the Kingdom of Christ. This Kingdom is not a lawless Kingdom. The fact of the law is present there, just as it is present out side in the world. The only difference is that with men outside its keeping is impossible. Jews and Gentiles show this by the startling record they have made in their attempt to compass it.1 In fact, the written law was given the Jew in order to. make evident, by his impotency in its keeping, even under the most favorable circumstances, how helpless men are in the matter of making themselves just with God, and consequently how they need to come to Christ.2 This constant and universal breaking of the law, written and unwritten, rests as a curse upon mankind.3 But this curse has been removed by the death of Christ;4 so that men come now into a new legal relation to God, which is forensic and not actual, by which men are treated as righ- 1 Rom. i, 2. 2 Gal. 3 ™*1 ; Rom. 4 », 5 », 7 8-«>. 3 Gal. 3W. * Gal. 3 » t. THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND PAUL 149 teous in God's sight, although they are sin ners,1 and so are received into a fellowship with him, in which they have given to them a spiritual power that brings them into a keeping of God's fundamental moral law, as revealed in the great principles of the decalogue, — a keep ing of this law that would not otherwise be possible.2 There can be no question that this is most decidedly a law conception of things, and a conception which evidently has no counter part in the teachings of Christ. What is its explanation ? The answer is quickly made, that its explanation lies in the pre-Christian Phari saism of Paul. The law of God, it is said, had been the great thing with Paul in all his former life. For him it had represented the whole relation of man to God. It continued to do so now in his Christian life, only the fact of Christ had come in to change its bearing upon man's salvation. His own experience with the law had been a very vivid one. It still continued to be. He simply transfers his own experience 1 Rom. 5"; II Cor. 5 a. 2 Rom. 8 *• w ; Eph. 1 *, 2 *>. " a, 4 2< ; Tit. 2 >4. 150 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM and makes it good for men generally. We can see therefore, it is urged, how natural it is that Paul should treat the plan of salvation in such a legal way, and how sincere he was in the treating; but, however sincere and natural such treatment was, it was out of all agree ment with Christ ; for Jesus was not only not a Pharisee, but stood in strong opposition to this very legal view of things which the Pharisees entertained. He denounced their legalism in unsparing terms, and could not, in consistency with himself, have entertained in his teaching even the modification of it which Paul intro duced. There is therefore, it is claimed, hopeless discord here, — fundamental, fatal. Paul's teaching must be considered the arbi trary product of his individualism, and in no way a mere development of Christ's ideas.1 If this is so, it is a serious condition of things. Is it so? In answering this question there are one or two things to be noted which will quite seri- 1 Wendt, Die Lehre des Paulus, S. 26 f., 30 f ., 36. Pfleiderer, Paulinismus, Einleitung, S. 1-33. Holtzmann, Neutestament liche Theologie, Bd. II. S. 203 f. Harnack, Dogmenge schichte, Bd. I. S. 15-17. THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL 151 ously affect the answer when it is made. The first thing is that Paul denounces the legalism of the Pharisees just as strongly as does Christ. Take the second chapter of Romans and place it alongside of the twenty-third chapter of Matthew, and see if there is much difference in their spirit after all. Both are directed against the Jew, who made the law his religion and boasted that his outward adherence to it secured to him acceptance with God. Both are aimed against the pride and prejudice and hypocrisy and utter demoralization that resulted from such a position. The legalism that Christ denounces therefore is not the legalism which is taught by Paul. Paul emphasizes the law element in man's relation to God, but he does not make it the basis of salvation. No one of all the Apostles so strongly opposes such a claim as does Paul.1 He looks at the heart's right condition, and its right control over character and life. He holds, as Christ does, the heed of something more than man's mere culture of himself. If the Sermon on the Mount stands for the spirit of religion over 1 Rom. 3 » *. " «, 4 2; Gal. 2 18, 3 u '¦ ; Eph. 2 8 f- ; II Tim. 1 ». 152 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM against its false legalism, then Paul stands with that when he says : " For neither is cir cumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. " x If Jesus declares that the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of the true Spirit of religion, of true character and life, is possible only through the new creation of the Holy Ghost, then Paul stands with him when he says : " According to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and re newing of the Holy Ghost. " 2 On this point of false legalism and true spirit Paul and Christ stand together. But, more than this, not only is the legalism which Christ denounces not the legalism of Paul, but Christ holds, in essence, to the very legal element in man's relations to God, which Paul so strongly emphasizes and so profoundly carries out. Recall the incident in the Gospel history where the lawyer comes to Jesus with his tempting question about securing eternal life.3 Jesus answers it by asking him another question : What it was that the law itself, which he professed to interpret and to teach, taught i Gal. 61B. 2 Tit. 36. - Lk. io»-»7. THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL 1 53 him as necessary to do. This question the lawyer answers by summing up, doubtless as he had often heard Jesus himself do, the heart of the Old Testament teaching: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself." And Jesus said to him : "Thou hast answered right : this do and thou shalt live. " On the basis of the law and its works this was the way to secure eternal life. The law was God's revealed will. To that will man stood obligated. Let him do it, fully and completely, and he should be accepted of God. God stood pledged before the universe for that. Recall further the incident when the ruler came to Jesus with the same absorbing question about eternal life, only wording it: "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?1 And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good ? One there is who is good : but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments." Man did, after all, stand in legal relation to God ; if 1 Mk. 10 w-22; Mt. 19 1**2; Lk. 18 18-58. 154 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM he would fulfil that relation, there would be no question about the issue, —he should live.1 Is this, in essence, different from Paul's position that man stood in a law relation to God which, if he could carry it out, would bring him sal vation?2 See further how, all through his teaching, Jesus leaves no doubt that, on this present basis of the law on which men around him stood, there was no other outcome but death. As men were then keeping the com mandments, as men were then loving God and their neighbor, there was no hope of salvation. There was need of an entirely new condition of things, which was not a release of man from law, but a regeneration of man into new living. Is this, in essence, different from Paul's posi tion that man could not accomplish eternal life 1 Such perfect keeping of the law would not indeed in volve any self-conscious merit, as Forrest has shown; since the perfection of its keeping includes the spirit in which it is kept, and this must be one of conscious dependence upon God as the source of all moral good. At the same time how ever, in the light of these Gospel statements, the perfect keep ing of the law must have its result in eternal life. This Forrest seems to have overlooked. See The Christ of History, Lec ture VII. 2 Gal. 3 a. THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL 155 on the present law basis of things ; that a revo lution was necessary, — not a revolution of release from law, but a revolution of trans forming into new living? Far from this being the case, the point of all this investigation really becomes, not as to why Paul enters into this legal relation of man to God as he does, but why Christ does not enter into it as Paul does. He had it there in essence, why did he not carry it out? Why did he not show how the law relation of those inside the Kingdom differed from the law relation of those outside the Kingdom? Why did he not make clear how it was that the law was removed, in its curse of punishment and its burden of cere monial requirement, and yet left, in its essence of moral obligation for all time? Why did he not bring out the mystery of this forensic status into which we are brought by our faith in him ? These were the great points in Paul's development of the doctrine ; why did not Jesus develop it at these points himself? He had the fact of law and man's relation to it outside the Kingdom ; he had the ideal relation to it that man was to hold within the Kingdom; 156 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM why did he not unfold and explain the change from the one to the other? This is, in reality, what Paul has done ; how does it happen that Jesus has failed to do it ? The answer to this, it seems to me, is not difficult to give. It lies in the very plain fact that the change in man's relation to the law, from without to within the Kingdom, was due to the death of Christ himself, and it was im possible for Christ to explain and unfold the effects of his death before his death had taken place. That Christ recognized that his death would have an effect upon man's relation to God's law, would, in fact, change that relation, so as to deliver man out of the condemnation into which his breaking of the law had brought him and place him in a position of freedom from its punishment, there can be no question, if we read what Christ himself has said : " The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."1 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many unto remission of 1 Mk. 10 «. THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND PAUL 1 57 sins. " 1 Here is at least the outline of the law effects of his death statement, which hint along the legal lines that Paul has followed out. But when we remember how hard it was for Christ to bring his disciples to realize the coming fact of his death, how difficult it was for him to per suade them that he must die at all, we cannot be surprised that he would hesitate to fill this outline out, and enter into a doctrinal discus sion of the legal changes by which " ransom " and "remission" would be brought about. It was simply impossible that he should do so. Much as critics imply that, if Paul's doctrine is to be accepted, Christ was at fault in not making his teaching as full as Paul's, they would be the first to discover and criticise the anachronism that would then have been in volved. Such teaching would have had little or no meaning for the disciples. It would have been to them more than foolishness. See how his discourse in the synagogue at Caper naum was misunderstood. Those were wonder ful words: "I am the living bread which came down out of heaven: if any man eat of this 1 Mt. 26 m. 158 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM bread, he shall live forever: yea, and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world."1 And yet the Jews, instead of reaching up to the height of this sacrificial idea, strove among themselves and said: " How can this man give us his flesh to eat ? " 2 And, although Jesus went on to elaborate what he had said, the disciples themselves confessed: "This is a hard saying; who can hear it ? " 3 See further how, when Christ does come to speak in plain terms of his death, it is only late in his teaching, not because it was not clear to his mind earlier, but because it was only after his disciples had come to the conviction of his Messiahship, that they could be prepared to entertain the fact of his death. And yet, even with this preparation, they could not receive it. In fact, it simply accentuated the difference between their idea of the Mes siah and Christ's.4 And, even after the death had taken place, they could with difficulty 1 Jno. 6 61. 2 v 6a. 8 v 60. 4 See Fairbairn, Christ's Attitude to his own Death, Ex positor, Oct. 1896, pp. 283-288; Dec. 1896, pp. 415 f. See also Gilbert, The Revelation of Jesus, New York, 1899, pp. 251 f. THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL I 59 understand what it meant. Jesus himself had to unfold to them its necessity out of the familiar teachings of the law and the prophets, before they could be reconciled to its agreement with the character of the Christ, and, through vision and providence and the insistent pressure of events in their Apostolic work, it had to be forced home upon their understanding, before they could be brought to comprehend its prac tical bearing upon man's relation to the law of God and its consequent meaning for the univer sality of the plan of salvation. Would it have been worth while for Christ to try to discuss these things, before his disci ples understood that his work was in any way to involve such an event as Calvary ? I think it is too much to ask, if we are really going to recognize that there was anything in the shape of evolution working in the history of those Gospel and Apostolic days. But take Christ's germinal teachings as they stand, place after them his death, and follow this up with all his practical teaching and training of the Church into an understanding of the bearing of his death upon the universality of Christianity, l60 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM upon the justification of the Jew as well as of the Gentile, upon the fundamental relation of man to God's law, and Paul's teaching regard ing man's law relation to God, its change from without to within the Kingdom through the vicarious death of Christ, and the forensic jus tification of those who trust in him becomes perfectly natural, not as an arbitrary infusion of Pharisaic ideas, out of all harmony with Christ, but as a profound development of Christ's own teaching through the light shed by Old Testament law and prophecy upon the actual fact of his death,1 — a development which holds itself fully in line with Christ. Had Paul stood with Jesus before this death occurred, it might be difficult to escape the charge of an unnecessary intellectual ism on his part; just as it would have been hard to escape it had 1 There is no disposition in this statement to ignore the element of personal experience behind the Apostolic teaching which Somerville so emphasizes (Paul's Conception of Christ, pp. 14-17). This was a necessary source of Paul's teaching, as well as of that of all the Apostles ; but experience implies just this very background of facts which stood historically behind the Apostles — Paul as well as the rest — and made the experience possible. See Forrest, The Christ of History, pp. 329 f. THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL l6l Jesus himself so filled out his own teaching.1 But standing, as he does, after the death, it becomes difficult to keep ourselves from the conviction that his teaching is a necessary development of Christ's. If it is not such a development, then we must be prepared to say that Christ's statements about his death were all the Church needed to know, finally and authoritatively, regarding its effect upon this question of man's relation to God. This is indeed Watson's affirmed position.2 But if we listen to those who have interpreted the two 1 Christ's purpose in his teaching was not so much to in struct men regarding the Kingdom as to bring men within it, and this bringing of men within the Kingdom was accomplished through the revelation to them of his personality. We can consequently understand of how small significance is the ful ness of his teaching about his death, — how, in fact, it was its germinal character which was necessary in order to bring the truth suggestively to their intelligence, and rouse them to a discovery of the person who stood behind it. On the other hand, if Jesus's whole purpose had been to fill his disciples full of his teachings as final truths, then the utter demoralization of the disciple band at the crucifixion would be proof that his purpose had completely failed. See Forrest, The Christ of History, pp. 108-114, 133 f . ; also Somerville, St. Paul's Con ception of Christ, p. 10. 3 The Mind of the Master, pp. 33 f. See also, in general, Gilbert, The Revelation of Jesus, pp. 306-308 ; on the other hand, see Somerville, St. Paul's Conception of Christ, p. 237. 11 l62 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM principal statements of Christ regarding the purpose of his death, independently of Paul's declaration of the vicarious nature of that death and its consequent satisfying of the claims of the law, we can easily understand how neces sary the Apostle's statements are to their proper comprehending. 2 It is not at all to the point to object that, if this was a necessary development of Christ's teaching, it is hard to understand why the Jerusalem Apostles did not develop it before Paul; for their mission to the Jerusalem and Judean Jews made them concerned primarily with the question of Jesus's Messiahship, which they proved more from his resurrection and his ascension than from his death. Had they been 1 See Wendt, Die Lehre des Paulus, S. 56 f. Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Theologie, Bd. I. S. 292-304. Spitta, Zur Geschichte und Litteratur des Urchristentums, Gottingen, 1893, B(i- I. S. 284-288. Beyschlag, Neutestamentliche The ologie, Bd. I. S. 153. Holsten, Zum Evangelium des Paulus und des Petrus, S. 172 f., 183 f. Pfleiderer, Urchristentum, S- 395- Julicher, Theologische Abhandlungen (Weizsacker- Festschrift), Freiburg, 1892, S. 241. v. Soden, Theologische Abhandlungen, S. 144. Fairbairn, Expositor, Dec. 1896, pp. 423-426; Jan. 1897, pp. 25-30. Watson, The Mind of the Master, pp. 33 f. Gilbert, The Revelation of Jesus, pp. 262- 266, 274-276. THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL 163 thrown into the extra-Judean world and been compelled to deal with the question of Christ's Saviourship rather than his Messiahship, they would have come necessarily to the discussion of man's justification through him, and so come naturally into a development of the doctrine of his death. We can see, for example, how Peter's position changes when the practical question of Gentile salvation comes before him in the Jerusalem Council.1 We can see his growth of view, from his first vision of the problem on the housetop at Joppa2 and his first discussion of it before Cornelius and his household at Caesarea ; 3 while his first Epistle shows how the necessities of his work among the Gentiles brought him even more fully into a treatment of the theme.4 It is simply an other case of the evolution of events, and none should be so quick to recognize and appreciate it as those who apply so relentlessly to Biblical criticism the evolution philosophy.6 1 Acts 15 »• u. 2 Acts 1013-". 