rx6o

•Y^uuE^MviEiasirinf- • iLiiiaiaaiiw •

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

ST. PAUL
AND CHRISTIANITY
BY ARTHUR C. HEADLAM, D.D.
professor of dogmatic theology IN KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON
SOMETIME FELLOW OF ALL SOULS COLLEGE, OXFORD
AND PRINCIPAL OF KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON

LONDON
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W.
i9x3

FX6o YH-3

PREFACE
The present volume was written originally at
the suggestion of the Dean of Wells, for the
" Cambridge Manuals of Science and Letters."
It proved, however, when completed, con
siderably too long for that series, and, as it
had already been unduly compressed, I felt
unable to reduce it any further. I must
therefore express my thanks to the Syndicate
of the Cambridge Press for relieving me from
my arrangement with them, and to Mr. John
Murray for undertaking the publication. At
the same time the original purpose of the
work will explain, and I hope excuse, the
brevity with which important points are
treated, and the necessarily dogmatic charac
ter of many statements where a more lengthy
discussion might have been desirable.
When I was originally asked to write a
work on " St. Paul and Christianity," I was
left to interpret the title for myself, and I
took it to mean a study of the teaching of

vi PREFACE
St. Paul and its place in the development of
Christianity. What was the particular posi
tion which St. Paul held ? What evidence
does he give us of what early Christianity was ?
What did he owe to it ? What did he con
tribute to it? What has been his influence
on the subsequent history of Christianity ? It
might have been possible to answer these
questions by discussing the different views
which various scholars have held ; but a dis
cussion of opinions is never really illuminating,
and I have preferred what I believe to be
the better plan, to expound what St. Paul
taught and to examine his opinions in the
light of other early Christian teaching. I have
confined myself to expressing my own opinions
upon many points which are open to discus
sion, and while giving, I hope, reasons which
may be felt to be adequate for the point of
view adopted, have not as a rule attempted to
discuss rival theories. It will, however, be
fairer if I mention shortly the main alter
native opinions about St. Paul's theological
position which have been held. To do so
in any detail would, of course, be impossible,
and anyone who wishes for a guide through the
voluminous literature on Paulinism as it has
been produced in Germany I would refer to

PREFACE vii
Schweitzer's work on the history of the inter
pretation of St. Paul's writings.1
First the critical question. On this not
much, I think, need be said. It is enough to
say that, while I personally believe that the
thirteen Epistles which claim to be written by
St. Paul were, with the limitations I have sug
gested in the text, genuine writings of his,
there is, of course, considerable diversity of
opinion. With the exception of one particular
school of Dutch critics who have not succeeded
in gaining any credence for their views, no
serious scholar doubts the genuineness of the
four principal Epistles — Romans, 1 and 2
Corinthians, and Galatians. There are not
many nowadays who would refuse to accept
1 Thessalonians, Colossians, Philippians, and
Philemon. There are still doubts expressed
by some as to 2 Thessalonians and Ephe
sians. Fewer would accept the Pastoral
Epistles.2 As regards the latter, their genuine-
1 " Geschichte der Paulinischen Forschung von der
Reformation bis auf die Gegenwart," von Albert Schweitzer.
Translated under the title "Paul and his Interpreters.
By Albert Schweitzer, Privat-docent in New Testament
Studies in the University of Strasburg. Translated by
W. Montgomery, B.A., B.D." (London : Adam and Charles
Black, 1912.)
2 The critical view may be studied in " An Introduction
to the New Testament," by Adolf Jiilicher, Professor of

viii PREFACE
ness for our purpose matters little. That is
not the case with regard to Ephesians. It is
in my opinion fundamental to a proper under
standing of St. Paul's thought. To me Ephe
sians is Pauline through and through, and
more even than Romans represents the deepest
thoughts of the Apostle ; and to hold, as some
would do, that it is a compilation, or that it is
largely interpolated, shews an incapacity (in
my view) to form a judgement of any value
in critical matters. It is the careful study of
a book that will often solve the question of
its origin, and I believe that a close study of
the text, with the help of the Dean of Wells'
excellent Commentary, forms a most decisive
proof of its genuineness.1
The next question is the origin of St. Paul's
Theology at the University of Marburg. Translated by
Janet Penrose Ward (London : Smith, Elder and Co.,
1904) ; or in "An Introduction to the Literature of the
New Testament," by James Moffatt, B.D., D.D. (Edin
burgh : T. and T. Clark, 191 1); the more conservative
view in " Introduction to the New Testament," by Theo
dore Zahn, Professor of New Testament Exegesis, Erlangen
University. Translated from the third German edition
(Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1909).
1 " St Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians," by J. Armitage
Robinson. Second edition. (London : Macmillan and Co.,
1904.)

PREFACE ix
distinctive thought. There is a definite school
that would explain much, at any rate, of his
writings as the product of Hellenic influence.
That school, which is a considerable one in
Germany, is best represented in England by
Professor Percy Gardner.1 That theory I
have felt definitely obliged to reject. It is
true, of course, that St. Paul wrote in the
Greek language. It is true, again, that Hel
lenic influences had been brought to bear on
Judaism ever since the spread of Hellenism
in the East by the conquests of Alexander. It
is clear, again, that a clever, many-sided man
like St. Paul could not move about in the
Graeco-Roman world without being affected
by it ; but none of these influences touched the
heart of his thought. In no case did they
penetrate beneath the surface. St. Paul was
at heart a Jew and a Pharisee. His mind had
been formed in the Rabbinical schools, and
Pharisaism had been developed on lines
antagonistic to Hellenism and Hellenistic
Judaism. The third question is the relation of St. Paul
to the primitive Church. The tenets of that
1 "The Religious Experience of St. Paul," by Percy
Gardner., Litt.D., F.B.A. (London : Williams and Norgate,
1911.)

x PREFACE
school are well known, which had its source in
the writings of Ferdinand Christian Baur, and
considered that Catholic Christianity was the
result of the combination or conciliation of two
extreme schools, Ebionitism, or Jewish Chris
tianity, and Paulinism, or Hellenic Christianity,
and that between St. Paul and the original
Apostles there was a complete and funda
mental schism. The main lines of the theory
are no longer accepted by any writer, but its
influence still lingers, and few writers of a
"critical" school are able to free themselves
entirely from its effects. It is obvious, of
course, to anyone who reads St. Paul, that he
was a man of pronounced and decisive indi
viduality; that he held his opinions strongly
and definitely ; that he would not be patient
of half - measures or compromises, and that
there were occasions when he differed from the
other Apostles. A careful study, however, of
the documents shows that the differences
between the two parties were not fundamental,
and that on all the main lines of Christian
teaching St. Paul and the primitive Apostles
agreed ; that they had accepted his main
position, and that it was inconsistency, half-
heartedness, and timidity, that he condemned.
At the time of St. Paul's conversion the eman-

PREFACE xi
cipation of Christianity from Judaism had
already begun. The admission of the Gentiles
had already become an accomplished fact. St.
Paul realized the full significance of both these
events more fully than did others. He was
prepared, as others were not, to carry things
to a logical conclusion ; but he did not differ
fundamentally from the rest of the Church.1
Another line of opinion that has developed
in recent years may be represented for us best
by Wrede's "Paulus."2 The result of his
theory is really to make Paul the founder of
Christianity as we know it. Jesus, he main
tains, never claimed to be the Messiah. It
was to St. Paul that Jesus first owed this title,
and it was St. Paul who outlined the character
of His Messianic functions out of his own
1 The best account of the Tubingen theories for English
readers is probably that contained in " A Historical Intro
duction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament,"
by George Salmon, D.D. (London: John Murray). His
criticism is full of vigour. The most recent refutation is
contained in " The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul ; their
Motive and Origin," by Kirsopp Lake (London : Riving-
tons, 1911).
2 " Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbiicher herausgege-
ben," von Fr. Michael Schiele, Tubingen. " Paulus,"
von Professor D. William Wrede. Zweiter Auflage.
(Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1907.)

xii PREFACE
already-formed conceptions, for he had no real
knowledge as to the teaching or personality of
our Lord. This school always lays great
stress on what I believe to be an entire mis
interpretation of the statement of St. Paul,
that he no longer knew Jesus after the flesh,
and it would hold that not only St. John, but
also the Synoptic Gospels, have been largely
influenced by St. Paul's teaching. I cannot
in the least accept this view. It is probable,
of course, that in their present form the
Gospels were written after St. Paul had
preached, although the great bulk of the
material out of which they were formed had
been written down at an earlier period. It is
possible, therefore, that some influence of
St. Paul's teaching may have crept in ; but
the most striking characteristic of the Synoptic
Gospels, and, for that matter, of St. John also,
is the complete absence in them of any of
those features which are commonly described
as Pauline. In almost every point they repre
sent simpler, more primitive, and I believe
higher, traditions. There is no sign of Phari
saic thought. There is no trace of the in
fluence of Pauline categories. They represent
the source, and not the result, of St. Paul's
teaching.

PREFACE xiii
And then there is the modern eschatologist,
who is so proud of having brought us back to
the historical standpoint that he cannot see
anything else. He is not quite so irrational
when he is studying St. Paul as when he is
examining the teaching of Jesus, but he finds
it very difficult to recognize the limits of
his theories. He is far too certain that his
formulas will explain everything ; he is de
termined to carry out a narrow theory
logically, and therefore becomes irrational.
The eschatological background is in a sense
fundamental to St. Paul, but it is only one of
the many strains of thought which contributed
to his mental equipment. There was Old
Testament Judaism ; there was Pharisaism ;
there was the transformation effected by his
own deep religious experience ; there was his
strong ethical interest ; there was, above all,
the uniqueness of the teaching of Jesus, " the
sweet and blessed figure of Jesus of Nazareth."
All the above views I believe to be one
sided or mistaken. In some cases they repre
sent a perverted view of the way in which
things happened. In other cases they exag
gerate in one direction some particular in
fluence. The development of Christianity
as suggested in the following pages is more

xiv PREFACE
conventional, and, I believe, truer to history.
It makes the starting-point the teaching of
Jesus as it is recorded for us. It sees the
development of that teaching in the hands
of the primitive Church. It recognizes the
striking character of St. Paul's work and
thought. Part of his opinions represented the
development with greater vigour and intensity
of what the Christian Church was already
teaching, and on those lines he contributed to
swell the main lines of Christian thought.
Certain other points were more special to
himself, the result of the expression of Chris
tianity in accordance with the philosophical
ideas in which he had been brought up, or in
opposition to them. These elements have
represented the less catholic side of his teach
ing. They have been seized on from time to
time when the needs of the day required them,
but they did not so directly assist in the de
velopment of the Christian Church.

CONTENTS
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION - - - 1
II. THE ESCHATOLOGY OF ST. PAUL - - 22
III. ST. PAUL'S CHRISTOLOGY — THE PERSON OF
CHRIST - - • - 3&
IV. THE WORK OF CHRIST - 71
V. THE SPIRIT - 95
VI. FAITH, JUSTIFICATION, SALVATION 116
VII. THE CHRISTIAN LIFE - - - 140
VIII. THE CHURCH - - - - 163
IX. THE DIVINE PURPOSE - - - 182
X. ST. PAUL AND CHRISTIANITY - - - 195
INDEX - - - - - 209

XV

ST. PAUL AND CHRISTIANITY

INTRODUCTION
The sources of our information — The Epistles of St. Paul —
Their dates and arrangement — Criticism of them —
The Acts of the Apostles — St. Paul's training and
intellectual equipment — His knowledge of Christianity
— His conversion — Its spiritual significance.
The life and writings of St. Paul are of para
mount importance in any investigation of the
early history of Christianity, for they give us
a fixed point from which to start. The
genuineness of a considerable number of
Epistles ascribed to him does not admit of
any reasonable doubt. Their date can be
fixed within a few years with as near an
approach to certainty as is possible in historical
investigation. We know, too, the work that
he accomplished, and we know what manner
of man he was. Here, in the midst of a great
deal of apparent uncertainty, we have some
thing fixed and definite. It is the purpose of
1

2 INTRODUCTION
this short treatise to examine the opinions of
St. Paul in relation to certain salient points in his
teaching, to discuss the genesis of those opinions,
and to investigate the relation of his thought to
contemporary Christian teaching. It is not
proposed to say anything, except incidentally,
on the details of his life and work, nor to deal
with any of the interesting investigations which
have been made into the archaeology and his
tory of his travels, nor to examine the numerous
minor critical questions as to the composition
and exact date of the different Epistles. It
will be necessary, however, to say something
about the sources of our information and
about certain outstanding facts in the history
of the Apostle, his theological education, his
character, and his religious experience.

The primary sources of our knowledge of
St. Paul's teaching are twofold — the Epistles
which bear his name, and the Acts of the
Apostles. A study of the Epistles will shew
that they divide themselves naturally into four
groups. The first consists of 1 and 2 Thessa
lonians ; the second, of Galatians, 1 and 2 Cor
inthians, and Romans ; the third, of Philippians,
Ephesians,Colossians, and Philemon ; the fourth,

THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL 3
of the Pastoral Epistles, 1 and 2 Timothy, and
Titus. With regard to these groups, we may
notice that they are the necessary result of
the historical study of the circumstances in
which the Epistles were written, that a defi
nite distinction of subject-matter corresponds
to the difference in date, and, further, that
certain variations in style coincide with the
result of our historical and theological in
vestigations. In the first group — the Thessalonian letters,
which were written about the years a.d. 50, 51
— we get what we may look upon as the
normal teaching of St. Paul. They pre
suppose and refer in various passages to his
mission preaching. They deal incidentally
with his ordinary theological and ethical in
struction. Only one subject is developed in
at all a systematic manner in answer to certain
questions which had arisen — namely, that of
eschatology. Hence the most marked feature
of the theology is Christ as Judge.
In the second group, which must be placed
between the years a.d. 52 and 58, while many
practical details which have arisen in the life
of the Churches are touched on, the dominant
teaching arises from the Jewish controversy, and
therefore the principal subjects discussed are

4 INTRODUCTION
the work of Christ as Redeemer, the relation
of law and faith, our justification, sanctification,
and union with Christ.
In the third group, the Epistles of the Cap
tivity, written between a.d. 58 and 61, this con
troversy is passing away. There are still echoes
of it, indeed, in Philippians, which is to a cer
tain extent transitional, but in Colossians a^id
Ephesians two new questions are discussed fully.
In Colossians the theology of the person of
Christ rather than His work is for the first time
explicitly dealt with. This subject demanded
attention owing to false views which had begun
to prevail denying His supremacy. The other,
Ephesians, gives us what is in some ways the
culmination of St. Paul's teaching. It deals
with the result, if we may put it so, of the
Jewish controversy — the conception of the one
Christian society, including within its folds
Jew and Gentile alike, and representing the
ultimate purpose of God in the creation and
government of the world. Throughout these
Epistles constant reminiscences will be found
of the teaching of the second group.
The fourth group, the Pastoral Epistles,
written between a.d. 61 and 64, comes back
in some ways to the characteristics of the first
group. There are many eschatological refer-

THE STYLE OF THE EPISTLES 5
ences ; there are also many reminiscences of
the special ideas of the second and third groups,
while throughout the personal note predomi
nates. Instead of doctrinal questions, we have,
as the natural result of the special circum
stances of the Epistles, directions on the
practical organization and government of
Churches. Now, if we examine the Epistles linguistic
ally, we shall find that they undoubtedly divide
into the same four groups. Throughout,
indeed, there is a definite unity of style and
vocabulary, as may be seen by a few minutes'
consultation of a concordance. But there are
certain differences characteristic of each group.
The first may, perhaps, represent the Apostle's
normal style. He is not carried away by any
overpowering thought, nor are his feelings
aroused by the anger of controversy. When
we come to the second group, and specially to
the Epistle to the Galatians, there is a change.
The keenness of the controversy has aroused
the Apostle, and his intense feeling is reflected
in his manner of writing. He is rhetorical,
argumentative ; sometimes his thoughts flow
so quickly that the stages of the argument
seem to drop out, and it becomes obscured.
There are long quotations from the Old Testa-
2

