mmmms^mm 14 \/^ THE THEOLOGICAL EDUCATOR PROFESSOR ADENEY'S THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT NEW YORK THOMAS WHITTAKER 2 AND 3, BIBLE HOUSE 1894 THE THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BY WALTER F/^'ADENEY, M.A. Professor 0/ Nczu Testament Introduction, History, and Exegesis New College, London NEW YORK THOMAS WHITTAKER 2 AND 3, BIBLE HOUSE 1894 CONTENTS pAcr INTKODUCTION ... . . . . 1 THE TEACHING OF JESUS CHRIST . . 17-109 I. The Kingdom of God 17 II. The Person of Christ 26 III. The Revelation of God . . . .42 IV. The Gospel 4'.) V. Redemption . . . . . . .51) VI. Conditions of Membership in the Kingdom 72 VI CONTENTS VII. The New Ethics VIII. The Future . PAGE 84 . 99 THE THEOLOGY OF THE APOSTLES . . 110-248 THE PRIMITIVE TYPE: I. The Early Preaching .... 120 II. The Epistle of 8t. James . . . 130 III. Later Petrine Theology . . .141 TUE PAULINE TYPE: L The Origin and Development of St. Paul's Theology 152 II. Sin .... III. Jesus Christ IV. Redemption . V. The Christian Life . VI. The Church and its Ordinances VIL The Future .... . 163 . 17.5 . 185 . 196 . 206 . 212 COXTENTS vii PAGE THE TUEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 218 THE JOHANNINE TYPE: I. The Apocalypse 228 II. The Gospel and the Epistles . . 235 INTEODUCTION BIBLICAL THEOLOGY— naturally divided into two sections, the theology of the Old Testa- ment and that of the New — may be best described by comparison with the more familiar subject of study, Systematic Theology, from which it will be seen to differ in two or three clearly marked features. First, in its aim. It does not attempt to state truth absolutely : it seeks to elucidate a certain presentation of truth. Second, in its materials. These are con- fined to the pages of the Bible; while Systematic Theology, even when relying mainly on Scripture, appeals to nature, conscience, reason, experience, etc., for the confirmation of its results, if not for the data of its arguments. Third, in its method. The systematic theologian undertakes to balance and harmonise the truths of religion, in order to show their organic relationship in a compact body of Divinity; the student of Biblical Theology, on the other hand, proceeds to trace the development of revelation as this emerges through the successive books of Scripture, and to compare the various forms in which its ideas are conceived by the several teachers there represented. Thus it is less ambitious I 2 THE THEOLOGY OF than Systematic Theology; but then it admits of being more exact and certain. The Uterary and historical study of Biblical Theology should precede the more metaphysical speculations of Systematic Theology, because no just conception either of Judaism or of Christianity can be obtained before we have come to perceive the thoughts of the inspired writers in their original purity. Here we have the stream at its fountain-head. The nature of the subject indicates the right order of procedure for the treatment of it. Clearly the familiar custom of starting with the definition of a doctrine, and then hunting through the Bible for proof-texts, which are often fragmentary utterances torn out of all connection with their context and flung together regardless of their authorship and the age in which they were written, is out of place here. We must travel along the very opposite path ; we must not commence with any formulated dogma; though we may endeavour to lead up to doctrine — i.e., to whatever truth the lines of Scripture teaching may direct us to. Therefore we have to map out the field, not according to the relations of ideas, but according to the character and work of the several teachers and writers. Thus, in approaching the theology of the New Testament, as one of the two branches of Biblical Theology, we must first consider the fundamental teaching of Jesus Christ. Then it will be requisite for us to examine the separate teachings of the Apostles — St. James, St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John, etc., observing these in the speeches and writings that have come down to us as j^ositive THE XEW TESTAMENT 3 statements of truth, and also considering them in their mutual relations as indicative of common agree- ment or of divergence between different schools in the early Church, as the case may be. Further, this study should follow a chronological order as far as possible, so that we may be able to discern whether there is any such thing as a development of doctrine, a progress and growth of revelation, in the New Testament. It is needless to say that so great a task as is here suggested cannot be accomplished within the limits of so small a book as this. All that can be attempted is to indicate thei outlines of the subject and its salient points. In its origin Christianity was not a totally new revelation of truth bursting on a world absolutely ignorant of Divine things. It assumed a considerable knowledge of religion on the part of the peojole among whom it arose, and it availed itself of that knowledge so as to build on a foundation already laid. It was not an accident that the new teachincr appeared in the land of Israel, and that its exponents were Jews. The essential ideas of the Old Testament are presupposed in the New Testament. The lofty Jewish monotheism, the incorporeal spirituality and the kingly supremacy of God, and the corresponding horror of Nature-worship — above all, the holiness of God, ?.e., His separation from impurity — are all ideas carried over from Judaism to Christianity. The blending of morality with religion, which dLstiuguishes Christianity from most pagan cults, is also a dis- tinctive mark of Judaism. The mercy of God to sinners. His compassion, longsuffering, and ledteming 4 THE THEOLOGY OF love, forgiving the penitent and rescuing the lost, are seen in the Old Testament. Lastly, the essentially Christian thought of a King and Saviour, sent by God to establish the kingdom of heaven on earth, deliver the needy, and finally judge the nations, comes down from Old Testament prophecy, and is accepted by our Lord, who claims to be this Saviour and King, the long-looked-for Messiah. Li regard to all tliese ideas the New Testament absorbs and confirms the highest thought of the Old Testament, while it also goes further, correcting what is narrow and material- istic in Judaism, and showing its own richer truth against the background of the earlier religion. The relation of New Testament theology to Jewish notions current at the time of Christ is much less friendly. Just as the Reformers carried religion back from the corruptions of the Middle Ages nearer to the primitive conception of it in the New Testament, Jesus Christ and His Apostles may be said to have turned the thoughts of men to the Old Testament, away from the perversions of later Judaism. Not one of the schools of theology prevalent in Palestine during our Lord's earthly life can be regarded as in any way the parent of Christianity. The most popular was that of the Pharisees : in its spiritual conception of the nature of man, this school found more sympathy from Christ than that of the worldly and materialistic Sadducees ; but its slavery to puerile rabbinical traditions, and its occupation with petty externals, to the neglect of great moral and religious principles, rendered it sterile of spiritual fruit, and roused the most uncompromising antagonism on the THE NEW TESTAMENT 5 part of the new religion. Some have thought they could trace the oiigin of Christianity in the doctrines and practices of the Essenes. Now, there is much in the unworldliness, the brotherliness, and the passion for purity characteristic of this humble sect, in its lonely retreat by the Dead Sea, that suggests to us the brotherly love, the simple living, and the pure character of the Christian ideal. But the unpractical separation from the world, the childishly scrupulous asceticism, and the intense importance attached to ceremonial ablutions that marked the Essenes, are all directly opposite to New Testament teaching and practice. Esseiiism was essentially narrow, sectarian, timorous ; it could never step forth into the sunlight, attack great cities, and become a world-wide religion. Moreover, historically there is no observable connec- tion between this harmless, but unfruitful, attempt to escape from the evils of the times, and the energetic and victorious career of Christianity. New Testament theology may be linked on to Old Testament theo- logy; but it cannot be attributed to the influences of contemporary Jewish thought. It is to be observed, how^ever, that in two or three details New Testament teaching absorbs and lepro- duces recently developed Jewish ideas. First, the doctrine of the resurrection and future judgment, w^ith the conception of the intermediate state in Hades, divided into paradise or Abraham's bosom on the one side, and Gehenna on the other, grew up and was fully elaborated subsequent to the Old Testament times, although the germs of it were in the ancient Scriptures. These teachings passed over 6 THE THEOLOGY OF into Christianity, with certain important modifica- tions. Then the conception of the kingdom of God with the great work of the Messiah described in the so-called Psalms of Solomon and in the Book of Enoch represents a late development of Messianic ideas subsequent to the close of the prophetic era. An entirely new character was given to the thought of the kingdom of God by our Lord ; still the frame- work was found in this Jewish thought. Further, the great value attached to inspired Scripture by later Judaism is reflected in the New Testament references to the law and the prophets ; and although the Christian writers avoided the extravagances of the allegorical method of interpretation into which not only the philosophising Alexandrian Philo fell, but the rabbis of Palestine also in a less degree, still a tincture of something similar may be detected occa- sionally in St. Paul. Other points of contact might be adduced, but none of them amount to evidence of the vital connection of parent and child. In spirit and principle New Testament theology is not at all the outgrowth of contemporary Judaism. Whether the Christian doctrines of the Apostles, and especially those of St. Paul, may