8 Acts 10 28, a4-48. 4 I Pet. 1 2- 18 '-, 2«,3 w, 4 1. 6 We fail sometimes to remember that Paul's teaching possesses a peculiar fulness from the fact that it is a presen tation of the totality of Christ's self-manifestation; whereas 164 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM II. Now the significance of all that has been said is most strongly confirmed when we con sider that the other differences between the teachings of Christ and Paul, which are urged upon us to-day, are explained and adjusted in this same manner. The position which we have taken would be of force were this the only difference which could be so treated; but this is not the fact. Throughout these two great teachings runs the presence of an essential unity between them, together with an apparent difference, at times so apparent as to be diffi cult of understanding, even suggestive of per sonal arbitrariness of view on the Apostle's part, and yet a difference which shows itself to be comprehensible, natural, necessary even, when there is taken into consideration this evolution progress of events. We have seen it in this doctrine of the relation of man to God. We see it further in the doctrine of the Christ's own teaching was, in itself, but a part of that self- manifestation, — or, as Forrest has tersely expressed it in re ferring to what Alexander Knox has said : " The mediatory truths receive a formal and explicit expression in Paul, which is not found in the Gospels, for the obvious reason that the mediation was then in progress." (The Christ of History, pp. 274 f., 332 f.) THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND PAUL 1 65 condition of salvation which stands so nearly related to it. With Jesus and with Paul the condition of salvation is essentially faith, — a faith which centres itself in Christ. Jesus makes this very plain in his conversation with Nicodemus : " As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilder ness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life."1 He makes this plain also in that spiritual discourse to the Jews and his disciples in the Capernaum syna gogue, difficult though that discourse was to understand in itself: "Work not for the meat that perisheth, " Jesus said, " but for the meat which abideth unto eternal life, which the Son of man shall give unto you; for him the Father, even God, hath sealed."2 That was the work God wanted them to do; but they, ignorant of his meaning, answered: "What must we do, that we may work the works of God ? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. ... I am the 1 Jno. 3". 2 Jno. 627. 1 66 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM bread of life : he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. . . . This is the will of my Father, that every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. " l He makes this plain also to the people at Jeru salem, at the close of his ministry: "While ye have the light, believe on the light, that ye may become sons of light. ... I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me may not abide in darkness."2 And Paul makes very plain, in his Epistles, the same condition: "Ye are all sons of God," he says to the Galatians, — " sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus."3 He shows the Romans that both Jews and Gentiles are prac tically under condemnation of God's law and have no possibility of a righteousness in God's sight: "But now apart from the law a righ teousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for 1 v, S8 {., 86, 10, 2 Jno. I2 88, 46. 8 G-J, j 26. THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL l6j there is no distinction; for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God; being justi fied freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus : whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, by his blood, to show his righteousness, because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God ; for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season : that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus. " J And so, in placing before the Philippians his spiritual life, he says his ambition is to "gain Christ, and be found in him, not having a righteous ness of my own, even that which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."2 At the same time however it cannot but be evident that the Christ on whom this faith is to rest is, with Jesus, the one who came into the world from God, — the Revealer, so to speak, of God's truth to the world. With Paul it is the one who has been crucified and has been i Rom. 321-26. 2 Phil. 3 9. 1 68 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM raised from the dead. At least, these are the emphases. Jesus speaks indeed of faith in himself as the one lifted up, as the serpent in the wilderness was lifted up; but all through that Capernaum discourse, and in the discourse to the Jerusalem Jews, the idea is of faith in himself as the one who has come from heaven to do God's work, to reveal God's truth: "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.1 ... I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me may not abide in the darkness. " 2 So indeed Paul speaks of God's manifestation of the plan of salvation and of his setting forth of Jesus Christ to be the propitiation of this plan, which necessarily involves Christ as the Revealer and the Executor of his plan ; but the faith of this plan rests, after all, in the Christ who has been offered up in this propitiatory way : " Whom God set forth to be a propitia tion, through faith, by his blood."3 So the Christ of whom he speaks to the Philippians, in whom it was his ambition to be found ' through faith, was a Christ who had died and i Jno. 6 s9. 2 Jno, 12 «. « Rom. 3ffi. THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL 169 been raised again: "That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming con formed unto his death. " * And so, very plainly, he says to the Galatians that, in regard to him self, the life which he now lives in the flesh he lives in faith, — the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved him, and gave himself up for him.2 And there is evident another difference. Jesus brings out the ethical condition surround ing salvation, while Paul seems to rest every thing upon faith. In the passages quoted above Jesus speaks plainly indeed of the necessity of faith in himself; but these references to faith are but items in his teaching, the burden of which is repentance and new living. This was the Gospel he preached : " The time is ful filled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye and believe in the gospel."3 This was the basal principle on which rested his Sermon on the Mount: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven ; but he that doeth the will 1 Phil. 3 *>. - Gal. 2 20. 8 Mk. 1 v>; Mt. 4 «. 170 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM of my Father which is in heaven."1 "I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of heaven."2 This was his warning to his disciples : " And if thy hand cause thee to stumble, thy foot, thine eye, cut it off, cast it out; it is good for thee to enter into life maimed, halt, with one eye, rather than having thy two hands, thy two feet, thy two eyes, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched."3 And when some of his company told him of the Galileans whom Pilate had slaughtered, he said to them : " Think ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Gali leans, because they have suffered these things? I tell you, Nay : but, except ye repent, ye shall all in like manner perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and killed them, think ye that they were offenders above all the men that dwell in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. " 4 And when they asked him 1 Mt. 7 21. 2 Mt. 5 *». 8 Mk. 9 *5-48 ; Mt. 18 8 ': * Lk. 13 ". THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL \J\ whether there were few that should be saved he said unto them : " Strive to enter in by the narrow door: for many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able. " x So, on the other hand, Paul involves indeed in the faith he preaches a new character and a new living. He tells the Galatians that " In Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision ; but faith working through love,"2 or, as he expresses it further on, "a new creature."3 He puts "faith and a good conscience " together before Timothy.4 He asks the Corinthians if they do not know that "the unrighteous shall not inherit the king dom of God,"5 and warns them that "we must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of Christ ; that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad."6 But the burden of Paul's teaching is the absolute neces sity of faith, in sharp contrast to any possibility of a self-merited salvation through works. The argument of Galatians is based upon this 1 v.2*. 2 Gal. 5«. 8 616. 4 I Tim. i », 3 9. 6 i cor. 6 ». « II Cor. 5 *>. 172 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM idea. The argument of Romans follows along this line. Even from the Corinthian letters, which have so much to do with the practical strife and sin of the congregation, from the Ephesian letter, so full of its Christian unity, and from the letter to the Philippians, so crowded with its personal affairs, it is not absent. It is needless to cite particular pas sages. It is evident to us as the almost char acteristic Pauline thought. Here stand then two differences in this doc trine of the condition of salvation, — a differ ence in the presentation of the Christ, around whom the condition gathers, and a difference in the emphatic element of the condition itself. How are the differences to be accounted for? It seems to me very evident that they are to be accounted for in exactly the same way as the differences in the doctrine of man's relation to God. Christ stood at the historic point where the great fact before the people was the fact of his having come into the world with the revelation of God's truth of salvation. His death was not yet a fact. Upon himself per sonally their faith was to rest. But the Christ THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND PAUL 1 73 they could understand, could realize, could grasp, was the Christ who was standing among them with this message from God. To him they could come; in him they could believe. Could they have done as much if they had had presented to them for their faith the Christ of Calvary? As a matter of fact, did Nicodemus, did the Jews, did the disciples understand the Christ who was to be lifted up, who was to give himself as the bread of life for the world ? 1 Was it not different with their reception of him as a teacher from God, as the one whom the Father had sent into the world ? 2 It is readily admitted that a faith so limited was not a faith as full and outrounded as the faith in the Christ who loved us and gave him self in death for us; but was not its limitation a simple necessity, conditioned by the stage in the historical progress of events to which it belonged? The Old Testament faith was, in this sense, even less full and complete; but could it have possibly been anything else than the limited faith it was, — a faith in Jehovah 1 Jno. 3 10"15, 6 68-«', 12 n2-84. 2 Jno. 3 2, 7 »*• 4°-48, 6 67-«9, 16 27, 17 »¦ 2s. 174 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM rather than in the Christ ; a faith in Jehovah as promising salvation, prefiguring it through ritual and ceremony, a faith of type and shadow? Could it have been anything else than this and have belonged to the pre- Messianic times ? The fact that, with all God did to make plain what the coming salvation was to be, men were yet slow of heart to under stand it, simply shows how hard it was to get them to grasp the truth before it became his torically a fact. The question is not so much why Paul presented the Christ of faith as he did. His is the full presentation of which Christ's words are the hint. The question is why Christ did not himself give us the full statement and not simply the hint. To this it seems to me the historical surrounding in which Christ stood is all the answer we need. So it stands with the different emphases which Christ and Paul place upon the condition of man's salvation. Jesus's preaching of the Gospel of repentance and new living was not simply the taking up of the Gospel which his forerunner had proclaimed ; it was the specific statement of the Gospel for the times in which THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND PAUL 1 75 he himself stood, — times of the old living of hypocritical ceremonialism, of whited sepulchre extemalism, of Pharisaic pride and self-conceit, of Sadducean scepticism and Herodian politics. Over against this it would seem as though Jesus could lay emphasis upon nothing else than re pentance and new living. This was the Gospel he had to preach. And Paul could not ignore these ethical needs; for he stood in the full moral rottenness of the heathen world, where the works of the flesh were only too manifest. He had to say, and he did say, that those who practised such things should not inherit the Kingdom of God.1 But he stood also in the full light of the Judaizing contest, where the people of his churches had been clearly con fronted with the insistent, persistent claim that not only was the keeping of the Mosaic law enough, but the non-keeping of it was not enough to salvation. Over against this what could he do but lay all the emphasis of which he was master upon the absolute necessity of faith, apart from any works of any kind, if a man would be accepted of God ? 1 Gal. 5 m-m. 176 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM Thus it comes naturally that Paul's holding forth of this idea of faith is most largely pres ent in the Epistles which have to do with this controversy and its effects, — the Epistle to the Galatians and the Epistle to the Romans ; and thus it comes naturally that the compara tive absence of this idea from the Corinthian Epistles shows that Paul's trouble in the city was occasioned by another stage of this contro versy, — a personal and factional stage, in which the claim of the Mosaic works had not yet been made. There is no strangeness therefore in these differences between Christ and Paul. They are not differences that throw the Apostle out of doctrinal harmony with his Master. They are not Pharisaic peculiarities arbitrarily thrust athwart the teachings of Christ. In essence Jesus and Paul are at one. The differences are due, just as the others were, to the simple evolution of events in the beginning of Chris tianity, a state of things which they who hold to evolution ideas should be the first to dis cover and the most earnest to maintain. Christ, no more than Paul, should be removed from the THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND PAUL 1 77 historical conditions of the stage of Chris tianity's announcement to the world in which he stood. There should be a full and candid recognition of that stage and the limitations which it bore for him, as well as the opportun ities which Paul's stage gave to him, and so it should be understood that Christ could not have spoken all that Paul spoke, though he bore fully in his heart the message which he wrought out in his death; while on the other hand Paul could not have excused himself from speaking more than Christ had spoken, though, through revelation, he got the fulness of his message from what Christ himself wrought. V COMPARISON OF THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND PAUL TN our comparison of the teachings of Jesus and of Paul there remain two important points where these relations should be considered : — The point of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the new life of the believer and the point of the Person of Christ. III. As to the relation of the Holy Spirit to the new life of the believer, in substance Paul and Jesus agree that the Spirit is essential to this life. Jesus could not have stated this more plainly than he did in his words to Nicodemus : " Except a man be born anew — be born of water and the Spirit — he cannot enter into the king dom of God."1 Without the Spirit this life could not begin, and without the Spirit this life could not continue. His promise to the 1 Jno. 3 8> 6. THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL 1 79 disciples that Passover night is very clear : " I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth : whom the world cannot receive ; for it beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him ; ye know him ; for he abideth with you, and shall be in you. " 1 This teaching is essentially repeated by Paul. With him the Spirit is necessary to the beginning of the life. "According to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. " 2 With him also it is needful for the continuance of the life. The eighth chapter of Romans is based on this idea. " God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, condemned sin in the flesh : that the requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the spirit the things of the spirit. For the mind of the flesh is death; but the mind of the spirit is life and peace. . . . But 1 Jnc- I418f- 2 Tit. 3"". l80 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. ... So, then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh : for if ye live after the flesh, ye must die; but if by the spirit ye mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God."1 And yet, along with this magnifying of the Spirit, botli Jesus and Paul hold strongly to the responsibility of the believer for an indi vidual self-activity in his spiritual life. This is evident in the teachings of Jesus when he demanded from those who would enter the King dom a righteousness that should exceed that of the Pharisees ; 2 and for those who have entered it, a character that should be as perfect as that of their Father in Heaven.3 The necessity of the Spirit's influence upon the nature of man, and his abiding presence in his inner life, went along, and naturally went along, with the necessity of a manifestation of that influence and abiding presence in new and righteous living. i Rom. 8 8M. 9b. i2-". 