6 INTRODUCTION
ment, which seem generally to be written down
from memory. There are signs of indignation,
of anger, and of irony. The vocabulary is
influenced, also, by the changed subject of
thought. In the third group, which has some
affinities with the Epistle to the Romans, the
style again changes somewhat. It is fuller,
heavier, the sentences are longer, the words
are more carefully chosen. It is the language
of a theological treatise rather than of a
polemical pamphlet. In the fourth group we
come back to a simpler method of expression.
Here the marked feature is the great difference
of vocabulary, a difference which is certainly
sufficient to justify doubts being raised as to
the genuineness of the group.
Now, these different phenomena constitute
a strong argument in favour of the genuine
ness of the whole collection of letters. If we
regard them as a whole, the Pauline style is
different from that of any other book or group
of books of the New Testament ; and the co
incidences formed by the fact that the style,
subject-matter, and historical surroundings, all
change together are difficult to harmonize with
any idea of deliberate forgery or unconscious
growth. The differences in style and vocabu
lary between the different groups are not

METHOD OF COMPOSITION 7
greater than is natural in the circumstances,
if we remember two facts. The first is
that St. Paul was writing in what was to
some extent a foreign language. It is natural
for those speaking or writing in a language
not their own to be influenced by the words
which have been recently most prominently
brought before them. Their command of the
language is unequal, and they are liable,
therefore, to be at the mercy of the particular
groups of words which may be impressed upon
them at the moment. The second point to be
remembered is that St. Paul wrote none of his
letters with his own hand. They were all
dictated, and in these circumstances it is
never quite possible to say how far the words
may have come from the writer or from the
amanuensis. In particular, it is possible that
some of the difficulties felt as regards the
Pastoral Epistles may arise from the fact that
sections may have been written in their present
form by other hands. There are many docu
ments written nowadays which have a similar
composite authorship, sections being incor
porated by the writer which have been drafted
by different persons. Portions, therefore, of
these Epistles may have been written out for
St. Paul by one of his companions, and

8 INTRODUCTION
then incorporated in the Epistles. A theory
such as this is really better than one which
suggests later interpolation, because there is
no evidence of the Epistles ever having been
circulated in any form different from that in
which we have them, and there are no passages
which on any grounds need be held to imply
a later date than the time of the Apostle.
The general tendency of opinion since the
days when doubts began to be first cast on
the authenticity of the New Testament books
has been always towards considering a larger
number of these Epistles genuine than criti
cism originally suggested. There are still
considerable doubts felt by many as to the
Epistle to the Ephesians, but even as regards
this Epistle opinion tends more and more to
look upon it as genuine. There are certain
slight difficulties — of what work cannot that
be said ? — but the continuity of the thought
with that of the Epistle to the Romans makes
the present writer have no doubts as to its
authorship. The suggestion that it is formed
in any way out of a cento of passages extracted
from the Colossians represents criticism in its
most unconvincing aspect, for there is no work
in which the unity of thought is more marked.
The Epistle represents the culminating point

THE PASTORAL EPISTLES 9
of St. Paul's teaching ; his vision of a world
wide Church is seen in its grandest form ; it is
his most magnificent exposition of what he
conceived to be the Divine plan. Writings
of such prophetic insight are not built up
by plagiarism. Renan's description of it as
" banal " is almost ridiculous.
When we come to the fourth group the
difficulties are greater. No writer belonging
to what is called a " definite critical school "
accepts them, and many others have doubts.
External evidence is indeed strongly in their
favour. They were clearly known at the be
ginning of the second century to St. Ignatius
and St. Polycarp, and their omission by
Marcion from his collection of the Pauline
Epistles is, considering their contents, of no
weight. As regards their historical situation,
there is no difficulty about finding a place for
them, if we can assume that St. Paul was
released from his first imprisonment ; if we
cannot, it is almost impossible to do so.
The existence of these Epistles is in itself
strong evidence for this last stage in St. Paul's
career. The details of Church organization
have troubled many, but they do not imply
anything more advanced than the other
Epistles or the Acts of the Apostles; they

10 INTRODUCTION-
only work out the earliest form of Church
order in greater detail. It has been suggested
that, as St. Paul expected the speedy coming
of Christ, he would hardly have concerned
himself with such matters. That argument
is of no value, for it is clear that the writer of
the Pastoral Epistles, whether or no he was
St. Paul, certainly expected that the Parousia
would come shortly. There remains the most
serious difficulty — that of style. Although
there is much that is Pauline, the vocabulary
differs from that of the other Epistles more
than the subject-matter would lead us to
expect, and it is here that the real difficulty
lies. How far it is met by the suggestion
mentioned above must be left to others to
determine. For the purpose of these lectures
the Pastoral Epistles are not of great impor
tance. They add little or nothing to our
knowledge of any fundamental point in St.
Paul's teaching, and it is rather our business
to inquire how far their doctrinal position
harmonizes with, or is consistent with, that
of other Epistles. We may therefore quite
well suspend our judgement with regard to
them. The second main source of our knowledge
is the Acts of the Apostles, and here, again, our

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 11
attitude may well be one of suspense. No new
point is added to our conception of his doctrine
by the speeches of St. Paul which are given in
it, and our inquiry must rather be whether they
accurately represent his teaching. There can
be little real doubt that the author of the Acts
was St. Luke. The question of importance
is, in what sense the speeches recorded in it
are to be taken as historical. It is well known
that it was a literary habit of Greek and
Roman writers to insert speeches of their own
composition to represent the point of view of
different actors in history. Did St. Luke do
this, or had he accurate information of what
was actually said ? There is no doubt that
the speeches in the Acts are written in the
style of the author of the book. They are
short and much compressed ; but an examina
tion of their contents shews that they must
have been based upon an accurate acquaintance
with the general character of the teaching of
St. Paul and the other Apostles, and it is
probable that in certain cases they are a short
reproduction of the actual speeches. They
were intended by the writer to represent to
us the different types of Apostolic teaching,
and he had good means of knowing what that
teaching was. The general historical value of

12 INTRODUCTION
the work is certainly becoming more firmly
established as knowledge increases.
Apart from these two sources, any know
ledge that we may obtain of St. Paul's teach
ing from later writers or tradition is so slight
that it may for our purpose be ignored.
II
The fundamental fact in the history of St.
Paul was his conversion. Of that we have
full accounts in the Acts — accounts which
may differ in detail, but agree completely as
to the main incident. We have references
to it also in his own writings. The funda
mental fact is undoubted. Owing to a vision
on the road to Damascus his whole life
was suddenly and completely changed. What
he had before persecuted he now preached
with all his power. To this he devoted his life
until he laid it down as a martyr to Christ.
What was he before his conversion ? He
describes himself as having been a Hebrew of
the Hebrews, of the tribe of Benjamin ; more
zealous than any of his contemporaries in his
zeal for the law — a Pharisee. Although a
Roman citizen, and born in a cultivated Greek
city, Tarsus, he was an Aramaic-speaking Jew,
and he was little influenced, probably, by the

ST. PAUL'S TRAINING 13
Greek life of the place. He had come to
Jerusalem to be a pupil in the schools of the
Rabbis, sitting at the feet of Gamaliel. These
facts are fundamental for his mental history.
A distinctive feature of St. Paul is that he
interpreted Christianity according to the
method of thought which his Rabbinical train
ing had given him.
Judaism at the beginning of the Christian
era presented varied features, and there were
within it certain distinctive schools of thought.
The fundamental point shared by all alike was
the acceptance of the Jewish creed and life as
it may be learned from, and is implied in, the
Old Testament. This, of course, St. Paul
shared with all his contemporaries, and the
belief and acceptance of it is assumed in all
the New Testament Scriptures. In this there
was nothing novel. Then there was the de
velopment of thought which we call Apoca
lyptic, contained in that strange series of works
which extend from the prophet Daniel to
those last writers who mourn over the de
struction of the Jewish nation. Here, again,
St. Paul shared the opinion of his contempo
raries. We know, from the fragments of
apocalyptic teaching preserved in Rabbinical
writings, that the Rabbis were not unaffected

14 INTRODUCTION
by this movement, and St. Paul clearly shared
in their thoughts ; but he did not in this way
introduce anything new into Christianity. It
was the popular theology of the day, and was
accepted as such by all the early teachers of
Christianity. There was, thirdly, the element which we
call Rabbinical. This was the new element
that St. Paul brought into Christianity, and it
influenced his teaching partly by way of re
action, partly by having given him forms of
thought or categories under which he neces
sarily discussed various questions that arose.
Just in the same way Protestantism was
a reaction from the mediaeval system of
thought, but it could not shake itself free
from the mental atmosphere in which it
had arisen, and so there arose a Protestant
Scholasticism. While St. Paul's conversion
meant, of course, in many ways a revolt
against his early training, he did not entirely
free himself from it, and throughout his
writings there are traces of Rabbinical in
fluences. Questions that he discussed were
questions that were discussed in the schools.
His early training gave him his method of
argument. The absence of system in his
theology corresponds to the unsystematic style

HELLENISTIC JUDAISM 15
of Rabbinical speculation. His doctrine of
Justification, of Predestination, of Free-will,
and Divine Grace, were all influenced by his
early education.
Then, fourthly, there was Hellenistic Judaism.
How far was St. Paul influenced by this ? We
know, at any rate, that he used the Septuagint,
and knew it well. He rarely shews in his
quotations any real knowledge of the Hebrew
Bible. He was acquainted also with the Book
of Wisdom, and had been much influenced by
it. There are considerable traces of its use in
Romans. The language used regarding the
resurrection of the body in 2 Corinthians
seems drawn from it, and it provided many
of the expressions employed in the Colossians
to describe the attributes of the Divine Christ.
There is, however, no evidence that he was
acquainted with the writings of Philo, and his
whole cast of thought was Palestinian, and not
Alexandrian. The new influence, then, brought by St. Paul
into Christianity, apart from all that came
from his character and personality, was that of
his Jewish training in the Rabbinical schools
of Jerusalem. That is, he was an educated
theologian of the day. Here lies the con
trast with the popular and simpler Judaism

16 INTRODUCTION
of the Galilean disciples. At one time it was
customary to find a good deal of direct Hellenic
influence in St. Paul's writings. I do not believe
that that is correct. The relations of St. Paul
to the Greek or Roman life of his time were
only superficial. An able man such as he
was, with a keenness of sympathy and vivid
ness of insight, travelling through the world of
his day, mixing with many classes of persons,
could not but be affected by what he saw and
heard, and so the life of the times, its political
ideas, its games, its philosophy, its poetry, all
found echoes in his writings. But the influence
was not fundamental. It supplied him with
language and imagery, but did not mould his
thought. His ideas are expressed in Hebrew
and not in Greek categories.
There was one more element which must
have affected St. Paul's life even before his
conversion, the existence of which is some
times forgotten. He must already have known
a good deal about Christianity. Probably he
was one of those who had disputed with
Stephen. At any rate, he would not have per
secuted the Christians unless he had known
enough of their opinions to give him a reason
for doing so. This is a fundamental fact which
is sometimes lost sight of in studying the history

KNOWLEDGE OF CHRISTIANITY 17
both of St. Paul and of early Christianity. If
Christianity owed, as some would have it, most
of its existing features to St. Paul, if from
him it derived its conception of Christ as the
Messiah, the idea of salvation apart from the
law, its universalist tendencies, its broad and
liberal outlook, if these had not existed in the
primitive Church, there would have been no
reason why St. Paul or any Pharisee should
have persecuted it. He persecuted Christi
anity because it meant the destruction of
everything which, as a strict Jew, he con
sidered an essential part of the Divine law.
Already it must have shewn signs that it
would break down the exclusiveness of Juda
ism and the rigour of its legal system, or
St. Paul would not have found himself in
opposition to it. It is significant that at first
it was the Sadducees, the party of order, who
were the opponents of Christianity, and it was
Gamaliel who defended them. That was
natural, if at the beginning the only belief
that was generally recognized was the Messiah-
ship of Jesus. It would not be until it had
become apparent that this teaching would
interfere with the supremacy of the law
and the exclusiveness of Judaism that a
Pharisee would find reason to 5*tgSk" it.,

18 INTRODUCTION
Christianity must have been known to St.
Paul before his conversion, as a religion
which accepted Jesus as the Messiah, and
which placed devotion to Christ above de
votion to the law, and already showed signs
of what would be considered by the stricter
Jew of the day a dangerous latitudinarianism.
Ill
It is not necessary, for our purpose, to form
any opinion of the exact nature of the event
which we call the conversion of St. Paul. The
three accounts of it which we possess shew
some difference in detail, but the leading
characteristics are quite clear ; while his own
references to it reveal the influence on his life
which he felt that he had experienced. Nor,
again, is it necessary to discuss the psychological
characteristics of the event, and the extent to
which what happened was subjective or objec
tive. The important point for us is the change
% in St. Paul's life which was produced. He
. sums it up succinctly : " It pleased God to
reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him
amongst the Gentiles." It completely changed
his whole life. He had persecuted the Chris
tians because they had accepted Jesus as the
Messiah. He now believed Him to be the

ST. PAUL'S CONVERSION 19
Messiah and the Son of God. He had looked
upon their belief in the Resurrection as blas
phemy. He now believed that the Christ who
had risen from the dead was the living Christ.
He had thought that the new expansive and
liberal doctrine which Stephen had preached
meant the destruction of Judaism. He now
realized that the preaching to the Gentiles
meant the accomplishment of its purpose. But
these propositions give a very slight idea of the
complete change which had taken place. He
had had a tremendous spiritual experience.
It had transformed his whole being. He had
been apprehended by Christ Jesus : to him
henceforth to live was Christ, and to die was
gain. He counted all things but loss for the
excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus.
He had become the slave of Christ. He could
do all things through Christ who strengthened
him. Henceforth it was no longer he that
lived, but Christ that lived in him.
It is in the light of this spiritual change that
we must study St. Paul's teaching. St. Paul
had been a theologian before his conversion,
but still more he had been an intensely religious
man. As a Christian preacher he had not
ceased to be a theologian. He was a man
of strong intellectual force ; it was necessary

20 INTRODUCTION
that his reason should be convinced, and
he was able always to give adequate reasons
for what he believed. He remains a theo
logian, and each question that comes before
him of controversy or interest he works out in
accordance with the theological principles in
which he had been trained ; but he was not
primarily either a theologian or an apologist.
He was a man of intense religious earnestness.
He accepted Christianity ; he believed in
Christ ; he preached Christ because of a pro
found religious experience, because all that he
taught was real to himself.
There are certain facts and experiences of
outstanding importance in the religious history
of the world. One of these is the conversion
of St. Paul. That conversion was a fact. We
know what St. Paul had been. We know
what he became. We know what he accom
plished. We have in his letters an intense and
intimate revelation of his deepest religious
experience and inmost convictions. His con
version exhibits in a more striking manner than
almost any other event the reality and power
of the spiritual forces of the world. It is a
witness of St. Paul's own strength. It is still
more a witness to the force and power of the
life and death of Jesus Christ.

CHRIST'S COMPELLING POWER 21
St. Paul has been called the greatest of
Christians. His conversion was the most
striking example of the compelling power of
Christ. He never ascribes anything to his
own effort or capacity. Everything in his life
he ascribes to Christ and the power of Christ
in him. He is always only a chosen vessel in
the hands of the Lord. His conversion is but
a witness to the spiritual force and power of
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whom he
preached.

II
THE ESCHATOLOGY OF ST. PAUL
Reasons for order of treatment — A part of St. Paul's normal
teaching — Outlines of the teaching — The time of the
Parousia — Antichrist — Sources of his teaching — Its
religious significance — Symbolic character — Its per
manent value.
A recent writer has told us that, if we are to
understand the beginnings of Christianity, we
should look upon the teaching of our Lord and
St. Paul as episodes in the history of Jewish
eschatology. The statement is, of course, a
paradox. But a paradox generally contains a
certain amount of truth, and this has the ad
vantage of drawing our attention to an element
in St. Paul's teaching which is in a certain
sense fundamental, and of bringing us face to
face with some interesting problems. We learn
through it certain presuppositions which were
part of St. Paul's mental equipment, and are
better able to look at the questions before him
from his own point of view. We learn, also,
something of the thought of the times in which
22

ST. PAUL'S NORMAL PREACHING 23
he lived. It is an interesting point, also, that
his eschatological teaching is expounded in the
two earliest Epistles which we possess, whilst
in his other writings it is presupposed.