be regarded as a result of Greek thought modifying Jewish traditions — as Pfleiderer maintains — must be considered later on when we are studying the apostolic writings. The author of Ecce Homo opens his book with the statement, " The Christian Church sprang from a movement which w^as not begun by Christ." If these words refer to the seed or root of Christianity they go beyond the facts, for nothing could be more absurd THE NEW TESTAMENT 7 than to suppose that John the Baptist, and not Jesus Christ, was the founder of Christianity. But if they rather refer to the soil on which the new religion first appeared, they state an evident truth ; and even as indicative of the initiation of a new movement to which not the originator, but the teacher second in time gave the real character — and this is what the author means — they suggest a correct, though less familiar, idea. Christianity first emerged on the crest of the wave of a great revival movement that pre- ceded it and prepared for it. Jesus commenced His public Hfe by taking the humble position of a disciple of John the Baptist, and His own earliest followers were gathered from the group of the most intimate companions of the wilderness prophet. It is neces- sary, then, to see what were John's teachings, especially in their relation to Christianity. John the Baptist was a man of the Old Dispensa- tion — the last of the prophets. But though he had not crossed the border, he stood on Pisgah and looked over into the promised land. All his preaching had a forward glance in preparation for the new age. Therefore, not only because our record of it is ^\i'itten in the Gospels, but because of its being the message of the herald of the kingdom, it belongs in some degree to New Testament theology. It is not possible to connect the Baptist with any of the schools of Judaism. He was neither a Pharisee, nor a Sadducee, nor an Essene. Some of his habits may suggest his connection with the third school. His wilderness life, not so far from their retreat, his asceticism, and his use of water baptism, call to mind 8 THE THEOLOGY OF the similar customs of the religious dwellers by the Dead Sea, and render it even probable that, to some extent, he purposely followed their example. On the other hand, certain of his habits seem almost designed to mark his difference from them. The Essenes made it a religious duty to dress in glistening wliite raiment ; John's distinctive clothing \^as rough tent- cloth. They eschewed flesh ; his diet, though frugal, was not vegetarian. They practised frequent ablu- tions ; he instituted a single baptism. It looks as though his peculiar personal habits were rather moulded on the pattern of the Hebrew prophets, and especially on that of his great prototype Elijah ; and indeed that he thus designedly set himself to show his mission to be that of the forerunner pre- dicted by Malachi (Mai. iv. 5). At all events, he was successful in making an impression of strength and stern, self-denying severity by his singular de- meanour, which was so striking that it even outlived the memory of his preaching (see Luke vii. 24, 25). The surname which was given to John by his contemporaries is an indication of the importance attached by them to his practice of the rite of baptism. If we can trust to a tradition preserved by Maimonides, proselytes from the Gentiles were received into Judaism by baptism as well as circum - cision and sacrificing. Possibly John may have been familiar with this usage. If so, the new end for which he employed the rite is the more significant. In calling Jews to be baptised, he treated them as they treated heathen converts— ^.e., he behaved to them as though they were outside the covenant. He urged THE NEW TESTAMENT 9 them to wash themselves of their ohl life, even if this were the life of law-observing Pharisees (see Matt. iii. 7),* and invited them to take an initial step in preparation for entrance into the kingdom of heaven. It is not difficult to see the meaning of this baptism. It looked two ways — backwards and forwards. (1) In relation to the past it signified repentance. All ceremonial ablutions are concerned with the removal of defilements. But John's teach- ings in regard to baptism are more profound than the conceptions of his contemporaries, many of whom were very rigorous in the practice of repeated washings (Mark vii. 3, 4). His i-ite was known as a " baptism of repentance" (/?a7rrto-/^.a /xerai-om?, Mark i. 4) and " for repentance " (ets fxeTdrocav, Matt. iii. 11), i.e., a baptism that pointed to, that urged to, and so led to repent- ance. It was also regarded as a baptism " for forgiveness of sins " (cts acfyecriv d/xaprtcoi/, Mark i. 4). The forgiveness was dependent on repentance. Then, by b(ing performed once for all, it signified not the simple washing oil' of the last chance fleck of defile- ment, but the thorough cleansing of the life, the wholesale repudiation of old ways — a more funda- mental repentance than that of the ceremonialisb with his daily anxiety about scruples. Here was spiiitnal teaching which went beyond the ritual bathing of the Essenes and the wvashing of hands and * Maimonides is supported Lj' Talmud traditions. See Liti.st, p. 2-1:0. THE NEW TESTAMENT 13 that might bo hirking among those stones ; tlierefore they could expect no more merciful fate than the fire that burns out the noxious nest, unless their characters were completely changed. TJien this repentance must be no merely formal performance of fasting in sackcloth and ashes, but a real " change of disposition " (/xerai/oia), which would be evidenced by amendment of conduct. " Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance " (Luke iii. 8), ciied the preacher. When asked what these fruits were to be, he showed that he was not thinking of artificial penance. The lich must assist the poor; the tax-gatherer must be honest and not oppressive — a great sign of repentance in the East ; the soldier must not treat the people among whom he is billeted Avith violence or injustice, neither must he mutiny against orders, etc. (vers. 10-14). All this was preparatory for the coming of the Messiah, whose approach John announced and whose mission he described. It has been pointed out that the special line of ancient prophecy followed by John did not refer to the coming of the Son of David as the Messiah. It was a parallel stream of predictions dc scribing " the day of the Lord " and the advent of God to judgment. Hence it might seem that John would have looked for the kingdom of heaven without a personal Messiah, in a great theophany of judgment If he began his ministry with any such expectation it is plain that before he ended it he accepted and taught the doctrine of a personal Messiah. Perhaps we ma}' lay it to his credit, as a part of his contribu- tion to the advance of thought, that he was able to U THE THEOLOGY OF combine the two currents of Hebrew prophecy, and to show that the day of the Lord was the day of Christ. Lastly, John predicted the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Thus, while proclaiming that the Messiah would bring judgment, he added one most important and signifi- cant trait to the expected advent. The Messiah would accomplish a higher and more effective baptism than that of John, and it was on account of this baptism that John proclaimed the incomparable superiority of the Coming One. He was conscious of the imperfec- tion of his own baptism, which was joined to repent- ance, but not to regeneration. It did not really purge out the old leaven ; it could not confer a new life. The Christ would do both. John associates fire with the new baptism, saying " He shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" (Luke iii. 16). These two elements of the baptism seem to be suggestive of the two aspects of the rite. In regard to the past, the fire goes further than the water, complttely purging out the old evil from the eommunity. " The chafi* He will burn up with unquenchable fire" (ver. 17). In regard to the future, the Holy Spirit signifies more than initiation into a new order. It is the quickening breath of a new life. This is John's sole word con- cerning the blessedness of the Messianic era. It is deeply significant that he totally ignored the vulgar anticipations of a golden age of material enjoyments, and simply pointed to this one magnificent hope — the baptism of the Holy Ghost. According to the fourth Evangelist, John came to regard Jesus as the Messiah after he had baptised Him (John i. 33). This is not inconsistent with the THE NEW TESTAMENT 15 fact that subsequently in the mehincholy of his weary imprisonment, when he had exchanged the free air of the wilderness for the stifling atmosphere of the castle dungeon, the prophet was perplexed at the delay of Jesus to declare Himself and take up the expected work of the Christ (Matt. xi. 2, 3). A more remarkable statement of the fourth Evangelist is that John pointed out Jesus as '• the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." These words plainly suggest, not only that Christ removes sin, but that He does this by being Himself a sacrifice for sin. The evident fact that St. John's own reflections are mingled with his reports of the Baptist's words in another place (John i. 15-18) has suggested a doubt whether it is so here. In regard to the life of Christ we shall see that the fourth Go.~pel is the Gospel of apostolic reflections. Still, the words are deliberately ascribed to the Baptist. Note. — This reference to the fourth Gospel raises the question how we are to use that work as a record of the teaching of Christ as well as one of the teaching of St. John. The consideration of so difficult a subject cannot be brought within the limits of a note, and the larger question of the authenticity of the Gospel which lies behind it and is the most important question for determining it belongs rather to the field of "Nev.