2 Mt. s 20. s v. <8 . Lt. g se. THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND PAUL l8l It was the same with Paul. Needful as was the regenerating and regulating influence of the Holy Ghost, the Apostle did not consider the believer absolved from the responsibility of self-activity. "I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service. And be not fashioned according to this world : but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God." 1 In fact, in the very passages where the need of the Spirit is dwelt upon, there this individual re sponsibility of life is brought out. "God con demned sin in the flesh : that the requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. " 2 " So, then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh : for if ye live after the flesh, ye must die; but if by the spirit ye mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."3 At the same time however while this agree- 1 Rom. 1 2 1«. " Rom. 88f-. » v.12*. 1 82 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM ment between the Master and his Apostle exists, there can be no doubt but that Paul has developed this doctrine of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the believer's life as Jesus has not done. With Paul the Spirit is the great salvation gift. He tells the Galatians that " Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us : for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree : in order that upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."1 He tells the Corinthians and the Ephesians that the Spirit is the seal by which we are secured to our future redemption.2 He tells the Romans that it is the pledge of our membership in the spiritual family of God; so that it comes to be the witness within us of our new life.3 With Paul the Spirit is the power of the new life, — its power against the old life of the flesh. " Walk by the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh." * It min isters to us the grace of the new living, — love, 1 Gal. 3 1' f.. s Rom. 81*-!6. 2 II Cor. i22; Eph. line, 4 80. 4 q^ jis. THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL 1 83 joy, hope, and wisdom from above.1 It is, in fact, the great principle of the new life, regu lating and controlling and inspiring and vitaliz ing the whole man, the principle by which we are to walk, if we are to live, and which, if it is regnant within us, is a fountain source of life and peace.2 Now this development does not appear in Jesus' teaching. With Christ the Holy Spirit seems to be largely intended as the power needful for the fulfilment of the disciples' duties, especially those in connection with their Gospel work. The general promise was, that the Spirit should abide with them forever, and so form part of their personal living ; 3 but, in the further statement of his promise, the emphasis was laid upon the Spirit's work in unfolding to the disciples the teachings of Christ, in bearing witness to him, in guiding the disciples into the truth and disclosing to them events.4 So, after his resurrection, in giving to his disciples their commission, he 1 ITh. i«; ICor. 2", 619; Rom. 56, 14", 1518. 18; II Tim. 1 ". 2 II Cor. 318; Rom. S**; Eph. 222. 8 Jno. I416f-. * Jno. 1428, 1520, 16 "-U. 184 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM significantly followed it with a breathing upon them of the Holy Ghost,1 and directed them, in his words to them at his ascension, to tarry in the city before beginning their great mis sion, until they were clothed with power from on high.2 Specially was the Spirit to be with the disciples in their persecutions and give them what they should say to those before whom they would be summoned. On three separate occasions does Jesus press this home upon his disciples, as though he would have them remember it without fail.3 Here then stands the difference between Christ and Paul, — a difference almost wholly of development. Christ dwelt simply upon one or two points of the Spirit's work; Paul carried out the work into a wider sweep, and brought the Spirit into contact with the believer's char acter and living, as Jesus had not done. How is this difference to be accounted for, except by the fact that Jesus stood before Paul after the Day of Pentecost ? It was the great difficulty of Jesus's training 1 Jno. 20 22. 2 L]j. 24 is. 8 Lk. I2U«, Mt. io19, Mk. 13", Lk. 21 "f-. THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND PAUL 1 85 of the Twelve to get them to understand the spiritual character of his mission. Spiritual things seemed hard, — almost impossible for them to grasp. The Master's work stood before them materially; their own future relation to it lay in their minds the same way. Before the Spirit had been outpoured upon them, to enlighten them in spiritual things, Jesus had to come to them in the simplest language, and with the simplest truths, especially in reference to the Spirit's relationship to them. And so he does not hold forth the Spirit to them as the regulating and vitalizing principle of the new living, destroying the lusts of the flesh and transforming his people into the character image of himself. He simply promises him as the Comforter who shall abide with them forever, and who shall open their minds to a fuller understanding of his teachings. He does not speak of him as the seal of their redemption, nor the pledge of their spiritual sonship, nor the witness within them of their regenerated life ; he simply tells them he shall be a power to them in their work and an inspiration to them in their defence before their persecutors. For 1 86 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM these were promises they could appreciate, and, in a measure, grasp and comprehend. The fact was before them, in a confused and bewildering way, that Jesus was to leave them; as far as they understood that fact they could understand that the Spirit was to take his place and teach them of him. The fact was before them, vaguely and indefinitely, that they were to go out into the world as their Master's workers; as far as they understood that fact they could understand that the Spirit was to help them in their work. The fact was before them, per haps more plainly than we think, that they were to suffer persecution for the Gospel's sake; as far as it was plainly before them they could understand the Spirit was to be with them in the persecutions they should suffer. Histori cally this was all Jesus could tell them. And, as a matter of fact, Jesus tells his disciples plainly that his teachings were limited by the historical development of events.1 He had not spoken to them as plainly at the beginning of his ministry as he spoke to them at its close. They were not then prepared for plain speak- i Jno. 16*. THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND PAUL 1 87 ing. So now what he says to them is simply in outline hint, — in suggestion, so to speak. That was all they could bear. When the Spirit was come he would teach them all things and bring what he then said to them into their fuller knowledge and understanding. " I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth. . . . He shall glorify me : for he shall take of mine, and shall declare it unto you. " x And it seems to be in line with these statements that the Fourth Evangelist himself feels called upon to take up the symbolic words of Christ, on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, and explain them as referring to the spiritual influence of the Holy Ghost upon the believer's life, at the same time impliedly excusing the symbolism, because the Spirit was not yet given.2 But, with the Day of Pentecost now behind them as an event of his tory, with the Father's promise of the outpour ing of the Spirit actually realized within their hearts and lives, why should not the Master's 1 Jno. 16 12' Ua. 14. 2 Jno. 7 i™9. 1 88 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM words prove true, that they should enter into the grasping of truths which had been beyond their comprehension before ? And why should not the Apostle, under this very new grasping of truth, make known, in a fuller way, what Jesus had given of this Spirit's relationship to the believer's life? Is this not the reason why Paul attaches the Spirit so specifically to the ^apLcr/Mara and the miracle activity in the Church?1 Could he have done less with the Church's experience on the Day of Pentecost, and, in fact, with the daily experience of the Church and himself before his consciousness ? Jesus gives the substance of this miracle power of the Holy Spirit, by making the wonder working activity of the disciples dependent upon the reality of their spiritual life.2 This spiritual life Paul makes dependent upon the Holy Ghost ; and so, as miracles and gifts came into the experience of the Church and of him self, he naturally makes dependent upon the Holy Spirit the power for their working. It was simply the necessary historical unfolding of Christ's own teaching. 1 I Cor. I24-H; Rom. 15 18 f-. 2 Mk. g29; Mt. i7™t.; Mk. ii22'-: Mt. 2i2lf.. THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL 1 89 IV. From these teachings of Jesus and Paul concerning the great themes of man's relation to God, the condition of salvation and the work of the Holy Spirit, we come, naturally, to their teaching concerning that theme which stands, in its importance, above them all; because, in its relationship, it stands fundamentally be neath them all, — the theme of the Person of Christ. With but a general study of the Gospels and Epistles, it is quite evident that Jesus and Paul hold essentially to the same view regarding the Person of Christ. They both maintain a real humanity in the Person, — a statement which indeed scarcely needs proof; but which, in the case of Jesus, is evident from the confessions which he makes of bodily conditions and necessities,1 and his definite acknowledgments of human relation ships.2 In addition to which stand, with con firming significance, the Messianic name of "Son of Man," which he so generally uses of 1 E. g. Mk. io83'-, Mt. 2ol8'-, Lk. i882-«; Lk. 24 89-*8; Jno.47, 19 28- 2 E. g. Mk. 381-86, Mt. 12 w-50, Lk. 8»-2i; Jno. ig2". I9O A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM himself,1 the subjection to the law, under which he so constantly places himself,2 and the religious relations to God which he always maintains.3 Correspondingly Paul holds most clearly to the human generation and birth of Jesus,4 to his human life on earth,6 and his human death.6 In addition to which, confirmingly of this all, he also gives to him the title of "Man," — significantly and emphatically gives it to him, — " one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus."7 He also recognizes his sub jection to the Law,8 and, while not in the same definite way as the author of Hebrews, yet quite plainly indicates his religious relation ship to God.9 These things are, of course, evident at first reading. 1 E. g. Mk. 2 », Mt. 12 8, Lk. 66 ; Mt. 1 1 » Lk. 7 *« ; Mt. 8 2°, Lk. 968; Jno. 527. 2 E. g. Mt. 3 " ; Lk. 4 18 f. ; Mt. 17 24-27. 8 E. g. Mt. n26f.; jno. nUf.; Jno. 14 28, 17 i-26; Lk. 23 s4.48; Mk. 1584, Mt. 27 46; Jno. 20". 4 E. g. Acts 13 2S; Gal. 44; Rom. 1 8. 6 E.g. II Cor. 5 w; Phil. 2' '• 6 E. g. ITh. 4"; I Cor. 15 8. 7 I Tim. 2 6; cf. I Cor. 15 «. «; Rom. 5M. 8 E.g. Gal. 44; Rom. 8»f- 9 E. g. I Cor. 328, i52Tf.; Eph. 1 17. THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL 191 It is also clear that Jesus and Paul are es sentially one in maintaining a real divinity in this Person of Christ. They both use the term " Son of God," x and mean by it something more than was understood by the Jews of their time as resting in the Messianic title.2 This is evident on Jesus's part: (a) from his reply to Nathaniel's confession of faith at the gaining of his first disciples in Judea;3 (b) from his conversation with Nicodemus in Jerusalem ; 4 (c) from his controversy with the Jews in Jerusalem at the Feast of Dedica tion ; 5 (d) from his conversation with Martha at her brother's grave;6 (e) from the question which he put to the Scribes and Pharisees during those closing days of his ministry in Jerusalem;7 (f) and from his answer to the 1 E.g. Gospels: Jno. 316-i8, 52*, 10 ®>, 11 4; cf. such Syn optic passages as Mt. n27; Mk. 1382; Epistles: II Cor. I19; Gal. 2 2°; Rom. I8f-; Eph. 4I8. 2 For the Messianic ideas of the Jews of Jesus's time, con sult Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah, Edin burgh, 1886. Schiirer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, transl. 5 vols., New York, 1896. Weber, Jiidische Theologie, Leipzig, 1897 2. 8 Jno. !»'¦ 4 Jno. 316-w, cf. v. 2. 6 Jno. 10 29-41. « Jno. n20-27. ' Mk. 1 2 s5-37, Mt. 224i-45, Lk. 20 H-44. 192 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM question put to him at the Sanhedrim trial,1 and the charge against him which the Sanhe drim confessed to before Pilate.2 In all of these cases Christ makes plain that what was comprehended, as in this Messianic term of the day, was far different from what he claimed for himself in the title.3 It is evident also on Paul's part. In his Epistle to the Galatians he speaks of the reve lation of the Son, which came to him as a Jew who held to this hope of a coming Messianic Son of God, — a hope which was so much of a contrast with this new faith that the fact of this Son of God was a revelation.4 He also contrasts there his previous life as a Jew and the Christian life, which he now lives by faith in the Son of God. B And they both refer to the Christ, and speak of him in a way that could not have been under stood then, nor can be understood to-day as applicable to Christ's believers. This is evident on Christ's part, — not so i Mk. I48"-, Mt. 2668f-, Lk. 22 «*-«>. 2 Jno. 197. 3 Forrest, The Christ of History, pp. 69-73. 4 Gal. 1 18. 6 Gal. 220. THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL 193 much from the special term "Only Begotten," which he applies to himself in the third chapter of John,1 which some maintain are the words of the Evangelist and not of Christ,2 but rather, from the everywhere unique relationship to God which he claims for himself, — a relationship which comes out most especially in the Fourth Gospel, — the Gospel which gives us the deep and profound inner life of Christ, — a relation ship which involves a conscious, personal pre- existence of himself with God,3 that is, if any reason is to be allowed to the usage of words, and we are not to understand them in some such mystical sense as Beyschlag would give to them.4 The passages in the sixth and in the seventeenth chapters of John cannot be under stood in anything less than a divine way. " I am the living bread which came down out of heaven " 5 may be a figurative expression, but it is not possible to resolve this figure on a 1 vs. 16. 18. 2 Cf. Neander, Tholuck, Olshausen, Westcott, Dods, sub loe. s e. g. Jno . 3 18, 6 88> 46> 6U f. 68> 62, 7 29, 8 38' 42> 67~59 (cf. 3 u f •• 81 '¦), ,0i6 (cf. 729, sss; Mt. io«, n27), 14*-" (cf. 10 8°), 16 »f-, l j 6.8. 22-26. 4 Biblische Theologie, Bd. I. S. 244-248. 6 Jno. 661. 13 194 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM human basis; while the petition of the valedic tory prayer, " Glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee be fore the world was,"1 is impossible of mean ing as applied to any believer. And this is a relationship which involves also a personal resurrection from the dead, and a personal ascension into the glory and power of the God head, as belonging to himself.2 That they speak of Christ in a way which cannot be referred to Christian believers is evident also, on the Apostle's part, not only from such expressions as show Christ to possess the existence form of God, fioptpfj 0eov,s and to be God's image, el/cav tov deov,* — such phraseology is indeed significant; but, more than this, from such definite statements as make him (a) existent before the creation of the universe;6 (b) the creator and vital up holder, as God himself, of all things ; 6 (c) risen 1 Jno. 17 B. a E. g. Mk. 14 82, Mt. 2688f-, Lk. 22 89; Mt. 28"; Jno. 3M, j 22, 25-27, I0Kt I42-4, 12, 28> I628> I7lf.,6. 8 Phil. 28. 4 II Cor. 4« ; Col. 1 ». 6 E. g. Col. 1 " (cf. Gal. 44 ; I Tim. 1 »). » E. g. I Cor. 86; Rom. ii88; Col. i»'t THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL 195 and ascended into the heavens;1 (d) and the present possessor of the divine glory and power of the Godhead on high.2 Such a passage as that found in the first chapter of Colossians can leave no doubt as to the divine element in Paul's christology: "Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation ; for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, — things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him ; and he is before all things, and in him all things consist. " s And when it is realized that these statements are confirmed by similar ones in others of Paul's later Epistles,4 and hinted at by statements in his earlier writ ings,5 which involve these more precise terms, the conclusion is scarcely less than absolute that Paul's theology, from the beginning, held 1 E. g. I Th. 4I4 ; I Cor. 15* 12-i4. 1°. 2° ; II Cor. 516; Rom. 14, 64 (cf. Phil. 31°), 149; Col. 2" (Cf. 3i). 2 E. g. Eph. I1". 20-22; Col. 31; Phil. 29-« (cf. I Cor. 1527; Col. 21°). 8 Vs.16-17. 4 E. g. Phil. 26-11; Eph. 1 w-3i, 48-19. 8 E. g. Rom. 11 s8 ; I Cor. 8<; II Cor. 44. I96 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM to a Christ who was supernaturally above and beyond any possible one of his believers. These things are clearly evident and cannot be argued away, save at the cost of all self- respecting honesty of logic and common sense. There would seem therefore to be little room for difference between the teachings of Paul and those of Christ on this basal point of the Christian religion. They both appar ently hold to the same things, — to a true humanity and a real divinity in the Person of Christ. But it is a matter of interest to notice that, if there be emphases in Christ's teaching, they tend in the direction of the prominence given in them to the fact of his heavenly origin. This fact forms part of his earliest teaching. He says, for example, to Nicodemus: "We speak that we do know, and bear witness of that we have seen: and ye receive not our wit ness. If I told you earthly things, and ye be lieve not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you heavenly things ? And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL \ '8. «. THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL 1 99 Father ; x and in his high-priestly prayer, when he petitioned that the Father would glorify him with the glory which he had had with him before the world was.2 But especially does it belong to his teaching in Jerusalem among the hostile Jews. We find it at the Feast of the Fifth of John and at the following Feast of Tabernacles, when he gave the Jews to under stand that he was come in his Father's name, and that his Father bore witness of him, that he came forth and was come of God ; so that before Abraham was, lam;3 and at the Feast of Dedication, when he claimed that the Father had consecrated him, and sent him into the world.4 And it is not only generally present through out his teaching, but present in a significant way. It is not simply announced as a fact, but it is assumed and handled as part of the rea soning which his teaching involves. He places it, for example, as the source of his revelatory teaching and of the commission which he held to his redemptive work. This was the way he 1 Jno. 16 !». 