\ \\ AK AS \ ix RG . UK AN SS Ze ti, LEE ee LLL RY A WS \\ \ A \\ WN \\\ LAY \ SA \ ANS WY \ \ tii eee \ << << Lr, tj sts tcililiddestiablileis ties GLE tj ZZ. tt; SS SS N WMO MAH" |d|d|d||d—||’II A AD tj \\ A fi A John Augustus William 1862-1937. Theological studies oi y ¢ Ey eA , 4 Ts M hed 5 PPT eae Te ape sy aay (i ub Mh ad See THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Digitized by the Internet Archive In 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library httos://archive.org/details/theologicalstudi0Ohaas THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Dedicated tt HENRY EYSTER JACOBS on the occasion of his Eightieth Birthday ay. J. A. W. HAAS, H. OFFERMANN, A. T. W. ‘STEINHAEUSER, J. C. MATTES AND C. M. JACOBS PHILADELPHIA, PA. THE UNITED LUTHERAN PUBLICATION HOUSE 1924 CopyricHT, 1924; By THe BoarD OF PUBLICATION OF Tue Unrireno LutHEeRAN CHURCH IN AMERICA MabDE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REVEREND PRECEPTOR IN GRATEFUL RECOGNITION OF THE SERVICES YOU HAVE RENDERED THE CHURCH DURING THE MANY YEARS THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN YOU, ‘AND AS A TOKEN OF DEEP PERSONAL APPRECIATION THIS LITTLE VOLUME OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES HAS BEEN DEDICATED TO YOU BY THE WRITERS CONTENTS I BSPRPMPS OLE SPAINGY oPSOC LET Vik ack terest casas ssdkcan cen svceanaoeccccetee 7 J. A. W. Haas II THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. ...........ccccccesescsesces 34 ; H. OFFERMANN III THE NEW TESTAMENT IDEA. OF FAITH..............000ce00e0 87 A. T. W. STEINHAEUSER IV THE CHURCH AND THE MISSION OF CHRIST ...........000 114 J. C. MATTES V THE AUTHORITY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE IN THE EARLY PETE LMS ve pli ans ape | ala el EL DSO EAR Hae 195 4 C. M. JACOBS THEOLOGICAL STUDIES THE SOUL AND SOCIETY JoHn A. W. Haas One of the peculiar defects in American life is the tendency to decide problems and to answer questions purely upon practical considerations. There exists a prejudice against all theory and doctrine. Because of the lack of thorough search after the foundations of life in truth there is so much uncertainty, so much con- tradiction and so much drifting. One outstanding ex- ample of this is the vacillation between the right of the soul and the claim of society. Both in private and pub- lic utterance and action men gravitate to and fro be- tween the demands of the soul and the call of society. What is needed is not merely a philosophical effort to determine the right relation. It is necessary especially for the Christian to endeavor to ascertain the mind of the Spirit in the Scriptures about the soul and then to draw the proper inferences for practise and life from the doctrine of the Word. This will give sureness and clearness to our attitudes and decisions. We shall then not be cast about by every wind of false practical error which is unconscious of the principles involved. After the problem of the soul has been clarified it will be pos- sible to approach the question of society and the re- lationship of the soul to it. Shall it be soul versus 7 8 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES society, or society versus soul, or shall there be a just balance? In stating the problem of soul and society it might be inferred that this was the usual question of the indi- vidual and society. When put into the terms of opposites it would be defined as the problem of individualism or socialism. But all such conclusions are unwarranted. They rest upon the identification of the soul with the individual, and substitute a philosophical term for a scriptural word. An examination of the usage of soul in the Bible and particularly in the New Testament will lead us to a clear idea of the just Christian conception of the soul and its difference from the philosophical notion of the individual. The fundamental passage upon which the Biblical idea is of the soul is built up is found in Genesis 2: 7. ‘‘And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.’’ The origin of the soul is traced back to the life of God. The picture of the breathing of life into man is found not only in the Hebrew word ‘‘Ruach,’’ but also in the Greek and Latin terms for soul. The soul is the gift of the life of God. ‘‘Living’’? and ‘‘Soul’’ are synonymous. There is no indication of the individuation of the life of God in man. Man is a living soul through the breath of God. This statement determines the origin of man’s soul but not its separateness and independence. It rather stresses the dependence upon God. Further light is thrown upon this dependence through the conception of Paul, who draws this contrast: ‘‘And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.’’ (I Cor. 15:45). The living soul it not the life-giving spirit. It is natural and has THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 9 no life in itself, but is derived from the spirit. The spirit is the permanent essential life, the soul is the derived life. There is no identification of soul with spirit in the careless manner in which we often use the terms inter- changeably. The whole man is designated by Paul as spirit, soul and body (I Thess. 5:23). The spirit has the precedence; and it is followed first by the soul and then by the body. The life-given soul is distinct from the life-giving spirit. The author of Hebrews (4:12) conceives the Word of God as dividing asunder soul and spirit. He sees them in the unity of life and yet as separate. The power of the Word of God pen- etrates so deeply that spirit and soul stand apart. There is no confusion as to soul and spirit in the New Testa- ment. The terms are words of evaluation in the light of religion, and not distinctly formulated technical terms of descriptive psychology. We must enter into the broad apperceptions of faith to understand them. Apparently there is some psychological color in the injunction to love God with all the heart, the soul and the mind (Matt. 22:37). In Mark (12:30) we find the same statement with the addition: ‘‘With all thy strength.’’ But a variation occurs in Mark 12:33. It reads: ‘‘With all thy heart, and with all thy under- standing, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength.’’ It seems evident that the heart stands for the emotional in man, the mind or the understanding for the intellectual, and the strength for the active grow- ing out of the volitional. But what then does the soul mean? It has no accurate psychological meaning, but is the generic total for the life of man. We must not look in these great religious truths for any fixed scientific delimitation, for the broadly human is meant 10 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES which is permanent in all scientific changes and is there- fore fit to convey permanent religious truth. There is a usage of soul which makes it equal to liv- ing being. If we read passages like Ex. 12:15; Rom. 2:9, 13:1; Acts 2:41, 48; 7:14; I Peter 3:20; Rev. 16:3, 18:18, we cannot arrive at any other conclusion but that soul stands for the whole human being as a living entity. The emphasis is upon man as living and in no wise as a living individual. The idea of a separate life is purely incidental and not the central idea of this usage. The strongest accent in the word soul is, however, put upon life as inward. The promise to the servant of God, quoted in Matthew 12:18 from Isaiah, of the gift of the Spirit, is motivated thus: ‘‘In whom my soul is well pleased.’’ The very life of God, His very being, is designated as soul. It is this spiritual meaning of soul which clearly separates it from the body. Man is not to fear those who can only destroy the body, but Satan who can ruin soul and body. (Matt. 10:28). There is a supremacy of the value of the soul, the vital inner existence, which makes it to rank far above the perishable body. Still greater is the worth of the inner life over against the whole world of things. (Matt. 12:26; Mark 8:36). Any selfish attempt to preserve mere life as over against the life found in Christ, any effort to save the soul and not lose it in order to win it in Jesus, is futile. (Matt. 16:25). These high estimates are not the emancipation of the modern individual with his own desire and will, but the magna charta of the inner life valued in its divine aspect. The soul is given the highest worth as inner life not in any intellectual or esthetic sense, but as the life of religious ‘thought, aspiration and action with its moral responsibility. This THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 11 conception of soul is adumbrated in Lev. 5:17 in the words: ‘‘If a soul sin.’’ But its first great declara- tion is found in Hzekiel 18: 20, ‘‘The soul that sinneth, it shall die.’’ As against the guilt of heredity the guilt of life in the guilty one is stressed. This truth does not abolish the results of sin from generation to generation as a fact, but it removes inherited guilt and respon- sibility. The moral value of; soul—life is rescued and not its bare individuality. The individuality is second- ary to the moral valuation. We have no brief here for the individual as an individual, but only a law of the moral right for the soul. The soul is frequently regarded as the life of inward religious and spiritual nature. This places it far above the body and its needs. The fine sarcasm of Jesus in portraying the man, who planned to build larger barns, as saying to his soul: ‘‘Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink and be merry’? (Luke 12:19), rests upon the foolish confusion of what the soul, the inner spiritual life, needs. It can- not be satisfied with the outward pleasures and delights of the body. The soul is a far different life than that of sense. The expression ‘‘save your soul’’ (Jas. 1:21; 5:20) or ‘‘salvation of your souls’’ (I Peter 1:9) has become very common, and it is due to this that the mis- conception has arisen that salvation of the soul means rescue of individuality. The charge has frequently been brought that care for the salvation of one’s soul is naught else but disguised selfishness which does not eare either for the temporal or eternal welfare of one’s neighbor. But this whole misapprehension is due to the failure to note that the soul is man’s highest spir- itual part, and that its salvation, effected by God’s love, and received by faith in Christ, eventuates in genuine 12 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES love to God and man. A saved soul and selfishness are contradictions which can only be avoided, as they must to be true to the whole conception of salvation, if the idea of the soul be freed altogether from the implica- tions of modern individualism. The high spiritual valuation of the soul is found all through the New Testament in many different forms and connections. The praise of Mary: ‘‘My soul doth magnify the Lord’’ (Luke 1:46) cannot be understood except the soul be the life kindled by the spirit. When Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane prays: ‘‘My soul is sorrowful unto death’’ (Matt. 26:38; Mark 14: 34) He feels the power of death attacking His inmost life in its totality. The same sense for soul obtains when Jesus prays: ‘‘Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say?’’ (John 12:27). When Simeon tells Mary that a sword shall pierce her soul (Luke 2: 35) he thinks of the highest religious hopes and expectations of her inner life. What part of man’s life but his inner religious strivings will find rest when he comes to Jesus, takes the yoke upon him and learns of the Christ (Matt. 11:29). In the tribulation of the last days men can have patience if they possess their souls in it. (Luke 21:19). The endurance of patience is within the deep- est, secret places of our spiritual life. The same import is given to the idea of the soul when those that rule in the Church are to watch over the souls (Hebr. 13:17), and when hope is spoken of as the anchor of the soul (Hebr. 6:19). The obedience to the truth purifies the soul (I Peter 1:22). It can overcome the fleshy lusts that war against it (I Peter 2:11), but it needs the Shepherd and Bishop of souls. (I Peter 2:25). It is the soul which is righteous and is vexed by unlawful deeds (II Peter 2:8). When men are led THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 13 astray and beguiled it is because they have ‘‘unstable souls.’’? (II Peter 2:14). The real prosperity is the prosperity of the soul. (III John 2). Even the vision of those who are kept by God after their persecutions for the last day is the vision of souls. (Rev. 6:9; 20:4). Another and very interesting light is cast upon the Biblical usage of soul in the description of the early Church in Jerusalem, when Luke writes: ‘‘And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul.’”? (Acts 4:32). The oneness of heart is the binding power of common Christian love which united the first Christians. But there was a deeper unity than that apparent in the exhibition of love. It was the oneness of inner life in Christ toward whom believers turned in the actuality of one interrelated and unified soul. There was a real communal soul into which the separate believers were fused. We in our day of disjointed Christianity have no conception of this one- ness of spiritual life and truth. It was the greatest created social unity and it was brought about by the Spirit of God. Natural social unities have no such ties. Unities created through education, culture, art, science, literature of which men boast are in a different class. The soul of the Jerusalem church was vital and actual. It dare not be turned into a mere figure of speech. If this fact is accepted then we realize that the soul as God- given life is not merely focalized in separate beings but also in the social form of the Church. The result of our examination of the Biblical usage of soul has led us to the following conclusions: (1) The soul is life imparted to man by the Spirit of God, but it does not make man a part of God. 14 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES (2) Sometimes the whole living man is called soul and consequently life and soul are at times used synonymously. (3) The soul can be focalized in the individual but it does not essentially mean individuality. (4) The most frequent sense of soul is the inner spiritual life directed toward God. (5) The soul is a fact of religious evaluation found by faith and not a descriptive fact of scientific psychology, but this makes it none the less real. (6) The soul can be applied to the inner unity of the life of the Church created by the Spirit. From this summary it becomes evident why soul can- not be identified with self or individuality. There are at least three great contrasts between soul and self which appear in the comparison of individualistic sys- tems of thought with the scriptural idea of soul. First, in the usual individualistic philosophy there is no definite assertion of God as the creator and pre- server of life, absolute and infinite in nature. The most widely spread modern individualism is the hypothesis of pluralism. According to it the ultimate centers of existence are entities material, mental and neutral. The world is simply a collection of separate minute par- ticles. Of these man is one. God is only somewhat higher but He is finite, the great companion, the in- visible king. All centers of existence, all minute en- tities are simply given, but they are not created, nor do they depend upon God as does the soul for its origin and continuance. While God is not denied He is vir- tually annulled in His real creative and preservative power and infinity. It is true that the earliest indi- vidualist of the nineteenth century, the German thinker Leibnitz, does affirm God as creator and makes Him THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 15 the infinite monad. But there are millions of finite monads thoroughly independent in their existence. God winds up the clocks of the universe and they run par- allel with exactitude, but He, the maker, abandons the world to itself. To maintain the independence of the finite individualities God is denied as the actual pre- server and governor of the universe. But this denial infringes on God’s creative power as continuous. Wher- ever God is limited as being in the world He made there He is limited in His creative power. Consequently even Leibnitz injures the right conception of God as abso- lute creator. Creation, preservation and governance of the world by God belong together. The limitation or denial of any one of these functions finally affects all. Consequently even the best form of individualism in human thought injures the true conception of God. It is altogether different from the idea of the soul which depends upon God for its creation and continuance, and longs to return to God, not to be absorbed into Him, but to live in His presence. The second conflict between individualism and the soul is found in the fact that the commonly accepted individualistic theory has no place for man’s sin. It regards the individual in his mere existence as right. We are only to develop our individuality and to live out what is in us as potency and possibility to be jus- tified. In many modern experiments in education, par- ticularly with the youngest children, this individualism is the underlying thought. The child is supposed to find itself and to choose the right things like the calf finds its food. All that the child needs is guidance and not correction, and even the guidance must be indirect. The scriptural idea of the soul does not imply that the soul though made by God remained perfect. It must be 16 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES saved because it is lost. The lower life must be sur- rendered to keep the true life. The soul is in a constant battle against sin and needs the Saviour because it does not make and save itself as modern individualism claims. The teaching of the soul in the Bible altogether contradicts the natural perfection and development theory of modern individualistic thinking. The third difference between individualism and the soul consists in the fact, that the individual or self is independent and its relation to society is very second- ary, while