- Testament Introduction." All that can be done here is to indicate the grounds on which we may proceed. Now the style of language which St. John employs is so nearly the same when he is writing in his own person as it is when he is writing in the persons of John the Baptist and of Christ that we sometimes fail to detect any transition (e.g., John iii. 10-21) ; this is also the style of the three Epistles of St. John ; but it is not the style of the language of Christ in the Synoptics. These facts strongly suggest that St. John has cast the thoughts of IG THEOLOGY OF NEW TESTAMENT Christ into his own words, after fusing them in the crucible of his own mind. On the other hand, no one ever absorbed the spirit of our Lord so truly as did the beloved disciple. If it is the spirit that quickens while the letter is but dead, we have the most valuable teaching of Christ in the fourth Gospel, for here we have its very spirit. It is to be noted also that where St. John is not merely reflecting on some utterance of Christ, but plainly speaking for himself, a difference may be observed between some of his thoughts and those of his reports of our Lord's discourses. Thus the *' Logos " doctrine of the pro- logue never appears in our Lord's utterances as these are re- corded in the Gospel, while the picturesque imagery of Christ's sayings — the manna, the water, the shepherd, the door—does not occur in passages which St. John sets down as his own com- position. Further, the most striking words attributed to our Lord in this Gospel are inextricably interwoven with those graphic narratives which there is a growing tendency, even among critics who reject the Johannine authorship of the book, to regard as historical. Lastly, the more lengthy discourses are not fluent orations, like the speeches in Thucydides, such as it was customary for an ancient historian to compose in order to express what he believed to be the true thoughts of the char- acters he was delineating ; but they consist of a number of aphorisms strung together like pearls. Broken up they do not look so unlike the short, pithy sayings which the Synoptics record. There is one broad argument which, since it was expounded by Scldeiermacher, has satisfied many who other- wise would have been troubled by grave difficulties in this matter — viz., that the Gospel which gives us the greatest teaching in the world must be genuine in its claim to give us the ideas of the world's greatest Teacher. Considerations such as these point to the conviction that we may use the fourth Gospel with confidence as a source for the teaching of our Lord. At the same time the peculiar character of St. John's Gospel and the evident fact that the writer has to some extent allowed himself a free hand in interpreting the ideas of his Master, render it desirable for us to treat the reminiscences in this work apart from those of the Synoptics. THE TEACHING OF JESUS CHRIST I. THE KINGDOM OF GOD OTJE, Lord began His public work by repeating the proclamation which had been the burden of the preaching of John the Baptist : *•' The king- dom of God is at hand: repent ye" (Mark i. 15). Although it is apparent that His great independent mission soon led Him far beyond the simple message of His predecessor, it is equally clear that this message struck the keynote of all His subsequent teaching. The idea of the Divine kingdom was the central topic of His conversations and parables, and the realisation of it was the supreme end of His labours. Therefore an exposition of the teaching of Christ must begin here if it is to treat the subject from some approach to the standpoint of the Teacher Himself. The Greek word fiacriXua is used in two senses : (1) concretely, to signify a "kingdom," the territory and people and general body poHtic over which a king rules ; and (2) abstractly, meaning " kingship," 17 2 18 THE THEOLOGY OF or the rule of a king. In the New Testament the first signification is predominant, but the word some- times passes over into the second (e.g., Luke xxii. 29 ; xxiii. 42). Thus we read both of entering into the kingdom of God and of receiving the kingdom of God — the one phrase suggesting the realm, and the other the rule. But, inasmuch as both these expres- sions occur in the same sentence (Mark x. 15), the two senses of the word fSacnXeia must be regarded as blended together, and this is a natural result of the new spiritual conception which our Lord has given to us of the nature of the kingdom.* Essentially the idea of a kingdom of God is that of a theocracy — a state in which God rules. This con- ception was familiar to the Jews in earlier ages, and was then cherished as the ideal of national government by the choicer spirits; so that to the prophets the human monarch was but a vice-roy, while Jehovah was the true King of Israel. An attempt was made * St. Matthew alone uses the expression " kingdom of heaven." In the other Evangelists, and everywhere else in the New Testament, the alternative phrase "kingdom of God" is employed. Subtle attempts have been made to distinguish between the two expressions, but the simple fact that tliey occur in parallel passages should remove all doubt as to their meaning precisely the same thing {e.g., compare Matt. xiii. 11 with Mark iv. 11). The two expressions were used by the rabbis as equivalent. Verbally, indeed, the phrase '• kingdom of heaven " means the kingdom which comes from heaven (suggested by Dan. vii. 13, 14), and which is therefore of a heavenly nature ; for it is not a New Testament usage to employ the word " Heaven " as a synonym for " God." But the same kingdom is thought of, whichever name is used for it. THE J^^EW TESTAMEM' 19 to realise the idea in the government of the Asmonaean princes who were also priests. But this earthly theocracy, in the form of a priest-government, did not satisfy the highest hopes ; or if there was a temporary satisfaction in the glorious days of the Maccabees, in course of time that gave place to the disappointment of the subjection of the people under a heathen yoke. Still, the belief in a future perfect state wherein God would set up His kingdom was preserved. Therefore neither John the Baptist nor Jesus Christ had to make the first announcement that there was to be such a thing as a kingdom of God. They did not speak of a kingdom, they preached about the kingdom ; and when they said " the kingdom of God is at hand " there is every indication that theu' language was intelligible to the people. Now, since we cannot think that they were playing with words and deceiving their hearers, we must perceive that they accepted the general idea of the kingdom as that was understood by the Jews. This is not so difficult to believe in the case of John the Baptist, who probably followed the prevalent notion of a \isible monarchy, although he attributed to it a higher moral character than the people generally conceived ; but it is remarkable in the case of Jesus Christ, because our Lord drew a startlingly unexpected picture of the Divine kingdom. We may find the explanation, however, in the fact that the essential idea of the kingdom as this was held by the Jews was adopted and confirmed by Christ. This great, God-inspired hope of Israel was ratified by our Lord. The people were taught to believe that Cod 20 THE THEOLOGY OP would come and set up His kingdom in the midst of them ; Jesus declared that He was commencing to do so. We must not let the materialistic degradation of the notion among the Jews blind our eyes to the essential validity of the idea in 'itself. The Jews expected the great hope of the kingdom of God to be realised in the establishment of an earthly monarchy, with the victorious deliverance of Israel from the dominion of Rome, and the triumphant re-establishment of the throne of David at Jerusalem, under a human but God-appointed and preter- naturally endowed Messiah, reigning in far brighter splendour than that of the palmiest days of old, bringing the heathen into subjection, and in particular sealing the doom of the enemies of Israel. It has been asserted that Jesus Christ at first adopted this view, and expected to be the Messiah of popular earthly grandeur, and that He only developed a more ■spiritual conception of the kingdom of God when He saw the impossibility of succeeding in a rebellion against the iron might of the Roman Empire. There is no evidence in support of this assertion. Although doubtless our Lord was cradled in the prevalent notions of His age, by the secret development of His own thought He must have grown out of them before He commenced His public ministry, for in no single word did He encourage those notions. All that can be said in favour of the assertion is that Jesus preached about " the kingdom of God," and that thus His words would call to mind the Jewish picture of this kingdom. But we have seen that He adopted the essential idea of the kingdom. He THE NEW TESTAMENT 21 never abandoned that idea in His most spiritual teaching. On the other hand, no single word is recorded of Him implying that He ever taught that the form of the kingdom would be that of the Jewish imagination. His earliest known teachings are devoted to the enlargement, enrichment, and spiritual elevation of the idea. But Jesus not only rescued the conception of the kingdom of God from its degradation in later Jewish thought to a purely political embodiment, and so restored the high moral and religious character of the great hope as this was foreshadowed by the prophets — He not only thus returned from the gross mate- rialism of His contemporaries to the lofty teaching of Isaiah and Jeremiah — He went much further, and raised the idea of the kingdom into an exalted position it had nev^er before attained. In His treat- ment of this subject He was strikingly and inspiringly original. Let us note some of the characteristics of the new development. The chief of these is the spii-itual nature of the kingdom. In the teaching of our Lord the kingdom of God is not an external, earthly dominion. It is the rule of God in the hearts of His people. It is going too far to say that Jesus held this rule to be solely individualistic. The very idea of a kingdom implies a society, and our Lord expended much of His teaching on the social relations of His disciples. Still, even in these social relations He represented tl.em as governed from within — not by law and force of magistrates, but by aifections and principles and interior motives. This is tlie most 22 THE THEOLOGY OF important feature of our Lord's teaching concerning the kingdom. It occasioned much perplexity and