2 jno. i76. 8 Jno. 543, 8 »¦ 42. «. * Jno. 10 88. , 200 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM laid it before the Jews at the Feast of Taber nacles: "He that sent me is true; and the things which I heard from him, these speak I unto the world. " x "I speak the things which I have seen with my Father."2 This was the way he held it to the hearts of his disciples. " I have called you friends ; for all things that I have heard from my Father I have made known unto you."3 "The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. ... As the Father gave me command ment, even so I do."4 "I lay down my life for the sheep. ... I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment received I from my Father."6 He makes it further the basis of his Mes sianic claims and of his Messianic condemna tion for the rejection of his claims. So does he specially use it with the Jews : "lam come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive."6 "Ye are from beneath; I am 1 Jno. 826. 2 Jno. 8 s8. 8 Jno. 15". 4 Jno. 14 M. sl. 6 Jno. 10 16. 18. « Jno. s48. THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND PAUL 201 from above : ye are of this world ; I am not of this world. ... If God were your Father, ye would love me : for I came forth and am come from God ; for neither have I come of myself, but he sent me."1 Yet more, he holds it forth as that which gives efficiency to his redemptive work : " This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die. I am the living bread which came down out of heaven : if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever."2 "I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me may not abide in the darkness. " 3 " No one know- eth the Father, save the Son, and he to whom soever the Son willeth to reveal him. " 4 " And the glory which thou hast given me I have given unto them ; that they may be one, even as we are one. " 5 Now in comparison with this prominent and varied usage of the fact of his heavenly origin, his reference to his coming resurrection, and ascension and session in power and glory above, i Jno. 8 28. «. 2 Jno. 6 *> f- 8 Jno. 1 2 «. 4 Mt. n * (cf. Lk. io 22). 8 jno. ly 22. 202 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM stand out in a peculiar way. They do not so much pervade his teaching, entering into his arguments and incorporating themselves in his reasoning, they rather constitute simple points of statement which he announces from time to time, in a plain and unelaborated way. As to his resurrection he says: "The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. " x This statement is made more than once during the latter part of his min istry, in somewhat similar phraseology.2 As to his ascension, he asks: "Doth this cause you to stumble? What then if ye should be hold the Son of man ascending where he was before?"3 This was said to his followers in his address at Capernaum, after the miracle of the loaves and fishes. As to his session in power and his coming again he declares: " Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming on the 1 Mk. 8 8i, Mt. 1621, Lk. 922. 2 Cf. Mk. 9*»t; Mt. 1722^, Lk. gwwe. Uk. 10 82-m, Mt. 20 "-19, Lk. 18 h1-83. 8 Jno. 6«ibf- THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL 203 clouds of heaven."1 This was his announce ment to the high priest at the midnight trial before the Sanhedrim. They are simple state ments, all of them, involving neither argument nor debate. The only way in which his ascen sion can be said to enter more formally into his teaching is in his valedictory remarks to his disciples, where twice he apparently places his "going to the Father" as the basis of the promises he is making to them.2 Once he uses it as the reason for the work of righteousness which the Holy Spirit is to do in the world.3 On one occasion he may possibly be said, in an indirect way, to bring his resurrection argu- mentatively into his teaching. It is in Beth any, at the grave of Lazarus, as he reasons with Martha for the sake of her faith.4 And only once really can he be understood to elaborate the statement of his session in power above, and that is in his eschatological remarks to his disciples during the last days in Jerusalem, when he pictures to them the last coming of the Son of man and the scenes of the judgment 1 Mk. 1462, Mt. 26 s4, Lk. 22 «9. 2 Jno. I42f(cf. 78MJ), v.*2. 3 Jno. i6H0. 4 Jno. n28-28. 204 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM day.1 But, apart from these passages, his references to these events seem to be simply by way of announcement in undeveloped form, sometimes even in a figurative and vague way. So much for the teachings of Jesus. When now we turn to those of his Apostle, we find there, on the other hand, that, if there be em phases, they tend rather in the direction of the prominence given to just those facts which seem with Jesus to be unemphatic, — the facts of resur rection, ascension and session in power above. This, to be sure, might seem quite natural as far as the resurrection is concerned; since it was this truth which formed the basis of the general Apostolic preaching. We are pre pared therefore to notice how it enters into the Apostle's appeal to the Jews for the Mes- siahship of Jesus, as in his Antioch speech, where he proves the resurrection by the witness of the disciples and shows its agreement with Old Testament prophecy.2 We are ready to understand how he holds it to condition the reasonableness of his whole Gospel of salva- 1 Mk. 13 26 £, Mt. 24 3° f-, Lk. 21 27 f- ; Mt. 25 n-88. 2 Acts 13 s"-87. THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL 205 tion and of his people's faith in a Saviour, as in his argument of the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians. J We can see how essentially for him it stands connected with the deity of Christ, as in the opening of his Epistle to the Romans, where he says that Jesus Christ was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead.2 We realize how vitally for him it is bound up with the surety of our personal resurrection, when we read in First Thessalonians : " If we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him. " 3 And we can see how impellingly for him it enters into the conduct of Christian life, when we turn to that personal chapter of Phi lippians and hear him say that he counted all things but loss for the excellency of the knowl edge of Christ ; that he might be found in him and that he might know him and the power of his resurrection.4 1 vs. J-20. 2 Rom. 1 4. 8 414 (cf. I Cor. 15 2°_88; Rom. 66; Phil. 321; Col. i»). 4 3 10. 206 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM But this emphasis is apparently true also of the ascension of Christ and his session in power, though perhaps in a less marked way. It enters, for example, into the Apostle's argu ment of Christian assurance : " Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth; who is he that shall con demn? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea, rather, that was raised from the dead who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh inter cession for us. " x It forms a decided back ground to his appeal for new and better living : " Brethren, be ye imitators together of me, and mark them which so walk even as ye have us for an ensample. . . . For our citizenship is in heaven; from whence, also, we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory."2 "Let your forbearance be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand."3 It 1 Rom. 888f- (cf. I Th. 3I8, 4M-18, 5s3; II Th. 1 7-i», 2s; I Cor. 15 M"28 ; Phil. 1 8 ; II Tim. 1 w, 4 8, 18), ' 2 phil. 3 17, 20 f. 3 46 (cf. I Th. 1 10, 523; 1 cor. 1 it, 46; Col.31-8; I Tim. 6 18 '¦ ; II Tim. 4 1 '• ; Tit. 2 »"18). THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND PAUL 20>"J affects even his idea of the Church : " Accord ing to that working of the strength of his might, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead and made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly kingdom of grace, far above all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come : and he put all things in sub jection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."1 This does not mean, of course, that Paul leaves out of reference the divine origin of Jesus. This is also incorporated into his reasoning, standing generally as that great fact which gives significance to his Gospel and forms the background to the mystery of its truths ; 2 but the emphasis, in the way of usage at least, lies in the direction we have noted. Now we naturally seek for an explanation of these varying emphases, and it seems as though the principle we have already discovered, as i Eph. 1 19-2». " I Cor. 86; Gal. 44; Rom. i 8, 88, 82, u *»; Col. I »8r. 208 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM accounting for the more marked differences between the teachings of Jesus and of Paul, is the thing which gives the reason for the differ ence here. Apparently Jesus dwelt as fully as he did upon his divine origin because this was a fact before his disciples, as well as before himself. The knowledge of the nativity was evidently not confined to his own family, nor to his own disciples, nor to the people of the town of Bethlehem. The incidents of that event were there for him to build upon with these fuller statements of his heavenly origin. On the other hand, the resurrection and ascension and session in power and final advent were, all of them, yet future events, whose coming hung so closely connected with the then, to his disciples and to the world, inex plicable mystery of his death, that it was well nigh impossible to enter into their discussion, or to do more with them than simply announce them with increasing frequency, as the time drew near for their realization. He could do little else with them than make them an accompaniment to his claims before the Jews, THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND PAUL 2C>9 or a help to his preparation of his disciples for the darkness of the days of his death. With the Apostles however the resurrection and the ascension were as much facts as was the nativity; and while indeed the session in power might be beyond mere human vision, and the final advent an event which was yet to come, there was the fact of the ascension to make the glorified session easy of inference, and for both this and the advent itself they had these assured announcements which the Master himself had made. It is not difficult therefore to understand how Paul came to dwell on all these truths and let them all enter argumentatively into his teaching; for they were all of them, so to speak, before him and before the people to whom he wrote. And, if there was to be emphasis at all in his teaching, it is not diffi cult to understand that it would most likely be at just these two points where, as a matter of fact, we find it. It would be at the point of the resurrection ; for the basis of all Apostolic preaching was the fact that this crucified Jesus had risen from the dead. This was what gave 14 2 IO A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM significance to the Gospel; for this death on Calvary was nothing if it were the death simply of a man, and the great testimony that it was not was in this fact of the risen Christ. This was what put enthusiasm behind the message which the Apostles gave and security beneath the faith which the world returned. Here was the power point in their proclaiming of the Christ. It was the great convincing argument for Jew and Gentile alike. Here necessarily there had to be a point of emphasis. It would be also at the point of the ascension into a session of power on high and the coming again; for these facts gathered themselves around the present needs of the Christians in their indi vidual and collective struggle in the world, as their ever present and living hope. No soul fought its fight with sin but lifted its hands for help to the Christ who reigned in power upon the throne of grace above. No Church strug gled against the persecuting hatred of the unbelieving world around it but looked for the promise of his coming in glory to judge the universe. In truth, here was the fact that held its influence over the Christian's daily living. THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL 211 Its emphasis in all the Apostles' preaching therefore was perfectly natural, and in these respects Paul could hardly have afforded to differ from the rest. His Gospel was the same as theirs, and the people to whom he ministered were men of like struggles and similar needs with all. It would seem then that, with these truths resting on the facts which stood before him and the people of his mission, Paul must have laid his emphasis upon them rather than upon that of the heavenly origin of Christ. They all indeed entered into his teaching, — entered into it argumentatively; they all belonged to his Gospel, — belonged to it essentially ; but these facts of the resurrection, the ascension and the coming again, rather than that fact of the heavenly origin, came into his practical ministry in such a way as to make it impossible that he should not lay upon them the emphasis of what he said and wrote. This last comparison then between the teach ings of Jesus and Paul confirms the principle which we have found in all the comparisons we have made so far. We do not have here 212 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM indeed the same startling differences as we have elsewhere. There is nothing here which would seem to suggest disagreements that could not be reconciled. On the contrary, the agreement is marked; the only difference lies in the emphases which are used. But the difference here is accounted for, largely in the same way as the difference at the more serious points, by the historical events which stand behind them as their background. With Jesus it was the historical event of the nativity which confined his emphasis to the truth of the heavenly origin; with Paul it was the historical events of the nativity, and the resurrection and the ascension, which brought all three truths corporately into his body of teaching. His choice of emphasis among them -was directed simply by the argumentative needs of his gos pel, to which the resurrection was most signifi cant, and by the practical needs of his people, to whom the encouragement and hope which resided in the session in power on high and the coming again to judge the world was most real. Indeed, if it be said, granted it was necessary, in order to prove the worth of the THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND PAUL 213 sacrifice on Calvary, that Jesus should be shown to be some one more than man, that then there is no reason why Paul should not have laid his emphasis equally as well upon the nativity as upon the resurrection, — if this be said, it is evident that Paul chose the resurrec tion, not because there was, in his view, more of historical character to it than there was to the nativity, — which, as far as we have any evidence, was not his view ; nor because it was, in his opinion, a historical event which woujd appeal more to his people, which indeed, as far as the event was concerned, might have been true ; but because it was a historical event which was essentially connected with the fact of the crucifixion, around which gathered the Apostolic Gospel of salvation. It was argu mentatively part and parcel of that event. It was the climax to Calvary. The historical situation then restricted the emphasis which Jesus placed upon this teach ing of his person, and widened out the empha sis which the Apostle used, — the argumentative and practical needs of his work developing them and directing him in their selection. 214 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM Should we need any further confirmation of our position it would be found in the apparent course pursued by Christ after his passion, in which he instructed his slow-hearted disciples in the Scriptures, as they bore upon the events which they had just witnessed. This seems to have been the significance of his talk with the two disciples on the way to Emmaus,1 — and of his remarks to the company assembled together in Jerusalem.2 He had abundant opportunity, during these forty days, of extended teaching concerning the things which were yet to come, and we may believe, from the statement in the prologue of Acts, that he was not silent regard ing the general things of the Kingdom of God ; 3 but, as far as we have definite and specific statements, they go to show that his teaching was emphatically upon the things which he had previously spoken to them as coming, but which now were historically before them in the events of these last days, and that his method of teach ing with regard to these things was to explain and unfold them to his disciples in the light of the Scriptures, which symbolically or prophet- 1 Lk. 24 K-27. 2 Acts i8. 