the soul is not inherently anti-social in its idea. It is in this distinction that we need the most careful discrimination, because it has been obscured so often. According to individualistic thought society is a mere addition of individuals in certain relations with each other. There is no real social life and thought apart from individual existence. The world of men is an atomistic structure loosely held together. No such separative conceptions lurk in the idea of the soul. The soul as such is not necessarily individual. The life com- ing from God finds lodgment through His gift in in- dividuals, but His life also dwells in the social form of the Church in a very special way through the presence of His Spirit. To deny this is to deny the inner life of the Church and to make it a mere collection of be- lieving individuals. There is no room then for the action of the Spirit of Truth upon the whole body of the Church. If we conceive of the divine life as found only in the self we cannot really maintain the Church in its full value. But the Spirit that brooded upon the face of the deep in the creation of the world also made the Church in its beginnings of one soul. The idea of the life of the Spirit in the Church is the connecting link between the soul and society. But it is THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 17 also necessary to see how far the modern thought of society is implied in the New Testament. It is evident that the present form of the social outlook is not found in the Bible. Just as little as we can quote scripture for the conception of individuality, so little can it be cited for society which means the interrelationship af men. There is no philosophic defense of the links that bind us to a family and a nation, and no explanation that we could not develop without the social inheritance of language, culture, tradition, custom, law and other similar social media. Nevertheless the social concept is not wanting. The fundamental Christian attitudes and virtues, faith, love and hope are not possible in their fulness without creating social bonds. While faith is the trust of a soul in Christ it unites a believing soul with others who hold the faith, and finds expression in a common confession. Faith is not only the reliance of an indi- vidual upon God, but it is always creative of social re- sults. It helps to make a social form. Love lives not only from man to God but from man to man. It is the great outcome of faith and the primary virtue of the Christian life that regards others. Christianity of the pure New Testament type rests the only efficient social life upon love as applied to all social relations. A sound society can only be brought about where love obtains. There can be no successful social theory and no com- fortable social life without the religious conception of love and its moral application. The Christian hope seems at first to be only the anchor of one soul but in reality hope is just as common as faith, and it needs the contact and warmth of social relation as does faith. Hope is also our hope and becomes the stronger as we - realize its connective and binding power. We cannot 18 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES therefore escape the social complex as soon as we thoughtfully consider what faith, love and hope mean and effect. The New Testament brings to our consciousness the fact that the Church is a living social form. It is a real body (Eph. 4:4), and actual organism and nof a self- constituted society. For this reason the believers are one soul because there is one life of Christ and of the Spirit, and one God and Father, in the Church through the one faith. When the Church is compared to a tem- ple (Eph. 2:20 ff.), the idea is not that of an organiza- tion artificially built up, but the thought is that of a growing and cemented unity of souls fused in love and resting upon the living cornerstone, Jesus Christ. In the Church we have to do with a social reality, a rock structure in history, not made by man nor destructible through him no matter what he does. This inner, per- manent social unity of spiritual life is necessary to the individual. Into it he is born in the newness of life in Christ. We are not baptized to receive the divine gift simply as individuals, but we are baptized into one body. (I Cor. 12:13). Our new birth through water and the spirit is incorporation into the living body of Christ, the Church. We are grafted into a social living unity, and we are not simply taken into an organization by vote. The latter procedure is external, but baptism is a process of life joining us to Christ and the Church. The same social life-process is present in the Com- munion. We do not partake of the Lord’s Supper merely as individuals who receive the body and blood of the Lord for our own forgiveness of sins, but we are also, though being many, ‘‘one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of the one bread.’’ (I Cor. 10:17). The Communion is not only a communion with the body THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 19 and blood of Christ but also with each other. It in- creases the unity and inner strength of the Church. While it is a confession of oneness it at the same time increases the bonds that unite believers in faith and love and hope. We often fail to realize this underlying social ideal in the Church and the sacraments, but it is clearly present. Its foundation is in the notion of life, and thus it reaches back to the concept of the soul which is es- sentially life. There exists in the teaching of Jesus one term which modern interpreters have endeavored to interpret largely if not altogether in a social sense. It is the term Kingdom of God, or kingdom of heaven as reported by Matthew. Apparently the idea of the Kingdom of God was in common usage in Christ’s day and expressed some ideal as democracy does with us. The Jews con- stantly expected the unrealized kingdom to come and to be fulfilled. It meant a new age, a golden period, of political power, preéminence and independence; a new social order of perfection and happiness. Its coming was fastened to the hope of the great deliverer, the anointed King, the world Jew and yet the outstanding nationalist. But it would be wrong to derive the ideal of Jesus from these hopes of His times. They were external and supposed to be effected through human leadership and effort even though God was not denied a share. The teaching of Jesus was in conflict with these ruling tendencies and opposed them. He took the prevalent idea of the kingdom and gave it a new con- tent and a new force. Consequently we must study it in His own words which were not colored by His age. He is in His times but not of them. What is the central idea of the Kingdom of God in the mind of Jesus? Many passages describe the con- 20 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES ditions of entrance into the kingdom, and give its qual- ities and outline, its history and hope; but what is the real starting point for its development? It seems best to find the key to the meaning of the Kingdom of God in the Lord’s Prayer. The petition: ‘‘Thy kingdom come’’ is followed and apparently explained by the prayer: ‘‘Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.”’ (Matt. 6:10). It is interesting to note that in the parallel passage of Luke (11:2) the best manuscripts omit the petition for the doing of God’s will. Whether this was the earlier form or another form of the Lord’s Prayer we do not know, but it at least indicates that the doing of the will of God was implied in the desire for the coming of the kingdom. We may therefore venture to interpret the kingdom as that ideal condition upon earth when God’s will is done. The Kingdom of God depends upon His will. This makes it His kingdom, His realm and rule. But what is to bring about this kingdom, is the first question. Men cannot enter into it nor begin in any way to ap- proach the doing of God’s will without the condition of repentance. The very first announcement of the coming of the kingdom was a call to repentance. (Matt. 3:2; 4:27; Mark 1:15). The attitude of the heart of men was to be one of sorrow for their past failure to do God’s will. The call was not only to the individual, but also to different classes of society. (Luke 3:10). There was demanded a change of heart in the direction of individual responsibility and of social duty. “With- out the realization of sin, the transgression of divine law, it was utterly impossible for the new age to begin. But the call to repentance was immediately connected with the request for faith, (Mark 1:15). Faith was to accept the gospel, the good news of the kingdom. No THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 21 qualification of the gospel is more frequent than the gospel of the kingdom (Matt 4: 23; 9:35; 10:7; 13:19; 26:14; Mark 1:14; Luke 4:48; 8:1; 9:2, 11, 60; Acts 8:12; 19:8; 20:25). The first and great purpose of Jesus was the glad announcement of the actualization of the kingdom by the way of faith. But faith was to be created through the message of the kingdom, 2. e. the gospel. It was therefore not accidental that Jesus began His teaching about the kingdom in parables with the parable of the sowing of the seed and the require- ment of its reception in the right soil of the heart. The message of the kingdom has no political end nor purpose. Jesus could therefore tell Pilate with all hon- esty that His kingdom was not of this world (John 18: 36) when He was accused. There was no word nor act of Jesus that could have any political meaning, and not even His entry into Jerusalem was capable of such a construction. The whole ideal was spiritual. It was this lack of spiritual conception of the kingdom which made it so difficult for Nicodemus to understand the teaching of the new birth. Jesus maintains that it is impossible to enter the kingdom except one be born again of the water and the spirit. (John 3:3,5). There must be a totally new life through repentance and faith, a life wrought by God. The God that gave the soul must through the same Spirit create the twice-born life. No mere reform or change of attitude that does not proceed from an inner, actual new life can bring us into unity with the divine will and establish the Kingdom of God upon earth. Whatever individual or social change is to be wrought cannot come from without or by human resolution. It must be the result of a new inner life. The first and prime character of the Kingdom of God when realized in men is righteousness. Nothing in all 22 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES human life is so essential as righteousness. Without it all else is vain, but to those possessing it all other things shall be added. (Matt. 6:33; Luke 12:31). There can be no seeking of the kingdom which is not the desire for righteousness. Upon it rest individual life and social order, and through it God’s will is fulfilled, but this righteousness must be genuine and dare not consist in mere external observances and in a mechanical, out- ward keeping of the law. (Matt. 5:20). It is an utter mistake to hope that the kingdom will come through any human effort and scheme of restriction, laws and ceremonies. Beginning from within it must remain within (Luke 17:20, 21). No abstention from meat and drink, no religious taboo, is its evidence. It has its source in inward ‘‘righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.’’ (Rom. 14:17). The mystical gift of righteousness will produce the right life. Con- sequently no one who is addicted to any sin can inherit the blessings of the kingdom and be a member of it. (I) Cor. 6:93; Gal 5:23) Eph: 5::5)2))Chevorder ofthe kingdom of righteousness demands that its leaders be instructed so that they can guide men through both the old way and the new. (Matt. 13:52). But those in the old way are not in the kingdom, except there be entire newness of life. This makes even the least in the kingdom greater than John the Baptist who was the greatest. prophet. (Matt. 11:11; Luke 7:28). And while God’s Spirit brings the kingdom it is needful for men to press toward it as though with force and violence. The law and the prophecies end with John the Baptist, and a new condition and a new life prevails. (Matt. 11:12, 18; Luke 16:16). The first but not exclusive program of the kingdom is revealed by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. The THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 23 initial beatitude is for those who are poor and righteous. The limitation of their outward resources must be ac- companied with poverty of spirit. (Matt. 5:3 cf. Luke 6:20; Jas. 2:5). It is in keeping with this requirement that such fear is expressed in Jesus’ later teaching, lest the rich in worldly goods may lose the kingdom. (Matt. 19:23; Mark 10: 23 ff.; cf. Luke 16:19). It is neces- sary, so teaches the Lord in the Sermon on the Mount, through the new righteousness to keep the least of the commandments (Matt. 5:19); and blessing and hap- piness belongs to those, who are ready for actual right- eousness to suffer persecution. (Matt. 5:10). All society is salted through those in the kingdom and kept from decay. (Matt. 5:13). They are the light in the darkness of the world. (Matt. 5:14). All the old com- mandments are kept in their inner spirit and not ac- cording to the letter. Hate and anger are avoided for they are the source of murder. (Matt. 5:21 ff.). Lust of the eye before any action is the beginning of adultery. (Matt. 5: 27 ff.). These laws are kept from within, and there is no effort to camouflage the oath. (Matt. 5:33 ff.). Life is to be controlled by love, forgiveness to- ward enemies, overcoming of hate, non-resistance over against violence, willingness to help one’s neighbor in need without hope of returns. (Matt. 5:38-48). While these injunctions are to be exercised first from indi- vidual to individual there lies in them also the vision of a perfect society. In it there is to be no unjust judg- ment of men, no boastful almsgiving, no hypocrisy, no love and anxiety for worldly needs, but love of God, genuine charity, true, continuous, earnest prayer, real fruitfulness of life in holy action and not in idle words. (Matt. 6, 7 cf. I Cor. 4:20). This is a marvelous pro- gram which would create an entirely new society and 24 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES a social order without friction and evil. Of the same nature with this first program is the ideal of humility, honesty, and child-like simplicity which Jesus commends in the example of children. (Matt. 18:1 ff.; 1:14; Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16, 17). The individual ought to seek the kingdom as the most precious thing; it is the greatest treasure, the price- less pearl. (Matt. 13:44, 45). Its obligations depend upon the varieties and measure of the gifts that God has given to men, but all can and must bring some re- turns in a religious and moral life, and multiply their endowments. (Matt. 25:14 ff.; Luke 19:11 ff.). But individual gifts and duties cannot obscure the fact that men are together in the kingdom and have social con- tacts and relations. Although in the parable of the vineyard men as individuals are paid in the evening, the whole day they labor together. (Matt. 20:1 ff.). In the marriage feast the king inspects his guests one by one, and yet they are called not merely singly but ina group. (Matt. 22:2 ff.). The wheat and the tares grow in one field and interlace until the harvest. (Matt. 13:24 ff.). All of these pictures show that the kingdom has a social side and that the teaching of Christ is not only directed toward individuals. The social aspect is also present when Jesus foretells how the Jews lose the kingdom and the Gentiles enter in. (Matt. 8:11, 12; Luke 13: 28, 29). The ideal life will not come quickly and the fulfill- ment of the perfect social order cannot be expected in time. We must wait in patience until the end of time to eradicate evil. (Matt. 13:24 ff.). But despite the constant presence of evil and the impossibility of re- moving it from the world, the kingdom grows from a small beginning (Matt. 13:31; Mark 4:26, 30; Luke THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 25 13:18), and its power gradually permeates human society. (Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:20). It comes as a mystery not understood by the mass of men, but still it comes and grows quietly like a seed. (Matt. 13:11; Mark 4:11; Luke 8:10). The kingdom cannot be completed in time because of human sin and the power of the Evil One. It will find its fruition in the world to come. Then the wheat and tares shall be separated and the tares burnt. (Matt. 13:30); then the worthless fish caught in the net will be thrown away. (Matt. 18:49). When the door is opened into the kingdom to come those who are pre- pared will enter in. (Matt. 25: 1 ff.). The promise of the Lord’s Supper will be fulfilled when Christ drinks anew of the fruit of the vine. (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14: 25; Luke 22:16, 18, 29, 30). This kingdom will be the re- ward after all tribulation (Acts 14:22), the great final perfection and glory for men who are saved. (I Cor. 15: 24, 50; II Tim. 4:1, 18; Rev. 12:10). The examination of the idea of the Kingdom of God has shown us that its central thought is the reign of the will of God in individual lives and in society. The great fundamental demand is righteousness which is defined as a new spirit of love in humility, simplicity, forgiveness, liberality, charity, non-resistance, kindness, child-likeness, honesty, desire for high ideals of truth and honest worship of God. The whole idea for man centers in a new life. There is thus an inner connection between the soul and society. There is no foundation for a social philosophy in the teaching of Jesus and his apostles which makes society the one fact to the detriment of the individual. As lit- tle as the conception of the soul favored modern in- dividualism, so little does the Kingdom of God lend it- 26 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES self as the vehicle of many modern social theories. In the Bible there is a just balance between the individual and society, and no