disappointment among His disciples even to the last {e.g., Luke xxiv. 21 ; Acts i. 6) ; and it led to His utter rejection by the Jews. Yet He persisted in it when He stood almost alone, without wavering for a moment. Such a conception of the kingdom involves certain important consequences. Its privi- leges must depend on moral and spiritual conditions. Only they can be citizens of the kingdom who are in the right spiritual state to receive it (Mark x. 15). Its limits cannot be territorial. It may have ad- herents anywhere; even in the most favoured localities many may be excluded from it (Matt, viii. 11, 12). It will not strike the eyes of the world by an appearance in any external form, will not come "with observation" (Luke xvii. 20). Its blessings will be chiefly internal — not power, wealth, luxury, but rest (Matt. xi. 28), and the vision of God (v. 8) ; although it will also confer temporal advantages, and its meek citizens will inherit the earth (ver. 5). A very fresh and significant thought put forth by our Lord is that of the gradual growth of the kingdom. He commenced by proclaiming that it was at hand. Subsequently He spoke of it as already present, saying on one occasion, "If I by the finger of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you " (Luke xi. 20) ; and again, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was to come, replying in the words, " The kingdom of God cometh not with observation : neither shall they say, THE NEW TESTAMENT 23 Lo, here ! or, There ! for lo, the kingdom of God is among you " (Luke xvii. 20, 21 \* On the other hand, He spoke of the advent of the kingdom as future, as in His model prayer, saying, " Thy kingdom come " (xi. 2). The explanation of this apparent self-contradiction is not far to seek. The kingdom did not come fully at once with a great apocalypse of glory, as the Jews expected. It came not only invisibly and secretly, but in a small beginning, like a grain of mustard seed, or a little leaven ; and its development was gradual. A beautiful parable, only recorded by the second Evangelist, illustrates this fact by means of the analogy of spring growth (Mark iv. 26-9). Even while the kingdom was in their midst people could only enter it one by one, and therefore its privileges were still only possibilities of the future among those who lingered outside its borders — an obvious truth for all time. Moreover, the full realisation of the kingdom was a promise of the future, awaiting, as a prehminary condition, the judgments on the Jews predicted in Matt, xxiv,, and as a final condition the complete evangelisation of the world. The next step is to the idea of the world-wide destiny of the kingdom. This is closely related to one * This interpretation, rather than the rendering " the kingdom of God is within you," seems preferable for two reasons : (1) Our Lord's words are a reply to the question, When is the kingdom to come ? The more natural answer is to say it is already present, rather than to state ivJiere it is. (2) These words were addressed to Pharisees, The kingdom was not within them ; but it was among them. The Greek word tVros admits of either meaning. 24 THE THEOLOGY OF of the consequences of the first-mentioned principle, that of the spiritual nature of the kingdom — viz., its independence of geographical boundaries. But Jesus went further. Not only did He teach that the gates of the kingdom were open to all mankind ; He also declared that the kingdom was destined to spread over tlie entire world. The leaven was to leaven the whole meal (Luke xiii. 21). Nothing is more remarkable than the daring with which One who appeared as an artisan in an obscure provincial town claimed to have founded a kingdom which was to conquer the world, with the utmost confidence that never faltered at any disappointment — except the striking way in which the history of Christendom has been verifying His words through all the cen- turies. No doubt the Jews looked for a wide, if not a universal dominion; but this was to have Jerusalem for its centre, and to be a purely Jewish empire. With Christ the kingdom is cosmopolitan. Lastly, our Lord unveiled the supreme blessedness of the kingdom of God. The specific boons promised by Christ will fall to be considered by themselves below. Here it may be remarked, however, that the kingdom itself is shown to be the summum honum. While people persisted in treating it as a means to earthly, materialistic ends, Jesus would have it re- ceived as an end in itself — as treasure hid in a field, as a pearl of great price, to obtain which a merchant sells all he has (Matt. xiii. 44-6). Therefore our Lord bids His disciples trust all other matters to God, in order to be free to devote their supreme care to obtaining the Idngdom, and says, " Seek ye first His THE XEW TESTAMENT 25 kingdom" (Matt. vi. 33). This is the more remark- able because it is in striking contrast to John the Baptist's sombre picture of the coming kingdom. There is a certain development in our Lord's teaching concerning the kingdom of heaven ; but this does not follow the course which might have been anticipated. Jesus began by expounding the brightest pictures of the new age, and in doing so His cheerful gospel shone out like sunshine over against John the Baptist's vision of judgment. But this gospel was rejected by the great majority of those to whom it was preached. Then our Lord changed His tone, and in His later teaching de- scribed the coming of the Son of Man in judgment to visit the sinful people with chastisement (Matt, xxiv. 29-31). Thus He returned, in a measure, to the message of John the Baptist, who had spoken of the winnowing fan and the axe. The utterance of these darker truths may have been occasioned by the painful disappointment of the earlier hopes of our Lord's ministry, but the truths themselves belong to the essential conception of the kingdom of God. It is a righteous rule ; therefore it must bring judg- ment, and this must lead to wrath against sin and bitter chastisement. Yet all these things are now to be considered in the hght of the gospel of peace which comes between John the Baptist and the final scenes of Christ's ministry. In the fourth Gospel the kingdom of God is only twice referred to by name. The first passage is in the convei'sation with Nicodemus, where Jesus says, "Except a man be born from above, he cannot see the 26 THE THEOLOGY OF kingdom of God" (John iii. 3). These words show the spiritual character of the kingdom and the necessity of a riglit condition for participating in its privileges. What is fresh to us is the doctrine of the new birth, which we must consider later on. The second is that in which Jesus says to Pilate, '' My kingdom is not of this world : if My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be dehvered to the Jews : but now is My kingdom not from hence " (xviii. 36). Here, before the representative of Eome, Jesus distinctly repudiates the conventional Jewish notion of the kingdom. The specific point of His words directs attention »to its origin. It does not come from this world. Its source is in heaven, in God. Therefore its methods of government must be sjDiritual, not temporal. There is nothing in this at all out of harmony with what we have seen in the Synoptics. But the general drift of the fourth Gospel runs into ideas of light, life, etc., and thus the form of thought does not often lead it to cross the lines of the utter- ances in the Synoptics on the subject of the kingdom of God. The two passages referred to are enough, however, to indicate that it accepts our Lord's views of the kingdom in general as these appear in the earlier Gospels. II. THE PERSON OF CHRIST The peculiarity of our Lord's teaching about Himself as this is recorded in the Synoptics is that it is presented in casual hints and enigmatical THE NEW TESTAMENT 27 phrases, rather than in the clear assertion of definite claims. His shrinking from tlie blaze of fame, which is often apparent {e.g., Mark i. 44; iii. 12; v. 43; vii. 36), may be ascribed to modesty. But the strange way in which He refers to Himself cannot be entirely accounted for by this graceful attribute of a sensitive nature, because at times He makes the most astounding assertions concerning His own rights and prerogatives. A further explanation may be found in the necessity of educating His disciples in new ^dews of old hopes. This will be apparent if we go a little more into detail. The Head of the expected kingdom of God was known among the Jews in Hebrew as *' the Messiah," and in Greek as " the Christ," i.e., " the Anointed," with an evident reference to the solemn anointing of a king chosen by God, and of the endowment of the Divine Spirit which that anointing represented (1 Sam. xvi. 13). Thus the title implied that the predicted King would be both chosen by God and filled with the Spirit of God. The descent of the Holy Spiiit upon our Lord in His baptism is represented in the Gospels to be this Divine designation of Jesus as the Christ together with the expected gift of the Spirit. Evidently our Lord understood the event in this sense, and henceforth He shaped all His course on the ground that He was the Christ. He never repudiated the title when it was offered to him ; .sometimes He unmistakably claimed it (Mark x. 47-9 ; XV. 2). On the otlier hand, He was slow to publish it. He did not first take it for Himself ; it was addressed to 28 THE THEOLOGY OF Him by admiring followers before He had sanctioned the use of it. Then, although He never denied it, He repeatedly checked the enthusiastic proclamation of it by thoughtless disciples, sometimes with an imperativeness indicative of vexation, wdiich showed that He was actuated by more decided motives than the distaste for notoriety natural to a person of fine feelings (e.^., Mark i. 43).