8 vs.6"8. THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND PAUL 215 ically referred to them. In other words, his teaching, during this time, was controlled by this same general historical principle, only now it gives us a hint as to how the Apostolic teaching would be widened out, when the illu mining day of Pentecost was fully come, and, at the same time, lays before us the reason why his previous teaching had been the restricted teaching it was. The whole thing rests in the historical situation. There arises here however a very significant question. If the teaching of Jesus was so restricted and the teaching of the Apostles so widened by the facts which intervened between them, why may not the teaching of the Apos tolic succession of to-day be further widened by the facts which have intervened between the Apostles and ourselves? If facts have played so controlling a part upon the teaching of Christianity, what right have we to stop considering facts when Pentecost was over? If historic evolution be considered at all, how is it possible not to consider it in the events of all the history of the Church, as well as in that part of it which is confined to the Apostolic 2 16 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM Age ? This evolution process has been going on ever since the Apostles' times, and is as really active to-day as it was then; it would seem therefore that, if the principle for which we are contending be true, we must throw our selves open to the admission that the develop ment of Christ's teaching is not yet at its end, and events might occur which would compel us to give new interpretations to the initial utter ances of Christ-interpretations, in fact, which, because of the greater number and more devel oped character of the facts, might set aside the interpretations which the Apostles themselves have given. In a certain way this has happened. The Apostles had, for example, a certain under standing of Christ's prophecy regarding his final advent, which brought them to lay down certain principles regarding the time of its coming.1 There can be no doubt that the accumulated facts of the Church's historic development have enabled us steadily to get nearer to the full value of these principles, — i E. g. II Th. 2 H2; I Tim. 4«;I Jno. 2 18; TT pet. 3 s-"; Jude18'- THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL 21J to find them indeed more sweeping than the Apostles perhaps themselves imagined them in their day. In like manner, the Apostles had a certain understanding of Christ's idea of the visible Church, which brought them, in the course of the Church's expansion, to apply it along certain lines of church organization.1 There can be no question but the broadening facts of the Church's relations to the world and the Church's work and service in the world have enabled us to come to a fuller following out of these lines, to find them, in fact, farther reaching than perhaps the Apostles themselves conceived them in their day. We do not wish to deny these very evident facts, nor take any thing away from the general statement towards which they point. It is certainly true that, as history proceeds in its development, it is quite likely to have its effect generally upon our interpretation of the teachings, both of Christ and of his disciples. But, while this statement is made, there is another statement which must be made along with it and with equal honesty of admission. i Acts 6 !-«, 13 M ; I Cor. 1 2 2S-8i ; Eph. 4 7-«. 2l8 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM It must be clearly acknowledged that these spe cific facts which have so evidently controlled the teachings of Jesus and of Paul, — these facts of the nativity, the crucifixion, the resur rection, the ascension, and the day of Pentecost are unique facts, in that they constitute the beginning facts of Christianity. They are its foundation facts, — the events of history which threw Christianity into the world and estab lished it, as a religion unlike any other re ligion, — supernatural as they were not super natural, and divine as they were not divine. But if this is so, then there follows one all- important conclusion. We are compelled to say, not merely that such facts must stand alone ; for this, of course, they must do, if they constitute the facts of this religious initial establishment. The facts which have followed in Christianity's history may, some of them, be supernatural, as in the Apostolic Age, and many of them be of an almost divinely spiritual kind, as in all the ages since; but none of them belong to the unique initiatory class to which these facts above mentioned belonged. These stand, by their historic position in Christian- THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND PAUL 219 ity's chronology, absolutely alone. The con clusion which follows however is more than this. It is that these facts, being unique as the foundation facts of Christianity, must gather around themselves a teaching which must also be considered unique as the fundamental teach ing of Christianity, which teaching, as well as the facts around which it gathers, must stand alone. We trust we shall not be misunderstood. We do not wish to be held as saying that the Apostolic teaching with regard to these initia tory events was complete at the outset. It grew into fulness and roundness, and devel oped into completeness as the Apostolic Age advanced. And it grew and developed thus largely through the influence of the events in the Apostolic mission work in the world. For, if we come back to Paul, by way of illustra tion, we shall see that his soteriology is fuller in the Galatian and Roman Epistles than in his letters to the Thessalonian and even the Corinthian Churches. This fulness came in directly, it may be, but nevertheless really through the acute phase of the Judaistic con- 220 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM troversy developed in the Galatian parishes. So his Christology is more developed in his later than in his earlier Epistles. The devel opment was due, at its emphatic points at least, to the opposition of the Gnostic thinking which came upon his Asia Minor Churches towards the close of his life. The bringing out of the nature and work of the Holy Spirit seems to have grown as his work went on, and we can understand how its growth owed itself largely to what his work showed him of this gracious influence from above; while his idea of the session in power on high changes noticeably in its spirituality from Thessalonians to Ephe sians, and his conception of the final advent, at least as far as its immediateness is concerned, broadens very decidedly in his later writings. It is not difficult to see how this change and this broadening may have been influenced by the deepening and the expanding of his mission work. We do not, of course, seek to deny the factor of enlightening revelations made to the Apostle, from time to time. Such revelations he had in the more ordinary matters of his work ; much THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL 221 more likely is he to have had them also in these spiritual matters. He essentially began his life and work with the revelation in him of God's Son, and he says his Gospel, as a general term, came to him by revelation from above.1 This we fully admit; but we are willing to believe, in addition, that there were influences upon his views which came from the experi ences of his mission work. It is very natural that it should be so. The Apostles were men, and grew in their apprehension of truth as other men grow. They were workers, and the experiences of their work had a developing influence upon their ideas, as they would have upon the ideas of other men. It is not only perfectly natural, it is simply necessary that there should be development in the Apostolic theology, whether of Paul's or of Peter's or of John's; but we believe that, with the Apos tolic ministry, this development of the funda mental teaching of Christianity ceased. We do not mean that our understanding of this fundamental teaching is not constantly broad ening and deepening, and will ever continue i Gal. illf-. 222 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM to do so; but as a fundamental teaching to be understood, we believe it rounds itself out with the close of the Apostolic ministry. If we are questioned as to our reason for this belief, we reply that it lies in the peculiar relation which these Apostolic teachers held to these initiatory events. Jesus evidently chose, to carry on his work in the world, those who were largely in historical relation to these events, and they carried on the work largely by a historical declaration and interpretation of them. In other words, it seems to have been Christ's idea that these Apostles, these who were gathered around him at the last supper, and these others whom he should afterwards call to work and to teach along with them in the Apostolic establishment of Christianity, — Matthias, Paul, James, the head of the Jerusa lem Church, the author of the Hebrews, — that these Apostles should be the constitutional interpreters of Christianity ; that, just in pro portion as these beginning events constituted Christianity, so the fundamental teaching of Christianity — the teaching of what Christianity constitutionally was — should be the interpre- THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL 223 tation of these events ; and that, while he him self was restricted from such an interpretation because these events had not yet historically occurred, these Apostles of his choosing should be unrestricted in such interpretation when these events had occurred. He does not seem to have contemplated events beyond these in itiatory ones, as coming into the class which constituted Christianity; although he does seem to have intended that, beyond them, the events which constituted the mission experi ences of these Apostles should influence them in their interpretation of these initiatory facts. But when this mission experience of these Apostolic teachers was over, it is evident that the historical development of the fundamental, constitutional, interpretation of Christianity was, according to Christ's idea, at an end. The whole discussion consequently comes to this one question: Were these Apostolic teachers qualified so to declare and interpret these beginning facts as not to open their teaching to contradiction and correction by subsequent teachers, on the asserted basis of subsequent modifying facts ? We do not say : 224 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM Were they qualified so as not to open their teaching to clearer understanding and fuller unfolding; for that must ever be possible, as the very intellectual and spiritual life of Christ's religion. Were they qualified so as not to open their teaching to setting aside and supplanting? Were they qualified for this? To this the answer is significant that Christ evidently intended just such qualification in his promise to the Apostles, at this last supper, of the Holy Spirit ; for this Spirit was to come to them in the way of guaranteeing to them the full truth as to these historical initiatory events. Turn to the Master's valedictory remarks and it will be evident that the Spirit's instructive function, as far as the Apostles were concerned, was to make them Christ's representatives in the promulgation of Christianity in the world,1 and that this instructive function was to be specifically the enlightening of the Apostles' mind as to the teachings which Christ himself had given them in the past.2 This enlighten* ing however was evidently to include the intervening historical events in reference to 1 Jno. i526f' (cf. 17 i8). 2 I428. THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL 22$ which these teachings of Christ had been given ; for Christ had reminded the Apostles that, while he had many things to say to them, to the receiving of which they were not yet equal, the Spirit whom he was to send would make up for this by guiding them into all the truth; and that this guiding of them was to be accom plished by the Spirit's taking of the things of Christ and showing them unto them, — the things with reference to which Christ's own teaching had heretofore been restricted.1 The almost necessary assertion of our discus sion then is the divine qualification of these Apostolic teachers for the interpreting of Christianity's initiatory events.2 Behind this assertion we place, in their full confirmatory power, the facts which we have gained from 1 I612-!4. 2 If, as Forrest says, it was necessary for Christ's purpose that he should have "a special circle of selected spirits with whom he held constant relations, and on whom the totality of his self-revelation, his teaching, his miracles, his personal influence could be brought to bear," then it is not wholly un reasonable to suppose that, if this " totality of his self-revela tion '' was to be mediated to the world, this special circle should in some way be qualified to mediate it through their interpretation of the things which had manifested it to them. (The Christ of History, p. 129.) IS 226 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM our comparative study of the teachings of Jesus and of Paul. The agreement of these teach ings, in the light of the historical facts around which they gather, gives a foundation for this assertion without which it would be impossible to make it, but with which the making of it gains a significance which it is impossible to deny. J Here are the conclusions therefore to which we seem to be driven. The evolutionary criticism of to-day is willing to admit the presence of historical facts in Christianity; but it insists that room must be left to say that the Christianity which reared itself upon their foundation can be accounted for on the suppo sition of natural processes of intellectual activ ity and spiritual enthusiasm ; that the historical facts in Christianity have produced Chris tianity's religion in a way which makes Apos tolic teaching merely a part of speculative 1 There has been no intention in this discussion to in any way define inspiration. The purpose has been simply to show that the reasoning leads to the conclusion that the Apostles were intended to become, and in fact became, interpreters of Christianity, as others were not in their day, nor could be since. THE TEACHINGS OP JESUS AND PAUL 227 theology, and reduces all Christ's authority to the sayings of Christ himself. In other words, it claims that the facts of Christianity have had such influence upon Apostolic thought, and this influence has been so thoroughly along the line of the Apostles' human individualism, that the results produced are of value only as personal opinions. The proof of all this has been the asserted unreconcilableness between the teachings of Jesus and those of his Apos tles, chiefly Paul. Over against such a con tention we have taken the only position we believe is possible. We have said : Allow the facts of Gospel history to have had their influ ence upon the Apostles' teaching; but ask whether they must not have had a restrictive influence upon Jesus's teaching, as well as a widening influence upon that of the Apostles. Admit the fact of disagreement between the teachings of Jesus and those of Paul ; but ask whether this agreement is essential and beyond all hope of reconcilement. Examine the Apos tles' teaching, in the light of these influencing historical facts, in the light of their pre- Christian environment and the experiences of 228 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM their Christian mission life, and let it say for itself whether it stands in fatal disadjustment with that of the Master's. If it does not, — if it shows itself to be naturally one with Christ's, then there is afforded an unanswerable critical basis for the assertion that it was the intention of Christ that the Apostles' theology should be guaranteed to us by the presence behind it and within it of the Holy Spirit of truth. To-day's problem of the philosophy under lying New Testament criticism is thus an interesting one. It gives us new understand ing of the relation of Jesus's teaching to that of his Apostles, who followed him. It confirms the fact that this Apostolic teaching was in tended by Jesus to form an integral part of the fundamental teaching of his religion, and, in doing this, it shows us that the doctrine of Apostolic inspiration — special, particular, unique — is absolutely essential to the integ rity of this religious fundamental teaching. There seems to be really no escape from it, if the Christianity of Christ himself is to hold any intelligible place in the thought and any controlling place in the life of man. Without THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS AND PAUL £29 it Christ's teachings are the plaything of the Apostolic and every other age; with it Christ's teachings gather around the charter events of his religion in a way which makes that religion the one permanent, persistent, determining truth in the world. VI DEVELOPMENT OF PAUL'S DOC TRINE OF CHRISTIAN UNITY TN the preceding lecture we dealt with what we chose to call the fundamental teaching of Christianity, — the teaching which gathered around the initiatory facts that constituted Christianity the religion that it is. This teach ing, we tried to make clear, was historically dependent upon these facts, both as it was restricted in the teaching of Jesus and as it was widened in the teaching of the Apostles. More than this, we attempted to show that, in the case of the Apostles, this very teaching of theirs, which was so widened out by these initi atory facts, was further influenced by the after facts which came to them in their mission life; so that their interpretation of these begin ning events of Christianity was broadened and deepened and clarified by all their mission ex periences, — their struggles, their successes, PAUL'S DOCTRINE OP CHRISTIAN UNITY 23 1 their defeats, — until, as we gather together all they teach us, we have what Christ himself in tended should stand before us as the funda mental teaching of his religion. In this closing lecture we wish to deal with the class of teach ings which may, in a relative sense of the word, be said to lie outside the fundamental teaching of Christianity. We wish to show that, how ever these also may have had their prelim inary enunciation in the teachings of Jesus, they too have been largely dependent upon historical facts for the developed form which they came to have with the Apostles. We are perfectly well aware that there is need of caution in this task. No one to-day is likely to question the fact of development in Apostolic theology to some degree at least. Such a thing is, in itself, too natural and, as a matter of fact, too well established to be held in doubt; but critics have pushed this idea of development so far, that they make bold to say, not only that Paul's theology grew during his mission work, but that its growth is clearly and distinctly marked by the difference in the Epistles through which it expressed 232 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM itself ; so that the order of the Epistles is itself decided by the new and even contradictory ideas which they display, beginning with a crude and simple-minded Paulinism, and pro ceeding on to one that is not only fully devel oped, but complex and self-confused.1 It is very clear that this is an extreme position. Paul's letters were not written in order to express the stages of his theological thought ; so that his first Epistle must give all the theology he had to begin with, and his last Epistle all the theology he had to end with. These Epistles are not bulletins from a theo logical workshop. They are the natural efforts of the man to meet the emergencies of his mis sion, and it is these emergencies which give the Epistles the differences which they have among themselves. It is these emergencies which make them more or less intense, more or less new, sometimes seemingly even con tradictory. The individuality of Paul's experi ence is to be taken into account, as well as the 1 Cf. Clemen, Chronologie, S. 256-275. W. Mackintosh, The Christian Religion, pp. 433 f. See also Steck, Der Galater- brief, S. 372-374. PAUL'S DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN UNITY 233 individuality of Paul himself, when we talk about the evolution of his theology. We are