trace can be found of any one-sided individualism or socialism. We cannot call in the teach- ing of Jesus to underpin the modern claim that society is merely a part of nature, the last result of its pro- cess. Such a theory makes righteousness an outcome of biological inheritance, and sin the unfortunate effect of heredity and environment. Everywhere man’s specific spiritual nature, his destiny for moral action and for God is presumed in the Scriptures. It opposes all biologic conceptions of man in his spiritual aspect whether as a self or as society. Another modern error finds no place in the New Testa- ment, namely the idea that without God through human endeavor we can bring about an ideal society. There is no possibility of the kingdom without repentance, faith and the new life from above. The kingdom will never come through human art, literature, science, or any human culture even though it be of the highest and best type. All humanitarianism, all human _philan- throphy, all philosophic moral endeavor cannot create the perfect order. The tares will constantly grow and the devil will always be at work in the kingdom and much more outside of its influences. Utopias have often been dreamed about since the days of Plato, but they have never been realized. As long as there is sin so long righteousness will not prevail, and therefore we need the hope of the future. In much modern theology there is a tremendous stress upon the kingdom in this present life. We are told to give up our expectation of the future and to labor to make the present better. While all honest moral effort growing out of the ideals of Jesus are to be encouraged, THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 27 it is a proud and boastful spirit that claims that it will accomplish what Jesus foretold was impossible of ac- complishment in time. It is our duty relying upon the Christ to further every betterment of men but we must not contradict His soberness supported by the facts of social life. It is an equally mistaken notion that outward im- provement of human conditions in health and housing, in food and clothing, in commercial and industrial relations, and in just economic balance and equability, will usher in the kingdom. The kingdom will not come with any such observances. If it could come more fully it would produce all the changes desired as far as they affect man’s soul. But the soul and society will not be helped by any external nostrum. Let men continue their striving until the wise see that not by might nor strength nor human wisdom can we be saved, but only through the Christ and His Spirit. Many good Christians think that they can produce an ideal social condition through the enactment and enforcement of law. The kingdom is of the Spirit and He can lead us to do God’s will if we will. No law of God as law ever made saints but only produced sinners through the reaction of human disobedience. If God’s law, which was holy, just and good, could not improve man what can we expect of defective human law. Law is necessary in human government for the restraint of evil and the sake of order, but it cannot create righteousness. The New Testament teaching on the soul and on the Kingdom of God valuable as it is in itself, is import- ant if applied in our day to a variety of ethical ques- tions. The conception of the inner spiritual life of the soul, and the idea of the Kingdom of God’s will, are two 28 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES principles that permit us through their balance to elim- inate the extremes of individualism and socialism, and to find the right direction for the solution of moral perplexities. The two problems in which we can test the applicability of the soul and the kingdom very clearly are the problems of Sunday observance and of prohibition. Both of these questions are prominently before us today, and in both even Christians are not guided by the moral inferences found in the great scriptural ideas of the soul and the will of God. We need the clarifying of many wrong notions and actions through the clear implications of New Testament truth. In the question of Sunday there are two ruling con- siderations. Sunday observance is a religious question. of the Church and a legal problem of the State. With the sphere of the State and what it owes to Christians in the protection of their religious rights we are not concerned here. There is a distinct duty of the State which has enacted laws of rest and forbidden business, but we must not confuse this with the religious obliga- tion. The State must not hinder nor control the re- ligious rights, and the Church must not impose upon the State its distinctive religious demands apart from the claim to unhampered and unrestricted freedom of worship. The confusion of the different functions of the Church and State has complicated the problem from its religious angle where individualism and socialism have already wrought havoc, but we shall adhere purely to the religious motive of this problem. There is a religious individualism which endeavors to settle the Sunday question purely on the claim of in- dividual choice. It has adopted the purely selfish notion of liberty from sources outside of Christianity and then endeavored to change the liberty of the nat- THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 29 ural and uncontrolled man into a religious right but without success. To this end it has abused the saying of Jesus that the Sabbath was made for man. It has taken man in the natural sense and not man as a soul. When we understand the supremacy of the soul and its great difference from individuality we can no longer stand for the individualistic conception of Sunday. We know that the soul is the highest gift of God to man, and that its needs must be considered. The problem of Sun- day in religion is the problem of the necessity of a day for the special culture of the soul. Because the culture of the soul must have the message of the gospel of the kingdom, therefore it must have such arrangements of every kind including a time as are necessary for the proclamation of the message. This is the true logic which does not depend upon any individual views of Sunday and what it ought to be, and what one ought to do or not do on Sunday. The necessity for the soul to know God’s gracious will which brings the kingdom cannot be evaded. Both from the point of view of the soul and the kingdom the individualistic attitude stands condemned. But the condemnation of the individualistic position does not carry with it the approval of the idea that society shall dictate what Sunday must be. There are ruling notions among American Christians of a legal sort that would control the soul and turn the gospel of Jesus into a new law. The legalizing of Sunday has been as bad as its liberalizing. The Old Testament has been injected into the Christian Lord’s Day. There have been social attitudes in the Church that belong to the State. The governmental regulation of Judaism has been wrongly imported and its nationalism denied. The Judaizing Christians have not been willing to adopt the 30 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES whole law but they have accepted in principle and ap- plication the social ideal of the Sabbath which in its origin was both religious and national. Unconsciously therefore the legal restrictions of an ancient state are made religious duties in the world religion of Chris- tianity. The idea of the soul is in conflict with the legal social notion because its need as life is not met through law. It is equally impossible to interpret the will of God in the kingdom as law. This will in the kingdom must be interpreted as the free doing of what God wants in a new life of righteousness and love. The ideals of the kingdom are not enactments to be obeyed, but ends to be achieved through a life of faith, love and hope. The Church which is an aid to the kingdom is not an organization to pass laws, but a living organism to evidence the life of Christ through His Spirit. It ought not be an instrument to make Sunday laws, but only an interpreter of the will of God for the salvation of souls. Consequently there is no room for any social notions of Sunday control that contradict the conception of the soul and the kingdom. The problem of prohibition can be approached in the same way as the Sunday question. There are two ten- dencies which from the religious point of view cannot lead to a solution. The first is the individualism which misconstrues liberty. It claims the right of what is known as ‘‘evangelical liberty.’’ True evangelical lib- erty refuses to permit the imposition of any law as mere law as essential to Christian life, but when applied to the right in indulging in spirituous liquors it becomes a defense of the desires and appetites of the natural man. It is true that we dare not call any gift of God evil. There often lurks a hidden condemnation of mat- ter in certain prohibition arguments, and one almost THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 31 feels as if there was a repetition of the Manichean speculation. jBut while we ought to avoid such at- titudes we cannot claim that the freedom of the soul in Christ legitimatizes bodily indulgence and furnishes a brief for the use of stimulants. It is quite a degrada- tion of evangelical liberty to turn it in this direction. The fact is that the real motive is not religious but a misapplication of natural, personal liberty. The usual plea for personal liberty is mostly a deceptive hiding of selfishness, which demands one’s own right and pleas- ure regardless of the common liberty of men. On the other hand the avoidance of individualistic in- terpretation of freedom over against prohibition does not justify an extreme social position. There are those who on behalf of the Church make the abstinence from intoxicants a matter of church laws and commands. Like the legalistic interpreters of Sunday observance they turn the Church into a master over the conscience, and ask that it condemn those who indulge even mod- erately in liquor. Of course since prohibition has vir- tually been made the law of the land the question of obedience to the law of the State enters in. But the Church has no charter to make itself an agent of the State for the observance of any law, even if it is its duty to testify against all lawlessness. Whatever social forces may help toward prohibition it is not the busi- ness of the Church as such to be a prosecutor and en- forcer of the law strong as must be its testimony against all law-breakers. If we turn back to the soul we shall find a right basis for our problem. As far as the soul enters our total life any food or drink that injures the body is detri- mental to our life. The justification of abstinence from liquor must be found in the established injury it does 32 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES to our life. Whatever through a wrong habit and ap- petite controls us takes away from our inner soul-life of liberty in Christ. The soul as the inward spiritual life must be the final determinant in this question. We must ask in all external matters affecting the body: Is it good for my soul? As souls that are saved for right- eousness we dare not make the demand of any bodily appetite an essential. In view of the constant risk in the use of any stimulant, a Christian must determine, whether complete abstinence is not safer for his soul than even the most casual and moderate indulgence which is often the result of imitation and custom. The idea of the kingdom leads us to the same re- sult. The will of God to be effected upon earth needs the motive of love among men. This motive causes us not to do certain things if our example misleads others. Much as we may resent the pressure of law upon us, we cannot as Christians and children of the kingdom escape the appeal of love. If it is proved that the use of intoxicants is an injury to individuals and society, if it is one of the causes of crime, if it frequently leads to insanity, if it destroys thrift, breaks down homes, makes labor inefficient and endangers life, then love has only one position to take. It will abstain for the sake of others even though the abstainer might be in no danger. This idea has been well defined by Paul, who though he would have no one judge his brother, nevertheless counsels: ‘‘It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.’’ (Rom. 14:21). This argument becomes all the stronger when we remember that Paul really thought that meat and drink could be taken even though they were dedicated to the gods. Despite the fact then that a man THE SOUL AND SOCIETY 33 was under no restraint if he did not worship the gods, nevertheless he was advised to withhold his right if it offended his brother or caused him to stumble. The principle is that of the kingdom which will never come through the maintenance of rights but through the spirit of love. And this principle gains in weight when the right claimed is not really a right but rather a habit of bodily indulgence. Thus the idea of the kingdom like that of the soul guides us in the right direction and helps us to serve men and regard society without the force of commandment or law. THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT H. OrrerMann It was the writer’s original intention to discuss in this chapter of our composite volume the New Testa- ment doctrine of the person and work of Christ. How- ever, upon second thought, and after more mature de- liberation, it was found that such a doctrinal discussion, in order to be fairly comprehensive and complete, could not be compressed within the compass of the limited space which had been agreed upon in the general out- line of this book. Besides, there seemed to be good reasons for adopting a method of treatment which, though it may be less dogmatic, will give more freedom to discuss certain modern issues and questions which have been raised with respect to the person of our Lord in recent years, and which at the present time are agitating the minds of many Christians. We may not be disturbed by the controversy that is raging between fundamentalists and liberalists in other quarters of the Church than our own. But we cannot deny or ignore the fact that modern historical investigation with re- gard to the origin, authenticity and contents of the New Testament writings has brought about a decided change in the theological and religious situation of the world. It has thrown fresh light upon things that were formerly in darkness, and it has brought to light facts that were hitherto unknown. Yet it has not only solved questions but also raised questions, and some of the questions it has raised are of vital interest to our faith. In view 34 THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 35 of this present situation with its unrest and confusion, with its many misunderstandings and misinterpreta- tions, and with the general atmosphere of uncertainty and doubt which it has created, the writer believes it to be one of the most urgent and pressing needs of the day to present to the Christian reader the simple facts upon which our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is founded. In analyzing the present religious situation we are confronted with the all-important question: Can we still believe in Jesus as our fathers believed in Him? Is the Christ of our faith, the Christ of our Confessions, to whom we sing our songs of praises, in whom we be- lieve and in whom we put our trust for time and eternity, whom we worship as the Only-begotten Son of the Father, ‘‘God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God,’’—is this Christ of our faith the same as the Jesus of history? The answer to this question depends entirely upon the New Testament. As we all know, the New Testa- ment, properly speaking, is not a book, but a collection of books. These books originated in the first Christian century, and they are accepted by all Christians and all Christian Churches as the rule and standard of their faith and life. They occupy therefore a unique place in the religious literature of the world, and their chief characteristic les in the peculiar relation to the his- torical person of our Lord Jesus Christ. The believing Christian recognizes in the person and work of Christ the final and absolute revelation of God himself. (Cf. Mark 1:15; Luke 4:21; Gal. 4:4; Hebr. 1:1; I Peter 1:20; John 1:17). This gives us at once a firm basis for our discussion. Whatever we may think of the New Testament writings as literature, their principal re- 36 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES ligious value for us is determined by the fact that they bear testimony to the revelation of God in our Lord Jesus Christ. The precise relationship existing between the New Testament writings and the revelation of God in Christ ean be expressed in a threefold statement. A. The writings of the New Testament are, first of all, the clear and authentic records of God’s revelation in our Lord Jesus Christ, and they hold this position because they are the literary product of the very time and generation by which that revelation was received. There may be, and there are, many other books that deal with the revelation of God in Christ. But the twenty- seven books of the New Testament Canon are the only writings in which God’s revelation in Christ has been preserved and transmitted to us. B. In the next place, the writings of the New Testa- ment are not only the records of God’s revelation, but because of this very fact they are also an integral part of that revelation itself. Essential to the idea of revela- tion is not only the note of historicity, but also the note of universality. Insofar as God’s revelation centers and culminates in the historical person of Jesus Christ, it belongs to the past and is limited by the limitations of space and time. But the writings of the New Testament bring the past down to the present; they make God’s revelation accessible to all. As the records of God’s revelation in Christ the New Testament writings deal with the historical Jesus. But as the means and chan- nels through which God’s present revelation is poured into our hearts, they bring us face to face with the living