* We must remember that His conception of the Messiahship was necessarily conditioned by His conception of the kingdom of God. He confirmed the general expectations of both ; but as He modified, and even revolutionised, the nature of the kingdom, it was necessary for Him to do just the same with the characteristics of the King. To have proclaimed Himself Messiah before He had carefully instructed His disciples in the spiritual nature of His kingdom would have been to have aroused delusive expecta- tions, and very likely to have excited a rebellion against Rome, in which His real work would have been lost, and a flood of disasters, anticipating the horrors of the later wars of the Jews, would have swept over the disappointed nation. Hence it was necessary for Him to discourage the popular ascription of the Messiahship at first, just as it was necessary for Him to renounce it in His own thoughts once for all on the occasion of His great temptations in the wilderness, where its garish promises tried in vain to fascinate Him, until one by one he trampled them under foot and emerged determined in heart to realise * Observe the strong word eyU/J/jt^Tjcrd/xevos— "sternly admon- isMn^," as though with anger, THE NEW TESTAMENT 29 an incomparably more lofty ideal, although l£e knew this would provoke misapprehension and involve Him in a life of thankless toil. First the ^disciples must know His truth, His aim. His character ; afterwards, and on the ground of this knowledge, it would be possible for them to receive His Kingship without serious misunderstandings. For this reason it was best that it should be perceived by men in their meditation on the character and work of Christ, rather than baldly claimed and plumply asserted. Besides, it was quite in accordance with His whole method of teaching, which was to awaken thought, not to impart ready-made information, that our Lord should wait for His disciples to form their own opinions of Him. Even then the acknowledgment by those who were in a measiu'e trained to under- stand His position was not a justification for im- mediately publishing His title. The knowledge must be confijied at first to the inner cii'cle of those who could appreciate it. The famous scene at Csesarea Philippi marks that stage in the gradual teaching of the Apostles at which they have come to be fully assured that Jesus is the Christ. Yet, even after receiving St. Peter's clear confession, Jesus "charged the disciples that they should tell no man that He was the Christ" (Matt. xvi. 20). In the very last week of His earthly life He suddenly adopted a totally different course ; by riding in rustic triumph up to Jerusalem, amid the unchecked applause of the crowd. He openly accepted the Messiahship, though in a startlingly lowly manner. But then He knew that He was riding to His death. 30 THE THEOLOGY OF By this time His true disciples could understand Him in some measure, and it was now too late for harm to come of the delusions of the ignorant. Thus it was as one who claimed to be King of the Jews that Jesus was tried before Pontius Pilate (Mark xv. 2), and crucified (ver. 26). The title which our Lord most frequently employed when referring to Himself was " the Son of Man " — a title never used by any of His contemporaries in addressing Him. What did He mean by it ? Several explanations have been offered. It has been sug- gested that the term indicated His human nature, in contrast with His Divine nature. But this is not a New Testament thought. Nobody doubted that He was a man. There were no Docetics in His day. Some have regarded the expression as a periphrasis for the first person singular. But this is not like our Lord's natural style; He often used the simple pronoun "I." Moreover, the interpretation would require " this Man," or " this Son of Man." Again, it is said that the words point to the peculiar nature of our Lord's humanity as something new, and not in the ordinary line of mankind. Would Jesus call Himself Son of Man with such an end in view? There is no indication that He contemplated an}'- such lesson. An explanation resembling that last men- tioned is that the title marked Christ as the ideal and perfect man. The definite article rather favours this notion. He is '' the Son of Man." But the ancient usage of the phrase is foreign to such an explanation ; in the Old Testament the expression is generally associated with notions of weakness and lowliness. THE XEW TESTAMEXT 31 Then we have the suggeistion that the title was intended to show that nothing human was strange to Christ, in contrast with popular notions of splendour connected \dih. the Messiah. Jesus was the brother of all men. This is nearer to the teaching and character of our Lord, but it is not distinctly indicated in the phrase. One thing is clear. The very variety of the inter- pretations which have been suggested for the title shows that its meaning could not be obvious. Our Lord seems to have used it purposely as an enigma to arouse questions, to stimulate reflections, just as He used His parables as blinds for the unthinking, but transparent pictures for the reflective (Mark iv. 11, 12). We may look for the key in two dii'ections : in the Old Testament usage of the term, and in an induction of the instances in which Jesus employs it Himself. In the Old Testament we meet with it as a Hebraistic synonym for " man " generally. But the Hebrew usage of similar forms of speech leads us to think that it must also be employed with a distinct reference to the characteristics of man, as we have the phrases " sons of thunder *' (Mark iii. 17) for passionate men, '• sons of the evil one " (Matt. xiii. 38) for wicked men, etc. Accordingly we find the word used in the Old Testament with a special leaning to the idea of the weakness of man. This is apparent in Ezekiel, the writer who employs it most frequently (e.^., Ezek. ii. 1, 3, etc.). But there is one instance of the use of the term in a very difterent and most striking cotmection — viz., in Daniel's prophetic vision 32 THE THEOLOGY OF of the world -kingdoms. After the four beasts there comes one like " a Son of Man " with the clouds of heaven, and to Him there is given a kingdom and an everlasting dominion (Dan. vii. 13, 14). That the prophecies of Daniel were familiar to our Lord and were applied by Him to Himself and His kingdom is unquestionable (Mark xiii. 14, 26). It is therefore very generally thought that He took the title *' Son of Man " with a direct refeience to Daniel's Messianic vision. It is in some measure a con- firmation of this view that the title was used for the Messiah in the Book of Enoch. Whether the Messianic portions of that book were written before the time of Christ or not, they could not have been familiar to our Lord's hearers, who certainly did not take the title " Son of Man " to be equivalent to that of "Messiah" {e.g., Matt. xvi. 13, 14). But our Lord seems to have employed an obscure and unusual title for the Messiah, which was at the same time too general to be evidently Messianic, to suggest a new line of thought in the minds of His disciples. In contrast with the four beasts, the Son of Man appeared as greater in the scale of being, more gentle and humane, and outwardly more weak, though really more powerful. These ideas were important in the correction of coarse, false Messianic hopes. An induction of the instances in which our Lord uses the title leads to the same conclusion. One or both of two characteristics are found in all of them. They are all passages in which Jesus describes His mission, His functions, or His future work and THE NEW TESTAMENT 35 destiny ; * and tliey generally do this with some reference to His present lowly estate, His poverty and apparent weakness. These two ideas, then, are to be found in the utterances about the Son of M an : the specifically INIessianic work of our Lord, and His earthly humiliation — eg., the Son of Man " has authority" (Mark ii. 10), is ''Lord of the Sabbath" (ver. 28), is the Sower (Matt. xiii. 37), will come in glory (Mark viii. 38), etc. ; and on the other hand, the Son of Man "has not where to lay His head" (Luke ix. 58), " came not to be ministered unto, but to minister" (Mark x. 45), will be set at naught (viii. 31), etc. Thus to thoughtful hearers our Lord's use of the title helps in the correction of false expectancy and in the understanding of His true character and mission. Jesus did not use the title " the Son of God " inter- changeably with the name " the Son of Man"; but, like the appellation " Messiah " or " Christ," it was more frequently given to Him by others. On the lips of the high-priest it seems to be just an honourable name for the Messiah, pointing to Divine recognition and favour and close relations with God to be enjoyed by the expected King, but not to the real Sonship in nature and being w^hich Christians understand by the phrase (Matt. xxvi. 63). Many clear references to Divine Sonship in the Old Testament would naturally lead to the use of the title for the Messiah by Jews of later times {e.g., Psalm ii. 7; Ixxxix. 2G). We * Harnack has pointed out that the title " Son of Man," being derived from Daniel's vision, more especially suggests the heavenly origin of the Messiah. 3 ^ U THE TBEOLOGY OF cannot be sure that St. Peter had got beyond the Jewish thought in his great confession (Matt. xvi. 16). Like the more famiUar name of the future King, this was also accepted by our Lord without question or objection. But it is evident that interpreting it by His own inner consciousness of closest relation to His Father He saw more in it. We may say that while there were Jews who vaguely regarded a certain Divine Sonship as an attribute of the Messiah and dependent on the Messianic calling, Jesus reversed the process, and knew Himself to be the Messiah because He was first of all inwardly conscious of Divine Son- ship. This consciousness emerges in the one recorded utterance of His childhood (Luke ii. 49). He fre- quently speaks of God distinctively and emphatically as " My Father " {e.g., Matt. vii. 21 ; x. 32 ; xv. 13, etc.) ; and although He also often names God to His disciples as " your Father," He never uses the expression " Our Father " in such a way as to include Himself with His disciples in a common relationship. Surely this shows that His use of the pronoun of the first person singular points to a unique Sonship. Once in the Synoptics He speaks of Himself as simply " the Son," after the manner of the fourth Gospel, with a strange, solemn exaltation of tone, and indicating a peculiar intimacy of knowledge between Himself and His Father which no other being enjoys (Matt. xi. 27; Luke x. 22). It was early noticed by His delighted hearers that Jesus " taught them as having authority, and not as their scribes" (Mark i. 22). Not only was there weight and power in His utterances — which was THE NEW TESTAMENT 35 perhaps what the Evangelists meant by authority — but there was also a calm assumption of the right to teach, even sometimes in opposition to the venerated precepts of the law — e.