The first point to be noticed is that a doctrine
of the " last things " was part of St. Paul's
normal preaching. The author of the Acts im
plies that when at Thessalonica he taught about
the Kingdom of Heaven. For it is related that
the Apostle was brought before the magistrates
for teaching that there was another king, one
Jesus.1 This corresponds to the indications of
the Epistle to the Thessalonians. You have
learned, he says, clearly referring to his teach
ing when among them, " to wait for his Son
from heaven . . ., even Jesus, which delivereth us
from the wrath to come."2 They had received
knowledge which made it unnecessary to write
to them of " the times and the seasons."3 He
had exhorted them to walk worthy of God, who
calleth them to His own kingdom and glory.4
His teaching had been such that they expected
that the end would come soon, and felt diffi
culties as to what would happen to those
1 Acts xvii. 7. 2 1 Thess. i. 10.
3 1 Thess. v. 1. * 1 Thess. ii. 12.

24 ESCHATOLOGY OF ST. PAUL
who had already died.1 This conviction of
the transitoriness of this world seems to have
led to irregularities of conduct.2 Now, teach
ing such as this would not have been necessary
to the Jew, who believed in a final judgement on
the coming of the Kingdom ; but the Gentiles
could not have understood Christianity unless
they had learnt at the same time the escha
tological presuppositions of its teaching.
What were these presuppositions ? In St.
Paul's conception the course of time was
divided into periods called " aeons." Eternity
is spoken of as " for aeons of aeons."3 The
thought of God was conceived in a time which
might be described as "before the aeons."4
The time when St. Paul lived was described
as the present age, or aeon,5 in contrast to the
age which is to come.6 It is the evil age.7
Its characteristic is transitoriness. The fashion
of this world passeth away.8 As an evil
world, it is subject to the rulers of this world,
or the God of this world — that is, Satan and

1 1 Thess. iv. 13, 14. 2 l Thess. iv. 1 et

3 eis tovs aitovas Tail/ aitbvtav.

seq.

i irpb riav aldtviav. B o alwv oStos.
6 6 aliov 6 fiekXiav, lp)(6p.£vo5.
7 Gal. i. 4, tox cua>i/09 rov evea-rioTos irov-qpov.
8 1 Cor. vii. 81, irapdyet, yap to <rx%xa tov Kocrpiov

THE PAROUSIA 25
the evil spirits.1 But yet Satan is not supreme,
for God is King of the ages,2 and there is a
Divine purpose running through all time.
The end of this present age, or, as it is
called, this world, will come shortly. The
time when it comes is described as " the day,"
or the " day of the Lord."3 From one point
of view it is the last day, for it ends the present
order of things. From another it is the day
of redemption.4 It is the Parousia5 — the
Advent of the Son of God. " The Lord him
self shall descend from heaven, with a shout,
with the voice of the archangel, and with the
trump of God : and the dead in Christ shall rise
first : then we that are alive and remain shall be
caught up together with them in the clouds,
to meet the Lord in the air."8 " We shall not
all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a
moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
trump : for the trumpet shall sound, and the
dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall
be changed.",7 It is also the day of judge
ment, when God shall judge the secrets of all
men.8 For we shall all stand before the
1 1 Cor. ii. 6, 8 ; cf. Eph. vi. 12.
2 1 Tim. i. 17. 3 1 Thess. v. 2, 4.
4 Eph. iv. 30. 5 1 Thess. ii. 19.
6 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17. 7 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52.
8 Rom. ii. 16.

26 ESCHATOLOGY OF ST. PAUL
judgement-seat of God. Each of us shall give
an account of himself to God.1 " We must all
be made manifest before the judgement-seat of
Christ ; that each one may receive the things
done in the body in accordance with what he has
done, whether it be good or bad."2 It is a day
of wrath and revelation,3 for the wrath of God
is revealed from heaven against all ungodli
ness and unrighteousness of man.4 The wrath
of God cometh upon the sons of disobedience.5
It is therefore a day which tests the quahty
of each man's work. The fire of the great
catastrophe shall come and prove each man's
work of what sort it is.6 It is therefore a day
of vengeance for those who know not God,
and have not obeyed the Gospel of our Lord
Jesus Christ. They shall suffer punishment,
even eternal destruction from the face of the
Lord and from the glory of His might.7 On
the other hand, it is a day of redemption8 —
the day of the foundation of the kingdom.
Henceforth the righteous shall be ever with
the Lord.9 It means, therefore, rest, peace,
salvation, everlasting union with Christ.

1 Rom. xiv. 10, 12.

2 2 Cor. v. 10.

3 Rom. ii. 5.

4 Rom. i. 18.

5 Eph. v. 6.

G 1 Cor. iii. 13

7 2 Thess. i. 8, 9-

8 Eph. iv. 30.

9 1 Thess. iv. 17.

THE TIME OF THE PAROUSIA 27
II
But when is this to come ? There is no
doubt that St. Paul expected the Parousia
soon, that he thought that it would come in
his own lifetime ; and although as he grew
older he was less confident, yet to the end
of his life he hoped that this might be the case.
In 1 Thessalonians his language is confident,
" The dead in Christ shall rise first," but " we
that are alive, that are left, shall together with
them be caught up in the clouds to meet the
Lord in the air."1 In 1 Corinthians a new
thought appears, that of the "spiritual body."
The body that is buried will rise again in
incorruption. Those who at the time of the
coming are still alive will undergo the same
transformation. " We shall not all sleep, but
we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the
twinkling of an eye, at the last trump." 2 The
corruptible will put on incorruption ; the
mortal, immortality. In 2 Corinthians this
thought is further worked out. St. Paul has
been in great danger of his life. He is less
confident that he will live until the Lord
comes. But he knows that He who raised up
the Lord Jesus will raise up us also with Jesus.3
1 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17. 2 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52.
3 2 Cor. iv. 14.

28 ESCHATOLOGY OF ST. PAUL
But the transformation which he described
in the first Epistle is, he feels, already working.
He speaks of the earthly house of our taber
nacle being dissolved. He speaks, again, of
a building from God eternal in the heavens.
He is longing to be clothed upon with our
habitation which is from heaven, that mortality
may be swallowed up of life.1 The language
is compatible either with the expectation of
immediate death or with hopes of the Coming.
But it is the confidence of a future after death
and of judgement rather than the immediate
Coming of the Lord which is in his mind.
Although in the next group of Epistles the
eschatological element is less prominent, and
other thoughts occupy St. Paul's mind, yet it
still remains the framework in which his ideas
are set. He reminds the Philippians that the
Lord is at hand2 ; but, as regards himself, his
position as prisoner makes it possible that he
may be put to death, and he expresses his
desire to depart and be with Christ, which is
far better.3 In Colossians and Ephesians we
find incidental references to the kingdom,4 the
Divine wrath,5 the day of redemption,6 the evil
i 2 Cor. v. 1 -4. 2 Phil. iv. 5.
3 Phil. i. 23. 4 Eph. v. 5.
5 Col. iii. 6 ; Eph. v. 6. « Eph. iv. SO.

THE LAST TIMES 29
day.1 But undoubtedly, under the shadow of
his inherited eschatology, another thought has
been growing up in St. Paul's mind — not,
indeed, as yet fully grasped, but destined
ultimately to provide a substitute for the im
mediate hope of the Parousia — the universal
kingdom of Christ. -^ "*'
When we turn to the final group of Epistles,
we seem to return also to the thought of the
earhest period. These are the last times.2 The
faihng away from truth and the rise of heresy
are what might be expected in these evil days
before the Messiah comes. Timothy is to
keep the commandment without spot until
the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ.3 We
are to live soberly, righteously, and godly, in
this present world, looking for the blessed hope
and the glorious appearing of our great God
and Saviour Jesus Christ.4 Most remark
able is the last Epistle of all. The Apostle
speaks of the last days when grievous times
shall come, and clearly implies that they are
already present. He warns Timothy that
these times will still be worse. He speaks,
indeed, as if his own death is to come shortly :
" I am already being offered, and the time
1 Eph. vi. 13. 2 2 Tim. iii. 1.
3 1 Tim. vi. 14. 4 Titus ii. 12, 13.

30 ESCHATOLOGY OF ST. PAUL
of my departure is at hand. . . . There is
laid up for me the crown of righteousness,
which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give
to me at that day : and not to me only, but unto
all them also that love his appearing."1 Then
directly afterwards there seems to be a half-
feeling that he may still live for the Parousia.
" The Lord will deliver me from every evil
work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly
kingdom."2 This survey will shew that substantially
St. Paul's belief remains unchanged through
out. There is only a slight shifting of the
point of view. At the beginning the end is
looked upon as imminent, and he expects to
live until it comes. Always it is at hand,
until, when the perils of this life become
greater, he himself doubts whether he will
live for it. He contemplates the growth of
the Church, and its spread in the world be
comes to him a more prominent thought than
the final catastrophe. At the end of his life
he still looks for it as imminent. He still
feels that he may live to see it, but he is
convinced that, whether he live or whether he
die, it will always be in the Lord. But, al
though the end may come soon, the time is not
1 2 Tim. iv. 6-8. 2 2 Tim. iv. 18.

ANTICHRIST 31
yet. It will come suddenly, as a thief in the
night, but before it comes there will be a great
falling away. The man of sin, the son of
perdition — that is, Antichrist — will be revealed.
This mystery of iniquity is already working,
but there is a power restraining it. Finally
the lawless one shall be revealed, whom the
Lord shall consume with the breath of His
mouth, and shall destroy by the manifestation
of his presence.1 This expectation, which we
learn from 2 Thessalonians— one of the earliest
Epistles — corresponds with the situation as
St. Paul conceived it at the close of his life.
The outburst of wickedness which, ten years
before, he had expected had now come. Men
were everywhere falling away from the faith.
Persecution had arisen. It was a sure sign
that the end was at hand. Ill
What was the source and origin of this
teaching ? It is recognized that it was part
of the ordinary and popular religion of the
day. It had its roots in Old Testament
prophecy. It is developed in the Book of
Daniel and in the series of Apocalyptic writings
which succeed that work. It was the normal
1 2 Thess. ii. 3-10.

32 ESCHATOLOGY OF ST. PAUL
literary method for the expression of religion
in the time of our Lord. But while in its
main outline it was derived from Judaism, it
had under Christian influence been developed
and was being transformed. If we study the
teaching of the twenty-fourth chapter of St.
Matthew, and again that of the Apocalypse, we
shall find all the different elements of St. Paul's
conception clearly present. We have the same
expectation of the woes of the Messiah and the
rise of false teaching, of the suddenness of the
end, coming like a thief in the night or like
a woman in her travail. There runs through
the Gospels, as through the other books of the
New Testament, the same curious combination
of two apparently inconsistent beliefs, the near
ness and yet the remoteness of the end. It
must be clear, we think, that elements of
Christian teaching which are shared by such
different works as the Apocalypse, the Gospel
of St. Matthew and the Epistles of St. Paul, and
are presupposed throughout the New Testa
ment, were not derived from St. Paul. Our
Lord had throughout taught in the current
language of apocalyptic expectation ; but He
was always transforming the ideas while He was
using the language, and what He did was done
also by His followers. In St. Paul we see the

THE RESURRECTION BODY 33
building up of the Christian doctrine of im
mortality out of Jewish eschatology ; and when
we come to what we may describe as the more
definitely Christian mode of expression, it is
not necessary to go outside to find its source.
It is true, indeed, that the Book of Wisdom
has supplied some of the language which is
used in 2 Corinthians ; but the thoughts and
ideas of that Epistle are Pauline and Christian.
They grow out of the fundamental conviction
of St. Paul that his life was a life in Christ ;
that he was already being transformed by the
power of the Spirit, and that thus our vile
body may be fashioned like unto His glorious
Body. A transformation of the life of the
Christian which begins in this world will be
completed hereafter. The life in the Spirit
on earth is the pledge and guarantee of the
life in the Spirit hereafter. IV
There are certain other problems suggested
by this primitive Christian eschatology. The
first is that it is always difficult to say how
much of it is figurative, and how much we are
intended to take literally. It is quite certain
that there is a considerable amount which was
never intended to be more than symbolical. 5

34 ESCHATOLOGY OF ST. PAUL
Take, for example, the various visions of the
succession of the kingdoms of this world in
the Book of Daniel. Clearly there the great
image, the four beasts, the ram, and the he-
goat, are all purely symbolical. Or take the
well-known passage of the Christian armour
at the end of Ephesians. Here the Christian
is called on to prepare for the evil day, the
great day when the forces of Antichrist shall
be loosed — when all the powers of darkness
shall be arrayed against him. In order to
meet these attacks he is bidden to put on the
whole armour of God. This passage is, in
fact, both eschatological and demonological.
But how much do these two forms of thought
contribute except language ? The Christian
armour is clearly symbolical. Are not the
" evil day " and the " demons " also symbolical ?
When we read the passage now we think
only of the spiritual warfare which every
good man must wage. How far did St. Paul
himself take the words quite literally ? How
far was he using them to express his spiritual
teaching in well - known language ? With
examples such as these before us, there is
no need to be too ready to imagine that all
this teaching must necessarily be interpreted
in a matter-of-fact way. The eschatology of

ST. PAUL'S SYMBOLISM 35
the New Testament puts before us certain
great truths — judgement, resurrection, the
recompense of good and evil, the final
triumph of Divine justice. All these it
teaches in the language of symbolism. That
symbolic language has become the inheri
tance of the Christian Church. How much
do we ever take it literally ourselves, and
have we any reason for thinking that St. Paul
intended us to take it invariably in a crudely
literal and matter-of-fact manner ?
The second point I would notice about this
eschatology is that it is based upon two
fundamental facts : the transiency of human
life and the transiency of human society. It
became the current teaching just at the time
when, under the hammer of the Roman power,
all the nations of the East were in a state of
dissolution ; when the one thought that was
necessarily impressed upon men's minds was
the passing away of all settled earthly land
marks ; when empire had seemed to succeed
empire and conqueror conqueror ; when the
one lesson that the outlook on the world's
history seemed to teach was that the fashion
of this world passeth away. The apparent
permanency of the political conditions under
which we live at the present day conceals

36 ESCHATOLOGY OF ST. PAUL
from us how true is this aspect of earthly life,
and makes us forget that the transient
character of human affairs which is the pre
supposition of this eschatological teaching is
real. If not only the life of the individual
here is very short, but the existent conditions
of human society are equally transitory, so
that human work and labour are of little profit ;
if the great city that we have built, the kingdom
we have founded, the temples we have erected,
will all pass away — and who can doubt that it
is so ? — we naturally turn our minds to what is
really permanent. That is the fundamental
thought of eschatology. When the fashion of
this world passes away, there is a Kingdom of
Heaven for those who have been followers of
Christ. Things which are seen are temporal ; the
things which are not seen are eternal. Above
the world, with all its changes, there is the
unchanging figure of God. These are funda
mental spiritual truths, and it is these which
underlie all the eschatological teaching,
whether Jewish or Christian, of the early
centuries. It is not an exaggeration, in
fact, to say that eschatology means religion.
Rationalist critics have always attempted to
ignore all such elements when they have re
constructed the teaching of the Gospel.

VALUE OF ESCHATOLOGY 37
They would turn the teaching of our Lord
into an ethical system, and make Christianity
a philosophical school. Our attention has
once more been drawn somewhat violently
to the eschatological elements in the New
Testament, and we are reminded thus of
its religious teaching. Christianity is not
primarily a rule of life or a system of philos
ophy, but a religion ; and religion starts with
a fundamental belief in God, in man's respon
sibility to God, in faith and hope, in judgement
and eternal life, in the final establishment of
the Kingdom of Christ. The symbolism of
the first century has largely passed away,
although we use its language in Christian
poetry without any misgivings. The funda
mental beliefs in resurrection, immortality, in
judgement and salvation, which we are taught
through it, have become the permanent pos
session of the Christian Church.