not to say Paul had no idea of justification by faith until the Galatian controversy overtook him, and that this controversy must have overtaken him late in his work, because this idea is so intensely Pauline. Paul must have had the essential idea of justification by faith, in order to be himself converted on the Damas cus road; and if his apprehension of this great truth was brought to intenser clearness by this trouble in his Galatian churches, there is no reason to believe this controversy must not have occurred where the history of the Book of Acts places it, — early in his ministry, rather than late. We are not to say Paul had no con ception of the deity of Christ until the Gnostic heresy forced him, in self-defence, to postulate it; and that this heresy could only have come to him late, because the deity idea itself is so developed. Paul evidently believed in the essential deity of Christ from his first Epistles, however profoundly he may have come to apprehend it under pressure of this Asia Minor agitation. And if we say this agitation came 234 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM to him late in his mission, we say it, not so much because of the developed ideas which it involves, as because of the historically proved lateness of the letters in which it is opposed and controverted. In other words, there was a growth in Paul's theology, traces of which we can discover, as his Epistles pass before us; but there was also an integrity in Paul's the ology, in virtue of which its essential outlines were present from the start ; so that his Epis tles place before us the individual developments which the emergencies of his work gave to the ideas he already had. We recognize thus the caution that is nec essary in dealing with this fact of development in Apostolic theology. There must be a con stant appreciation of the fact, not only that there is a balance between the human and divine elements in the truth which came to the Apostles, but that, within the human elements, there is a balance between the constant and the progressive factors in the movement of the theology to its completion; so that Paul's Gos pel did not grow out of nothing into something, but was essentially the same Gospel from the PAUL'S DOCTRINE OP CHRISTIAN UNITY 235 start. At the same time, it was influenced by the personal experiences of his mission work ; so that, as the years went on, it was broadened and deepened into an ever fuller and more out- rounded, but always self-consistent message of truth. This, we hold, a candid study of Paul's theology will make clear. The purpose of this lecture therefore is, recognizing the presence of these constant and progressive forces, to show how the Apostolic theology was wrought upon by these personal experiences of mission work, until it was devel oped from its primal to its completed forms. We do not, of course, intend to compass the whole theology, — not even that part of it which we have chosen to designate as lying outside the fundamental teaching of Chris tianity, and which we have now specifically be fore ourselves. This would be far beyond the limits of a lecture. We wish to take up but a single doctrine, — the doctrine of Christian unity, — and show how, in the providences of Paul's work, it was — we do not say suggested to him; for its essential idea is apparently with him from the beginning, and goes back 236 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM beyond him to the teachings of Jesus himself, — but how, by his mission experiences, it has been lifted up and widened out into the devel oped form in which he finally cast it. This is all we can give ourselves time to do ; but we hope what is here shown may make clear the principle we propose, and indicate how it may be applied perhaps in other directions. Paul's position, at the close of his mission work in the East, was one which had a decided effect upon his state of mind at that time and upon his plans for future work. This mission work had been successful. As far as geography was concerned, it had pushed the Gospel up to the borders of Illyricum ; 1 as far as theology was concerned it had carried through the con troversy with the Judaistic party in the Church. The geographical fact confirmed him in his purpose to go to Rome; the theological fact had an influence upon the way he went. It compelled him to go with a careful statement of his Gospel beforehand, — not because the Christians of Rome did not know his Gospel ; for it is evident from his letter to them, that, 1 Rom. 15 19. PAUL'S DOCTRINE OP CHRISTIAN UNITY 237 though he had never visited the Church, he was personally acquainted with many of its people ; x while, from the way the Church must have organized itself in the absence of any Apostolic founding, evidently a large part of its congregation was made up of converts from his own Eastern mission fields.3 It was not therefore to inform these Christians of his Gospel that he wrote to them, but to correct them as to their understanding of this Gospel which they knew. To get clear before us the correction which he had in mind, let us remember that his suc cess against the Judaistic agitators was a suc cess which carried with itself the danger of reaction. We do not mean by this that the rescued churches were likely to go back to Judaism, after all; but that the Gentile ele ment in these, and in other Pauline churches, 1 Rom. 16 ch. 2 Sanday may be allowed to be correct in his refusal to see, in Rom. 6 17, any reference to a distinctive Pauline type of doctrine. The Apostle would have more likely referred to such a teaching of his own as "my Gospel" (1626, 216) ; but, at the same time, such a general interpretation of 6 17 does not destroy the evidence for the Pauline character of the Roman Church gathered from other facts. 238 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM was likely to exaggerate and overdo Paul's principle of freedom from the law. It was a tendency perfectly natural in itself, as the ten dency to abuse successful ideas always is, and one consequently which we might easily ex pect ; so that we are not surprised to find, at a later date, evidences of antinomianism in the Philippian Church.1 Indeed, even before the Roman Epistle was written, the Apostle's opponents, either within the Jewish element of the Eastern Churches, or among the unbeliev ing Jews outside the Church, were beginning to slander his Gospel and affirm that it taught the principle of doing evil that good might come.2 But if such a tendency was possible in the East, much more was it possible in the West, especially in such a church as that at Rome, in which the Gentile element was not only so much more prominent, but where it had natu rally so much freer swing for its ideas, because of the Gentile atmosphere of the city round about it. Here antinomianism might come to a fixedness of creed and life, and a higher 1 Phil. 3i8f-. 2 Rom. 38. PAUL'S DOCTRINE OP CHRISTIAN UNITY 239 Pauline Gentilism, self-conscious of the con quest which its Gospel had accomplished in the East, might lord it over the rest of the Church. To guard against such a danger as this Paul's letter to the Roman Church was written. It was written before the Apostle's departure for Rome, partly because of his habit, to prepare, in this way, for his coming among his Churches,1 but mostly because the danger against which he wished to guard was already, to a certain degree, present among them.2 This was, in fact, generally the reason why he prepared the Churches for his coming among them. We can see therefore how it was this trouble in the Roman Church which gave rise to this Roman letter; and we can see also how it was the character of this trouble which must have determined the form which the letter took.3 1 See cases of I Cor. (i6«i); II. Cor (12 "-21), 13!'-, and I Tim. (1 2-4, 418-18). 2 Rom. i617f-. 8 For a detailed discussion of this question, see article " Paul's Purpose in Writing Romans," Presbyterian Quarterly, Jan. 1893. 24O A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM Let us see how it did so. On general prin ciples we would say such a trouble as this was to be met in two ways : (1) As far as it con sisted in an abuse of Paul's law-free Gospel, there must be shown the reality with which this Gospel recognized the law. (2) As far as this abuse led to a tendency of the Gentile element to lord it over the Jewish element, there must be shown the equality with which this Gospel recognized the Gentile and the Jew in the salvation plan. As a matter of fact however this is very much just what Paul has done in his Epistle. (1) He shows, not only that his Gospel is in accordance with the Old Testament economy, but that it recog nized the law to be in itself holy and just and true, and laid emphasis on the fact that it con tinues its obligations of holiness upon the Christian life. (2) But, beyond this and specially, he shows that Gentile and Jew stand on the same Gospel basis before God, that they are under the same condemnation of sin, that they are privileged to the same condition of faith, and that they move under the same obli gation to holiness in the new life ; though the PAUL'S DOCTRINE OP CHRISTIAN UNITY 24 1 Jewish people never lose their significant place in the promises of God, are still God's people, in spite of their present unbelief, and are, in God's time, to be brought to a full realization of this fact by their conversion to the faith which rests in Christ. It is this idea of Gospel equality, and, at the same time, theocratic supremacy which gives the framework to his argument. He begins his Epistle by showing that Gospel righteousness is impossible through the efforts of either Gentile or Jew; because neither is able through good works to justify himself be fore God. This is a matter of history common to both. The pagan world showed it for the Gentile; the Hebrew world showed it for the Jew. He makes clear further that both Gen tile and Jew have secured the Gospel righteous ness on the same identical basis, — the basis of faith, since no other basis is possible on which it can be secured, — and so stand within the Christian life on equal footing. And if this raises questions among the Gentile ele ment, as to how the present unbelieving and reprobate condition of the Jewish world is to 16 242 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM be accounted for, the answer is given by saying that the Jews are still God's chosen people, and if, by reason of unbelief, they be cast away, it is only for the present, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, when all Israel shall be saved. The Gentiles therefore are not to boast themselves; for, after all, they are not the natural branches to this spiritual olive tree, but only grafted in. They are not to be highminded, but to fear. For if it is through unbelief that blindness, in part, has happened to Israel, it is only by faith that the Gentile is saved from the same fate ; and if it is by grace that part of God's chosen Israel has been saved, it is much more by grace — if such a thing can be — that any of this outside pagan, God- unchosen world is saved. This is the Apostle's argument. On its basis he proceeds to bring out the duties of practical Christian living, among which it is impossible not to see prominent the duty of mutual forbearance among members of the Church, especially the duty of forbearance on the part of those members who were conscious of freedom from ceremonial restrictions, over PAUL'S DOCTRINE OP CHRISTIAN UNITY 243 against those whose consciences were not yet free from such burdens.1 Now it is clearly impossible that this condi tion of affairs should not have had an influence upon Paul's idea of Christian unity. That he had had such an idea before this time there need, of course, be no question. It is quite evident in the Thessalonian Epistles, — his earliest writings, — where he is comforting the people in their persecutions. He exhorts them to be at peace among themselves,2 and prays that the Lord may make them increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men.3 In fact, he says that, concerning love of the brethren, they had no need that one write to them ; for they themselves were taught of God to love one another. But he writes them to abound more and more in this grace, and that they study to be quiet and to attend to their own business and to work with their own hands, even as he had charged them.4 It is an idea which he says these Thessalonians have as an essential part of their Christian 1 Cf. chs. 14&15. 2ITh. 5". 8 3 12. 4 a 9-11. 244 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM knowledge, and consequently which he him self must have had, and had from the beginning of his Christian work. At the same time how ever it is an idea which apparently does not go out beyond the problem of unity in the local church. What the Apostle evidently has in mind is simply the tendencies to shiftlessness and busybodying and personal discord among the members of the Church, all of which, he says, stand opposed to the fundamental Chris tian principle of brotherly love. In the Roman Epistle however, while the local unity was doubtless first in his mind, the specific character which the local trouble had, seemed to throw his idea of unity out beyond the local church into the Church at large. It was not here the mere question of brotherly love among the members of the Church, it was the far larger question of charity of thought and harmony of life between the two great elements of Apostolic Christendom, — the Gentile and the Jew. His idea of unity seemed to be given a new significance by the new conditions in the Roman trouble. It' apparently took a wider sweep from the fact PAUL'S DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN UNITY 245 that the trouble with which it was concerned brought up a wider sweeping state of affairs. See how this is made clear to us by the pas sages in this Epistle, where the unity idea is brought out: "But I speak to you that are Gentiles. Inasmuch, then, as I am an Apostle of Gentiles, I glorify my ministry: if by any means I may provoke to jealousy them that are my flesh, and may save some of them. For if the casting away of them is the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead ? And if the first fruit is holy, so is the lump : and if the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off, and thou, being a wild olive, wast grafted in among them, and didst become partaker with them of the root of the fatness of the olive tree ; glory not over the branches : but if thou gloriest, it is not thou that bearest the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say, then, branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; by their unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by thy faith. Be not highminded, but fear : for if God spared not the natural branches, neither will 246 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM he spare thee. Behold, then, the goodness and severity of God : toward them that fell, sever ity; but toward thee, God's goodness, if thou continue in his goodness : otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they con tinue not in their unbelief, shall be grafted in : for God is able to graft them in again. For if thou wast cut out of that which is by nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted, contrary to nature, into a good olive tree : how much more shall these, which are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree ? " x " For I say, through the grace that was given me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but so to think as to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to each man a measure of faith. For even as we have many members in one body, and all the members have not the same office: so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and severally members one of another." 2 " Let not him that eateth set at nought him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth : for God hath received PAUL'S DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN UNITY 247 him. . . . Thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? or thou again, why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God. . . . Let us not, therefore, judge one another any more : but judge ye this rather, that no one put a stum- blingblock in his brother's way, or an occasion of falling. " x " We that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves."2 It is very evident that here is a going out of the unity idea beyond the mere questions of the local Church. This trouble between the Gentile and the Jew was not a mere party trouble between two factions in the Roman Church ; it touched the question generally of the strong against the weak; it affected the whole fact of the body of Christ ; it swept out into the plan of God for the salva tion of the world. It is something far more than a local problem which Paul has in mind; and so his idea of unity, which stands over against this problem, is something broader than it shows itself to be in the Thessalonian case. 3 1 j. 8, 10, 13. 2 jj 1 3 The local idea is not wanting, as is clear from 13 s- 10. 18, 15 6 f-, but beyond it stands this broader idea. 248 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM But it will doubtless be asked, why it is, if this is so, that we do not see evidences of this broader idea in the Corinthian and Galatian Epistles. In the Churches to which these let ters were sent the trouble between Jew and Gentile had already occurred. If Paul's idea of church unity was to be widened out by diffi culties which involved these two great elements in the Apostolic Church, the widening out was, or ought to be, present before the Roman Epistle was written. This question is a perfectly legitimate one, and the answer to it is simply that such evi dences of a widening out of Paul's unity idea, to a certain degree at least, are exactly what we do find in these Epistles. We cannot help but notice the difference between Thessalo nians and Corinthians in this respect. Recall the Thessalonian passages : " Be at peace among yourselves. " " The Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another." " We exhort you that ye study to be quiet and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands."1 Now place over against them these 1 I Th. 5 18, 312,411. PAUL'S DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN UNITY 249 passages which we find in Corinthians and Galatians: "Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be per fected together in the same mind and in the same judgment. ... Is Christ divided ? was Paul crucified for you ? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul ? . . . Christ sent me not to bap tize, but to preach the Gospel. . . . We preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumblingblock, and unto Gentiles foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. " x "What then is Apollos? and what is Paul? Ministers through whom ye believed ; and each as the Lord gave to him. . . . We are God's fel low- workers : ye are God's husbandry, God's building."2 " Concerning spiritual gifts, breth ren, I would not have you ignorant. . . . There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are diversities of ministrations, and the same Lord. And there are diversities of workings, but the same God, who worketh 25O A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM all things in all. ... As the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ. For in one Spirit were we all bap tized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. . . . Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members thereof. " x "Concerning things sacrificed to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth. . . . Howbeit in all men there is not that knowledge : but some, being used until now to the idol, eat as of a thing sacrificed to an idol ; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But meat will not com mend us to God : neither, if we eat not, are we the worse; nor, if we eat, are we the better. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to the weak. For if a man see thee which hast knowledge sitting at meat in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be emboldened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through thy 1 12 1. 4-6,12-U, 27, PAUL'S DOCTRINE OP CHRISTIAN UNITY 25 I knowledge he that is weak perisheth, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And thus, sinning against the brethren, and wound ing their conscience when it is weak, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for ever more, that I make not my brother to stumble. " J "Give no occasion of stumbling, either to Jews or to Greeks, or to the church of God : even as I also please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved."2 "Ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female : for ye are all one man in Christ Jesus."3 It is clearly evident that Paul's idea of Christian unity has undergone a change here from what we see of it in the Thessalonian Epistles, and that this change is very much in the direction of that which we have before us in the Roman letter. Here, as there, the 1 s 1. M". 2 10 w f.. 8 Gal. 3 26-28. 252 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM local loses itself in the general idea. Here is the same widening out from the mere parties in the Church to the broad question of the strong against the weak, — to the great fact of the body of Christ, to the general idea of life and work within the Christian communion. And the unity idea widens with it. And yet one cannot help but see also a decided difference between these passages and those in the Roman letter. These passages do not have behind them the same deep cleavage between Jew and Gentile as in the Roman Epistle. There, in the Corinthian passages, for instance, are parties, — parties indeed in volving these two elements of the Church, — involving them at their characteristic points of adherence to, and freedom from the ceremonial law; but, after all, when you look closely at the trouble, it has not swung much beyond partisanship. It has not come to the same deep difficulty we find at Rome. It has not gone as far even as in Galatia. The trouble may indeed be said to be between Jew and Gentile ; but it is not as developed, as among the Galatians, and with neither the Corinthians PAUL'S DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN UNITY 253 nor Galatians has it come to the reverse trouble between Gentile and Jew, as at Rome. So it is clear that, while Paul's idea of unity in the Corinthian and Galatian case is widened out beyond the Thessalonian limits — widened out apparently as far as it is in the case at Rome, the similarity is, after all, only apparent. The lateral sweep is the same, but not the downward reach. There is lacking in Corin thians and in Galatians one profound element which is present in Romans, and this is the element of the world redemption plan. Let us spread out before ourselves again, briefly, the Corinthian passages : " I beseech you, brethren, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you. ... Is Christ divided ? was Paul crucified for you ? . . . We preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumblingblock, and unto Gentiles foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."8 "What then is Apollos ? and what is Paul ? Ministers through whom ye believed." "We are God's fellow 's I Cor. I w. » ffl '-. 254 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM workers."1 "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit, — diversities of ministra tions, and the same Lord, — diversities of work ings, but the same God. ... As the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free, and were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. . . . Ye are the body of Christ, and severally members thereof."2 "Meat will not com mend us to God : neither, if we eat not, are we the worse ; nor, if we eat, are we the better. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling- block to the weak. . . . For through thy knowledge he that is weak perisheth, the brother for whose sake Christ died."3 "Give no occasion of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church of God."4 And this Galatian passage: "Ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. There 136,28, 2 I34-6, 12-14, 27. S 88f.. 11, 4I032. PAUL'S DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN UNITY 255 can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female : for ye are all one man in Christ Jesus."1 Now place over against these the Roman passages and see the difference: "I speak unto you that are Gentiles. ... If the casting away of God's people is the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead ? And if the first- fruit is holy, so is the lump : and if the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off, and thou, being a wild olive, wast grafted in among them, and didst become partaker with them of the root of the fatness of the olive tree ; glory not over the branches : but if thou gloriest, it is not thou that bearest the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; by their unbelief they were broken off, and thou stand est by thy faith. Be not highminded, but fear ; for if God spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare thee. . . . And they also, if they continue not in their unbelief, shall be 1 Gal. 31"-28. 256 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. ... I would not have you ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own con ceits, that a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in; and so all Israel shall be saved."1 Here is a passage of wonderful sweep, in whose light we turn back to the first chapters of the Epistle and see what the Apostle means by the prominence which he seems to give to the Jew. " I am not ashamed of the Gospel : for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. " 2 " God will render to every man according to his works : to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life: but unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indig nation, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek; but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek : for there is 1 1 1 13 a, 10-21, 23, 25, 2 j 16 PAUL'S DOCTRINE OP CHRISTIAN UNITY 257 no respect of persons with God. " J " We lay to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin. . . . Where then is the glorying ? It is excluded. By what manner of law ? of works ? Nay : but by a law of faith. We reckon,' therefore, that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? is he not the God of Gentiles also ? Yea, of Gentiles also : if so be that God is one, and he shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith. " 2 Paul has thrown his thought here out beyond the idea of the Jew and the Gentile in the Church's general membership to the idea of the Jew and the Gentile in God's great redemption plan for the world. And so it comes that the passages in Romans, which seem so similar to those in Corinthians, are really of a larger measure ; for we cannot but see that they are thrown upon a larger back ground and belong to larger surroundings. " I say, through the grace that was given me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; 1 26-11. 2 39b' 27-3!). 17 258 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM but so to think as to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to each man a measure of faith. For even as we have many members in one body, and all the members have not the same office : so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and severally members one of an other."1 "Let not him that eateth set at nought him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth : for God hath received him. . . . Why dost thou judge thy brother? or thou again, why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God."2 We think it must now be quite clear why we began by calling attention to the Apostle's idea of unity, as it was affected by the condition of affairs at Rome, rather than at Corinth, or in Galatia; because, while the trouble at Corinth and in Galatia was of the same general char acter with that at Rome, the trouble at Rome was a real advance upon the earlier one. It was not a mere question of Jew and Gentile partisanship, as in Corinth, with the Gentiles so in prominence that the Apostle had to address 1 128-3. 2 14 s. 10. PAUL'S DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN UNITY 259 himself specially to them and warn them against letting their knowledge override the scruples of the rest.1 It was not the deeper question of a Jewish absorption of Gentilism, as in Galatia, with the Gentile so upheld in his freedom from the law by the Apostle that he had to be careful of the effect of his own argu ment and caution them against using their free dom for an occasion to the flesh.2 It was the still more profound question of the Gentile despising the Jew in the salvation plan and his ignoring of the whole relation of Judaism to the Gospel purpose of God. It was the general trouble between Jew and Gentile come, for the first time, to a fundamental schism of the Church; and so, over against it, the essential need of unity come vitally to the front, with an outreaching sweep of significance and with an urging insistence of emphasis it had not had before. To be sure, some will claim that Paul's con ception of church unity was as broad as Chris tendom from the beginning, and that the reason why we do not see the same breadth of treat- 1 I Cor. 8 ch. 2 Gal. 5 18. 260 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM ment in the Thessalonian, as in the Roman or in the Corinthian and Galatian cases, is be cause the Thessalonian case did not call for it. They say that Paul, having been converted as he was, with the idea of justification by faith so prominent in his experience, must have seen, from the beginning, what effect such a Gospel would have upon the Jewish and Gentile world outside the Church, and what trouble it would create between these elements within the Church's membership. We do not wish to deny prophetic insight to the Apostle, nor hold it impossible that, through divine revelation, he could receive his Gospel in full and com plete before he entered upon his work ; but we do say that neither of these things is likely, because this is not God's natural way of work ing with men, even though they be Apostles. Men grow in their views by their experience; and, while Paul doubtless had the general idea of Christian brotherhood from the begin ning, this idea could not but have been broad ened and deepened by the experiences of his work, — especially by such experiences as this schism between the two great component PAUL'S DOCTRINE OP CHRISTIAN UNITY 26 1 elements in the Church. And this likelihood is confirmed by the change which is evident in the spirit of these Epistles' passages as we have cited them above. It would seem therefore that this Jewish- Gentile trouble influenced Paul's idea of unity in very decided ways. As far as the trouble showed itself in factional antagonisms, it appar ently widened the idea to a statement of the fellowship in work of servants of Christ and the essential unity of his body. As far as it led the strong to impose their knowledge upon the consciences of the weak, it apparently brought the idea to a statement of the respon sibility which love owed to the communion of this body. As far as it worked out in the Judaistic propaganda of salvation by works, it apparently lifted the idea to a statement of the universality of the condition of faith and the essential unity of sonship in Jesus Christ. As far as it induced the Gentiles to abuse the freedom of the faith Gospel against the Jew, it apparently broadened and deepened the idea to a statement of the covenant prominence of the Jew in the salvation plan and the consequent 262 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM duty of fraternity which was owed by the Gen tile in the Church. Were this then the only trouble which in fluenced this idea, the fact itself of the influence and the results which the influence produced would be important for our understanding of Paul's theology; but, as we study the Apostle's life, it is quite clear to us that there was an other trouble in his mission work which influ enced it still further. Let us recall the Apostle's experience after his writing of this Epistle to Rome : He leaves Corinth in the spring of the year, and after a voyage along the Asian coast, in which the shadows of portending evil gathered round him, came to Jerusalem. There he was set upon by the bigoted mob; rescued by the Roman power; sent a prisoner to Csesarea; heard by the Governor, in the matter of the accusation brought against him; appealed to Caesar's court ; sailed for Rome, where he arrived, after an eventful voyage, only to find, as it seems to us the first chapter of Philippians makes quite clear, the hyper-Gentilism which he had writ ten against in his Epistle still active in the PAUL'S DOCTRINE OP CHRISTIAN UNITY 263 Church's life. He is patient with it, though it grieves him sorely, and apparently over comes it, making the influence of the truth finally felt among them for a brotherhood of life and work. But while the Gospel was thus prospering in the West, there was in the East a trouble, whose coming the Apostle possibly referred to in his farewell speech to the Ephe- sian elders at Miletus. It was distinctively a trouble of thought, — an error of belief. It belonged to Asia Minor, as the meeting place of Eastern and Western thinking, and was char acterized, as far as any characteristics are able to be gathered from it, by that theosophic angel-cult, that ascetic effort after perfection, and that proud exclusiveness which marked the eclecticism of the time that flourished most in the intellectual cosmopolitanism of Alexandria, but found a genial soil wherever Jewish thought and pagan philosophy and oriental mysticism came together, and must have real ized in the Christian concepts and ideas simply the forms in which its fermentation could bring itself to perfection. In fact it was, unless we are very much mistaken in the study of it, the 264 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM first vague shadowy beginning of the Gnostic system, which came to its perfection in the following century.1 The chief offence of Gnosticism however, in its later development and in this its first begin ning, was its dishonoring of Jesus Christ. It professed to be very jealous for the honor of God, and so, for the sake of saving him from contact with evil matter, assumed a series of emanations, each one a little less divine than its predecessor, until one was found far enough below God to create the world without involv ing deity. At the head of this series it placed Jesus Christ, the most divine of all, and yet, like all, a created and not an uncreated being; more than man, — yes, at the head of this angel line, — but less than God, lowered from the throne and apart from the life, which were his own right and were the last necessity of sinful man. Over against this trouble the Apostle writes his Colossian letter, and he writes it straight at the trouble's great offending point, — the dishonoring of Jesus Christ. His argument is perhaps not altogether easy to 1 Cf. note 1, p. 118. PAUL'S DOCTRINE OP CHRISTIAN UNITY 26$ follow, when one compares it with the carefully thought-out scheme of Romans; but there is no misunderstanding what it meant to declare, nor the one central point around which its rea soning moves. The Apostle seems to have one great thought in this Epistle, and this is the absolute supremacy of Jesus Christ, — his supremacy as creator of the world, as head of the Church, as the ultimate gathering point of the universe, — because of whose supreme sufficiency in their salvation they had no need of these teachers who were striving to lead them astray. This is the Apostle's master thought, — the absolute supremacy of Jesus Christ. It makes the Colossian letter the climax of his Christology. Along with this Colossian letter however there was written another letter, of a somewhat similar and yet decidedly different kind, — the so-called Ephesian letter. It was written, not to this Church alone, but, through this Church as their mother, to the surrounding Churches, some hint of whose range is given us in the Apocalypse. In short, it was an encyclical letter. 266 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM But why should the Apostle write such a letter? Why should he follow such a letter as Colossians with another letter of such a kind as Ephesians? The natural answer to this question would, of course, be that, while there might be a specific difficulty at Colossas needing a specific treatment, such as the Colossian letter gives, there might also be, in the same general region, a somewhat general condition of affairs, which would be best handled in just such a general pastoral way as an encyclical letter would provide. Now what was this general condition of affairs likely to be? Let us remember. If we were right in saying the victory of Paul's law- free Gospel was likely to be followed by an exaggeration and abuse of the freedom; that such an exaggeration and abuse had, most likely, already shown itself in the East, before Paul wrote his Roman letter, and that it was largely present in the West, when he wrote it ; if we were right in saying that this hyper- Paulinism was accompanied, in the West, with a depreciating attitude towards the Jewish element in the Church, and toward the entire PAUL'S DOCTRINE OP CHRISTIAN UNITY 267 relation of Judaism to the Gospel dispen sation, — then it would not be over-rash to infer that this unfriendliness toward the Jew, or at least this self-appreciation of the Gentile, might have manifested itself also in the East, and that this schism, which was such a thoroughly natural one in the peculiar dualistic constitution of Apostolic Christendom, would be likely to be found wherever Christianity had dualistically estab lished itself. But were this the state of affairs, in this seacoast province of Asia, and were the Apostle to write to the Churches of this province a pas toral letter, we should expect this letter to show some evidence of the trouble itself, and, over against the trouble, some traces of the Apostle's plea for Christian unity. We turn to Ephe sians and we find just what we thus expected, only in a form which makes clear to us two things: (1) that the trouble in this Asian region was not so acute as it was in Rome; (2) that some new influence had been at work upon the Apostle's unity idea. The modifica tion in the trouble we can readily understand. 