^., " Ye have heard that it was Siiid, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth : but I say unto you, Eesist not him that is evil " (Matt. V. 38, 39) ; and so in other cases, where Jesus did not hesitate to set aside the authority of Moses as obsolete. Then, while the disciples appealed to " the Name " of Christ in w^orking mu-acles, Jesus Himself wrought them on His own authority. Thus St. Peter said to the lame man at the Temple, " In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk " (Acts iii. 6) ; but Jesus said to the paralytic at Capernaum, " I say unto thee, arise," etc. (Mark ii. 11). Next it is to be observed that He claimed the right to forgive sins, and justified His claim on the ground that He was the Son of Man, when His critics accused him of blasj^hemy in putting it forth (ver. 10). He offered a gracious invitation on condition of a personal relation with Himself, such as we more often meet with in the fourth Gospel, when He called the labouring and heavy laden to Himself, and promised them rest if they would take His yoke upon them, and this immediately after speaking of His close and unparalleled intimacy with His Father (Matt. xi. 27-30). In His parable of the Sheep and the Goats He describes Himself as the Son of Man coming with attendant angels, and sitting on the throne of His glory, while all the nations are gathered before Him for judgment ; that is to say, He is to come as the Judge of all mankind. Gentile as well as Jewish, heathen as well as Chiistian (xxv. 31, 32). 36 THE THEOLOGY OF Not only do the angels appear in His Messianic train, but in another case they are j^lacecl between Him and men in the scale of being — so high is His natural existence. He says, " Of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" (Mark xiii. 32). Here, after referring to "no one," Jesus next speaks of the angels, and only then names Himself, immediately before " the Father." He seems to claim nothing less than ubiquity when He says, " Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them " (Matt, xviii. 20), and after His resurrection He promises His continual presence in the Church (xxviii. 20). On the other hand, He sets certain bounds to these prerogatives. He speaks of limitations to His know- ledge (Mark xiii. 32) and His authority (x. 40); He repudiates the idea of absolute goodness, as that idea might be ascribed to God — i.e., the idea of self -originating, underived goodness (x. 18) ; He claims to work His miracles by " the Spirit of God " (Matt. xii. 28) or " the finger of God " (Luke xi. 20) ; He says, " All things have been delivered unto Me of My Father" (Matt. xi. 27) — owning to a boundless heritage, but ascribing this to the gift of His Father ; He confesses a divergence between His will and that of His Father (Mark xiv. 36) ; He prays in a spirit of dependence. Plainly these are real limitations; but it is to be remembered that they are all confined to the lifetime of our Lord on earth. It is with respect to its representation of the person of Christ Himself that the Gospel of St. John THE NEW TESTAMENT 37 appears to differ most widely from the Synoptics. In the three first narratives our Lord seems to a large extent to retire behind His message, but in the later-written work He speaks very much more about Himself. Then the early reticence concerning His Messiahship, and the guarded and gradual reve- lation of His claims, which marked the Synoptic accounts, here appear to give place to a more public confession from the beginning ; so that we miss the slow development of teaching on the subject. Lastly, we have lengthy discourses instead of picturesque parables and scattered sayings embedded in incidents. Two or three considerations may help us to account for these startling differences, in some degree at least. In the first place, it is to be noted that the scenes of the discourses in St. John are as a rule unlike those of the Synoptic sayings. For the most part, St. John gives us conversations with indi\iduals {e.g., with Nicodemus, with the Samaritan woman), or with the inner circle of disciples, in both of which cases our Lord might speak more personally than in preaching to the crowd ; at other times we have reports of arguments with unfriendly critics, who would natu- rally force the discussion to the question of His own claims. But there are also instances of a similar style of teaching carried on in public {e.g., John vi.). Now we must recollect that none of the Evangelists attempt anything approaching a complete biography of Jesus Christ. They all give but a few selected scenes in their brief pamphlets. St. John tells us what liis object was — viz., to lead to faith in Christ (xx. 31). With such an end in view, it was natural 38 TEE THEOLOGY OF that he should select those reminiscences which were most directly concerned with the person of his Master. Therefore, it is only just and reasonable to suppose that he did not aim at giving average specimens of the words of Christ on the whole round of subjects treated by the great Teacher — especially as other topics were represented by the earlier Gospels, with which he was acquainted. His confessed aim would directly lead him to gather up the Christological discourses and arguments. Still, all this will not wholly account for the difference of style and the great increase of emphasis on the personal claims of Christ, which stand forth as the most marked and original features of the fourth Gospel. Is it not evident that if St. John moulded the ideas which he had gained from Christ in the forms of his own meditation, he would be likely to do this most freely in his treatment of thoughts concerning the person of his Lord, because here his affections would be most warmly stirred ? But this only means that if Christ taught by His life and character and action as well as by His words, the total impression of His repre- sentation of Himself in all these varied ways is that w^hich would be felt by His most intimate and sym- pathetic disciple. That is what St. John gives us. It is really the most perfect self -revelation of the heart of Christ. When we turn from the question of form to that of substance, the difference between St. John and the Synoptics is kss striking. , In the fourth Gospel, as in the other narratives, our Lord admits Himself to be the Jewish Messiah, uses the title " Son of Man," THE NEW TESTAMENT 39 and also owns His Divine Sonship. Here, too, He speaks of distinct limitations on His earthly powers and privileges. He repudiates the charge of His enemies that He makes Himself equal with God (John V. 18, 19); He takes a subordinate position by saying He was sent by God (ver. 38) ; He only teaches that which He heard from God (viii. 40) ; He can do nothing of Himself, but only does what He sees the Father doing (v. 19). Such sayings point to quite as much subordination during the earthly life of our Lord as is indicated by any in the Synoptics. On the other hand, the accentuation of the Divine nature and exalted functions of our Lord is here most distinct. The following points may be noted in particular : — 1. The idea of Divine Sonship which is admitted into the Synoptics is much more prominent in the fourth Gospel. Jesus here very frequently refers to Himself as simply "the Son" in His relation to God, whom He names "the Father." The expression " only begotten Son " occurs four times in the Gospel ; but in each case it is in the descriptive language of the Evangelist, not in the speeches of Christ. Follow- ing our Lord's own teaching, we learn that as the Son Jesus is in the closest fellowship Avith His Father, He is one with the Father (x. 30). To see Him is to see the Father (xiv. 9). This is quite in harmony with Matt. xi. 27 ; but the wealth of references to the close intimacy existing between the Son and the Father accentuates the conception of the Divinity of our Lord in a degree that is peculiar to the Gospel of St. Johq, 40 THE THEOLOGY OF 2. In the fourth Gospel Jesus speaks much more frequently of His own person as the source of salva- tion. It is not now to the gospel, or to the kingdom, but to Christ Himself that we are to look for the highest blessing. He gives the water of life (iv, 14; vii. 37), He is the Bread of life (vi. 48-58), the Light of the world (viii. 12), the one Way to the Father (xiv. G), the Door of the sheepfold (x. 9), the Good Shepherd (ver. 11), the Vine in living union with which His disciples flourish as fruitful branches, separated from which they wither and perish (xv. 1-7). These and similar ideas with which the Gospel teems give it its highest value in the self-revelation of Christ as the very centre and source of the whole life and energy of His people. They are not contradictoiy to anything in the Synoptics ; they are even anticipated by the invitation to the heavy-laden to come to Christ for rest, and by the representation of His body and blood in the Last Supper as given to Christians like bread and wine for the food of their very life. But they are immensely more frequent and prominent, and they are worked out much more in detail, in St. John's version of our Lord's teaching. 3. St. John appears to contribute a distinct addition to the teaching of Christ concerning Himself in the Synoptics, in recording utterances that point to our Lord's pre-existence. The passages in which Jesus speaks of Himself as coming from the Father, and from heaven, may not distinctly teach this truth, because somewhat similar passages may be found in connection with the origin of godly men {e.g., compare viii, 23 with xv. 19 and xvii. 14). And yet the THE NEW TESTAMENT 41 frequent allusions to His Divine origin and the weight attached to it clearly point to something in the experience of Christ which is far above what good men enjoy in deriving their spiritual life from God. Moreover, some j)assages are less ambiguous. Thus in John xvii. 5 Jesus speaks of the glory which He had with the Father before the world was. Wendt thinks that this only means that the glory itself existed from eternity in readiness for the future Messiah.