Ill
ST. PAUL'S CHRISTOLOGY— THE PERSON
OF CHRIST
The Jewish expectation — St. Paul's conception — Historical
development — Analysis of his teaching — The earthly
life — The Divine nature — The source of his belief —
The teaching of the Church — The life of Christ.
The fundamental fact in relation to St. Paul's
conversion and the central point of his teaching
were the acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah.
"Paul reasoned with them out of the scrip
tures, openly alleging that Messiah must needs
have suffered, and risen again from the dead ;
and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you,
is Messiah."1 "Believe on the Lord Jesus,
and thou shalt be saved."2 " If thou shalt
confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and
shalt believe in thine heart that God hath
raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."3
This acceptance of Jesus as Messiah meant that
the Christian teaching of St. Paul was a natural
development of his Jewish faith. Just as part
1 Acts xvii. 2-3. 2 Acts xvi. 31. 3 Rom. x. 9.
38

THE JEWISH MESSIAH 39
of the religion in which he had been brought
up had been the expectation of a final catas
trophe — judgement to come and the establish
ment of the kingdom — so he looked for, as
did his contemporaries, the coming of the
Messiah. .
That hope amongst the Jews probably took
one of two forms. One was the rise of a
Prince of the House of David, who, at the
head of the armies of Israel, would defeat the
hated heathen and restore again the kingdom
to Israel. It is this form of the Messianic
hope which is expressed in a well-known
passage of the Psalms of Solomon : " Behold,
O Lord, and raise up unto them their king,
the son of David, in the time which thou,
O God, knowest, that he may reign over Israel
thy servant ; and gird him with strength that
he may break in pieces them that rule un
justly. . . . He shall judge the nations and
the peoples with the wisdom of his righteous
ness ; and he shall possess the nations of the
heathen to serve him beneath his yoke ; and
he shall glorify the Lord in a place to be seen
of the whole earth ; and he shall purge Jerusalem
and make it holy even as it was in the days of
old, so that the nations may come from the
ends of the earth to see his glory, bringing as

40 ST. PAUL'S CHRISTOLOGY
gifts her sons that had fainted. ... And
there shall be no iniquity in his days in their
midst, for all shall be holy, and their king is
the Lord Messiah."1
No doubt some such hope as this was the
normal form which Messianic expectation took
amongst the people of Palestine. It was hopes
like these that from time to time inspired
revolts against the Roman Empire, and that
encouraged all the various false Messiahs that
arose. This conception, too, has left its im
press, as we can recognize, on various episodes
in the Gospels. But this would not have been
the form that St. Paul's hopes took. He was
not a Palestinian Jew ; neither the Temple
worship nor the sanctity of the Holy Land
would appeal to him so strongly. His concep
tions were much more of a definitely religious
character. It would, therefore, be the Christ
of religion that he would expect. The exact
form which this expectation took we cannot, of
course, say. A religious hope is not generally
put in exact theological language, and the
details of the picture were no doubt filled in
differently by different minds ; but no doubt
it was the apocalyptic Messiah that St. Paul
1 " Psalms of Solomon," translated by James and Ryle,
xvii. 23-36.

THE APOCALYPTIC MESSIAH 41
expected. One form of this is well expressed
in the summary which Dr. Charles gives us
of the second section of the Book of Enoch
" But the oppression of the kings and the
mighty will not continue for ever. Suddenly
the Head of Days will appear, and with him
the Son of Man, to execute judgement upon all
alike — on the righteous and the wicked, on
angel and on man. And to this end there
will be a resurrection of all Israel ; the books
of the living will be opened ; all judgement will
be committed unto the Son of Man ; the Son\
of Man will possess universal dominion, and,
sit on the throne of his glory, which is likewise
God's throne. He will judge the holy angels
and the fallen angels, the righteous upon earth
and the sinners ; but particularly those who
oppress his saints, the kings and the mighty
and those who possess the earth. All are
judged according to their deeds, for their deeds
are weighed in the balance. The fallen angels
are cast into a fiery furnace. The kings and
the mighty confess their sins and pray for
forgiveness, but in vain ; and are given into
the hands of the righteous ; and their destruc
tion will furnish a spectacle to the righteous
as they burn and vanish for ever out of sight,
to be tortured in Gehenna by the angels of

42 ST. PAUL'S CHRISTOLOGY
punishment. The remaining sinners and god
less will be driven from off the face of the
earth. The Son of Man will slay them with
the word of his mouth. Sin and wrongdoing
will be banished from the earth ; and heaven
and earth will be transformed and the righteous
and elect will have their mansions therein ; and
the light of the Lord of Spirits will shine upon
them ; they will live in the light of eternal life.
The Elect One will dwell amongst them."1
It will become apparent how far St. Paul's
ultimate conception resembled this, and how
far it differed from it. If such was St. Paul's
starting-point, and there is no reason for doubt
ing that it was something of this character, his
conversion meant not only that he accepted
Jesus as the Messiah, but that his concep
tion of the work, and purpose and person of
the Messiah underwent a remarkable trans
formation. I
It will be convenient first to examine the
Epistles in chronological order. We shall thus
obtain a succinct view of St. Paul's teaching,
and shall be able to decide how far there was
any development in his lifetime.
The evidence of the first group is particularly
i Charles, "The Book of Enoch," p. 109.

THE THESSALONIAN EPISTLES 43
interesting, both because in some ways it is
nearest to the apocalyptic conception we have
just sketched, and because it is implicit for
the most part rather than explicit. Incidental
references imply often much more fundamental
thought than dogmatic constructions. Jesus in
these Epistles is the Lord, the Christ, the Son of '
God. He is associated with the Father on terms l
of apparent equality ; as the Source, with Him, ;
of grace and peace ; with the Father He rules
our life, our faith ; our love and our hope alike
look to Him as to the Father.1 He had been
killed by the Jews, but God had raised Him
up ; He delivereth us from the wrath which is
to come ; He shall come again " revealed from
heaven with his mighty angels " ; He shall
destroy the wicked and reward the good ;
He shall be glorified with His saints, and we
shall be ever with Him.2 Even now there
is the closest fellowship between us and Him.
We are His followers, and He is our Example.
The Churches are in Christ Jesus. Our life is
to stand fast in the Lord. Whether we wake
or sleep, we live with Him. All Christian rule
and authority is in His name.3 If we consider
1 1 Thess. i. 1, 3, iii. 11 ; 2 Thess. i. 1, 2.
2 1 Thess. ii. 15, i. 10, iv. 16; 2 Thess. i. 7, ii. 8.
3 1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 14, v. 10 ; 2 Thess. iii. 6, 12.

44 ST. PAUL'S CHRISTOLOGY
the meaning of this language carefully, we
shall be convinced that, although formal
definition is absent, it is difficult to explain
it by the use of any other phrase than that of
saying that Christ is Divine. He is not only
a supernatural Christ, but one who is spoken
of in a way which seems to imply equality
with the Father. We shall find later in
St. Paul's life a more fully developed theology,
but we shall find nothing which implies greater
dignity or power than these incidental refer
ences in the earliest Epistles.
The great theme of the second group of the
Epistles is the work of Christ for our salvation.
It may reasonably be held that St. Paul's con
ception of what Christ had done, and his com
prehension of the full significance of His death,
shews some development. But for us at the
moment the important point is that, if St. Paul
could ascribe such power to Christ as he does,
he must also ascribe to Him a personality
which harmonizes with what He could accom
plish. This may be summed up in the words,
" God was in Christ reconciling the world unto
himself."1 Other particular passages may be
quoted. There is a very clear statement of
the pre-existence of Christ as Son : " God sent
1 2 Cor. v. 19.

COLOSSIANS 45
forth his Son."1 He is described as " the image
of God."2 In contrast to Adam, who was
from the earth earthy, " the second man is of
heaven."3 The intimate connection, also, be
tween Christ and the Church is further worked
out in the thought that the Church is the Body
of Christ : " Ye are the body of Christ, and
members in particular."4
The most explicit Christological develop
ment takes place in the third group. We find
it first in a well-known passage in Philip
pians which speaks of Christ's pre-existence in
the essential nature of God, and of His taking
upon Himself the essential nature of man, of
His death and His final triumph.5 In the
Epistle to the Colossians it becomes still
more explicit. Clearly there was some teach
ing prevailing which tended to depreciate the
conception of Christ, which looked upon Him
simply as one of the angels, and considered
Him to be among created beings. Hence it
became necessary for St. Paul to state quite
definitely what he thought, and this he does in
a well-known passage the significance of which
is summed up for us in the following para
phrase of Bishop Lightfoot :
1 Gal. iv. 4. 2 2 Cor. iv. 4. 3 I Cor. xv. 47.
4 1 Cor. xii. 27. 6 Phil. ii. 6-11.

46 ST. PAUL'S CHRISTOLOGY
"He is the perfect image, the visible
representation, of the unseen God. He is
the Firstborn, the absolute Heir of the
Father, begotten before the ages ; the Lord
of the Universe by virtue of primogeniture,
and by virtue also of creative agency. For in
and through Him the whole world was created,
things in heaven and things on earth, things
visible to the outer eye and things cognizable
by the inward perception. His supremacy is
absolute and universal. All powers in heaven
and earth are subject to Him. This subjection
extends even to the most exalted and most
potent of angelic beings, whether they be called
Thrones or Dominations or Princedoms or
Powers or whatever title of dignity men may
confer upon them. Yes : He is first and He
is last. Through Him, as the mediatorial Word,
the universe has been created ; and unto Him,
as the final goal, it is tending. In Him is no
before or after. He is pre-existent and self-
existent before all the worlds. And in Him,
as the binding and sustaining power, universal
nature coheres and consists."1
It may be noticed how in this description
of Christ there is one point brought promi
nently out on which we have had no insistence
i Lightfoot, ad Col. i. 15-17 ; " Colossians," ed. 2, p. 144.

CHRIST AND THE CHURCH 47
in the earlier letters — what we may describe
as His cosmic significance. He is both the
Agent of creation and the Sustainer of the
universe. But even here, although the thought
is worked out more elaborately, there is
nothing absolutely new. St. Paul had spoken
of the "one Lord, Jesus Christ, through
whom are all things."1 He had spoken of
Him again as the " Image of God." So that
the development of thought, if there is such in
the Colossians, does not add new ideas.
There are other points in St. Paul's con
ception of Christ which are brought out in
these Epistles. The relation of Christ to the
Church which we find in 1 Corinthians we
find here taught much more fully, but with
the metaphor somewhat changed. There the
Church was the whole Body, which built up
the Christ. Here the Church is the Body
of which Christ is the Head.2 Even more
striking is another expression which occurs
in these Epistles : " In him " — that is, in
Christ — "all the fulness of the Godhead
dwells."3 Parallel to this we have the state
ment that it is the Church which is the fulness
of Christ, " the fulness of him who all in all is
1 1 Cor. viii. 6. 2 Eph. i. 22-23.
3~ Col. i. 19.

48 ST. PAULS CHRISTOLOGY
being fulfilled."1 Then there is another idea
which has already occurred in 1 Corinthians,
but is found here in a more developed form.
In 1 Corinthians everything is represented as
being included in Christ. Here it is put in
the form that all things are summed up in
Him : '"It is God's good pleasure ' to gather
up in one all things in Christ, both things
which are in the heavens and things which are
upon the earth."2 All things are summed up in
Christ, and the Christ does not attain His full
completeness except in His mystical union with
the Church.
When we pass from these Epistles to the
Pastorals, there might appear to be something
of a change from this lofty tone ; but any
such change is only the inevitable result of
the subject-matter. After all, the concerns of
the ordinary life of the Church have to be
remembered. They are as necessary as theo
logical conceptions, and we soon find that what
these Epistles are really doing is applying the
lofty thoughts with which St. Paul's mind was
stored to the conditions under which the
Church was working. The incidental allusions
we find in the Pastoral Epistles to the work.
and dignity of Christ would not be possible
1 Eph. i. 23. 2 Eph. i. 9-10.

CHRIST IN THE PASTORALS 49
unless there was behind it a Christology as rich
as that we have sketched. The theology, in
fact, of the great Epistles is assumed. " Christ
Jesus came into the world to save sinners."1
" There is one mediator between God and
men, himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave
himself a ransom for all." 2 Through St. Paul
Jesus Christ " shews forth his longsuffering,
for an ensample of them which should hereafter
believe on him unto eternal life."3 The whole
incarnation is described in a well known
passage : " He who was manifested in the
flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels,
preached among the nations, believed on in
the world, received up in glory."4 The
Gospel was given us in Christ Jesus " before
times eternal, but hath now been manifested
by the appearing of our Saviour, Christ Jesus,
who abolished death, and brought life and
incorruption to light through the gospel."5
In these Epistles we find historical facts as
to Christ's life referred to, but quite inci
dentally : His descent from David,6 His good
confession before Pontius Pilate,7 the words
in the former case being perhaps a reminis-
1 1 Tim. i. 15. 2 1 Tim. ii. 5. 3 1 Tim. i. 16.
4 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; cf. Titus iii. 4. 5 2 Tim. i. 9-10.
8 2 Tim. ii. 8. 7 1 Tim. vi. 13.

50 ST. PAUL'S CHRISTOLOGY
cence of the introduction to Romans, while
the Passion narrative was always in St.
Paul's thoughts. It is a manifestation of the
glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus
Christ.1 The language is in all cases con
sistent with that of St. Paul. It could
never have come into being unless there
had been behind it a theology at any rate
resembling the Pauline, but it would be hazard
ous to say that any expressions such as those
we have mentioned would necessitate Pauhne
authorship. II
We must now attempt to analyze more
carefully St. Paul's conception of Christ, and
the best passage, probably, to begin with will
be the opening verses of Romans, where our
Lord is described as " born of the seed of
David according to the flesh ; declared to be
the Son of God with power, according to the
spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the
dead."2 Here, quite clearly, one person is
referred to— Jesus the Christ, the Lord, the Son
of God. But He is described in two aspects
— the one according to the flesh, the other
according to the spirit, this spirit being further
1 Titus ii. 13. 2 Rom. i. 3, 4 ; cf. 2 Tim. ii. 8.

THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST 51
defined as the spirit of holiness. We can
probably best explain the meaning of these
words if we realize that there is just the same
antithesis here in regard to the nature of
Christ that we find elsewhere as regards the
nature of man. There is what we may call
the earthly aspect, and there is the heavenly
aspect ; and it will be convenient to treat these
two aspects separately.
What was St. Paul's opinion of the earthly
life of Christ, of the man Jesus ? It is neces
sary to refer at this point to a well-known
passage, on which great stress is often laid,
and from which certain deductions have been
made, which are in our opinion incorrect.
" Wherefore," he writes, " we know no man
henceforth after the flesh ; even if we have
known Christ after the flesh, yet now we
know him so no more."1 These words have
given rise to much speculation. By some
they have been taken to mean that St. Paul
had been personally acquainted with the Lord ;
by others they have been supposed to mean
that he was indifferent to our Lord's earthly
ministry. Neither of these interpretations is,
we believe, correct. If anyone will look at the
context for a minute, he will see that St. Paul
1 2 Cor. v. 16.

52 ST. PAUL'S CHRISTOLOGY
has been speaking of his own ministry, and of
certain people who had condemned it. They
had judged, he says, by appearance only, and
it is with that opinion that he is concerned.
He claims to be judged, not as what he seems
to be, but as one who is a new creature in
Christ. He himself, he says, has left off judg
ing according to the flesh — i.e., according to
the appearance men present in ordinary human
life. There had been a time when he had
judged Christ also according to the flesh ; just
as the Pharisees he had probably considered
Him a deluded and harmful impostor. Now he
no longer so judges Him. He knows that God
was in Him reconciling the world to Himself.
It is the same of anyone else who is in Christ.
They must all be judged in accordance with
their spiritual nature, not in accordance with
the earthly manifestations of their nature.
What St. Paul, in fact, condemns is the
ordinary human judgement.
Probably " earthly life" would represent most
accurately the meaning attached by St. Paul
to the words " according to the flesh," and it
is this earthly life that we must first consider.
Jesus, he tells us, was a man of the seed of
David,1 born of a woman, born under the law.2
1 Rom. i. 3, 4. 2 Gal. iv. 4.