268 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM The atmosphere, even at Ephesus itself, was not so absolutely Gentile as that of Rome. Gentilism in the Church would consequently not be so aggressive in this Eastern region as in and around the Western capital. This Gen tile trouble with the Jew would therefore not be so acute. But what was the new influence upon the Apostle's ideas, and whence did it come? Let us place the Ephesian letter before us and see if it will give us light. The Epistle begins in a peculiar way, — that is, compared with Paul's other letters, — though in a most natural way for an encyclical Epistle. It begins with an extended doxology in praise of the spiritual blessings of the plan of salvation, placing at the forefront of these blessings the fact of election, and carrying them up to their consum mation in the universal headship of Christ securing them at the same time, from begin ning to end, to all of God's believing people — first historically to the Jew, and afterward though equally, to the Gentile.1 It is a per fectly general passage, and suits well the gen 1 iS-li PAUL'S DOCTRINE OP CHRISTIAN UNITY 269 eral character of the Epistle which it opens. It is followed by one of the Apostle's character istic prayers that God would apply these bless ings of salvation to the Epistle's readers, by giving them a progress in spiritual knowledge and life.1 This prayer he closes with a fuller statement of the exalted headship of Christ, in which statement Christ's resurrection and ex altation are given as an illustration of the power which God is exerting toward us in spiritual things, especially in bringing us out of our spiritual death and placing us with Christ in our spiritual life.2 With this he comes to the Epistle's theme. It is in the latter half of the second chapter. It takes all this previous statement of God's gracious spiritual work with us as its back ground, and upon this background it brings out before the largely Gentile readers of the Epis tle the vivid fact of their former untheocratic condition. " Wherefore, remember, that afore time ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands; 270 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the prom ise, having no hope and without God in the world."1 But this condition of affairs, the Apostle reminds them, had been done away with for them by the work of Christ, in virtue of which all barriers had been broken down, and they, outcasts though they were, had been brought into an ideal theocratic position with the believing Israel of God. "But now in Christ Jesus ye [Gentiles] that were once afar off are made nigh in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who made both [Gentile and Jew] one, and broke down the middle wall of partition [which separated them], having abol ished in his flesh the enmity [between them], even the law of commandments expressing itself in ordinances ; in order that he might create in himself of the twain [Gentile and Jew] one new [spiritual] man, so making peace; and in order that he might reconcile them both [Gentile and Jew] ideally in one body [of the Church] unto God through the cross, having slain the PAUL'S DOCTRINE OP CHRISTIAN UNITY 27 1 enmity thereby; and he came and preached peace to you [Gentiles] that were far off, and peace to them [the Jews] that were nigh : for through him we both [Gentile and Jew] have our access in one Spirit unto the Father."1 It is thus clear that there could be but one thing for these Gentile readers of the Epistle to strive for, — the one great idea the Apostle .had before him as the Epistle's theme; the one great ideal these salvation-blessed Gentiles should ever have within their heart, — the com plete unity in Jesus Christ of the membership of the Church. " So then ye [Gentiles] are no more [theocratic] strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone ; in whom each [personal character] building, fitly framed together [in its own spiritual develop ment], groweth into a [general] holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye [Gentiles] also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit."2 272 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM This then is the theme. Following it, the Apostle again comes to a prayer for his people, — a prayer unto the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, to the end that they might be strong to know, with all the saints, the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, so that they might be filled with all the fulness of God.1 In connection with this prayer he shows his Apostolic commission to his Gospel work, which was to declare the mystery hid through all the ages, but now pro claimed abroad, " that the Gentiles are fellow- heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the Gospel. " 2 And then comes his practical exhortation, which is essentially this unity idea thrown into their every-day faith and living. " I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the calling wherewith ye were called, with all low liness and meekness, with long suffering, for bearing one another in love ; giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, 1 3 1, 14-12. 2 vs. 2-« PAUL'S DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN UNITY 273 even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all."1 A unity which indeed has its diversities of gifts and minis tries, but is destined to that ultimate unity of the faith which makes it possible " that we may be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error ; but speaking truth in love, may grow up in all things into him, which 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 build ing up of itself in love."2 In such unity the Epistle's readers were to be followers of God, as dear children, and to walk in love toward each other, after the example of Christ's great love toward them. It is beyond question that here is not simply Paul's unity idea again before us, but this idea 18 274 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM essentially at the same angle as we saw it in the Epistle to Rome. It is the Gentiles to whom he is speaking. He is reminding them of what aliens and outcasts they were, and how it has only been through God's great and gra cious love to them in Jesus Christ that they have been brought into their present blessed condition; so that, if they have any respon sibility upon them, it is the responsibility of unstinted brotherhood with the rest of the Church, even though they be Jews; for, though the Jews had been saved by faith, just as the Gentiles had, the Jews had been what the Gentiles had not been, — God's theocratic people from the start. It is the same plea essentially as in Romans; for it is essentially the same trouble as it had been there. At the same time however we cannot help but see that, with all this similarity, there is a difference between Paul's idea in Romans and Paul's idea here. The difference lies in the advance in the idea, — an advance in the mag nificence of its proportions, and consequently in the profoundness of its character. The PAUL'S DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN UNITY 2f$ Epistle's theme is, not simply the unity of the Church, but the unity of the Church in Jesus Christ supreme. This Paul had not preached before. He had, in a certain way, spoken of Christ as supreme, (i) As being, for example, the one theme of his Gospel message: "I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. " J (2) Or, as being the one foundation for his own and everyone's Gospel work: "For other founda tion can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. " 2 (3) Or, as being the one conditioning motive of the Christian's daily conduct, — his whole living, even his death : " For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we die, we die unto the Lord : whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord's."3 (4) Indeed, as being essentially supreme, very much as in Ephesians : " To us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him."4 He had also, in a certain llCor. 22. 2 3". 8 Rom. 14 8. 4 I Cor. 86. 276 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM way, spoken of Christians as one in Christ: (1) As finding in Christ, along with the Spirit and the Father, the unity which controls the diversity of the Church's life, which again reminds us somewhat of Ephesians: "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are diversities of ministra tions, and the same Lord. And there are diversities of workings, but the same God, who worketh all things in all."1 (2) And, more specifically, as finding the dissensions exist ing among themselves removed, in the fact of the essential unity of all Christians in Christ : " For I say, through the grace that was given me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but so to think as to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to each man a measure of faith. For even as we have many members in one body, and all the members have not the same office: so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and sever ally members one of another."2 "Ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ 1 12 4 8. 2 Rom. 12 s-6. PAUL'S DOCTRINE OP CHRISTIAN UNITY 27 J Jesus. For as many of you as were bap tized into Christ did put on Christ. There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female: for ye are all one man in Christ Jesus."1 But while this is all so, these two lines not only fail to go out as far as Ephesians carries them; but they fail to come together in one thought, as Ephesians so characteristically brings them. Here, in Ephesians, it is not simply Jesus Christ as supreme, — even essen tially so, — nor simply the Jewish Gentile, nor even the Gentile Jewish dissensions, as finding their unifying point in him. It is the ideal Christian theocracy having its communal unity of life in Christ, as its supreme head, — head over all things, — the world, — the whole uni verse of being, — over everything that would dethrone him from his sovereign Godhead in thought and life. Let such a supremacy be once recognized in these Asian churches and all trace of faction and schism will be for ever done away ; for there can be nothing but I'Gal. 3^a. 278 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM the completest communion among Christians, when Christians, in common, have Christ supreme. But it is evident now what it is that has influenced the Apostle's unity idea to this advanced position. It is simply the Christo- logical trouble in Colossae, which doubtless was more or less present throughout all that adjoining region of the Asian province. This it is that has brought the Apostle to assert this climax thought in his doctrine of Christian unity. Through this trouble his unity idea has grown beyond what it was in his letter to the Roman Church. Through this trouble it has come to its climax. It would seem there fore very clear that, essentially as Paul must have had the idea of Christian brotherhood and unity from the beginning, truly as he must have gotten it from Christ's own thought, — "that they may be one, even as we are one,"1 — that it was nevertheless through the pres sure of these troublous experiences in his mis sion work that it was lifted up to these heights and swept out to the breadths which we see 1 Jno. I722b. PAUL'S DOCTRINE OP CHRISTIAN UNITY 279 specifically in his Roman and in his Ephesian letters. This course of lectures has tried to place you in contact with one of the important problems of to-day's New Testament thinking. It has attempted, in a prefatory way, to im press you with the need of right method in your work, and it has tried to show you what this right method was. It has made effort to let you into the secret of the philosophy in fluence upon the criticism of to-day, and it has tried to show you that there were facts in the Apostolic life and thought which make it quite impossible to deny the presence of an envi ronment influence upon it, and a development principle in it. It has made bold to bring you face to face with the application of this philoso phy to the significant question of the relation be tween the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, and it has tried to show that, granting environ ment and development their rightful and un questioned place and influence in this relation, it is a place and influence which makes no difference between Jesus and his Apostles that 280 A PROBLEM IN NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM cannot be accounted for by the very principles of historical evolution, which to-day's philoso phy maintains, — that, in fact, these principles of historical progress in the beginning events of Christianity throw light upon much which may have puzzled us in this difference between Jesus and his Apostles, and show us that Christ intended not simply that his work should be carried on, but that his teaching should be filled out by those whom he had chosen for this pur pose, and to whom he had promised an endow ment of spiritual guidance which would enable them to complete his plan. We have tried to be true to our method and to take no position which was not given us by a critical induction of facts. That we have come short of our ideal we know only too well. If we have, in any way, pointed you to an ideal which you might fix now for your own investigation and study, we shall be only too grateful to the Master who has helped us in what we have done, — especially if what we have said has made clear to you, as we feel it has made clear to us, that this religion of the Christ stands to-day, when honestly studied and searched, the most natu- PAUL'S DOCTRINE OP CHRISTIAN UNITY 28 1 ral, and at the same time the most supernatural thing in the world, that it proves itself to-day, more than it ever did before, as coming to us through human media, and yet as resting ultimately in its source and in its authority, on that which is specifically and absolutely divine. Index Acts, problem of, 10. Apocalypse, problem of, 7. Apostles, circle of, 14 ; inspiration of, 13, 133, 228 ; qualifica tions as teachers, 223; relation to Jesus Christ, 15, 222; understanding of Christ's teaching, 216; value of teaching, 226. » Baur, N. T. criticism of, 85. Beyschlag, view of Christ's relationship to God, 193. Blass, work on Acts, 11. Clemen, Documentation of the Epistles, 42. Clement of Alexandria, evidence for II. Thessalonians, 61. Davidson, N. T. Introduction, 37. Dods, N. T. Introduction, 37. Eichhorn, N. T. Introduction, 44. Feine, documentation of Acts, 42. Fichte, philosophy of, 82. Fourth Gospel, problem of, 6. Godet, N. T. Introduction, 36, 45, 46. Harnack, opinion of II. Peter, 9 ; origin of Christianity, 22. Hebrews, authenticity of, 70 ; problem of, 10. Hegel, philosophy of, 82, 85. Holtzmann, N. T. Introduction, 36, 45, 46. Holy Spirit, relation to the new life of the believer, 178. Home, Introduction to the Bible, 31. Hug, N. T. Introduction, 44. Hume, philosophy of, 92. 284 INDEX Introduction, General, proper method of, 33, 51 ; Special, proper method of, 38, 54. Jesus Christ, doctrine of the condition of Salvation, 164, 172; doctrine of the Person of Christ, 189, 191, 193, 196, 207 ; doctrine of the relation of man to God, 141, 150; doc trine of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the new life of the believer, 178, 180, 183 ; originator of Christianity, 130 ; Paul's teaching of the supremacy of, 265, 274; Person of, 178; re lation to the Apostles, 15; teachings of, 17, 18, 20, 24, 25; relation to Paul's theology, 126. John, theology of, 95 . Jiilicher, N. T. Introduction, 36, 45, 47. Jiingst, documentation of Acts, 42. Justin Martyr, evidence for II. Thessalonians, 61. Kant, philosophy of, 82, 90. Leibnitz, philosophy of, 81. Logia, papyrus of Oxyrrhyncus, 65. Luke, prologue to Gospel, 5. Matthias, choice of, 14. Michaelis, N. T. Introduction, 44. Neander, N. T. writings, 82. New Testament Canon, 12. Origen, evidence for II. Thessalonians, 61. Papias, testimony of, 40. Pastoral Epistles, authenticity of, 69. Paul, Antichrist passage in II. Thessalonians, 8 ; authority of, 19, 20 ; doctrine of justification by faith, 107 ; doctrine of the condition of Salvation, 166, 174; doctrine of the Person of Christ, 189, 192, 194, 204, 209 ; doctrine of the relation of man to God, 146, 150; doctrine of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the new life of the believer, 179, 181 ; Epistles, de velopment of thought in, 113, 128, 219; problem of, n; four chief Epistles of, 8 ; inspiration of, 13, 138 ; over estimate of, 130; position at close of mission work in the East, 236 ; reason for writing Romans, 236, 239 ; revelation to, 220 ; teachings of, 24, 25 ; theology of, 23, 24, 95 ; de- INDEX 285 velopment of. 231 ; how obtained, 123 ; relation to the teach ings of Jesus, 126; training of, 135. Peter, change of position on Gentile salvation, 163 ; preaching in Jerusalem, 108 ; theology of, 95. Peter II., problem of, 9. Pfleiderer, theology of Paul, 23. Philosophy, problem of, 73. Polycarp, evidence for II. Thessalonians, 61. Ramsay, work on Acts, 1 1 . Ritschl, theology of, 86. Sabatier, theology of, 23. Salmon, N. T. Introduction, 37, 48. Schleiermacher, philosophy of, 82. Semler, N. T. Introduction, 44 ; philosophy of, 81. Simon, N. T. Introduction, 44. Sorof, documentation of Acts, 42. Spitta, documentation of Acts, 42. Steck, N. T. criticism, 41. Synoptic problem, 5. Theophilus, 109. Tholuck, N. T. writings, 83. Tolstoi, The Gospel in Brief, 17. Tiibingenism, 44, 85, 98, 102. Van Manen, documentation of Acts, 42. Volter, N. T. criticism, 41. Watson, The Mind of the Master, 17 ; view of Christ's death, 161. Weiss, N. T. Introduction, 36, 45, 47. Weisse, documentary theory of the Synoptics, 98. Wendt, Die Lehre des Paulus, 20 ; Die Lehre Jesu, 19 ; Die Norm des echten Christentums, 19; theology of Paul, 24. Zahn, N. T. Introduction, 36, 48.