* But Jesus said He " had it " (rfj S6$y rj etxov) — an expression which certainly implies His personal existence. Then, in a discussion with the Jews, Jesus makes the astounding assertion, " Before Abraham was, I am " (John viii. 57). Wendt thinks that His existence before Abraham was only " in the Spirit of God, in the thoughts, determinations, and promises of God " ; f and Beyschlag maintains that Jesus was speaking only of the pre-existence of " The Idea," and he justifies his view by a reference to the Platonic doctrine of the real existence of ideas. J But if Christ spoke these words at all, is it to be supposed that His hearers, Jews of Palestine with most concrete modes of thought, would have under- stood Him in any such sense ? And the words are so startling and incisive that they seem to bear the stamp of a genuine recollection by the Apostle. * Dcr Inhalt der Lchrc Jesu. p. 470. t Ibid. X Nentestamcntlichc Thcologle, vol. i., p. 247. 42 THE THEOLOGY OF III. THE REVELATION OF GOD Jesus claimed to be possessed of a unique know- ledge of God, which He alone could communicate to the world (Luke x. 22). This claim was altogether in accordance with His primary mission of establishing the kingdom of heaven on earth; because in doing so He had to bring men into closer relations with God, its Htad. Yet, as we have seen, it was not at all His method to convey new knowledge in the form of definite propositions, and certainly any such thing would have been quite out of place with a revelation of the spiritual world. Jesus aimed at revealing the centre of God, not His circumference, which indeed does not exist with an infinite being, and therefore cannot possibly be described. It is the heart of God that Christ makes known, and therefore we must not ask Him for a formal addition to the list of Divine attributes as these are detailed by systematic theologians. Such knowledge as Christ gives is perceived by those who are in sympathy with Him. It is like a man's knowledge of his mother. It cannot be set forth in words. All we can define is its effects. Dealing with these external facts, we see that our Lord accepted the Old Testament teaching about God for the basis of His own representations — the Hebrew monotheism as not only opposed to polytheism and idolatry, but as opposed to the dualism which admits either matter or a spirit of THE NEW TE>>TAMENT 43 evil to be in some respects co-ordinate with God, and also — what is perhaps even more significant in the Old Testament — the lofty moral character of God, His Fiipreme righteousness, His abhorrence of sin. Even what is most original in our Lord's teaching about God is not absolutely new when regarded in a hard, verbal way. It has its roots in older teaching ; it is the development of ideas of earlier revelation. But to call it a development is to say something of moment. Jesus altered the proportion of truths, exalting and expanding what had been previously neglected, bringing to the foreground what had been left in the dim chstance and often hidden by less essential though more readily grasped ideas. It is as true as it is obvious that our Lord's revelation of God centres in His wonderful teaching about the Di\nne Fatherhood. Now in some degree the Fatherhood of God is a truth widely perceived by men. It is recognised by Homer, who describes Zeus as the " father of gods and men." In the Old Testament it frequently recurs, though usually with two limitations : first, it is connected with Israel, not with the whole human race (e.^., Hos. xi. 1) ; second, for the most part it is applied to the nation as a corporate unit, not to individuals {e.g., Jer. xxxi. 20), or if to any individual, to the divinely anointed king (2 Sam. vii. 14). Later, the fatherly relation of God to all individual Israelites is seen, and this idea registers a great advance (e.r, and quite incidentally, as it seems, when rebuking a spirit of self-seeking in His disciples, our Lord describes His death as a ransom, saying, " Yerily the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mark x. 45). 5 66 THE THEOLOGY OF Here He clearly announces a purpose in the surrender of His life. He gives His life. He could avoid the Cross, but will not do so. Thus there is a voluntary element in His death. It is not suicide, for He does not take His own life ; but He will not escape death at the cost of the renunciation of His mission. This purpose is to secure some good to others, to " many " — a word which does not point to a limitation, as though it were carefully distinguished from " all." The context shows that the contrast is with self as a unit. Further, the idea of " ransom " signifies liberation on payment. The payment is Christ's life. What is the liberation? It is going too far to ask, To whom is the payment made ? for we always have to be careful not to press the details of a metaphor beyond the point of comparison. Still, some bondage is clearly suggested. Elsewhere Christ refers to death as a power from which men seek to be freed (Mark viii. 36, 37); in St. John He distinctly describes the slavery of man to sin (John viii. 34) ; and in the Synoptics He frequently speaks of the world being under the power of Satan {e.g., Mark iii. 15; Luke xiii. 16). Therefore presumably the deliverance will be from some such evil — death, or sin, or Satan. Seeing that our Lord leaves the phrase open, it is best for us to take it in its large comprehensiveness to mean deliverance from all evil — remembering that with Christ the root of evil, the one real evil, is sin. Then we read that this ransom is " instead of' (dvri) many, i.e., instead of the " many " paying it, w hich they cannot do ; or perhaps preferably " in exchange for many," so that they THE XEW TESTA ME XT 67 may be liberated in return for the expenditure of Christ's life. In all this our Lord does not say why it is necessary for Him to die in order that men may be set free. He simply states the fact. The most emphatic teaching on the connection between our redemption and the death of Christ may be drawn from the Lord's Supper. In insti- tuting the ordinance Jesus said, according to St. Luke, " This is My body, which is given for you " (Luke xxii, 19), or, according to St. Paul, "This is My body, which is for you" (1 Cor. xi. 24).* In both cases the preposition virlp is used — plainly teaching that Christ was giving His body, i.e., giving Himself up to death, on behalf of His disciples, for tlieir benefit. The words concerning the cup are more explicit. According to the two first Evan- gelists we read, " This is My blood of the covenant "' (Matt. xxvi. 28 ; Mark xiv. 24). According to St. Luke and St. Paul, " This cup is the new covenant in My blood " (Luke xxii. 20 ; 1 Cor. xi. 25). The reference to the new covenant points to the 23ro23hecy of Jeremiah about a covenant which should be both more merciful in its provision for pardon and more inward and spiritual in its principles than the Levi- tical law (Jer. xxxi. 31-4). Just such a covenant was found in the gospel of Christ, with its large offer of forgiveness on God's side and its character of inwardness in relation to human experience; and this identity was recognised in the early Church * Matthew follows Mark in giving only the words '• This is ^ly body," without the clause added in Luke and 1 Corinthians (Matt. xxvi. 23 ; Mark xiv. 22). 68 THE THEOLOGY OF (Heb. viii. 10-13). The association of blood with the new covenant is evidently founded on a reference to the sacrifice which, according to the Pentateuch, ratified the ancient covenant, M^hen the altar and the people were sprinkled with blood (Exod. xxiv. 3-8). Th\is in all four accounts of the Lord's Supper Jesus Christ attributes a sacrificial character to His death. The narrative in Exodus shows that on the whole the analogy is that of the burnt-offering, the symbol of the self-dedication of the worshipper. The sprinkling of the blood of tiiis offering was the ceremonial dedication of the Jews to the old covenant; the taking of the cup in the sacrament is the similar dedication of Christians to the new covenant. The death of Christ ratifies His covenant, and the participation in the cup suggests the personal share of the communicant in the covenant thus ratified. A further clause of deep significance is added by St. Matthew — viz., " unto remission of sins " (Matt. xxvi. 28).* This plainly states that the death of Christ is designed to lead to forgiveness. It has been objected that the clause must be an addition by the Evangelist, or* perhaps a result of reflection in the Church, because, it is said, elsewhere Christ never connects His death with the forgiveness of sin, but always represents * Eis dcpea-iu afiapTiCov — the same phrase that St. Mark uses to characterise John's baptism of repentance (Mark i. 4) ; not that there is any ground for treating these as two rival methods. On man's side it is repentance that leads to forgiveness ; on Christ's side it is His death that really effects forgiveness. THE NEW TESTAMENT 69 the pardon of man to be a free act of God's fatherly love, as, for example, in the case of the prodigal son. On the other hand, it was expressly declared that Jeremiah's new covenant was to be a covenant of forgiveness (Jer. xxxi. 34). Therefore, to ratify that covenant is directly to lead to the remission of &ins. Moreover, Christ often claimed to bring forgiveness ; and we have seen that when He spoke of giving His life as a ransom the leading thought suggested would be that of deliverance from sin. Accordingly, even if the words were added by the Evangelist or his predecessors, they would be entirely in harmou^ with the other teaching of Christ. Under these circumstances, and considering how very rare are our Lord's references to His death, is it necessary to resort to any ingenious expedient to account for the fact that one of those instances somewhat anticipates the line of later apostoHc teaching ? One more lesson of the Lord's Supper in relation to redemption may be noted here. The eating and drinking by the communicants suggest a personal i3ar- ticipation in Christ by each individual Christian as the means of sustaining his very life. Here we approach ideas more fully expanded in the fourth Gospel. Lastly, it cannot be without some weighty bearings on His redeeming work that our Lord predicted His resurrection (Mark ix. 9, 10, 31 ; x. 34), for the prediction shows His prevision of victory, and a comparison of this prediction with His promises of an abiding presence may lead us to see that He legarded His resurrection as a step towards His spiritual indwelling in the Church. 