THE EARTHLY LIFE 53
He refers to the brethren of the Lord, and
especially to James. Jesus' life was holy.
Though He bore the likeness of sinful flesh,
yet He knew not sin. He was meek and
gentle ; He was righteous and obedient ; He
had appointed Apostles who were twelve in
number. Now, it is true, of course, that
St. Paul does not give much information about
the earthly life of our Lord. It must be re
membered that his Epistles are subsidiary to the
ordinary teaching, and that he would not dwell
in them upon anything which was not a matter
of difficulty and controversy ; and so the fact
that he does not refer much to incidents in our
Lord's earthly life does not imply that he con
sidered it a matter of little importance. It was,
in fact, a proof for him of that self-humiliation
which was finally consummated in His death.
It was, indeed, a fact of tremendous impor
tance. Though our Lord had been rich, yet
for our sakes He had become poor.1 This
does not refer specifically to His poverty
in material things, but to the poorness of
His earthly life in comparison with His
heavenly glory. Yet the context to the
passage shews that, in all probability, the
poverty of the life of Jesus helped to complete
1 2 Cor. viii. 9. 8

54 ST. PAUL'S CHRISTOLOGY
the picture of His self-denial. The same ideas,
both generally and specifically, seem to be
implied in the well-known passage of Philip
pians. He emptied himself.1 He took the
form of a servant. He humbled Himself.
And in this life of humiliation He had been an
example to mankind.
There is no reason, indeed, for thinking that
St. Paul in any way disparaged the earthly
life of Christ. But it was in His death that the
meaning of this life was most fully revealed. St.
Paul speaks of the death of Christ as the central
point of his teaching. Christ had been betrayed,
but before His betrayal He had celebrated the
Last Supper with His disciples. He had been
crucified — the Pastoral Epistles tell us under
Pontius Pilate — and had suffered at the hands
of the Jews. He had been buried.
But this was not all. Christ had risen from
the dead. To St. Paul this was a central fact
of his teaching. " If Christ hath not been
raised, then is our preaching in vain. " 2 St. Paul
had therefore taken much trouble to obtain
evidence of the fact. His primary belief came,
no doubt, from the vision that had appeared
to him of the risen Christ, and from the power
that had thus come into his life with the firm
1 Phil. ii. 7. a 1 Cor. xv. 14.

CHRIST'S RESURRECTION 55
conviction which he had that Christ was alive.
But this was not sufficient for him. He had
sought and obtained evidence that Christ had
risen on the third day. This incidental state
ment implies a knowledge of the facts re
corded in the Gospels, and of the empty tomb.
For the Church had fixed the third day as
that when our Lord rose from the dead, on the
ground that on the third day the tomb was
empty. Further, there was evidence that
Christ had been seen by a large number of His
disciples and followers, and that these visions
had not been merely appearances to a single
person. On one occasion, certainly, He had
been seen by 500 brethren at once, and many
of them, so St. Paul tells us, were still living at
the time he was writing, to testify to what they
had seen. Suggestions have been made that
the other appearances of the risen Christ were,
like that to St. Paul, subjective, and that it was
simply a conviction which he had that Christ
was living that was to him the essential point.
Nothing can be more erroneous than this, as a
representation ot St. Paul's own point of view.
He clearly looked upon the resurrection of
Christ as in some sense a bodily resurrection — a
resurrection in human form in a spiritual body.
He believed His reappearances were objective

56 ST. PAUL'S CHRISTOLOGY
facts to which human testimony could be
given, and that the resurrection was the
fundamental proof of the Messiahship of
Jesus. No doubt it was not merely evidence
of external facts that made him believe.
External facts alone are rarely strong enough
to change a man's whole life. It was the
spiritual change which had taken place in him
— a change which had been the result of many
influences. But, as an intellectual man, St.
Paul asked for objective corroboration, and
found it in the fact of the resurrection. So
for others the resurrection was the test of their
belief,1 and it was by the resurrection that
Jesus was declared to be the Son of God.2
St. Paul does not normally refer to the
actual teaching of Jesus. But the allusions
that he does make are sufficient to prove
that he was acquainted with records of His
words, and considered them authoritative.
Certain incidents which happened in the Church
of Corinth led to his giving a detailed account
of the Last Supper, which is in some ways
more complete than that in the Gospels, but
agrees with them in all main details.3 In the
same Epistle he refers definitely to the com-
1 Rom. x. 9. 2 Rom. i. 4.
8 1 Cor. xi. 23-25.

ST. PAUL AND THE GOSPELS 57
mand of our Lord as to the insolubility of D
marriage,1 and to the right of ministers of the
Gospel to live of the Gospel.2 While such
definite references are not common, resem
blances to the words, still more to the teach
ing, are much more so. " He that rejects me o
rejects not me, but him that sent me."3 The
Pharisees are those who shut out others from
the kingdom.4 Christians are to bear one
another's burdens, according to the law of
Christ5; the Christian, following the example
of his Master, prays for his persecutors.6 The
Church meets together in the name of Jesus.
If the language of the Gospels and the Epistles
is carefully compared together, the resem
blance between the teaching of St. Paul and
our Lord will be found to be large, and that
particularly as regards the moral teaching.
The great hymn of Christian love in the
Corinthians is the direct development of the
fundamental teaching of our Lord. The
evidence, in fact, of the Epistles is quite
sufficient to prove the existence of the body
1 1 Cor. vii. 10-11 ; Matt. v. 32; Mark x. 2-12.
2 1 Cor. ix. 13 ; Luke x. 7 ; Matt. x. 10.
3 1 Thess. iv. 8 ; Luke x. 16.
4 Gal. iv. 17 ; Matt, xxiii. 13.
5 Gal. vi. 2 ; Mark ix. 35.
6 1 Cor. iv. 12, 13 ; Luke vi. 28 ; Matt. v. 11.

58 ST. PAULS CHRISTOLOGY
of teaching which we have in the Gospels,
and a reasonable interpretation of the facts
would be that the life, the death, the teaching,
and the person, of Christ as there recorded,
were the foundations of St. Paul's teaching.
Ill
It is a common thing to say nowadays that
St. Paul's interest was only in the Divine
Christ — that the earthly Jesus was to him of
little concern. It is true, of course, that
Jesus as the Messiah was the central point
of his teaching ; but it is equally true that he
knew only of this Divine Christ through His
manifestation on earth, and it was only through
this manifestation that the redemption had
taken place. In reality it is erroneous to
make any distinction between the two. To
St. Paul the personal unity of Jesus Christ
was fundamental. There was no hint of any
separation such as some modern scholars would
make. He who had appeared in the flesh,
Jesus Christ the Lord, was proved by the
resurrection to be the Son of God. It would,
perhaps, be an anachronism to ask too care
fully what was the relation, according to
St. Paul, between the two natures of Christ.
It was not a question which had been raised.

PERSONALITY OF CHRIST 59
It was not a question on which he would have
a fundamental difficulty, and therefore it was
not a question on which he would have devel
oped a theory. Probably, however, St. Paul's
point of view would be best explained by an
analogy to human nature as he conceived it.
As we shall see later, he looked upon man in
himself as fundamentally one. Neither his
material body nor that life which he shared
with the lower animals were to be looked upon
as in themselves evil or unnecessary. They
were a part of his personality, capable, there
fore, of being transformed with his whole
personality under the influence of the Divine
Spirit. But the real man lies in his spiritual
nature, and if this dominates the whole human
personality, then man becomes what he was
intended to be. Jesus Christ, then, was to St.
Paul the Son of God. His spiritual nature
had become wholly Divine. In His earthly
manifestation He had appeared with all the
reahty of human nature, as well as with the
outward appearance of man. But this human
nature was dominated by His Divine and
spiritual nature, so that that which was capable
of being weak and sinful in others was in Him
entirely transformed through His spiritual
power. Clearly for St. Paul there was no

60 ST. PAUL'S CHRISTOLOGY
dual personahty, and no incompleteness of
human characteristics, but the whole being
of Jesus was dominated by the fact that He
was the Son of God.
What did St. Paul think of the nature of
the Son ? Of His Divine pre-existence there
could be no doubt. " God had sent forth His
Son."1 He who pre-existed with all the essen
tial nature of the Godhead counted not this
equality with God a thing to be grasped
at.2 Owing to the fact of this pre-existence
there was a special relation between Him and
the Father. It is described as equahty with
God. He was the Image of the unseen God.
In and through Him, God, the Source of all
things, has worked. There is no clear instance
of the word " God " being actually applied to
the Son in St. Paul's Epistles, although it is a
probable interpretation of more than one pas
sage. But St. Paul would have had no diffi
culty in using the word.
But how had St. Paul conceived of the
relationship of the Son to the Father ? Here
we reach a point where he is not explicit.
The problem had not presented itself to him
as it presented itself to later generations. We
must not, therefore, read into his language
1 Gal. iv. 4 ; Rom. viii. 3. 2 Phil. ii. 6, 7.

CHRIST THE SON OF GOD 61
expressions of later times. We shall, how
ever, discuss this question more fully when we
speak of the Spirit.
As Son of God, Christ had a special relation
to the world and mankind. He was supreme
over the world. All things were made in or
through Him. Not only were they made
through Him, but in Him they existed. In j
regard to mankind, we have to remember that
Christ was not only man, but representative
man. He was a man from heaven. As Adam
was the first man, He was the second man.
As in Adam life in the ordinary sense of the
word came into the world, so in Christ all that
was spiritual came in. So, again, as representa
tive man He was the first to rise, the first-
fruits of the dead, among many brethren.
He is the beginning, the first-born from the
dead. As such the Church is His Body, and
He is its Head. He has been highly exalted,
and has obtained a Name that is above every
name. So, in relation to the world, the fact
of His Divine and human nature, the fact of
His close relationship to the Father, made
Him the Representative of God, if we may
put it so, on earth. God was unseen, but
Christ is His Image. God we cannot know
or see, but He has revealed Himself in Christ ;

62 ST. PAUL'S CHRISTOLOGY
and Christ we can know, and see also as
regards His work. God was in Christ recon
ciling the world to Himself. The work that
Christ did was the work of God. In and
through Christ God has worked in the world.
Throughout the conception of St. Paul is
double. On the one side Christ is spoken
of always as on equality with God. He is
equal to the Father. But in His life on earth
He had taken to Himself human nature with
all its weakness and infirmity. Hence while
as Son of God equality with the Father
was something that He had from the begin
ning, as Christ He was exalted and received
a name which was above every name He
was thus exalted, not only in Himself, but as
representative of humanity. IV
What was the source of this conception of
the Christ ? Did St. Paul receive it from
Christianity, or did he bring it into Christianity?
How much did he receive ? how much did he
contribute? We have already referred to
the theory that St. Paul's conception of the
heavenly Christ was something which he
did not receive from the early teachers of
Christianity, but built up for himself in accord-

SOURCE OF PAUL'S TEACHING 63
ance with contemporary Jewish conceptions,
and then brought into the Christian Church.
In other words, that while St. Paul might
draw his information from the Church con
cerning details of Christ's teaching or the narra
tive of His death and resurrection, yet the
final conception of the Messiah that he held
was not due to any historical information
that he had received, but partly to his own
spiritual experience, and partly to his intel
lectual presuppositions. It is, of course,
impossible to hold such an idea without
reversing the generally accepted conception
of the relation of St. Paul's teaching to the
Gospels. We have to believe if we would
accept the above theory, that St. Mark's Gospel
in the present form was due to his influence. To
believe this is, in our opinion, really impossible.
If anyone will examine the Gospel, he will find
a complete absence of any definite allusion to
Pauline teaching. Take one important point
— the story of the Last Supper. Here we have
a narrative where we can compare St. Paul's
version with the version in the Gospel. The
two stories are entirely consistent with the
supposition that they are different accounts
of the same event supplementing one another,
as such accounts will. But on no ordinary

64 ST. PAUL'S CHRISTOLOGY
theory of probability is it possible to believe
that the account in St. Mark's Gospel was
drawn from that of St. Paul in any way at
all. St. Paul's account might be a develop
ment of that of St. Mark ; that of St. Mark
cannot be derived from or developed from that
of St. Paul. What is true in this particular
case is true about the whole Gospel. Suppos
ing that it had been inspired or influenced by
the teaching of St. Paul, it must be inevitable
that some trace of Pauline phraseology and
Pauline technical terms would have crept in.
There is no instance of any such. There are
a few passages which are supposed to represent
Paulinism because the indifference of meats and
other like things is taught, but even here, while
the teaching is, of course, fundamentally the
same, there is no reference to St. Paul's argu
ment or his way of expressing things. We
can understand St. Paul if we believe that
he developed the teaching of our Lord as con
tained in St. Mark. We cannot understand
that teaching as derived from St. Paul.
This will become clearer if we consider more
fully the relationship of St. Paul to the early
Church. We have already pointed out that
he must have known about Christianity before
his conversion, have had some reasonable

PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY 65
grounds for persecuting the Christian Church,
and so that Christianity must have been of
such a character as to induce him to persecute
it. That is to say, that not only must the early
Christians have looked upon Jesus as the
Messiah, but also there must have been ele
ments of what St. Paul would think of as a
dangerous latitudinarianism already present.
A study of the literature which we still
possess will corroborate this point of view.
There is throughout all the books of the
New Testament a common background of
religious belief. No doubt there are variations
in details ; no doubt there are differences of
language — for example, in the way in which
our Lord is spoken of; but if we take the
varidus groups represented by the Apocalypse,
the Epistles of St. James and St. Peter, the
Epistles of St. Paul and Hebrews, there are large
common elements of belief. Now, all that
must go back to a common source, and this
St. Paul himself particularly tells us was the
case. In the fifteenth chapter of the First
Epistle to the Corinthians he speaks of his
gospel, by which he means the central part of his
teaching, as follows : " Now I make known
unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached
unto you, which also ye received, wherein

66 ST. PAUL'S CHRISTOLOGY
also ye stand, by which also ye are saved."
Then he further tells us that what he is teaching
was what he had heard from others, and later
on he corroborates this : " Whether, then, it be
I or they, so we preached, and so ye believed."1
He thus describes the contents of this
gospel : " Christ died for our sins according
to the scriptures ; He was buried ; He was
raised on the third day." St. Paul's gospel
was the same as that of other preachers of the
primitive Church. He can appeal to common
presuppositions ; he argues from a common
belief. The starting-point of St. Paul's preaching
was the teaching of the primitive Church.
What was the relation that this bore to the
teaching of Jesus? We have already ex
amined the relations between the Epistles and
Gospels, and pointed out certain specific ref
erences to our Lord's teaching and many
coincidences. A curious method of argument
prevails in some quarters, by which it is assumed
that St. Paul had no knowledge except when
he makes a definite reference. Surely a
different deduction is the right one. There
were just some few occasions when it was
necessary, owing to difficulties in the Church,
1 1 Cor. xv. 1, 3, 11.