Christ so that we behold his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. C. Finally, in recording, and transmitting to us, the THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 37 historical facts that constitute the revelation of God in Christ, the authors of the New Testament writings also become the authentic interpreters of that revelation. They state the facts, but their statement of facts is always connected with an interpretation by which the true meaning of God’s revelation in Christ is made clear and safeguarded against all error and misunderstand- ing. This interpretation is particularly conspicuous in the Epistles of Paul. For example, there were many Christians in the early days of the Church who knew and could tell the story of the Cross. But it was left to Paul to explain in his letters the full meaning of that story. Thus Paul became the one great interpreter of Jesus. But even the Gospels are not only historical records of Jesus’ life, but also an interpretation of His life and work. This is pre-eminently true of the Gospel of John. But it applies also to the first three Gospels. Each of our four Evangelists is not only a reporter but also an editor, not only a recorder of facts but also an interpreter. IT From the fundamental position taken by us in the statements just made, it follows that the Jesus of the New Testament is primarily the Christ of our faith. But it also follows that this Christ of our faith is iden- tical with the Jesus of history. The question may be asked whether there are any other literary sources from which our historical knowledge of Jesus is derived, besides the New Testament writings. The question it- self is of interest, but it is not of great importance, and it can be answered in a few words. Occasional references to the origin and early history _of Christianity are found in the writings of Josephus, 38 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES the Jewish historian, and of the Roman writers, Tacitus, Suetonius, and the younger Pliny. But these references give us no information whatever concerning the life and ministry of our Lord, and for our present purpose we may disregard them altogether. Some value may be attributed to the statement made by the Roman writer Tacitus, that the founder of Christianity was put to death by Pontius Pilate under the reign of Tiberius, but that the religious movement inaugurated by Him, after it had been suppressed, later revived and spread, not only throughout Judea, but also to the capital it- self. Such a statement may help to establish the fact that the founder of Christianity is not a mythical figure, but an historical person. But the reader of the New Testament needs no proof to that effect, and the myth- ical theory has been abandoned even by the most radical scholar who has not entirely lost his mind. Of the twenty-seven books of which the New Testa- ment Canon is composed, the four Gospels deal ex- clusively with the Lord’s life and ministry. But we find in the ancient Church a number of similar writings which were not received into the Canon of the New Testament, and are known as apocryphal Gospels. Most of them were designed to fill important gaps in the Lord’s life, and especially to furnish information con- cerning the early years of His life, on which our can- onical Gospels are silent. All these apocryphal Gospels, however, although undoubtedly written by devout Christians and with no intention to deceive the reader, belong to a much later time, contain much legendary material and are without historical value. Generally speaking, they are a continuation of the Gospel-litera- ture, but the intelligent reader will at once notice the fundamental difference between our canonical Gospels THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 39 and those apocryphal writings. Our canonical Gospels deal with the historical Jesus, and they know of what they are speaking In the apocryphal Gospels pious im- agination has supplied the lack of historical knowledge. In the Book of Acts (20:35) reference is made to a word of Jesus: ‘‘How He said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.’’ This saying of our Lord is not recorded in the Gospels. Paul, who refers to it in his charge to the elders of Ephesus, must have received it from oral tradition. It is reasonable to assume that many other sayings of Jesus, not recorded in our can- onical Gospels, circulated among the first Christians, In the writings of the Church Fathers, in variant read- ings based upon certain manuscripts of the Greek text of the New Testament, and in several Papyrus docnu- ments discovered in recent years, similar sayings of our Lord are mentioned or referred to. But it is exceed- ingly difficult to say whether they are genuine or not. Most of them can be traced to genuine words of the Lord which are found in the Gospels. The few that re- main do not contribute anything new to the facts that are already known to us. There is just a bare pos- sibility, that new discoveries will bring to light some few sayings of the Lord with which we are not yet familiar. But it is absolutely safe to say that they will not change our conception of the Jesus of the New Testament. IIT In discussing the relation of the New Testament to the life and ministry of Jesus, it is well to remember that the Gospel is older than the Gospels or than any of the other New Testament writings. Jesus Himself has left no written records of His own life and work. Only 40 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES once it is reported of Him that He wrote, and on that occasion He wrote ‘‘on the ground.’’ (John 8:8). The people referred to Him as a great prophet mighty in word and deed. His disciples addressed Him as Master or Teacher, but His teaching was not in the form of the written word. In summing up His own life work He declares, ‘‘The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many.’’ (Mark 10:45). When He called the Twelve into His fellowship, He appointed them, ‘‘that they should be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach.’’?. (Mark 3:14). He commissioned them to be Apostles, and as His Apostles He entrusted them with an important mission. But the mission for which He called and prepared them, did not include the com- mand to write books. In the Gospel of Matthew we find many instructions which are addressed to the Twelve and which have reference to their future work, but not one of those instructions can be interpreted as a com- mand, or even as an encouragement to them, to put down in writing the things which they had seen and heard. Furthermore, after His resurrection, when He showed himself alive to His disciples, and gave them His final instructions for the work which they were to carry on in His name, He did not intimate to them that they should write, but He commanded them to be His witnesses and to preach the Gospel to every creature, and in connection with this command He gave them the promise that they should be endued with power from on high and should receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. All our New Testament writings have therefore grown out of the preaching of the Gospel. What, then, is the Gospel, not in the later sense of the word when this term was first applied to the collection of the four written THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 41 Gospels and still later to each individual Gospel, but in the original sense in which the term is used in the New Testament itself? There can be hardly any doubt, that the word ‘gospel’? (in Greek evayyeMov.) was originally a mis- sionary term, which denoted the message proclaimed by the Apostles. It is not certain whether Paul coined the term, or whether it was used before him. At any rate, Paul uses the term more frequently than any other New Testament writer, and he uses it always in a very definite sense. A fuller investigation of the meaning of the term is not only illuminating and instructive, but it will also lead us to the conclusion, that the Jesus of the New Testament is the Jesus of the Apostolic preach- ing or in other words, the Jesus of the Christian mes- sage of salvation. The noun ‘‘ evayye’ ov ’’ occurs in the letters of Paul more than fifty times, the corresponding verb ‘‘ evay- yem’Couar ’’? more than twenty times. It is found in all his letters so that we may safely conclude that the term was familiar to Paul throughout his ministry. Another conclusion which can be drawn from Paul’s usage of the term, is that it always refers to his own missionary preaching, his ‘‘’«ypuvyua.’’ Outside of Paul’s letters, the term is found in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13; Mark 1:1; 1:14; Dota? ooo; 1022957132105 14:93 16:15),’ andihere it has reference to the message of Jesus. Luke makes no use of the noun ‘“‘ evayye’uov ,’’ but the verb “‘: evay- yeru Cour ’’ is found frequently, both in the Gospel and in the Book of Acts. The Gospel of John has neither the noun nor the verb of the term. In the Catholic Epistles the term is found only in First Peter, the noun in 4:17 and the verb in 1:12. The writer of the a 42 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Apocalypse once speaks of ‘‘the everlasting gospel’’ in 14: 6. It has already been stated that the specific religious meaning of the term can be traced to the Apostle Paul. At any rate, this seems to be a very plausible theory since Paul is the first Christian writer who made use of the Greek world-language. The word itself means ‘‘oood news,’’ and it was well known in Hellenistic Greek, although not very widely used. However, Paul’s choice of this idiomatic Greek expression was probably not determined by secular writers or the common speech of the people, but by the Septuagint, the Greek trans- lation of the Hebrew Bible (cf. II Sam. 4:10; Isa. 40:9; Oo ee Ole Tra) Of the passages in the Gospels, a few have un- doubtedly the full meaning of the Pauline conception. This meaning is connected with the use of the term in Mark 13:10 and Mark 16:15. It is probably also at- tached to Mark 8:35 and Mark 10:29. Of special in- terest is the first verse of Mark’s Gospel: ‘‘ Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.’’ It is the title of the book, and since ‘‘the Gospel of Jesus Christ’’ was already a fixed term which had reference to the message of salvation, the author sees in the story of Jesus the very beginning of that message. In the other passages in which the Evangelists speak of the Gospel, the term applies to Jesus’ message of the King- dom. The question whether Jesus Himself might have been responsible for the use of the term, is of minor importance. What is important is the fact that the first Christians who were familiar with Paul’s conception of the Gospel, applied the same term to the message of Jesus. Modern scholars have tried to prove that there is a fundamental difference between the Gospel of Jesus THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 43 and the Gospel of Paul. It is significant that the Eivan- gelists themselves have not noticed the difference. They are firmly convinced that the Christian message of sal- vation and the message of Jesus Himself are essentially one. The very word which Paul has chosen to express the nature and meaning of the Christian message to the world, suggests that the Gospel in Paul’s conception is a proclamation of facts, and that these facts are the ful- fillment of divine promises. This is the viewpoint taken Peeaul anvihom: 1: 2-010:163,10:28s' Gal. 2::2-sNph. 3:6; 6:19, and other places. Our Lutheran fathers have therefore correctly stated that the Gospel consists in the promises of God, and that every promise of God in the Scripture is part of the Gospel. But Paul has restricted the Gospel in the narrower sense to the ful- fillment of God’s promises in the person and work of Christ. The Gospel is more than a promise, it is the joyful message that God has fulfilled His promises. The author of this message is God Himself (Rom. 1:1; 1:16; II Cor. 11:7; I Thess. 2: 2, 8,9), and its very heart and center is Christ, the Son of God, the crucified and risen Lord. The central place of Christ in Paul’s preaching of the Gospel is very clearly and fully stated by the Apostle himself in First Corinthians 15:1 ff. After reminding the Corinthians of the Gospel which he had preached and which they had received and accepted, he gives a summary of the Gospel in the statement, ‘‘that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, and then by the Twelve.’’ It is only another expression of the same fundamental conception of the 44 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Gospel in its relation to the death and resurrection of Christ, when Paul speaks of the Gospel as ‘‘the story of the cross’’ (I Cor. 1:18), or when he tells the Cor- inthians, that while he was with them, he resolved to forget everything but Jesus Christ, and Him crucified (I Cor. 2:2). Of equal importance is Paul’s description of the Gospel in the opening verses of his letter to the Romans. Here it is stated that God’s Gospel, for which Paul was set apart, is the message ‘‘about His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who was a descendant of David with re- gard to His life in the flesh, but who was publicly de- clared to be the Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness, which rested upon him, by being raised from the dead.’’ The significance of this definition lies in the emphasis placed upon the person of Christ as the center of the Gospel, especially upon those facts of His life which are essential to his redemptive work, namely His entrance into human life as the Son of David, and His resurrection by which He entered into His present life of glory. However, Paul was not the founder of Christianity, and he was not the first preacher of the Gospel. He was not one of the Twelve who had been ealled by the Lord Jesus at the beginning of His ministry, and had ac- companied Him on His journeys in Galilee and to Jeru- salem. In fact, it may be questioned whether he had ever seen the Lord Jesus in the days of His human life and ministry. This can certainly not be proved by his statement in Second Corinthians 5:16: ‘‘Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now hence- forth know we Him no more.’’ The whole passage (5: 11-21), of which this statement is an integral part, THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 45 leads us into the very heart of Paul’s personal religion. The compelling power in his personal religious life is the love of Christ. This love of Christ has manifested itself in His atoning death. Christ died for us all, and He was raised from the dead that those who live should not live unto themselves, but should have their life in Him and should consecrate themselves to His service. This realization of Christ’s love has brought about a complete change in his own life. In fact, every one who is thus in union with Christ, is a new being, a new creation; there is a new state of things, which has taken the place of the old state of things, and in accordance with this radical change, his estimate of Christ has also undergone a change: it is no longer a knowledge ‘‘after the flesh.’’ ' There can be no question, that Paul refers here to that fundamental religious experience in his life which we call his conversion. Nor can there be any question, that this experience has not only influenced and determined his conception of Christ, but is also the basis of his Apostolic authority. Paul at times strongly emphasized that authority. Speaking of his privileges as an Apostle, he asks the Corinthians (I Cor. 9:1): ‘‘Am I not free? Am I not an Apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?’’ His independence and his authority as an Apostle rest upon the fact that he has seen the Lord Jesus in His heavenly glory. Yet, Paul is firmly con- vinced that the heavenly Jesus, whom he saw before the gates of Damascus, is identical with the historical Jesus who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried. His experience before Damascus does not wholly belong to the sphere of his inner life. It is not a ‘‘vision’’ in the accepted sense of the word, but an objective reality. Paul clearly distinguishes it from his 46 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES later ‘‘visions and revelations.’’ He places it upon the same level with the Christ-appearances after the resur- rection of the Lord, when he writes to the Corinthians, after having given a full list of the witnesses of the Lord’s resurrection: ‘‘Finally He was seen by me also”’ (I Cor. 15:8). It is only in the next verses that Paul then turns from the objective statement of fact to the subjective side of his experience by stating that it was the grace of God which manifested itself to him, and made of him what he is (verse 10). The fullest account of his own fundamental exper- ience, and its intimate connection with his Gospel, has been given by Paul in Gal. 1:10 ff. For the under- standing of the whole passage, it is important to note its apologetic and polemical tone. Paul emphasizes the fact that his Gospel is not a human affair or a human doctrine. This he proves by ealling attention to the manner in which the Gospel was received by him. He did not receive it in the ordinary way. It was not handed to him by any man, nor was he taught it. It came to him through a revelation of Jesus Christ. This again, Just as in I Cor. 15: 8, is an objective statement of fact. The meaning of this fact is then explained by Paul in the next verses in which he gives a brief account of his own religious development, and interprets his ex- perience as the result of an act of God’s purest grace. Yet, while it is true that Paul’s own conception of the gospel had its main source in his personal religious experience, it is also true that the Gospel which he preached was deeply rooted in the common faith of the Church that existed before him, and into which he was received. Paul was not the first Christian who had a personal relation to the glorified Jesus, and in speaking of his own personal relations to the glorified Jesus, he THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 47 only expressed what all Christian believers before him also confessed and believed. Moreover, when Paul was converted, he became a member of the church in Dam- ascus, and the church in Damascus was closely con- nected with the mother church in Jerusalem. Paul had therefore ample opportunity to familiarize himself with the life and teaching of Jesus. It is true that he strongly emphasized his independence as an Apostle. But he also lays stress on the fact that his Gospel is the same as that of the original Apostles. He speaks of ‘“‘my Gospel,’’ but in speaking of the Gospel which he preached, he tells the Corinthians that he passed on to them what he had received (I Cor. 15:3). Three years after his conversion, he visited Jerusalem, to become acquainted with Cephas, and spent two weeks with him. Fourteen years later, he went up to Jerusalem again, and conferred with James, Cephas and John, who were regarded as the pillars of the Church. The result of that conference was that these leaders recognized the grace of God in the labors of Barnabas and Paul, pledged them their co-operation, and only asked them to remember the poor. Ever since that memorable con- ference, which is known as the Apostolic Council, Paul was in close contact with the mother church in Jeru- salem, and gave the church his moral and financial sup- port. It is contrary to all historical evidence, that Paul’s Gospel should have differed in any essential point from the Gospel that was preached by the original Apostles. However, the question may be asked whether it can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, that Paul’s conception of the Gospel is really in complete harmony with the earlier conception of the Gospel. For a full discussion of this question, it is necessary to go back to the religious beliefs and convictions of the first Chris- 48 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES tians, and then to investigate Paul’s attitude to these convictions. IV According to the traditional view, the history of the Apostolic Church begins with the day of Pentecost. This view is based upon Luke’s account in the Book of Acts, and there is no reason why the historicity of Luke’s account should be called into question. The day of Pentecost undoubtedly marks the revival of a move- ment which had its origin in the ministry of Jesus, but which had been interrupted by His violent death on the cross. His disciples and followers had believed in Him as the Messiah whom God had sent to establish the Kingdom of God and to redeem Israel. His shameful death destroyed their hopes. From the historical point of view, the revival of a lost cause, and much more so its rapid spread, would be totally incomprehensible without the revival of the disciples’ faith in their divine Lord and Master. What had happened to revive such a faith in their hearts? According to the unanimous testimony of all the New Testament writers, the crucified Jesus had risen from the dead on the third day, and had appeared to His disciples. He had shown Himself alive to them, and had convinced them that death had no power over Him. The earliest and most important literary record of the fundamental facts concerning the Lord’s resurrection is found in First Corinthians 15: 3-8, where Paul sums up the reports of the eye-witnesses from whom he had received the facts. These reports are borne out by the Gospel records. A comparative study of the resurrection accounts in the Gospels will disclose minor discrepancies and dif- THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 49 ferences between them. But the main facts are beyond dispute. The problem of the Lord’s resurrection does not concern the facts themselves, but the interpretation of the facts. Modern scholars do not deny the belief of the disciples in the living Saviour. But they explain that belief by the vision theory, and they distinguish between a subjective and an objective vision. We can- not enter into a discussion of these theories. We simply state it as our conviction, that the term ‘‘vision’’ is utterly unfit to explain the historical fact of the Lord’s resurrection. A vision belongs to the sphere of the inner life; it is an inner occurrence of the soul, and it has its source in a peculiar state of mind. Even the objective vision theory does not fully explain the sig- nificance of ‘‘the third day’’ and the empty tomb in the resurrection accounts. The bodily resurrection of the crucified Jesus is the foundation upon which the Apostolic Chureh with its life, its faith, and its teaching, rests. The conviction, that the crucified Saviour had risen from the dead, and by His resurrection had entered into a new life of greater activity, separated the disciples from their Jewish co-religionists. In the eyes of the first Christians, the resurrection of the Lord was first of all His rehabilitation and justifica- tion, and its immediate effect upon the disciples was the rekindling of their faith in Him and in His Messiah- ship. Thus Christianity sprang into life as worship of Jesus, the crucified and risen Saviour, the exalted and glorified Lord. This worship of Jesus as the Lord of glory, however, carried with it from the very beginning certain religious convictions, which became the source of important doc- trinal statements, especially with regard to the person 50 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES and work of Jesus. These convictions have been pre- served to us in the names and titles which are connected with the person of the risen Lord in the worship of the Church. It is no exaggeration to say that the begin- nings of Christian thought in general, and of the Christological dogma in particular, can be traced to the use of those names and titles in the worship of the early Church. The oldest name and title, in which the first Chris- tians expressed their faith in the risen Lord, is the name ‘‘Messiah’’ ( Xpiores ). As the Messiah-king on the throne they worshiped Him, and there is also no doubt that the earliest creed, the first formula of faith, was the simple confession, that Jesus is the Christ. But it is significant that the original meaning of the title, as applied to the Jesus of the Gospels, underwent an im- portant change. The Messiahship of the risen Lord is no longer understood in the purely eschatological or apocalyptic sense. The eschatological meaning of the title is not lost sight of altogether: it becomes the foundation of the Christian hope in the Lord’s second coming, His wapovoia (I Thess. 1:10, and elsewhere). But He is already the Messiah on the throne in His pres- ent state of exaltation, as the One to whom all power is given in heaven and on earth. His kingdom, although it will be established in full glory in the future, is in existence already, and the reign exercised by the Mes- siah in His present state, is a spiritual reign. According to our four Gospels, Jesus spoke of Him- self and of His mission as ‘‘the Son of Man.’’ In the worship of the early Church this name is almost for- gotten. But the corresponding name ‘‘the Son of God,’’ which is also found in the Gospels and is applied to Jesus by those who believed Him to be the Messiah, THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 51 now rises into prominence, and receives a fuller and deeper meaning: it expresses no longer the Messianic idea, but has reference to the personal relation of Jesus to God. He is the Son of God in power because God has raised Him from the dead. Nevertheless, His resur- rection is not His deification: He has always been God in the true and genuine sense, and this belief in His deity goes hand in hand with the belief in His pre- existence. In fact, it may be said that the Lord’s pre- existence, which is so prominent in the Gospel of John, is already indissolubly connected with the faith of the first Christians, and the preaching of the first Chris- tian missionaries. Even more significant than the application of the title ‘‘the Son of God’’ to the person of the Lord in the faith and worship of the early Church, is the meaning connected with the name Kvpios (Lord) as applied to the risen and exalted Saviour by the first Christians. It expresses, as no other name or title does, the distinc- tive faith of all believing Christians. The name is not used in the former historical sense: it is not a mere equivalent of Master or Teacher, but has from the very beginning a much deeper religious meaning: it is the name which is above every name; it is the name upon which Christians call in every place when they offer their prayers to the God of their salvation. ‘‘There is only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and there is only one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him”’ (I Cor. 8:6). He is the Lord in the absolute sense, and because He is the Lord we can not only believe in Him and put our trust in Him, but we must also worship Him and serve Him in holiness and righteousness. 52 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES But, while early Christianity is on the one hand wor- ship of Jesus, it is on the other hand a life in the Spirit. Possession of the Spirit, whom the exalted Saviour sends down and pours out upon all believers, is the dis- tinctive mark of His disciples. This Spirit is conceived, not as power only but also as a free gift and as a dis- tinct person. The firm conviction of the first Christians, that they are in possession of the Spirit of the exalted and glor- ified Lord, has its source in a life-experience, and the reality of this life-experience is proved by the force with which the Spirit asserts himself as the spirit of holiness in their individual lives, as well as by the force with which he binds them all together by the ties of brotherly love as members of one body—a real communion of believers, of one heart and soul. This conviction is further strengthened by the Messianic prophecies, which speak of a general outpouring of the Spirit of God at the time of the Messiah. It is confirmed by the prom- ises of Jesus, which are now believed to have been ful- filled, and it can be traced back to the life and ministry of Jesus Himself. Early Christianity was singularly free from any fixed ordinances in the later ecclesiastical sense. Its life was not controlled by any rules and regulations, but was guided and directed by the free movement of the Holy Spirit. The religion of the first Christians was a re- ligion, not of the letter but of the spirit; it was not legalistic but prophetic. The believers were not bound by any law except the law of love, to which Paul refers in Galatians 6:2 as ‘‘the law of Christ.’’ However, there are two things that prevented the first Christians from becoming religious enthusiasts, and these things are of fundamental importance. The THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 53 first has reference to the Lord’s teaching, and the sec- ond to His life and example. It is perhaps the highest tribute that can be paid to any man if it can be said of him that his words were regarded as an absolute authority, not only by his admirers and immediate followers, but also by subse- quent generations. ‘There is only one man to whom that tribute can be paid without any condition and restric- tion. It is an undeniable fact that the words of Jesus made a deep and lasting impression upon all who listened to them. This impression is summed up by the Evangelist at the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount in the words: ‘‘And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at His doctrine: for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.’’ (Matt. 7:28 f.). His words indelibly impressed themselves upon the minds and hearts of His hearers, and they were accepted by His own disciples as words coming down from the living God. The Gospel of John has preserved to us Simon Peter’s answer to the question of the Lord: ‘‘Will ye also go away?’’ His answer is: ‘‘Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.’’ (John 6:68). In the Gospel of Matthew we find the Lord’s own statement with regard to His prophecy of the end: ‘‘Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away.’’ (Matt. 24:35). After His resurrec- tion, the disciples not only remembered His words but also valued them as the most precious and priceless heritage which the Master had left them. His words were their light and comfort, their rod and staff on their own journey. His words were also the only safe guide for the believers in whose hearts the Spirit had wrought a new life of holiness and love: they pointed out to the 54 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES believer the true way of life; they told him how to live and conduct himself if he wanted to please God. For this purpose the sayings of the Lord were carefully pre- served, and collections of His sayings became the basis of Christian conduct. They were intended for the be- liever in his relation to God and to his fellow-believer. But they prepared the way for a new order of things, and laid the foundation of new ethical and moral stand- ards in the world. By the believer they were accepted as the very words of God, because they were known to have been spoken by Him who was worshiped as the Lord of glory. But their intrinsic truth has secured for them a place in the heart of mankind from which no earthly power will ever dislodge them. But the Master’s words could not be separated from His own life and example. His words have given to the world new ideals. But these ideals were exemplified in His own life. Here was a life, perfect in holiness, in obedience to the will of God, and perfect in self-sac- rificing love. It reached its climax in His death on the cross when He gave His life ‘‘a ransom for many.’’ But was not every moment of His life spent in the same ministry of love which led Him step by step to the cross of Calvary? His disciples who followed Him, who were witnesses of His words and deeds, learned to know Him and to love Him. But it was after His resurrection, that the real meaning of His life was revealed to them. To follow His example, to walk in His footsteps, to love as He had loved, and to forgive as He had forgiven, to serve each other as He had served them when He girded Himself, and began to wash their feet,—this was their ideal of life, and, however, imperfectly this ideal was realized in their own lives, they never tried to drag it down to their own level. THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 55 A thorough examination of the Pauline Epistles will show that Paul did not depart from the teachings of the mother Church on a single point. There is no difference between Paul and the early Church in the conception of Christ as the Son of God. Paul’s own Christology is a development of the universal faith of all Christians who ‘call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in every place.’’ (I Cor. 1:3). It is true that Paul has de- veloped a doctrine of redemption and atonement, which seems to have been entirely his own. Yet in First Corinthians 15:3 we are told that he passed on to the Corinthians, as of first importance, the account which he had received, ‘‘that Christ died for our sins accord- ing to the Scriptures.’’ The same is true of the Lord’s resurrection, and its bearing on our faith. Finally, together with all Christians, and in accordance with the promises of Jesus Himself, Paul also shared in the fer- vent hope of the Lord’s second coming. The idea of the Kingdom of God has not a central place in Paul’s let- ters, but Paul is familiar with the idea, and his concep- tion of it agrees with the conception of the early Church; he associates the Kingdom of God primarily with the Lord’s second coming (I Thess. 2:12; Gal. 5: 21; I Cor. 6:9; I Cor. 15:50), but he occasionally refers to it as a thing of the present, and in doing so emphasizes its spiritual nature. (I Cor. 4:20; Rom. 14:17; Col. 1:13; Col. 4:11). However, the most important question in the discus- sion of Paul’s relation to the teachings of the early Church, concerns his relation to the historical Jesus, His teaching as well as His life and example. Many of our modern scholars take the ground that Paul had no real interest in the life and teaching of the Master, that the human life of the Lord was to him a mere incident 56 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES and episode. Even some of our conservative scholars are inclined to take similar views. The writer has been convinced for a long time that this is an erroneous posi- tion, which is not warranted by the facts in the case. It is quite true that Paul’s references to the historical Jesus are comparatively few in number, and that these few are more or less of an incidental character. But it must not be forgotten, that Paul’s letters are occasional writings, which deal to a great extent with practical conditions and difficulties arising out of his missionary labors. The argumentum e silentio is always a very weak argument, and it may lead to very wrong conclu- sions. 'T’o argue, that because Paul is silent in his let- ters on many important phases of the Lord’s ministry, therefore he must not have known them, or must have been indifferent to them, is an untenable position. Furthermore, while it is also quite true that Paul’s interest is chiefly centered in the Lord’s death and resurrection, these two fundamental facts presuppose the story of the Cross, and the story of the Cross can never be separated from the story of the Lord’s life and ministry. This does not mean that Paul has known a written ‘‘Gospel,’’ although it is quite possible that some written sources such as Luke refers to in the pre- face to his Gospel, were known to him. But it means that he was familiar with the Gospel tradition, and made use of it in his missionary preaching. This is con- clusively proved by his full and accurate account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper in First Corinthians 11: 23 ff. The manner in which Paul introduces his ac- count, forbids us to think of a special revelation: he has passed on to the Corinthians what he himself has re- ceived, and he is convinced that what he has received is ‘‘from the Lord.’’ The verbs which Paul uses here, THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 57 have a technical meaning: they have reference to the oral tradition, while the preposition @7¢ (from) refers to the ultimate source, and does not exclude but rather includes human agencies. It is safe to say that the in- stitution ‘of the Lord’s Supper is not the only historical fact of the Lord’s life, which Paul received from the original Apostles. As a matter of fact, the historical material regarding the Lord’s earthly life and ministry in Paul’s letters is much more abundant than some scholars are willing to admit. The Davidic ‘descent of the Lord is referred to by Paul in Romans 1:3; 15:12; II Tim. 2:8. The name ‘*Son of David’’ is in the Gospels a title of the Messiah. But no one could have claimed to be the Messiah unless he was known to be a descendant of David. Paul must therefore have been familiar with the Lord’s genealogy. As the ‘‘Son of David’’ all the promises of God, which were given to the people of Israel, have been fulfilled in Him. (II Cor. 1:20; Rom. 9:5). He was born of a woman, and made subject to the law (Gal. 4:4); He became a minister of the circumcision to establish the truthfulness of God (Rom. 15:8), and though He was rich, He became poor for our sake (IJ Cor. 8:9). The story of the Saviour’s birth, and the circumstances at- tending His birth, are told by Luke in the first two chap- ters of his Gospel. In view of the references in the Pauline Epistles, which we have just mentioned, it is hard to believe that Paul should not have been familiar with the same story. That Paul had an intimate knowledge of the story of the Cross, has been stated already. The Cross of Christ is referred to by him in about fifteen places. It is in- timately connected with his conception of the Gospel, and its meaning is summed up in the rule of faith, which 58 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES is the nucleus of the Apostles’ Creed, and is stated by him in I. Cor. 15:3 in the words: ‘‘That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, and that He was raised from the dead on the third day according to the Scriptures.’’ The same rule of faith is referred to in I Tim. 6:12f where Timothy is admonished to remember the ‘‘beautiful profession of faith,’’ which he made before many witnesses, and which is based upon Christ’s great profession before Pontius Pilate. . It may be readily conceded that Paul’s lack of per- sonal knowledge of the Lord’s ministry has been of dis- advantage to him in presenting to his hearers a vivid picture of the historical Jesus. However, the statement sometimes made by modern scholars, that the Saviour’s life and example had no influence upon Paul’s life or his own ideal of life, is not in accordance with the facts. In I Thess. 1: 5f, Paul reminds his readers ‘‘of the kind of life we lived among you for your sake;’’ then he goes on saying: ‘‘And you followed the example set by us and by the Lord.’’ The Philippians are exhorted to have that same humble attitude of mind, in their re- lation to each other, which Christ Jesus had (Phil. 2:4ff). Of special importance is Paul’s discussion of the attitude of the strong to the weak in Rom. 15:1 ff. In this whole passage, the Lord’s life and example is clearly made the basis of the appeal to the strong, ‘‘to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not just suit them- selves; every one must try to please his neighbor, to do him good, and help him, just as Christ also did not live for Himself.’’ Therefore the Apostle prays that God may grant them to follow the example of Jesus Christ, and live in harmony with one another (v. 5). All these references, however, in which the Apostle has in mind THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 59 the example of our Lord, are surpassed by the Apostle’s frequent recourse to the self-sacrificing love of Christ, which culminated in the giving of His own life. The Galatians are reminded that the Lord Jesus Christ gave Himself for our sins to save us from the present wicked world (Gal. 1:4). The Apostle’s own life in Christ is a life ‘‘by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me’’ (Gal. 2:20). It is the conscious- ness of Christ’s love that urges and drives him in his own ministry of reconciliation (II. Cor. 5:14). The Ephesians are admonished by him to walk in love, just as Christ loved us and gave Himself for us, as a sweet- smelling offering and sacrifice to God (Eph. 5:1f). Just as the Lord’s life is Paul’s ideal of a Christian life, so the Lord’s teaching in his supreme authority. In several places of his letters Paul has referred his readers to ‘‘a word of the Lord.’’ These references are so instructive and important that we will briefly discuss them. Two of them are found in First Thessalonians; two others have their place in First Corinthians. The members of the church in Thessalonica grieved for those in their midst who had recently fallen asleep. The Apostle assures them, ‘‘on the authority of a word of the Lord,’’ that those who survive until the coming of the Lord, will have no advantage over those who have fallen asleep. He then describes the manner of the Lord’s coming in words that are similar to the words of Jesus which are recorded in the Gospels. If the reader will compare I. Thess. 4:13-18 with Mark 13: 26f and Matt. 24:31, he will come to the conclusion that Paul and the Synoptics have drawn from the same source. 7 In the passage that follows, the Apostle again refers to a word of the Lord as his authority for the statement 60 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES that the day of the Lord will come ‘‘like a thief in the night’’ (I Thess. 5:1ff). This word of the Lord is not only found in the Gospels (Matt. 24:43; Luke 12:39), but is also quoted in Second Peter (3:10) and in the Apocalypse (3:3; 16:15). In First Thessalonians, Paul introduces it by the significant statement that the Thessalonians have already an accurate knowledge of these things, and therefore do not need to have anyone write to them. The seventh chapter of First Corinthians deals with the problems of marriage and married life. After giv- ing his advice to those who are unmarried or widows, the Apostle continues: ‘‘To those already married my instructions are—indeed, they are not mine, but the Lord’s—that a wife must not separate from her hus- band; if she has separated, she must remain single or else become reconciled to him; and a husband must not divorce his wife’’ (I Cor. 7:10f). Here the Apostle clearly distinguishes between his own authority and the authority of the Lord Jesus; he calls the attention of the Corinthians to a word of the Lord, upon which he bases his own instructions to them. The Lord’s saying which he quotes is recorded in our three Synoptic Gos- pels (Matt. 5:32; Mark 10:11f; Luke 16:18). In the ninth chapter of First Corinthians, the Apostle discusses his own ministry as an example of self-deny- ing love. As a minister of the Gospel he did not accept any remuneration for his work among them, but sup- ported himself by working with his own hands. How- ever, this should not be the rule, but is an exception. The rule is that those who preach the Gospel, should also get their living from it. To prove this, the Apostle uses a threefold argument. He first appeals to the law of nature, then to the ordinances of God in the Old THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 61 Testament, and finally to the authority of the Lord Jesus Himself. He doubtless has in mind the Lord’s saying recorded in the Gospels (Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7), that a laborer is worthy of his hire. These references show that to Paul as well as to the original Apostles the teaching of Jesus was the supreme authority. However, the Apostle has made a much more exten- sive use of the teaching of Jesus than those few direct references to words of the Lord indicate. It is a well-known fact that, as a rule, Paul closes his letters with practical exhortations which pertain to the Christian life and conduct of his readers. A com- parative study of these exhortations leads to the con- clusion that they were written on the basis of a uniform plan, and that this plan goes back to very definite in- structions with which the readers were already familiar. The most explicit set of such exhortations is found in the Epistle to the Romans (chapters 12 and 13). But their general plan and outline, as well as their connec- tion with former instructions received by the readers, are perhaps most conspicuous in Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians. Paul had practically finished his letter with the third chapter. What follows seems to be what we might call an afterthought. Yet the con- tents of this unusually long postscript have an import- ant bearing on the development of the Christian life of the Thessalonian church, and are of extraordinary in- terest to us. The exhortations in these last two chap- ters are introduced by a statement in which the Apostle reminds his readers of former instructions, which they had received from him, about ‘‘the way you are to live so as to please God’’ (I Thess. 4:1f). The phrase it- self is so carefully worded that it may have been the 62 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES title of a written statement, which contained a summary -of Christian life and conduct—not a regula fidei, but a regula vitae. This impression is confirmed by the order in which those instructions are taken up: (a) /sanc- tification; (b) brotherly love There is no doubt that in a rule of life, especially intended for recent converts from heathenism, the subject of sanctification would re- ceive the first place. The manner in which the transi- tion is then made from the first to the second subject, can be fully explained only by the fact that in the rule of life, to which Paul refers, the subject of brotherly love also had the same place. The Apostle writes: ‘‘But concerning brotherly love, there is no need to write to you’’ (4:9). He would probably have omitted the sub- ject altogether if it had not been mentioned in the rule of life, with which the Thessalonians were already familiar. Highly significant is also his statement that he has given those former instructions to them ‘‘on the authority of the Lord Jesus (4:2). The whole passage suggests to us a rule of life, which was based upon the teaching of Jesus. Further investigation shows that this rule of life must have been identical with what the Apostle meant by the word Séay7 in Romans 6:17 and 16:17. Acdayy means teaching or doctrine. But the word is not used by Paul with regard to his missionary preaching, his xypuvyua, which is designated by the term evayyeXov and its synonymous expressions. In both places where Paul uses the word &éay7, it has reference to a teach- ing which concerns the Christian life. In Romans 16:17 the readers are admonished ‘‘to guard against those who are causing divisions and dif- ficulties, contrary to the teaching which you have learned, and to avoid them.’’ These disturbers of the THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 63 peace are then described as persons who ‘‘are not serv- ing the Lord Christ, but their own evil desires and with their persuasive and flattering talk deceive the simple- minded (v. 18). The teaching or doctrine (6éay%), which the readers once learned, points to a very definite form of instruction concerning the true way of life. Still more important is the use of the word Séayy in Romans 6:17. The Revised Version has rendered verse 17 as follows: ‘‘Thanks be to God that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered.’’ What is meant by the ‘‘form of teaching,’’ to which the Christians were once handed over? The answer to this question hangs on the meaning of the phrase tvzos ddayjs. The translation ‘‘form of doctrine’’ (A. V.) or ‘‘form of teaching’’ (R. V.) agrees with the trans- lation of the Vulgate: Forma doctrinae. A marginal note in the Revised Version suggests the translation ‘‘nattern of teaching,’’ which would be more in har- mony with Luther’s translation Vorbild der Lehre. Commentators are divided in their opinions with re- gard to the proper meaning of the phrase. The Greek word tv7os originally denotes the mark left by a blow, or the stamp struck by a die. From this the word gets the meaning figure, wage, model, example or type pre- figuring something. Paul uses the word more than half a dozen times in his letters. Thus the Thessalonians are complimented by the Apostle because they have be- come a pattern for all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia (I Thess. 1:7). The Philippians are urged by him to follow his example (Phil. 3:17). Timothy is admonished to set an example of good works to the be- lievers (I Tim. 4:12). It is on the same line when the Apostle speaks of a tvros duvdayfs, a model teaching, 64 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES to which the Roman Christians were delivered, and by which they were to be guided in their daily life and conduct. The nature of this model teaching is revealed by the context: it is not a ‘‘rule of faith,’’? as Moffatt suggests by his translation of the phrase, but a ‘‘rule of life,’? to which the Christians wholeheartedly ob- ligated themselves when they were baptized. The en- tire sixth chapter of Romans is an earnest appeal to the Christians to lead a consecrated life, and this appeal is based on the experience through which the Christians had passed in and with their baptism into the death of Christ. The rule of faith was connected with the mis- sionary preaching of the Apostles. The rule of life had its source in the teaching of Jesus Himself. V Our discussion of Paul’s relation to the faith and life of the first Christians has shown that there was com- plete agreement between them. The Gospel which Paul preached had its roots in the story of the Cross. The way of life, which he taught, was founded on the teach- ing of the Master. It is a most remarkable fact that modern investigation with regard to the sources under- lying our Gospels, has come to the same results. Our four Gospels contain the records of Jesus. The first three are called the Synoptic Gospels because they were written according to a general uniform plan of which the broad lines can still be clearly traced if the Gospel of Mark is taken as a basis. The Gospel of Mark is almost entirely contained in the Gospel of Matthew, and a large part of it has been taken over into the Gospel of Luke. The literary relationship of the first three Gospels is still a problem, which may never be com- THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 65 pletely solved. Yet it is safe to say that the material which is common to all three Gospels constituted the bulk of the missionary preaching in the early Church. The order in which this material was presented is in- dicated by the following important events in the Lord’s life and ministry, which may be regarded as our guiding posts: The ministry of John the Baptist; the begin- nings of Jesus in Capernaum; the selection of the Twelve; the confession of Peter at Cesarea Philippi; the last journey to Jerusalem; the last days in Jeru- salem; the story of the Cross; the resurrection of the Lord. The author of the fourth Gospel has followed a different plan. Yet traces of his familiarity with the Synoptic plan can still be observed in his Gospel. A second source which has been discovered in our first three Gospels, is more elusive, and it is perhaps impossible to restore it, as Harnack has attempted to do. But of its existence there is no doubt, nor can it be doubted that it was chiefly, though not exclusively, composed of discourses and sayings of the Lord. It is particularly conspicuous in the Gospel of Matthew, and it is the writer’s conviction that the former publican Levi-Matthew is responsible for it. In addition to these two sources, which we have just mentioned, our Evangelists may have used other sources which were accessible to them. Luke, in the preface to his Gospel, speaks of many who had undertaken to write down accounts of the facts upon which the Gospel mes- sage was based. Indeed, we would be surprised if it had been otherwise. Our Gospels were not written until after the year 60. There is therefore a period of about thirty years between Jesus and our Gospels. But the sources underlying our Gospels, lessen the time, not covered by any written documents, to a considerable 66 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES degree. In fact, there is no reason why important say- ings of the Lord should not have been written down soon after His resurrection. Our Gospels are so intimately bound up with the faith and life, the teaching and preaching, of the early Church that their general trustworthiness is fully assured. All four were written by men who believed in Jesus, and wished to influence their readers in the interest of the Christian faith. But each Gospel has also its own specific purpose which is expressed either in a title (Matt. 1:1; Mark 1:1), or in a preface (Luke 1:1-4), or in an introductory meditation (John 1:1-18). And each has its own peculiarities which are due to the in- dividuality of the author. Since none of our Gospels has given us the name of its author, the question of authorship must be deter- mined by external and internal evidence. The external evidence is contained in the testimony of the early Church, which ean be traced to the close of the first cen- tury. It is in each case supported by strong internal evidence. It may help us in our study of the Jesus of the New Testament, to point out a few characteristic features by which each individual Gospel is distin- guished. If we follow the chronological order we have to begin with the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark.—When Luke wrote his Gospel, he justified his own undertaking by stating that others had made similar attempts. At the same time, he vol- unteered the information that their accounts had been received from the original eye-witnesses. Although Luke does not mention the name of Mark, the Gospel of Mark must have been among those written accounts to which he refers. THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 67 The name of Mark is mentioned in the New Testa- ment in the following places: Acts 12: 12ff; 18:5, 18; 15: 38-41; Col. 4:10; Philemon 23; II Tim. 4:11; I Peter 5:13. According to these references, he was a nephew of Barnabas, and the spiritual son of Peter. His mother’s name was Mary, and her house in Jerusalem was one of the places where the Apostles and many of the ‘‘brethren’’ used to meet in the early days of the Christian Church. Through his relative Barnabas he became acquainted with Paul, and accompanied Paul and Barnabas on their first extensive missionary tour from Antioch to Cyprus and Pamphylia, but for rea- sons unknown to us left them, and returned to Jeru- salem. He became the assistant of Barnabas, but about ten years later we find him again in the company of Paul as one of the Apostle’s faithful attendants dur- ing his imprisonment at Rome. The reference to Mark in the Book of Acts and the Kpistles of Paul leave the impression that he was a trusted and faithful servant rather than a born leader. This impression is confirmed by the general character of his Gospel. There is an ancient and apparently well founded tradition that Mark wrote his Gospel on the basis of missionary discourses which had been delivered by Peter before the gates of Rome. The Gospel of Mark bears all the earmarks of such a missionary Gos- pel in which the earliest Gospel tradition—the story of Jesus as it was told by the first Christian missionaries to those who never heard of the Saviour—has been pre- served to us. The purpose of the Gospel is expressed in the first verse of the first chapter: ‘‘ Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.’’ The Gospel itself culminates in the story of the Cross, but this story is preceded by sketches from the Lord’s ministry, in 68 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES which the Lord is pictured to us as the great prophet, mighty in word and deed. The person of Peter occupies a prominent place in the Gospel, and Petrine traces are found throughout the book. We call this Gospel the Gospel of Mark. We might just as well call it the Gospel of Peter. The Gospel of Matthew—The Gospel of Mark is almost entirely contained in the Gospel of Matthew. But the chief characteristic feature of Matthew’s Gospel may be found in five large groups of the Lord’s sayings, which the writer has woven into the narrative part of his book. These sayings of our Lord have been ar- ranged in topical order, with the Kingdom of heaven as the central theme. The first group contains the Sermon on the Mount, and deals with the righteousness of the Kingdom (5-7). Missionary instructions to the Twelve, which form the second group (ch. 10), have their cen- tral thought in the expansion of the Kingdom. A cycle of seven parables in chapter 13 sets forth the mystery and nature of the Kingdom. The life in the Kingdom is the dominant note in chapter 18, which speaks of the duties of discipleship. Chapter 24 and 25, which con- tain the eschatological sayings of the Lord, look forward to the consummation of the Kingdom. Intimately connected with the idea of the Kingdom of heaven, is the idea of the Messiah. According to the title, the author intends to present to his readers a ‘‘his- tory of Jesus the Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.’’ The first two chapters give an account of the Messiah’s nativity. Then follows an introductory section which sets forth the Messiah’s preparation for His work (3: 1—4:11). The Messiah’s work is described in the next section (4:12-11:1), and the growing op- position to Him is the dominant note in the section that THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 69 follows (11: 2—16: 20). The first Passion announcement prepares the reader for the last journey to Jerusalem and the last days in the city (16: 21—25:46). The story of the Messiah’s suffering, death and resurrection is told in the last three chapters. In the narrative part of his Gospel, the writer follows the plan of Mark. But the historical material is sub- ordinated to didactic purposes. The Christ-picture of the Gospel is most impressive and of magnificent grandeur. The history of the Messiah is presented in the light of the Old Testament prophecies. But the idea of the Messiah as the king of glory melts into one with the idea of the servant of the Lord as the prophet Isaiah has described him. Tradition has attributed this Gospel to the former publican Levi-Matthew of Capernaum, who is mentioned in the lists of the Apostles as one of the Twelve. Mod- ern scholars accept this testimony of the early Church insofar as the Lord’s sayings in this Gospel are con- cerned. But there is no reason why Matthew’s author- ship should not be extended to the entire book. The Gospel of Luke-—Some one has made the remark that Luke’s Gospel is the most attractive book in the Bible. Such a statement is not without foundation. The writer of this Gospel was a native of Antioch in Syria. In his younger days he had studied medicine, and the practice of his profession must have helped him to de- velop that genuine human sympathy which is one of the characteristic features of his Gospel. His acquaintance with Paul, who refers to him as ‘‘the beloved phy- sician’’ (Col. 4:14), soon ripened into friendship and admiration, and it was undoubtedly Paul’s life and ex- ample that inspired him to write his great historical work on the origin and expansion of Christianity, of 70 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES which his Gospel is the first part. The whole character of the book is in complete harmony with Paul’s con- ception of the Gospel as the message of salvation for Jew and Gentile. This is already seen in the historical setting of the Gospel, but we can also observe it in the general treatment of the Lord’s life and ministry, and more particularly in the idea of universality, which per- meates the Gospel. Thus, for instance, the genealogy of the Lord is traced back to Adam, the first man, in order to emphasize the fact that Jesus is the second Adam, and as such belongs to all men. Luke’s picture of Jesus Himself is in accordance with the universal tendency of his Gospel. Jesus is presented to us as the Saviour of the whole world, the revealer of God’s boundless love and mercy, especially to those who are lost. He is the friend of publicans and sinners. He ministers not only to Jews, but also to Samaritans. With manifest satisfaction Luke tells us how those de- spised persons were drawn to the Lord, and were re- ceived by Him. And when he wrote down those beau- tiful parables which we find in the 15th chapter of his Gospel, there must have been in his own heart the same joy which Jesus expressed in the words: ‘‘There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.’’ It is Luke who calls our attention to the Lord’s heart-winning kindness, His human sympathy, his love of home and friendship, His care for the weak and needy. Zaccheus the publican, Martha and Mary of Bethany, the widow of Nain, the sinful woman—these and other familiar stories are peculiar to Luke’s Gospel. It is Luke who has transmitted to us the words of Jesus, which were addressed to the disciples, and which we may apply to the readers of this Gospel: ‘‘Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see.”’ THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 71 The Gospel of John.—Origen, a Church father who lived in the first half of the third century, has char- acterized this book as the ‘‘spiritual’’ Gospel. Luther, who was particularly fond of John’s Gospel, spoke of it as ‘‘the true and tender chief-Gospel.’’ There is no doubt that many Christians, in reading this Gospel, will get the same impression today. What attracts them first, and most of all, is the wonderful picture of Jesus, which we find here. To many modern critics it is the picture of an idealized Jesus, whose resemblance to the historical Jesus of the first three Gospels is only very remote. But to the writer himself that picture was very real: it bears the marks of the same Jesus whom he saw and knew. This is already brought out in the words of the prolog: ‘‘The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory as of the only begot- ten from the Father, full of grace and truth’’ (1:14). Far from being speculation or speculative mysticism, this statement is the confession of an eye-witness, who speaks of his own experience, and the experience of his fellow-disciples. Traces of an eye-witness occur also in other places of the Gospel. The winning of the first disciples is the story of a man who must have been one of those first disciples. The description of the ecruci- fixion scene betrays the intimate knowledge of a man who was present at that scene. The Gospel begins with a prolog (1:1-18), which is followed by an historical introduction giving the testi- mony of the Baptist, and the winning of the first dis- ciples (1:1-51). The first large section of the Gospel (2: 1—4:54) deals with an early; ministry of the Lord in Judea, which is not recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. It is introduced by the Lord’s first sign, and closes with His second sign. The next large section (5: 1—11: 54) 72 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES describes the Lord as the Light and the Life of the world. The events of the last week, the eve- ning of the betrayal with the farewell discourse and the high priestly prayer, form the contents of chapters twelve to seventeen. The glorification of the Lord, through His death and resurrection, is the theme of the last section in the three chapters that follow. The con- cluding chapter (21) contains what may be termed an epilog to the Gospel. The Gospel of John is not a biography of Jesus in the ordinary sense. It does not give us a full account of the Lord’s ministry, but groups the most important events of His ministry around His journeys to Jeru- salem. Yet the Gospel of John is much more than a mere chronicle of certain events in the Lord’s life: it is the first authentic interpretation of the meaning of His life and person by one who had the closest per- sonal relations with Him. Traces of this personal relationship are frequent in our Gospel. The writer has never forgotten the day when he first met the Lord Jesus, and heard His kind invitation: ‘‘Come, and ye shall see.’’ On that day, the son of Zebedee became the seer, the man of visions. A new light dawned upon him, and a new life began for him. To be sure, the world did not apprehend the light. But the light still shines in the darkness, and all who believe on His name, shall see the light as John saw it, and shall find in Him eternal life. To bring men to such an experience is the ultimate aim of John’s Gospel. VI The Jesus of our Gospels is the Christ of our faith. But can we say with the same degree of assurance that THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 73 He is also the Jesus of history? Our investigation has shown that the Gospel records are inseperably con- nected with the Gospel itself. But it is impossible to divorce the preaching of the Gospel from those _his- torical facts which constitute the revelation of God in our Lord Jesus Christ. However, not every detail of the Lord’s life is of the same importance, and not all the historical facts, recorded in our Gospels, bear the same relation to the Gospel. The Jesus of our Gospels, the Jesus of the New Testament, is primarily the Christ who died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and was raised from the dead on the third day acccording to the Scriptures. This explains the fact that the story of the Cross has received such an important place in our Gospels. But the story of the Cross would not be: intelligible without a general knowledge of the Lord’s life and min- istry. His death terminated His ministry, but also completed it. In fact, both may be regarded as the fulfillment of a divine mission for which the Son of God was sent into the world. It is because of this intimate connection that all four accounts of the Lord’s ministry lead us to the foot of the cross. The beginning of the Lord’s public ministry is marked by the call which came to Him when He was baptized by John. And it is probable that the story of Jesus, as it was told by the first Christian missionaries, did not go beyond that important event. But while the call to His public ministry came to Jesus in the course of His human life, the divine mission for which He was called is so intimately connected with His own person that, in a wider sense, the beginning of His life is also the be- ginning of His ministry. For this reason the nativity stories in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke help us to 74 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES understand not only the mystery of His person but also the meaning and purpose of His mission. A brief discussion of the Lord’s ministry, including the circumstances connected with His birth, will bring this study to its fitting conclusion. In the Gospel of Mark, which embodies the mission- ary preaching of the Apostles, no reference is made to the Saviour’s birth and the circumstances connected with His birth. We may therefore assume that the Apostolic preaching began not with the story of the Saviour’s birth, but with His first public appearance and the ministry of His forerunner. Moreover, the two accounts of the Lord’s Nativity in the Gospels of Mat- thew and Luke (Matt. 1-2; Luke 1-2, and 3: 23-38) have no apparent connection with each other, and therefore do not go back to a common souree. The first two chap- ters of Luke’s Gospel have a strong Aramaic coloring, and Luke himself has intimated to his readers the ul- timate source of these chapters when he writes that Mary, the mother of Jesus, ‘‘kept all these sayings, pon- dering them in her heart’? (2:19 and 2:51). Matthew’s Nativity section, in which Joseph is the central figure, points to a tradition which had its origin in the mother Church of Jerusalem, and it is not unlikely that James, ‘the brother of the Lord,’’ is the authority back of that tradition. It may be difficult to harmonize the two accounts of the Lord’s Nativity. But it is all the more significant that they agree, not only in the Lord’s Davidic descent, but also in His birth from the virgin Mary. The Lord’s Davidie descent is beyond dispute. It is referred to in many places of the New Testament out- side of the Gospels (Rom. 1:3; 15:12; II Tim. 2:8; Acts 2:30; 13: 23; Hebr. 7:14; Rev. 3:7; 5:5; 22:16), THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 75 and it is underlying the Lord’s own Messianic claims. The Messianic hope of the Jewish people culminated in the belief that the Messianic king of the future would proceed from the house of David. This belief was based on the divine promise which had been given by the prophet to King David: ‘‘Thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever’’ (II. Sam. 7:16), a promise that became the source of the Messianic prophecies in Psalm 2 and Psalm 110. Therefore the Messiah is called ‘‘the Son of David,’’ and this title was also applied to Jesus by those who believed in Him as the Messiah (Matt. 9:17. 15: 22:20:30; 21:9)... Jesus. Himself did not object to the title, nor did He ever correct the belief in His Davidie descent which is presupposed by that title. Moreover, His enemies never questioned His Davidic descent, although they rejected His Messianic claims. The two genealogies of the Lord (Matt. 1: 2-17 and Luke 3: 23-38) are the genealogies of Joseph, the husband of Mary; they do not agree in many partic- ulars, nor have they been inserted in the Gospel records for the purpose of demonstrating the Lord’s Davidic descent, but they confirm what was generally known and accepted as the truth, that the family of Jesus traced its lineage back to the house of David. The Lord’s Davidie descent sheds no light on the question of the Virgin Birth. For, whether Joseph was, or was not, the natural father of Jesus, the child that was born to Joseph and Mary, was in every respect a member of the house of David. But the Nativity sections of Matthew and Luke, which speak of the Lord’s Davidic descent, also state that He ‘‘was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary’’ (Matt. 1:16; 1:18-25; Luke 1: 26-38). These statements make it necessary to discuss the question of 76 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES the Virgin Birth, which has such a prominent place in the religious and theological controversies of the present day. At the very outset, it should be understood that the question of the Virgin Birth must be decided on ex- egetical and historical grounds. A discussion of the question has to take into con- sideration two points: (a) the facts stated by the evan- gelists; (b) the explanation of the facts. With regard to the first point, it is desirable to in- vestigate the accounts of Matthew and Luke separately. Matthew mentions the Virgin Birth for the first time in 1:16: ‘‘ Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, who was the mother of Jesus called Christ.’’ It is true that the genuineness of this reading has been questioned. But the reading itself is so well attested, and the evidence in favor of its genuineness so over- whelming, that it cannot be rejected on textual grounds. Besides, verse 16 is intimately connected with the fol- lowing passage 1: 18-25, which is introduced by the sig- nificant statement: ‘‘Now these were the circumstances of the birth of Jesus Christ’’ (v.18). In the story that follows, the apologetic tendency is evident. Matthew wishes to defend the circumstances of the Saviour’s birth against slanderous reports spread by the Jews. This leads us to the conclusion that at the time when Matthew wrote his Gospel, Christians already believed in the Virgin Birth, because a knowledge of this belief is underlying the slanderous reports against which Mat- thew’s account is directed. The true facts of the Saviour’s birth are given by Matthew in the words of the angel addressed to Joseph: ‘‘That which is begotten in her comes from the Holy Spirit’’ (v. 20). THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 77 Luke’s account of the Virgin Birth is entirely based upon the story of Mary (Luke 1: 26-38). The Virgin Birth is expressly referred to in verse 35: ‘‘The Holy Spirit will come over thee, and the power of the Most High will overshadow thee; for that reason the child will be called holy: the Son of God.’’ This is more ex- plicit than Matthew’s statement, for here the Lord’s Sonship is based upon His supernatural birth. The two accounts of the Virgin Birth in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke supplement each other. But how did they originate? Can we accept them as historical, or must we reject them as legendary and mythical? We do not intend to enter into a dogmatic discussion of the subject, but shall confine ourselves to the historical side of the question. The general trustworthiness of our Gospels is ad- mitted on all sides. Whatever modern critics may think of those who wrote the Gospels, they cannot deny the fact that our Evangelists wanted to tell the truth; nor can they deny the fact that our Evangelists were in a position to know the truth. Luke himself tells us that he ‘‘investigated it all carefully from the beginning’’ (Luke 1:3). He was therefore firmly convinced that his account of the Lord’s birth was in accordance with the facts. It is possible, of course, that he was mis- taken. But if Luke’s story of the Virgin Birth is re- jected as legendary, the question arises: Where did his story originate? Certainly not on Jewish soil because there are no foundations for it in Judaism. And yet Luke’s account points to a Jewish source. .And the same is true of Matthew’s account. It is true that ac- cording to Matthew the birth of the Saviour was the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7: 14: ‘‘The maiden will conceive and bear a son, and they will name him 78 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Immanuel’’ (Matt. 1:23). But according to Jewish belief the Messiah was not to be born of a virgin, and consequently Isa. 7:14 was not understood in the Mes- sianic sense, so that it cannot be argued that the belief in the Virgin Birth is the outgrowth of an Old Testa- ment prophecy. The legendary origin of the story of the Virgin Birth therefore breaks down from whatever point of view we may look at it. On the other hand, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is in complete harmony with the New Testament con- ception of the Lord’s person. His whole being is per- meated by the Holy Spirit. He is one with God, and therefore without sin. He is anointed with the Holy Spirit when He is baptized, and He performs the work to which He is called, in the power of the Holy Spirit. Is it not reasonable, therefore, to assume that the Holy Spirit, who was with Him and upon Hin, was also the creative principle of His human life? The Synoptic accounts of the Lord’s public ministry agree in the statement that His own ministry was closely related to the mission and ministry of John the Bap- tist. In fact, the relation between the two is described by the Synoptists in such a way that John is char- acterized by them as the Lord’s forerunner who was sent to prepare the way for Him. This interpretation of the relation of Jesus and John rests upon the fact that Jesus presented Himself among those who were baptized by John, and that His baptism by John was His first public appearance which marked the beginning of His own ministry. It is therefore necessary to say a few words on the mission and ministry of John the Baptist. John began his career as a religious reformer. He reminds us of one of the great prophets in Israel like THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TM Amos and Isaiah. His striking personality, his ascetic life, and the peculiar character of his message, made a deep impression upon all classes of the people. His short career was abruptly ended, but his work was con- tinued by his disciples. The message of John had two distinct features: in the first place, he preached righteousness and judgment; in the second place, he proclaimed the coming of the Kingdom of heaven. Both sides of his message found their symbolic expression in the rite of Baptism which he introduced as a sign of repentance and faith. But the real significance of his message lay in the fact that he expected the glorious coming of the Kingdom in the immediate future. The mission of the Baptist may be summed up in the three words: Prophet, herald, witness. It is a most significant fact that the first step in the ministry of our Lord was an act of obedience to an or- dinance of God, which was instituted for sinners. The Lord’s own sinlessness was never questioned. Yet Jesus identified Himself with the mission and work of His forerunner, and the motive of His request, to be baptized by John, was the desire ‘‘to fulfill all righteous- ness.’’ Thus Jesus begins His own ministry as the sin- bearer of His people in the sense of Isaiah’s Servant of the Lord. At the same time He is made certain of His calling by the voice from heaven: ‘‘Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased’’ (Mark 1:11). As the Lord’s Baptism is the divine call to His Mes- sianic work, so the Temptation in the wilderness is His first test. The voice from heaven is usually explained on the basis of Psalm 2:7, but it is also closely con- nected with Isaiah 42:1: ‘‘Behold, my Servant, whom I uphold, mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my Spirit upon Him.’’ When the Spirit leads Him 80 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES into the wilderness, the Lord knows that He has been chosen to fulfill all righteousness. He has been assured of His Sonship. He has also been assured of His Messiah- ship. But the question is: How shall the Messiah do His work? Two different roads are before Him. The first is indicated by the attacks of Satan: it is the way of the world, and it leads to glory and power; but it is not God’s will and way. This way the Lord rejects, and instead of it He determines to follow the road that is pointed out to Him in the Word of God. Fully con- scious of the consequences to which His decision may lead Him, He resolves to put His trust in God, and be- comes obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Baptism and Temptation mark the beginning of the Lord’s public ministry. They also determine the nature of His ministry, as well as its ultimate aim and pur- pose. His ministry is a service which culminates in the giving of His own life: ‘‘The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and give His life a ransom for many’’ (Mark 10:45). Nor can there be any doubt as to the ultimate aim and purpose of such a service: ‘‘The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost’’ (Luke 19:11). Thus the Messiah is primarily the Saviour, and as the Saviour He serves His people, both by word and deed. His ministry may therefore be divided into a ministry of the word and a ministry of mercy. Both are of equal importance for His Messianic work, as one interprets the other, and in both the Messiah gave Himself. (Matt. 4: 23-25; Matt. 11:2-5; Luke 4:17-21; Mark 1:39; Acts 1:1; Acts 10:38). The Lord’s ministry of mercy has its direct source in His deep human sympathy with the sufferings and afflictions of His fellow men. (Mark 6:34; 8:2; Matt. THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 81 9:36; 14:14; 15:32; 18:27; 20:34; Luke 7:13). This sympathy creates in the hearts of those to whom it goes out, a desire to be helped by Him. It is often accom- panied by the word. But it is inherent in Him; it em- anates from His heart, and it finds a response in the heart of the person who is need of His help. It is the means by which a real living contact is established be- tween Himself and the object of His sympathy. It in- stills confidence, and although that confidence may not be faith in the full sense, it is the beginning of faith, or to say the least, it is the fertile soil in which true, genuine faith may be planted and may grow. But the Lord’s sympathy is not an empty sympathy; for wher- ever it finds a response, it is accompanied by the will to help, and this will to help, which is always one with the will of His Father in heaven, results in the act of mercy. To the observer these acts of mercy are miracles which prove the Lord’s supernatural power. But it is significant that Jesus Himself declined to be a mere miracle worker. His miracles point to His divinity, but His divinity does not depend upon His miracles. Intimately connected with the Lord’s ministry of merey, is His ministry of the word. In fact, we may say that Jesus was primarily the teacher. In the very beginning of His ministry, when His fame as a healer and physician had spread through the city of Caper- naum, Jesus withdrew, and when His disciples found Him, He said to them: ‘‘Let us go elsewhere, into the neighboring villages, that I may preach there also, for that is why I came out here’’ (Mark 1:38). We are often told in the Gospels that He went about, teaching in the synagogues, and preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. His disciples and others addressed Him as rabbi or teacher, and the very name ‘‘disciple’’ 82 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES implies that He was the teacher of those who followed Him; for a disciple is a learner or pupil. In the second half of His ministry the Lord devoted Himself especially to the instruction of His disciples, and on one occasion He said to them: ‘‘You shall not let anyone call you ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one teacher, and you are all brothers’’ (Matt. 23:8). In the garden Gethsemane He said to those who arrested Him: ‘‘Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching’’ (Mark 14: 48). What did Jesus teach? The Apostolic Church did not distinguish between the message of Jesus and its own message. It rather emphasized the unity and identity of both. For this reason our Evangelists have applied to the Lord’s teaching and preaching the mis- sionary terms ‘‘the word of God’’ (Luke 5:1) or ‘‘the Gospel’? (Mark 1:15). Yet it is an indisputable fact that Jesus did not preach the ‘‘Gospel’’ in the sense in which Paul preached it. Paul’s preaching of the Gospel centered in the death and resurrection of the Lord. In the teaching of Jesus Himself His death and resurrec- tion are clearly referred to only towards the end of His ministry. The reader who has followed our discus- sion, will readily understand the reason why this should be so: the message of salvation could not be proclaimed to the world before the Messiah had accomplished and finished His work. But a close examination of the Lord’s teaching will also establish the fact that the Church’s message of salvation is founded on the teach- ing of Jesus. In general it may be said that the Lord’s teaching is very comprehensive in its range and scope; it practically covers the whole field of God’s revelation in the Old Testament. In large measure this is due to the fact that His teaching was of an occasional character. THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 83 Jesus is criticized by the scribes and Pharisees for His attitude to publicans and sinners. This criticism of His conduct calls forth the important statement that He came to call to repentance, not righteous but sinners (Mark 2:17). His disciples do not fast. Jesus justifies their con- duct by saying: ‘‘Can wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them? As long as they have the bridegroom with them they cannot fast’? (Mark 2:19). . He and His disciples are accused of breaking the Sab- bath. His answer is: ‘‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of man is lord also of the Sabbath’? (Mark 2: 27f). The scribes from Jerusalem accuse Him of casting out demons in the power of Beelzebub, the prince of the demons. This charge is the occasion of the Lord’s great discourse on Satan’s kingdom. (Mark 3: 20-30). While teaching in a house in Capernaum He is in- formed that His mother and His brothers wish to see Him. We do not know the subject of His discourse. But the word which He spoke on that occasion, has been recorded: ‘‘Whosoever does the will of God, is my brother and sister and mother’’ (Mark 3: 35). It is no exaggeration to say that there is no import- ant religious question upon which the Lord’s teaching does not touch, or upon which it does not throw new light. In the method of His teaching the Lord adapted Him- self to His hearers. He made frequent use of parables and illustrations. But His aim was always the same: Not merely to instruct and to enlighten, but to lead men to the living God. When He taught He spoke as one who had authority, and the source of His authority was His perfect union with the Father. 84 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES Yet the teaching of the Lord was not altogether new. It was based upon God’s revelation in the Old Testa- ment, and it was intended to bring out the true meaning of God’s revelation in the past. His teaching was both, reactionary and revolutionary. Revolutionary insofar as it departed from the teaching and practice of the scribes and Pharisees. Reactionary insofar as it had its source in the religion of the great prophets of Israel in the past. In this respect the teaching of the Lord may be summed up in the one word ‘‘righteousness,’’ the right attitude of man to his God. Intimately connected with the idea of righteousness in the teaching of Jesus is the idea of the Kingdom of God. This connection is clearly stated in Matt. 6:33: ‘‘Seek ye first His Kingdom and His righteousness.’’ But it can be noticed in all His teaching, and it is the very center of the Lord’s own message. What is meant by ‘‘the Kingdom of God?’’ We have to distinguish between the popular meaning of the term and Jesus’ conception. At the time of Jesus the Kingdom of God, or the Kingdom of heaven, was an essential element of Jewish belief and hope. The idea itself sprang from the Jewish conception of God, and His relation to Israel as the chosen people of God, but the term was not coined until after the Exile, and was understood in the eschatological and apocalyptic sense (Daniel 2:44; 7:13f; 18:27). It had reference to God’s reign and rule by the Messiah, first over Israel, then through Israel over the whole world. Jesus proclaimed the coming of the Kingdom in terms and figures which were familiar to the people. But His own conception of the Kingdom was determined by His conception of God, just as His conception of God THE JESUS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 85 determined His idea of righteousness. Therefore the Kingdom of God is nothing external. It is God’s reign in the heart of man, which means the beginning of man’s fellowship with God. Man realizes that God is not in the far distance, but the God in Whose very presence we live and move. He realizes that God is our Father, and we are His children, and that the highest aim of God’s children is expressed in the words of Jesus: ‘‘Ye shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect’’ (Matt. 5:48). Peculiar to God’s children is first of all a spirit of humility: ‘‘Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein (Mark 10:15); and again: ‘‘Blessed are the poor, the meek, they that hunger and thirst after righteousness (Matt. 5: 3ff). This new spirit is also a spirit of absolute trust and complete surrender. God’s children cannot serve two masters; there can be no dualism in their lives; there must be sincerity of heart and singleness of purpose. God takes care of His chil- dren. Therefore it is unbelief not to trust in Him. This spirit of absolute trust finally expresses itself in the manner in which God’s children approach their Father, and in approaching Him rely wholly on His mercy. But the same spirit determines and governs also the attitude of God’s children to their brothers. The two command- ments, in which Jesus sums up all religion, are really one. In other words, the life with God regulates all other life-relations. The new spirit which is the begin- ning of God’s Kingdom, permeates and penetrates all spheres of human life and society, and eventually it must result in a new order of all things. Therefore the Kingdom is the greatest gift for which the disciples can pray, and it is also the highest good for which they can strive. 86 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES However, the most important and essential feature in the Lord’s teaching concerning the Kingdom of heaven is His own relation to the Kingdom. It is God who es- tablishes the Kingdom. But He establishes it through the Messiah. Jesus’ Messianic self-consciousness is un- derlying His whole ministry, His ministry of the word as well as His ministry of mercy. John the Baptist pointed to ‘‘the coming man’’ who was to establish the Kingdom. Jesus pointed to Himself as the one who had been sent to establish the kingdom. For this reason the words of Jesus concerning Himself and His mission are the climax of His teaching, and His words concerning Himself and His mission culminate in the statement that the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give Him life a ransom for many. THE NEW TESTAMENT IDEA OF FAITH ALBERT T. W. STEINHAEUSER The supreme need of the Church at all times has been a clear and firm grasp of the idea of faith. Faith is the very life breath of the Christian religion. Hence it is not enough to believe that we believe; it is necessary actually to have faith and to have it in deed and in truth. In view of this necessity it is surprising to note the vagueness that surrounds the term. A study of Chris- tian ideas would show that none of them has been sub- jected to greater fluctuation than the idea of faith. The problem is complicated by the fact that even in the New Testament writings it does not appear always to be used in a uniform sense. At the same time, through these writings as a whole, viewed historically, there does run, underneath all surface variations, a consistent use of the term. It is our purpose, in the following pages, to trace in outline the essential meaning of New Testa- ment faith. ‘There will be no attempt at exhaustive- ness; we shall pay particular attention to those writings in which the idea of faith plays a prominent part. I The study of faith in the gospels must begin and end with the person and work of Jesus.