70 THE THEOLOGY OF Still, keeping to the teaching of Christ alone, we see that on this, as on other subjects, the fourth Evangelist agrees with the main positions of the Synoptics, although his language and method of treatment vary from the style of the earlier writers, especially in strongly emphasising the significance of the person of our Lord. The importance of the word of Christ in regard to salvation is often insisted on in St. John's Gospel. The first step towards eternal life is to hear this w^ord (v. 24) ; it is the truth revealed by Christ that is to make men free (viii. 32) ; the disciples acknow- ledge that He has the words of eternal life (vi. 68). While the Synoptics plainly imply that Jesus Christ Himself is the centre of salvation — for in these records He appears historically as the living Saviour — that great truth is more directly stated and moi-e fully described in the fourth Gospel. Chap. vi. in par- ticular sets it forth with startling force. Jesus there declares Himself to be the Bread of life, and announces that if any man eat of this l)read he shalllive for ever (ver. 51), Elsewhere, in the same Gospel, He teaches that He is the Light of the world, and that the way to avoid walking in darkness is to follow Him (viii. 12), When He is lifted up from the earth He will draw all men to Himself (xii. 32). The person of Christ is the object of faith (ver. 46), and to reject Him is to come under the condemnation of God (ver. 48). He concludes His last discourse by encouraging His disciples to be of good cheei-, because He, their Lord and Saviour, has overcome the world (xvi. 33). THE NEW TESTAMENT 71 The fourth Gospel gives marked prominence to our Lord's death. In the first place it shows that Jesus foresaw the event, and also the necessity for it. Thus, in the conversation occasioned by the information that certain Greeks wished to see Him, lie exclaimed, " The hour is come that the Son of Man should be glorified. . . . Except a grain of wheat fall into the earth and die, it abideth by itself alone; but if it die, it beareth much fruit"' (xii. 23, 24). This appeal to the analogy of nature, and the words immediately following, " He that loveth his life loseth it,"' etc., show that our Lord regarded His death as something in accordance with a general principle that belongs to the constitution of nature, and that should be followed by men — \iz., that death is necessary to life, that fruitful ser\TLce depends on self-sacrifice. Then Christ said that He had authority to lay down His life and to take it again (x. 18). Therefore His death was not unavoidable ; it resulted from a volun- tary course of action on His part. He gave Himself in death. Further, the object of this surrender of Himself in death was the good of men. He was the Good Shepherd laying down His life for * the sheep (x. 11). In His last discourse He said that it was expedient for the disciples that He should go away, for if He did not go away the Comforter would not come (xvi. 7). Thus He directly connected His death with the descent of the Holy Spirit, which is * virep, " on behalf of." •• for the sake of.'" 8t, John never uses the word dirt, '* instead of," which we have met with in one saying recorded by Mark and Matthew (Mark x. 45 ; Matt. XX. 28), in relation to the death of Christ. 72 THE THEOLOGY OF elsewhere referred to as the greatest of blessings. ThLs is a thought peculiar to the fourth Gospel. Lastly, the death of Christ was to result in glory to God and to His Son. After shrinking from the dark prospect He braced Himself up to face it with the thought that it would glorify God's name (xii. 27, 28). He often referred to it as His own glorification {e.g., xii. 23 ; xvii. 1). VI. CONDITIONS OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE KINGDOM Although the open proclamation of the gospel by Jesus Christ showed that its privileges were free to all men, other of our Lord's declarations made it clear that many people would miss the enjoyment of them. This fact and its causes are illustrated in the parable of the Sower, which describes how the best seed will fail if it falls on uncongenial soil, and a mournful confirmation is furnished in the rejection of Jesus by the greater part of His hearers. Inasmuch as our Lord came to rule over a spu-itual dominion which has its seat in the will, the first condition must be voluntary acquiescence on the part of His subjects. Such a kingdom as this must be '' received " or " entered " by a personal act. Moreover, many people may covet its privi- leges and yet never taste them (Luke xiii. 24), because a bare desire to enter the kingdom is not enough. Certain conditions must be fulfilled. These may all be summed up in the idea of whole-hearted self-sun ender. THE NEW TESTAMENT 73 The first step iu this self-surreDcler is the renun- ciiition of sin. Jesus commenced His ministry with the Baptist's appeal to repentance (Mark i. 15). Although this is not named so often in our Lord's later ministry as we might expect, it is plainly impKed throughout. The woman known as " a sinner,' who follows our Lord to the Pharisee's house, confesses her heartfelt penitence by washing the feet of Jesus with her tears (Luke vii. 37, 38) ; Zacchaeus, who receives salvation into his house in receiving Christ, restores fourfold to those whom he has wronged by extortion (xix. 8); the publican at the temple is accepted because he confesses his sins, while the Pharisee, who only confesses his virtues, though he acknowledges that God is the source of them, is rejected (xviii. 10-14). Although the religious people of the day were sceptical of the possibility of the amelioration of corrupt characters, Christ, who came to effect a complete regeneration of the very worst among them, was both c^uick to dis- cover the first leaning towards a better life, and stern to refuse all encouragement where this was nqt to be found, even in decorous people who were not conscious of the need of improvement. His keen sense of the evil of sin led Him to extend the requirements of repentance in two directions. The first was in showing the universality of the need of repentance. Jesus did not come to call the righteous, but sinners — i.e., those who owned to sin (Mark ii. 17). People who were ironically allowed the name of righteous were excluded from His call just because they did not admit their sinfulntss. The second extension 74 THE THEOLOGY OF of the requirement of repentance was in regard to its internal character. Christ demanded a real change of mind and intention (/xeravota), while the external religion of His day was satisfied with the penance of fasts and almsgiving. In this demand He followed John the Baptist, but the searching character of His teaching made it much more significant. It has been remarked that faith does not take the prominent position in the teaching of Christ which it holds in the Pauline Epistles ; but the difference is more apparent than real, and it may be accounted for in a large measure by the more concrete method of our Lord's teaching, because, though He does not describe the relation of the abstract idea " faith " to discipleship with any fulness, His whole demeanour shows how much He expects those who come to Him to manifest a trustful spirit as an essential condition of being received. To the first appeal, " Repent ye," Jesus immediately adds, " and believe in the gospel." He frequently urges His disciples to believe in God. Faith is absolutely necessary for those who would be healed by Him. The cure is according to the faith; and when faith is wanting — as at Nazareth — miracles are impossible (Mark vi. 5). Jesus speaks of little ones who " believe on " Him (ix. 42), and He encour- ages His disciples to ask in His name (Matt. x. 22). T Here faith is not the acceptance of a set and formal creed. The first instance gives " the gospel " as the object of faith. In all other cases the object is a person — God or Christ. On the other hand, our Lord repeatedly insists on the importance of active obedience. He concludes THE NFAY TESTAMENT 75 J lis Sermon on the Mount with the parable of the Two Houses : that on the rock represents every one who hears His words, " and doeth them " ; that on the sand every one who hears them, " and doeth them not " (Matt. vii. 24-7). He owns as His nearest relatives all who do the will of God (Mark iii. 35). The three gi-eat parables of judgment in Matt. xxv. turn on questions of conduct. But the obedience which Christ required must be interpreted in harmony with the principles of His revelation of the kingdom of heaven and of the new covenant. He did not bring an external kingdom and a law of the letter- Ruling in the heart with a law written within, He expected obedience in the form of a full submission of the will. This, then, is just one aspect of the self-surrender — it is self-surrender in action. To the disciples who asked with foolish ambition, " Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven ? " Jesus replied by setting a little child in the midst of them, and saying. " Yerily I say unto you, Except ye turn and become as little children, ye shall in no wise ^nter into the kingdom of heaven " (Matt, xviii. 3), thereby teaching that childlikeness is an essential condition of membership. Just as the child had no idea of seeking a place of honoui' and could put forth no claim for such a position, the true disciple must approach the kingdom with no appeal to the history of his pre\'ious achievements, but as beginning life afresh with a child's sense of helplessness and depend- ence. To attain this childlike state even good men such as our Lord's chsciples must be completely turned round {kov /x?; (TTpa