ST. PAUL AND CHRIST 67
to refer to the Gospel teaching. On those
occasions St. Paul does so. He cannot gener
ally do so, because the main purpose of his
Epistles was to deal with questions on which
difficulties had arisen — that is to say, questions
which were not part of his original preaching,
and were not, therefore, part of the original
teaching of the Gospel. But throughout the
Epistles presuppose both the ordinary teaching
of Christianity and the ordinary knowledge
of the life of Christ. And that this is the
right point of view becomes more probable
when we find, as we do, small coincidences
between St. Paul's writings and the body of
our Lord's teaching. The right deduction, in
fact, from the material before us is that
St. Paul, like the primitive Church, had the
same knowledge of the life, the teaching, the
death, the resurrection, of Jesus, as that which
is contained for us in our present Gospels.
It has been suggested that it was the con
ception which St. Paul already had of the
Messiah as part of his Jewish creed that was
the source of his Christology. No doubt this
already - formed conception influenced him.
As Christians we look upon the expectation
of the Messiah as part of the preparation for
His coming. But we have to remember that

68 ST. PAUL'S CHRISTOLOGY
this belief of St. Paul's was shared by him with
the great body of his countrymen. There are
points on which St. Paul might differ from the
Galilean peasants. There are points on which,
as a theologian, he would be out of sympathy
with them, but his Messianic expectation
would be largely on the same lines as they.
No doubt he was better instructed, no doubt
his theological knowledge was more precise
than that of the Galilean fishermen, but it
would not be fundamentally different. What
he expected the other Apostles had expected ;
on this point he shared his mental equip
ment with them. So also, if we study
the teaching of our Lord, we can see that,
speaking as he always does in the current
language of religious thought, he assumes
on the part of his hearers the same concep
tion of what the Messiah will be that we have
already seen was held by St. Paul.
It is clear, then, that all the early teachers of
Christianity would share in a somewhat similar
expectation of the Messiah, which was part of
current Jewish thought. St. Paul did not
bring in anything new from this source. But,
after all, neither the teaching of St. Paul, nor
the teaching of the early Church, nor that of our
Lord, is really the same as the Jewish expecta-

THE LIVING CHRIST 69
tion. Jesus Christ was a different Messiah from
what the Jews had expected. That was why the
bulk of the people rejected Him. That was
why only gradually His immediate followers
had learnt to believe in Him. That was
why St. Paul had begun by persecuting the
Christians, and why his acceptance of Chris
tianity meant such a tremendous change in
his life. Whence came the conception of the
suffering Messiah ? Whence came the belief
in One who was meek and mild ? Whence
came the gentleness and the love and the
humihty of Christ ? Whence came that re
adjustment of ethical teaching ? Whence
came that deep spiritual insight? Whence
came the complete transformation of the
whole Messianic idea? The only answer
can be, the life and work of Jesus as it was
known to St. Paul. After all, there is a
tremendous gulf between St. Paul as a
Christian and Saul the persecutor. Some
great force must have influenced him. That
force was the living Christ.
It was not, then, in his Christology that St.
Paul brought any new ideas into Christianity.
That goes back to the teaching of Christ, to
the Jewish expectation, to the crucifixion and
resurrection, to the memories of the earhest
10

70 ST. PAULS CHRISTOLOGY
disciples. At his conversion he accepted the
belief that Jesus was the Christ. He recog
nized the significance of His death and resur
rection, he perceived in himself a tremendous
spiritual change, a spiritual change which was
strong enough to transform his whole nature,
and was a sign of the power of Christ. Under
this influence he took his share in working out
for the world the full significance of the life
and death of Christ. He had experienced, as
others had done, the spiritual influence of His
work, and he brought to the interpretation of
it all the theological and philosophical train
ing that he possessed. He connected it with
the philosophic conception of the representative
man which was already part, probably, of
I Rabbinical teaching. The description of Divine
j wisdom in the Book of Wisdom provided lan
guage suitable to working out the cosmological
significance of His being. All that Palestinian
philosophy could do he brought to the de
velopment of the idea of the Person of Christ.
There is development, but there is no change.
St. Paul explained and interpreted what he
received, but the source of Christian belief in
Christ was the life and teaching of Christ.

IV
THE WORK OF CHRIST
Christ the Saviour — Significance of His death — The re
ligious development of St. Paul — Old Testament
ideas — His spiritual experience — Christ and the law
— The teaching of the Church and of Christ Himself.
The Christ was the Saviour. That was the
fundamental idea with which St. Paul started,
and this conception had, like all others, its
root in the current eschatological ideas. The
Christ it is who saves us in the last great con
vulsions from the wrath of God which cometh
upon the world. When the powers of evil are let
loose, those who follow the Son and are called
by His name shall be saved. All the forces of
evil, concentrated in the "lawless one," will
break forth, and the Lord will destroy him by
the breath of His nostrils. Then the Lord
will know those that are His own, those that
bear His seal upon them, and through Him
they will receive salvation. This conception
of salvation at the Last Day is, it must be re
membered, always part of St. Paul's thought.
71

72 THE WORK OF CHRIST
I
Now, the first point to notice is that this
salvation comes particularly through the death
of Christ. We are protected from " the wrath,"
and receive salvation " through our Lord Jesus
Christ, who died for us, that whether we wake
or sleep we may live with him."1 Here the
thought is still eschatological, and this salva
tion, it is implied, comes in some particular way
through the death of Christ for us. Christ
died that we might live with Him, whether
we wake or sleep. In what way does the death
of Christ lead to our life with Him ? Here in
the two earliest Epistles of St. Paul, in definite
connection with his eschatological presupposi
tions, we have these two thoughts — salvation
through the death of Christ, and union with
Christ through His death — as recognized for
mulas, f
This thought of the death of Christ is fun
damental. Christ crucified is placarded before
the world.2 The word of the Cross is the
power of God.3 Christ crucified is the power
of God and the wisdom of God.4 Christ died
for each one of us.5 In a similar way great
1 1 Thess. v. 9, 10. 2 Gal. iii. 1. 8 x Cor j 18
4 1 Cor. i. 23, 24. 6 2 Cor. v. 14, 15.

THE DEATH OF CHRIST 73
stress is laid on the sufferings of Christ. Our
comfort abounds as Christ's sufferings abound
to us.1 This special emphasis, however, seems
to be laid, not so much on the death by itself,
but on the death, and resurrection together.
Christ was delivered to death for our sins, and
was raised for our justification.2 We shall
escape condemnation, " for it is Christ who
died, or, rather, rose from the dead, who sitteth
on the right hand of God, who also maketh
intercession for us."3 "Christ died and lived
again that he might be Lord of both the dead
and the living."4 This death of Christ is on
the one side the work of God, who spared not
His own Son.5 On the other side it is an act
of self-sacrifice on the part of Christ who gave
Himself for our sins.6 Hence we have two
great ethical facts : Christ's death was a volun
tary act of self-sacrifice on His part, and also an
act of self-sacrifice on the part of the Father ;
and, further, it is a revelation of the love of
Christ and God. Christ loved us, and gave
Himself for our sins.7 The death of Christ
was a great Divine act. God was in Christ
reconciling the world to Himself.8 It was
1 2 Cor. i. 5. 2 Rom. iv. 25. * Rom. viii. 34.
4 Rom. xiv. 9. 6 Rom. viii. 32. 6 Gal. i. 4.
7 Eph. v. 2 ; Rom. viii. 35, 39. 8 2 Cor. v. 18, 19-

74 THE WORK OF CHRIST
God's purpose of salvation. It was a great
act of redemption of mankind. How did it
help us ? What has it done for us ?
The primary answer is, Christ gave Himself
for our sins, that He might deliver us out of
this present evil world.1 We again notice
that the thought springs from an eschato
logical background. The revelation of the
Lord from heaven is to destroy what is evil,
and to save the good. But mankind is evil ;
how, then, can he be saved ? As he is sinful,
he must perish with the sinful world. The
answer was that Christ had died for our sins.2
This is what St. Paul had learnt from the
Church ; what he had found in the Scriptures ;
what he always taught. II
The fundamental question, then, is, How did
Christ's death save us from our sins ? If we
pause for a moment and look at this question
in the light of the history of the Christian
Church, we shall find that, while every religious
man has felt the reality of his salvation through
the death of Christ, and while it has been a
fundamental doctrine of Christianity at every
period from the beginning, there has been the
1 Gal- i- 4. 2 Rom. v. 8.

THE ATONEMENT 75
greatest variety in the theological interpreta
tion both of the meaning of the Atonement
and of the meaning of the language of St. Paul.
While the wealth of language and power of
thought with which St. Paul illustrates his
teaching is very great, it is often difficult for
us to realize its full meaning. Many of his
forms of thought were different from our own,
and it is hard to explain in accordance with
modern ideas the fundamental principles
according to which he thought. And more
than that, St. Paul's teaching was built up
partly, at any rate, on his religious experience
rather than on theological presuppositions.
Let us try and reconstitute his religious
history. Saul the Pharisee expected the
coming of the Messiah, the Son of God. He
believed that He would save him and all faith
ful Israelites, and establish them in His king
dom, and that all the forces of evil would be
destroyed. As Saul the Pharisee he looked f
upon Jesus as a false Messiah, one who had
paid the penalty of his imposture on the cross,
and was therefore accursed. His conversion!
meant the reversal of this opinion. In accepting
Jesus as the Messiah he necessarily learnt that
the Messiah was very different to what he had
expected. If the Messiah had died on the

76 THE WORK OF CHRIST
cross, then the death of Christ was not a sign
of failure, but of triumph.
Now, St. Paul tells us explicitly that the
fundamental fact which he learnt on his con
version was that Christ Jesus died for our sins
according to the Scriptures. That is, that
Christ's death and its meaning had been fore
told. When a Jew who accepted the Scriptures
learnt to believe that the death of Jesus was the
death of the Messiah, he would search the Scrip
tures, and learn from them what they had to
teach. So he would find in the Book of Isaiah
passages such as the following: "He was de
spised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows
and acquainted with grief. . . . He has borne
our griefs and carried our sorrows. . . . He
was wounded for our transgressions ; he was
bruised for our iniquities. . . . With his
stripes we are healed, . . . and the Lord hath
laid upon him the iniquity of us all. . . . He
was numbered with the transgressors, and he
bore the sin of many, and made intercession
for the transgressors."1
With passages such as this the early Church
started. The Scriptures had given the meaning
and purpose of the death of Christ ; and once
the conception had begun, there were many
1 Isa. liii. 3-12.

CHRIST A SACRIFICE 77
other directions in which it developed. The
words of Isaiah, although not definitely re
ferring to the language of sacrifice, had clearly
suggested the idea, and all our records tell us
that Jesus Himself spoke of His death as a
sacrifice. Hence very early the description
of Christ's death as a sacrifice became part of
the teaching of the Church, and as such it
would have associated with it everything
that was implied by that word. We do not
know now, and it is difficult for us to realize,
all that the word " sacrifice " implied, either in
popular or in any learned theology of that
time. Undoubtedly it added much to the
conception of what Christ's death had meant,
and this idea of sacrifice was clearly in St.
Paul's mind, although it is interesting to
notice that it is apparently rather secondary
in importance. It does not mould his thought ;
it rather suggests phraseology. He seems to
use the language of sacrifice because it had
been used by others, because Jesus had used
it Himself. We must remember that the
sacrificial system would not mean so very
much to him, any more than to other Jews
of the Dispersion ; still, it had helped him to
explain his meaning, and so he speaks of the
death of Christ as our Passover — as a burnt

78 THE WORK OF CHRIST
sacrifice, as a sin offering, as a sacrifice of
atonement, as a peace offering. Each of these
aspects suggested ideas which might illustrate
his meaning, but they none of them seem to
represent his normal method of thought.
There were other Old Testament ideas or
ideas of current theology which now received
their full meaning in St. Paul's mind. One
of the great conceptions of the Old Testament
had been that of redemption. God had re
deemed Israel. The most typical act of redemp
tion was the emancipation of Israel from Egypt,
but always God's provident care had watched
over His people, and again and again He had
redeemed them from the misfortunes with
which they had been overwhelmed ; and so
now a new redemption initiates the history
of the new people, and, like that, it began in
sacrifice. The Passover lamb, whose blood
was sprinkled on the lintel and doorposts, was
the most striking feature of the redemption
from Egypt. Further than that, the idea was
present in people's minds that in shedding of
blood was remission of sins, so this new re
demption was a forgiveness of sin. In Him
" we have our redemption through his blood,
the forgiveness of trespasses."1 1 Eph. i. 7.

RECONCILIATION 79
And then there was another idea always
present in the prophetic books of the Old
Testament — the relation of God to His people,
and His people to God. Again and again in
their past history the people had sinned and
exposed themselves to the wrath of God. The
prophet came with his message to repent, and
his mission was to reconcile Israel once again
to God. On account of their sins God ex
hibited His wrath to His people. What was
there that would make Him lay aside that
wrath ? How could man be once more recon
ciled to God ? How could God be recon
ciled to man and forgive him his sins ? Clearly,
to St. Paul's mind and that of the early
Church, that act of Christ was a great act of
reconciliation, and it was that because it was
in a special way the act of God. " All things
are from God, who reconciled us to himself
through Christ ; for God was in Christ recon
ciling the world to himself." x
III
But these ideas represent only the starting-
point of St. Paul. It was not his religious
beliefs, but his religious experience, which was
of supreme importance to him. St. Paul
1 2 Cor. v. 18, 19 ; Rom. v. 10.

80 THE WORK OF CHRIST
believed in the atonement of Christ because
he had experienced it. He had accepted Christ
as the Messiah ; that necessarily involved the
acceptance of the teaching of Christ and the
significance of His death. The early Christian
Church, in particular the Apostles, who had
believed in Christ before the death on the
cross, had naturally some difficulty in grasping
its full significance. To many of them it was
a difficulty which had to be explained. It had
not meant so much to those who had grown
up in Christian experience. On St. Paul's
mind, on the contrary, it had burst as a great
revelation. Once accept the fact of the Cru
cifixion, and the whole attitude of his mind
changed. It had seemed an abomination. He
realized it now as a tremendous act of self-
sacrifice. God had not spared His only Son.
Christ had died for the world. What a
wonderful exhibition of Divine love ! What
a striking testimony to the reality of the Re
demption as a revelation ! Clearly, God must
have laid aside His wrath at the sins of man.
Clearly, the death of His Son must have recon
ciled the world to Him. Once accept what
the Church had already learned about the
death of Christ as God's great act of redemp
tion and reconciliation, as a great sacrifice

ST. PAUL'S EXPERIENCE 81
offered for mankind— and this St. Paul now
believes — and its influence upon a nature such
as his must have been tremendous. He be
lieved with all the intensity of his faith arising
from his ardent religious feeling. A faith
aroused by the love of Christ had stirred up in
him a corresponding love for Christ, and this
love had transformed him. He had been re
deemed. He had been reconciled. This he
knew, not as a theological truth, but as a fact
of personal experience. He needed no argu
ments in explanation of why it was so. It
was a fact. His whole nature had been trans
formed. It is a fact of the utmost importance that
we should recognize the reality of this spiritual
change in St. Paul before dwelling on his
theology of the death of Christ. It is notice
able that in such an Epistle as that to the
Galatians, where he had to pass on to a theo
logical discussion, he starts with his religious
experiences. He lived in Christ ; he had been
crucified with Him. " I have been crucified
with Christ." " It is no longer I that live, but
Christ liveth in me."1 My present life is
one of union with the Son of God, who loved
me and gave Himself for me. The salvation
1 Gal. ii. 19, 20. 11

82 THE WORK OF CHRIST
of man has become possible not merely because
of something done for him, but because of a
change worked in him. We are united to
Christ in a real if unexplained spiritual
union. That is the real cause of our salvation,
because it has produced a complete change in
us, and has made us such that we can be
saved. It has its roots in our faith in
Christ. Now, all this had been St. Paul's experience,
and his theology is really an explanation of
this. In particular it explained to him the
meaning of Christ's death in relation to the
law, and in relation to the call of the Gentiles.
There is no part of St. Paul's teaching which
is harder for us to realize or understand than
that which deals with the law. But quite
clearly he had felt in himself that the tyranny
of the law had been done away with, and quite
clearly he felt that that tyranny had been done
away through the death of Christ.
IV
There are two main passages in which St.
Paul speaks of the death of Christ in relation
to the law. One is in Galatians. There he
argues that all those who are subject to the
law are under a curse, for it is written, " Cursed

CHRIST A CURSE 83
is everyone that continueth not in all things
that are written in the book of the law to do
them."1 That is to say, as he explained it, it
was only by a complete fulfilment of the works
of the law that this curse could be avoided and
man could obtain life. This he had found to
be impossible. He has himself described in
the Epistle to the Romans the struggle that
he had made to live a life exactly conformable
to all the requirements of the Jewish law, and
he ends with the striking prayer, " Oh wretched
man that I am, who shall deliver me from the
bondage of this death ?"2 He now sees that
the curse has been removed for those who
accept Christ. " Christ hath redeemed us from
the curse of the law, being made a curse for
us ; for it is written, Cursed is everyone that
hangeth on a tree."3 This use of the text of
Deuteronomy might be descrihed as a brilliant
controversial device. There was probably no
passage used by the Jews against the Christians
more constantly than this with the purpose of
proving that Jesus was not the Messiah.
Clearly that could not be. Did not the Scrip
tures say that anyone who hung upon a tree —
that is to say, anyone who was crucified — was
cursed ? How could one who was accursed be
i Gal. iii. 10. 2 Rom. vii. 24. 8 Gal. iii. 13.

84 THE WORK OF CHRIST
the Messiah ? It was the normal exegesis of the
time. No doubt St. Paul had often heard it.
No doubt he had often used it himself. No
other text seemed better able to support their
claim that a crucified Messiah was the cause of
offence to God and man. Now St. Paul takes
it and answers the argument. Yes, it is quite
true that Christ had been crucified. That
means that He has Himself borne the whole
curse of the law. That curse was therefore
expiated, and man was free.
Even more remarkable is the language in
Ephesians and Colossians. Christ had blotted
out the handwriting of the ordinances which
were against us. He had nailed it to
the cross. He had abolished in His flesh the
enmity, the law of commandments.1 Here
again we find that freedom from the harsh
system of legal enactments is connected by
St. Paul with the death of Christ upon the
cross. The cross is the sign of man's freedom,
and ultimately, of course, the reason why St.
Paul is able to see this is that the cross had
meant freedom for himself. It had meant
freedom for himself because he had realized
that, if God was love, and had given His
only begotten Son, then this harsh legal system,
1 Col. ii. 13-15; Eph. ii. 15.

SALVATION TO GENTILES 85
with all its curses and its impossible demands
on human nature, could only represent a very
imperfect revelation. That was the funda
mental thought to St. Paul, and sometimes
when he is proving this from the Scriptures he
naturally uses methods of exegesis which would
carry greater conviction in his day than they
do to us.
A further result to St. Paul of the signifi
cance of the death of Christ had been that it
was through this that the Gentiles had received
salvation. In the passage from the Epistle to
the Galatians which we have just quoted St.
Paul continues " that the blessing of Abraham
might come on the Gentiles through Jesus
Christ."1 And, again, in the Epistle to the
Ephesians he tells us how " in Christ Jesus ye
who in time past were far off have been made
nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our
peace, who hath made both one, and hath
broken down the middle wall of partition."2
Here, probably, the metaphor in St. Paul's
mind is that of the covenant sacrifice. Ac
cording to the Book of Exodus, the old cove
nant had been inaugurated by the shedding of
blood. There had been now a new covenant
in Christ, which had abolished the old and
i Gal. iii. 14. 2 Eph. ii. 13-15. 12

86 THE WORK OF CHRIST
made peace where there was enmity. Again
the mode of thought is certainly not our
thought. In this passage, as in the previous
one, St. Paul's arguments are exactly in ac
cordance with his theological training, and
with the thoughts and ideas of his time.
But the truth that he was expressing in
language which might pass away was the
eternal one. For what St. Paul had realized
was that the substitution of the principle of
faith instead of law, of loyal adherence to a
person instead of obedience to a rigid code, the
promulgation of the love of God through Christ
for the whole world, had created conditions
which would enable the Gentiles as well as the
Jews to receive the Messianic salvation, and
would thus fulfil the most universal dreams of
the Hebrew prophets.
There is only one more comment that we
have to make on these passages. In the Epistle
to the Colossians St. Paul tells us how the
cross itself was an act of triumph over evil
spirits. We will give the passage in Bishop
Lightfoot's paraphrase :
" Taking upon Him our human nature, He
stripped off and cast aside all the powers of
evil which clung to it like, a poisonous gar
ment. As a mighty conqueror He displayed

THE POWERS OF EVIL 87
these His fallen enemies to an astonished
world, leading them in triumph on His cross."1
It was a part of the Messianic expectation
that the Messiah should triumph over the
powers of evil, and the Book of Revelation re
presents to us a picture of the last great victory
over evil. But the Christian soon saw that
this triumph over evil had been gained on the
cross itself. If we were to translate the idea
into modern phraseology, we should say that
the death of Christ on the cross was a great
triumph of good over evil, and to St. Paul, as
to all Christians, it was symbolical of the defeat
and scattering of all the spiritual powers that
war against the God of mankind.
We have already noticed that it is difficult,
when we are dealing with St. Paul's language
to say when symbolism begins. No doubt he
believed, as all his contemporaries believed, in
malevolent spiritual beings endowed with per
sonality ; no doubt his language corresponds
to a certain extent to some such conception ;
but it is noticeable how often, when he
is speaking of sin, he tends to evade the
purely personal language. What was a fact
to him was that the cross of Christ had de
stroyed the evil tendencies in himself. He
1 Lightfoot, "Colossians," ed. 2, p. 178.

88 THE WORK OF CHRIST
describes that, as everyone would at the time,
as the defeat of evil spirits. What was
real to him was his own experience. What
was conventional was the language. We are
not doing any injustice or exhibiting any un
reality in the interpretation of the words if we
refer them primarily to the spiritual experience,
and make their truth independent of the fact
whether or not we believe in evil spirits. It
is sometimes really difficult to know how sig
nificant even to St. Paul himself was this
belief. V
It is part of the inexhaustible character of
Christian teaching and of St. Paul's language
that no attempt to analyze his teaching is ever
complete, and all that it is possible for us to
do is to comment, as we have done, on certain
leading thoughts. There is much that we
have omitted. There is much that the further
study of St. Paul's teaching from other points
of view would bring out. It remains now to
consider the question of the relation of the
teaching of St. Paul to the teaching of the
Church. Fundamentally, the significance of the death
of Christ was part of what St. Paul learnt
from the primitive Church and shared with

CHURCH TEACHING 89
them. That this is so is quite clear in accord
ance with his own definite statement, which
we have quoted above, that what he had re
ceived, and what others preached, was that
Christ Jesus died for our sins in accordance with
the Scriptures. There is no reason for doubting
this statement, and a study of early Christian
literature will fully corroborate it. No doubt
it required some time for the first Christians
to overcome the shock of Christ's death and
to realize its full meaning. The early tentative
stage is represented for us in the Acts of the
Apostles, but the prominent position which
the death of Christ and all that it did for us
holds in early Christian literature is conclusive
evidence. In no sense can the Book of Revela
tion be described as a Pauline work. But one
of its most predominating thoughts is the
picture of the Lamb that had been slain, and
that vision unites the significance of Christ's
death with its sacrificial interpretation. The
same is true of Hebrews and 1 Peter. Neither
of these works is really Pauline, although both
are influenced by Pauline teaching. Both de
velop the significance of the death of Christ,
but each in its own way.
A further proof might be found in St. Paul's
own method of teaching. Quite clearly, he is

90 THE WORK OF CHRIST
always dealing with a fact the significance of
which is recognized. There are some things
which he has to prove. In other cases it was
only necessary for him to allude to what was
known. When he comes to deal with the
relation of Christ's death to the law or to
the call of the Gentiles, then he has to prove
his point as best he can ; but one of the facts
that he can assume is that the Church recog
nizes that the death of our Lord meant the
remission of sins — that Christ had died for our
sins. That he could assume, whatever else he
had to prove.
This is quite clear, but it is apparent also
that, while the fundamental doctrine represents
the normal teaching of the Christian Church,
a certain amount of the development was
definitely Pauline, and it may be a little
difficult to distinguish where the particular
teaching peculiar to himself begins. It
was not, I think, to him that we owe
the sacrificial interpretation of the death
of Christ. He never lays emphasis on it, but
refers to it always by allusions, and it was
not he who developed its significance. More
over, it is probably early, as the parallel
evidence of the Apocalypse suggests. But all
that he says about the passing away of the

THE TEACHING OF CHRIST 91
law and the inclusion of the Gentiles seems
to represent ideas specifically his own. We do
not mean that these two thoughts were in
themselves necessarily due to St. Paul. That
is a question which we shall discuss later ; but
that the arguments by which he defends them,
and in particular the connection which he
finds between these ideas and the Crucifixion,
come from himself cannot, I think, be doubted.
His arguments do not appeal to us. They are
hardly, perhaps, such as the early Church
would have formulated. But they are quite
in accordance with the theological training and
intellectual conceptions of St. Paul. He is, in
fact, using his training as a Pharisee to enable
him to forge arguments destructive to Phari
saism. But there is a further and deeper question.
What is the relation of the significance that
the early Church saw in the death of Christ to
the teaching of Jesus Himself? Christianity
became possible when it was recognized that
the Crucifixion was not a sign of failure, but
a sign of triumph. It was, in fact, part of
the ordained purpose of God. The first
Christians learnt to believe this because they
believed in the Resurrection, and then because
they found that the Crucifixion fulfilled much

92 THE WORK OF CHRIST
that they had not understood before in Scrip
ture ; that is because they experienced its full
meaning and significance in their own religious
lives. But were they helped also by any teaching
of our Lord? Did He foretell His death ? Did
He understand its significance ? Was it part
of His conception of His office ? Clearly, if
we believe the Gospels, He did teach about
His death. They represent Him to us as
explicitly foretelling it. More important than
the explicitness of the prophecies is the way
in which they are introduced. There is no
incident which bears the marks of reality more
clearly than the confession of St. Peter. Still
more the action of our Lord which followed
it, and St. Peter's rebuke. The early part of
our Lord's ministry seems to represent Him
as gradually winning over His disciples to the
belief that He was the Messiah. So soon as
they have learnt that, He begins to make them
realize how different He was from the Messiah
that they expected. He tells them of His
death and suffering, and immediately Peter
rebukes Him. The whole series of events
and the attitude of the disciples are absolutely
natural. Moreover, unless we presuppose
that our Lord * intended to teach everything
which was implied in the meaning of His

THE TEACHING OF CHRIST 93
death, we have to omit much of what is most
distinctive in His teaching. His ethical
teaching depends largely upon the thought
of self-sacrifice, and in particular His own
sacrifice of Himself; and if this be so,
there can be no reason for doubting that the
explicit allusions to the significance of His
death come from Him. Always we shall find
that the Christian teaching is the development
of the principles which Christ taught ; and if,
as we believe, He said that the Son of man
came not to be " ministered unto, but to
minister," that He " gave his life as a ransom
for many"; if He implied in the Last Supper,
as all our accounts represent, the sacrificial
significance of His death, then we find that
it is quite natural that the starting of what
the Christian Church taught should be what
Christ Himself had taught them.
In the development of this thought St. Paul
fills a considerable but not exclusive place.
The Atonement was a fact, not a doctrine, and
it was as a fact that it was accepted by the
early Church. The meaning and significance
of the Atonement have formed one of the
chief subjects discussed in the Christian
Church throughout the Christian centuries.
The starting-point was not St. Paul's Ian-

94 THE WORK OF CHRIST
guage or thought. It was the fundamental
fact of Christian history. The Christian
Church had already begun to speculate
on the meaning of the death of Christ.
St. Paul carries on and deepens the dis
cussion. Some of his thoughts become a
common part of Christian tradition. Some
others pass away. Part of his most distinctive
teaching dealt with what was only a passing
controversy. Part of what he taught was
never quite understood. A good deal of his
language has been misinterpreted in different
periods of Church history, and has formed the
basis of partial representations of his teaching.
For there has been much which has been very
imperfect in Christian theology, both in its
interpretation of St. Paul's language and its
estimation of the idea of the Atonement, and
fundamentally we must remember that the
Atonement has always been greater than any
thing said about it.

V
THE SPIRIT
The Messianic expectation — The experience of the Church
— The spirit of man and the Spirit of God — The
Spirit personal — Christ and the Spirit — The Father,
the Son, and the Spirit.
One of the characteristics of the Messianic
age was to be the gift of the Spirit. It was
the endowment of the Messiah, as described
in the Book of Isaiah : " And the spirit of the
Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom
and understanding, the spirit of counsel and
might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear
of the Lord."1 " The spirit of the Lord God
is upon me ; because the Lord hath anointed
me to preach good tidings unto the meek."2
It was the endowment also of the people of
the Messiah, according to the expectations of
the Book of Joel : " And it shall come to
pass afterward, that I will pour out my
spirit upon all flesh ; and your sons and your
1 Isa. xi. 2. 2 Isa. lxi. 1.
95

96 THE SPIRIT
daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall
dream dreams, your young men shall see
visions : and also upon the servants and upon
the handmaids in those days will I pour out
my spirit."1 And in well-known passages in
Ezekiel we read : " Thus saith the Lord God :
Behold I will open your graves, and cause
you to come up out of your graves, O my
people. . . . And I will put my spirit in
you and ye shall live."2 And again : " A new
heart also will I give you, and a new spirit
will I put within you. . . . And I will put
my spirit within you and cause you to walk
in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judg
ments and do them."3
There was no part of the religious experiences
of the Apostolic period of which the first
Christians were more certain than that of the
gift of the Spirit. According to the Acts of
the Apostles the preaching of Christianity had
been inaugurated by a great and conspicuous
outpouring of the Spirit. The time foretold
by the Prophet Joel seemed to have arrived.
But even those who are inclined to doubt the
historical character of that narrative must be
convinced by the continuous allusions to the
1 Joel »• 28, 29. 2 Ezek xxxvij ]g
3 Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 27.

THE GIFT OF THE SPIRIT 97
manifestation of the Spirit in the normal
life of the Church. It is quite certain that
phenomena occurred, however they may be
explained, which were described as the work
of the Spirit, and were felt to be an inspiration
from God. The evidence for this permeates
the whole literature of the Apostolic period,
and is particularly conspicuous in the writings
of St. Paul. He recognized, too, that what he
believed and experienced was also the belief
and experience even of his opponents. This
was one of those points of contact to which
he could appeal as common with those who
differed from him in other respects. " Received
ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or the
hearing of faith V'1 he asks the Galatians.
This gift of the Spirit was realized by
the possession of supernatural or miraculous
powers, by the phenomenon called " speaking
with tongues," by the power of prophecy or
inspired preaching, by quickened zeal and
earnestness, by a richer, fuller, better life.
" The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,
longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness ,-
meekness, temperance."2
We have to ask how St. Paul conceived of
the Spirit.
1 Gal. iii. 2. 2 Gal. v. 22.
13

98 THE SPIRIT

It is quite clear that the word " Spirit " is
used in a double sense. There is the human
spirit and the Divine Spirit. The clearest
passage is in the Epistle to the Romans:
" The Spirit himself beareth witness with our
spirit, that we are children of God."1 The
psychology of St. Paul has always presented
great difficulties, because he did not think of
it, and did not attempt to express it, in a
scientific manner. And the difficulty has been
increased by the interpreters, who have tried
to find in his writings the evidence of a dualism
derived from Hellenic thought. This is erro
neous, and will not bear examination. There
is no fundamental dualism in St. Paul. His
method of thought was that of the Old Testa
ment, and in his own mind he seems to have
conceived of human nature as one. The
whole man can be sanctified, as the whole
man can become the slave of sin ; but just
as the weak part of human nature, the flesh,
is specially liable to be influenced by evil,
so there is a faculty in man, the spirit, which
is responsive to the Divine Spirit. The one
may become the seat of sin, which can thus
1 Rom. viii. 16.

DIVINE AND HUMAN SPIRIT 99
tyrannize over the whole nature of the man ;
the other, through the power of the Divine
Spirit, is strengthened to overpower all evil
tendencies. This is the gift of the Spirit : " God has sent
the Spirit of his Son into our hearts."1 This
Spirit is the " Divine or Holy Spirit," the
" Spirit of Christ," the " Spirit of God."
So far there is not much difficulty. The
fact of the Christian experience is undoubted,
and the normal explanation of that experience
is equally clear. There can be no doubt that
St. Paul believed that his own inspiration
and the transformation of his life were due
to a Divine influence or emanation, which had
seized upon and dominated his life, and that
there was a faculty in himself responsive to
its working. But here our difficulty begins.
It is not easy at first sight to know what St.
Paul thought of the Spirit in its own nature.
About its work he is clear ; and even if the
phenomena are strange and unusual, their
general nature and the nature of the new life
is something we can understand. But as to
St. Paul's opinion about what the Spirit itselt
is we have great difficulty, probably because
his way of looking at things was very
i Gal. iv. 6.

100 THE SPIRIT
different from our own. There are three main
questions : Did St. Paul think of the Spirit
as personal? What is the relation of the
Spirit to Christ ? How did St. Paul conceive
the relation of the Father to the Son and
Spirit ? II
Now, here is one of the points where there is
a great difference in thought between the habit
of mind in our own day and in the Apostolic
times. According to Christian tradition, the
Holy Spirit is Personal, and is looked upon as
one of the Three Persons of the Trinity. The
modern mind is inclined to distrust the whole
conception, and when a Christian dogmatist
attempts to find a " Personal " Spirit in St.
Paul's writings, it accuses him of forcing the
Apostolic thought into his own dogmatic
framework. It is very probable that it is
the modernist commentator who is really
guilty of a forced interpretation.
Our ordinary habit at the present day is
to think of spirit as something impersonal.
We normally use the term in such an ex
pression as the " spirit of freedom," to mean a
certain tendency of mind ; or at the most we
think of it as some impersonal influence arising
from outside. We are naturally inclined to

PERSONALITY OF THE SPIRIT 101
interpret St. Paul also in that way, but in
doing so we probably fail to give adequate
force to the language that he uses, and are
also unhistorical in our exegesis. We are
interpreting him by the ideas of the Twentieth
century, and not by those of his own time.
Let us examine a well-known passage
describing the Spirit as the source of gifts :
"To each one is given the manifestation of
the Spirit to profit withal. For to one is
given through the Spirit the word of wisdom ;
and to another the word of knowledge, accord
ing to the same Spirit ; to another faith, in the
same Spirit ; and to another gifts of healings,
in the one Spirit ; and to another workings of
miracles ; and to another prophecy ; and to
another discernings of spirits ; to another
divers kinds of tongues ; and to another the
interpretation of tongues : but all these worketh
the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each
one severally even as he will."1 The argument
of this passage is very significant. Spiritual
gifts are so varied that it might be held that
there were many spirits from whom they came.
Very probably some of the Corinthians did so
think. Just as it was well known that there
was a whole army of evil spirits, some more
1 1 Cor. xii. 7-11. 14

102 THE SPIRIT
important and powerful than the others, who
were the cause of all our evil thoughts, so it
was natural to think that there were many
good spirits, and very probably the Corinthians
were arguing that one man had a better spirit
than another. Against these St. Paul asserts
clearly that the Spirit was one, just as the
Father and the Son were one, and bases on
this unity of the Spirit the unity of the life of
the Church.
The particular point of importance for us to
notice is that it would be quite natural for the
Corinthians to ascribe the spiritual manifesta
tions which they experienced to the influence
of many spirits, which they would think of in
some sense as personal. This opinion is thus
described by Mr. Lake :
" According to popular opinion, the world
was full of spirits, good and bad, which were
able to take possession of, or to obsess, not
only human beings, but even inanimate ob
jects. One of the main reasons for which
the ordinary man took part in religious cere
monies was to avoid obsession by evil daemons,
and to secure obsession or inspiration by good
spirits."1
1 Kirsopp Lake, " The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul "
p. 192.

THE SPIRIT ONE 103
This belief in a plurality of good spirits St.
Paul combats. To him the Spirit was one, and
this, he held, was of immense importance for the
right conception of the unity of the Christian
life. But while he combats the idea of plurality,
the language that he employs seems to imply
that he shares (as it was natural that he
should) the idea of personality. The one
Spirit is correlated with the one Lord and
the one God, and the action of this one Spirit
is spoken of in language which we should
undoubtedly think of as implying personality.
" But all these worketh the one and the same
Spirit, dividing to each one severally as he
will." When we pass to other passages of the
Epistles, we find a great deal which seems to
support this conclusion. There are, of course,
many passages which are ambiguous ; there
are, however, none which are inconsistent
with a conception of personality, and many
which seem to imply it. Take, for example,
the eighth chapter of the Romans : The Spirit
of God dwells in us.1 We are led by the
Spirit.2 " The Spirit himself beareth witness
with our spirit, that we are children of God."3
And most remarkable is the final passage :
1 Rom. viii. 11. 2 Rom. viii. 14. 3 Rom. viii. 16.

104 THE SPIRIT
"And in like manner the Spirit also helpeth
our infirmity : for we know not how to pray
as we ought ; but the Spirit himself maketh
intercession for us with groanings which can
not be uttered ; and he that searcheth the
hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit,
because he maketh intercession for the saints
according to the will of God."1
There is another very remarkable passage
in 1 Corinthians. The Spirit is the organ of
revelation, searcheth, knoweth, teacheth : " But
unto us God revealed them through the Spirit :
for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep
things of God. For who among men knoweth
the things of a man, save the spirit of the man
which is in him ? even so the things of God
none knoweth, save the Spirit of God. . . .
Which things also we speak, not in words
which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the
Spirit teacheth."2
Then there is a passage in 2 Corinthians,
not, indeed, free from ambiguity, but very
much more impressive if we accept the idea
that St. Paul considered the Spirit to be
personal : " Ye are our epistle, written in our
hearts, known and read of all men ; being
made manifest that ye are an epistle of Christ,
1 Rom. viii. 26, 27. 2 1 Cor. ii. 10-13.

PERSONALITY OF THE SPIRIT 105
ministered by us, written not with ink, but
with the Spirit of the living God."1
There are other remarkable passages in later
Epistles : " Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God,
in whom ye were sealed unto the day of re
demption."2 "But the Spirit saith expressly,
that in later times some shall fall away from
the faith."3
Now, no claim is made that these passages
are free from difficulty. We cannot demon
strate definitely St. Paul's opinion. But if
we remember what were the intellectual con
ceptions of St. Paul's day, and the language
used elsewhere in the New Testament, the
interpretation of the Spirit as personal be
comes the natural one. And a careful reader
will find that a fuller meaning is given to
St. Paul's language throughout if he realizes
that St. Paul always conceived of the Spirit as
acting in a way which we should call personal.
It may be true that the idea of personality was
not so clearly defined in the ancient world as
it is with us, and that St. Paul had never asked
himself the question if or how the personality
of the Spirit was distinguished from the per
sonality of the Father ; but any difficulty that
we may have in understanding him will be
1 2 Cor. iii. 2, 3. 2 Eph. iv. 30. 3 1 Tim. iv. 1.

106 THE SPIRIT
much diminished if we refrain from reading
into the New Testament our modern con
ceptions. The rationalist interpretation is
always least true to the mind of St. Paul.

Ill
It is well known that a certain number of
theologians, and particularly Professor Pflei
derer, have contended that to St. Paul Christ
was the Spirit. This interpretation cannot be
maintained, but the fact that it can be held is
most significant. It shows how pronounced
is the idea of personality in relation to the
Spirit, and also how intimate to St. Paul is the
relationship between the Spirit and Christ,
between the work of the Spirit and the work
of Christ.
The passage where the identification seems
most complete is one in the Second Epistle
to the Corinthians : " Now the Lord is the
Spirit : and where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face
reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord,
are transformed into the same image from
glory to glory, even as from the Lord the
Spirit."1 It is clear that we must here trans-
1 2 Cor. iii. 17, 18.

THE SPIRIT AND CHRIST 107
late " the Spirit," and clearly a very close rela
tionship between the Lord and the Spirit is
implied. We notice, however, that the force
of the argument for identity of the Spirit
with Christ is weakened very considerably
by the phrase " the Spirit of the Lord," im
mediately afterwards.
St. Paul is arguing that the ministry with
which he is entrusted is far more glorious than
that of the Old Covenant. At the reading of
the Old Testament there remained a veil un
fitted, a sign of the veil which lay on the
hearts of the hearers. This veil has been
done away in Christ. If a man turn to the
Lord, the veil is lifted from his heart. That
is because Christ means the Spirit, for where
Christ's Spirit is there is the freedom of the
Gospel. Our continuous progress from glory
to glory comes from the Lord, who is mani
fested in the Spirit.
There is clearly a very close connection,
which implies an identity of work. The ex
planation is suggested by the following pas
sage : " But ye are not in the flesh, but in the
spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth
in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit
of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ is
in you, the body is dead because of sin ; but

108 THE SPIRIT
the spirit is life because of righteousness.
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus
from the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised
up Christ Jesus from the dead shall quicken
also your mortal bodies through his Spirit that
dwelleth in you."1 A careful study of the
above passage shows a very close relationship
between God, the Spirit, and Christ. The
Spirit is the Spirit of God and of Christ.
The Spirit is in us, and Christ is in us, yet
the Spirit is distinguished from Christ as the
Spirit of Him that raised Him from the dead,
and it is He that works in us through the
Spirit. The thought which seems most ade
quately to explain such a passage seems to
be that Christ dwells in us through the Spirit,
which is the Spirit equally of the Father and
of the Son.
And here we reach the limits of St. Paul's
language. It is Christ in us that is identified
with the Spirit, because He dwells in us through
His Spirit. But the Christ that lived and was
crucified is never in any way identified with
the Spirit. The distinction is clear and em
phatic. Christ dwells in us through the Spirit, but
this Spirit has a close relation to the Father.
1 Rom. viii. 9-11.

THE SPIRIT AND THE FATHER 109
The Spirit of Christ comes from the Father.
" Because ye are sons, God sent forth the
Spirit of his Son into our hearts."1 And not
only is it the Spirit of Christ coming from the
Father, it is the Spirit of God. God's love
is poured forth in our hearts through the
Holy Spirit which is given us.2 Our union
with God in love comes through the Spirit.
" The Spirit searcheth all things, even the
deep things of God." 3 " The things of God
none knoweth save the Spirit of God."4 We
are a temple of God because God's Spirit
dwelleth in us.5
Always God is represented as working in
us by the Spirit, and one of the clearest facts
that must emerge from a careful study of all
the passages in which the word occurs is the"
close connection of the Spirit with God, and
its coming forth from Him.
Now, the question must inevitably occur to
us, How did St. Paul think of this relation
ship of God, Christ, Spirit, or the Father, the
Son, and the Spirit ? Within certain limits and
in certain directions the three words are almost
interchangeable. St. Paul can speak of God
dwelling in us, of Christ in us and we in Him,
i Gal. iv. 6. 2 Rom. v. 5. 3 1 Cor. ii. 10.
4 1 Cor. ii. 11. 6 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17, vi. 19.

110 THE SPIRIT
of the Spirit within us. He can say the Spirit
of God or the Spirit of Christ. He can speak
of God being in Christ, and of the Spirit being
in Christ. He can speak of us as in Christ or
in the Spirit. But he can also speak of Christ
being raised by the Spirit. It is difficult for
us to see quite how St. Paul thought of these
things. And then there is another set of passages
where the three are co-ordinated together in a
more striking manner : " Now there are diver
sities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there
are diversities of ministrations, and the same
Lord. And there are diversities of workings,
but the same God who worketh all things in
all."1 God, the Lord, the Spirit, are co
ordinated together ; the Spirit is one, as are
God and the Lord — there is but one Source
of all these gifts ; and in these gifts the Three
work together. Then there is the well-known
grace : " The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,
and the love of God, and the fellowship of the
Holy Ghost." 2 And then, again, in Ephesians :
" There is one body, and one Spirit, even as
also ye were called in one hope of your call
ing ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one
God and Father of all."3
1 1 Cor. xii. 4-6. 2 2 Cor. xiii. 14. 3 Eph. iv. 4, 5.

THE TRINITY 111
What ultimately does this language imply,
parallel as it is to other passages in the New
Testament ? The Christian Church, studying
these passages, has formulated the doctrine
of the Trinity ; and after a careful and full
study of St. Paul's words it is difficult not to
believe that he thought of the Spirit as a benefi
cent Divine personality coming forth from
the Father, being of both the Father and the
Son, dwelling in and inspiring every faithful
Christian, making the power of Christ, of whom
He is, real in us, inspiring our higher nature,
giving us a new personality, a new power, a
new life.
St. Paul did not define — he believed. What
he believed and experienced the Christian
Church also believed and experienced. The
coming of the Spirit — the promise of the
Father — was a real fact. The theology was
not thought out; all the implications of the
language used were not realized. We cannot
say that St. Paul formulated a doctrine of the
Trinity in Unity. It is difficult to conceive
how he realized in his own mind the relations
of the Spirit, Son, and Father ; but the tradi
tional theology of the Church alone seems to
co-ordinate and account for all the different
elements of his belief.

112 THE SPIRIT
IV
Two difficult problems are raised by the
questions of the Personality of the Spirit, and
the development of the idea of the Christian
Trinity. In the Old Testament, the Spirit of Jehovah
as a means of expressing His living power is of
frequent occurrence. God's Spirit works in
creation, it is the source of intellectual gifts,
it inspires the prophets, it is the prerogative of
the Messiah, the source of holiness. But a
contrast is noted with the New Testament.
The Spirit is not represented as the source of
ordinary gifts, as the endowment of all the
people of God ; it is the source only of the
special inspiration of the prophet. The pro
phets, however, as we have seen, expect a great
outpouring of the Spirit on all the people of
God in the days to come. Nor is there any
separate personality ascribed to the Spirit.
"The Old Testament attributes personahty
to the Spirit only in so far as it identifies the
Spirit of God with God himself, present and
operative in the world or in men."1
When we pass to the theology of the Chris
tian Church, the Spirit is habitually spoken of
1 Swete in " Hastings' Bible Dictionary," ii. 411.

THE SPIRIT PERSONAL 113
as personal, and the personality of the Spirit
is made the subject of dogmatic statements.
The question is, When did the new thought
come in? If the argument of the present
chapter be correct, the answer is that the
belief in the personality of the Spirit was the
necessary outcome of the Apostolic preaching.
What is certain is that the gift of the Spirit
was one of the most real of the experiences of
the early Church, and that the expectation of
the prophets had been fulfilled, and all God's
people received the gift. It is equally certain
that the Spirit is spoken of, not only in St.
Paul's writings, but in St. John's, in language
which seems to imply personality, and that
there is a certain separateness which we do
not find in the Old Testament. If that be so,
we may hold that the teaching of the Christian
Church was the natural interpretation of the
language of the New Testament.
But a further point arises as to the relation
of this teaching to the language of our Lord
Himself. This is one of the fundamental
questions the answer to which will ultimately
depend upon the view taken of the teaching
of Jesus as recorded in St. John's Gospel. In
St. Luke's Gospel the risen Lord answers His
disciples that He will send forth the promise
15

114 THE SPIRIT
of the Father, and bids them remain in the
city until they be clothed with power from on
high.1 In the Acts of the Apostles He tells
them that they shall receive power when the
Holy Ghost is come upon them.2 At the
close of St. Matthew's Gospel there is the
baptismal formula. It is, however, in St.
John's Gospel that the fullest and richest
teaching about the Holy Spirit is found.
Does that represent a late development of
Christian speculation, or is it directly based on
the teaching of our Lord? It is a problem
which meets us in various connections, which
will confront us more than once in relation to
St. Paul's teaching. It is sufficient to say at
present that, if the teaching attributed to our
Lord in St. John's Gospel on this and other
points be directly based upon words of our
Lord, if these discourses, however much they
may be developed in style, are historical in
matter, the growth of Christian doctrine
becomes an easy problem ; if they are not
historical, it is full of perplexity and un
certainty. There is always a gap which has
to be filled up somehow.
The chief problem in relation to the doctrine
of the Trinity is caused by the difficulty of
1 Luke xxiv. 49. 2 Acts i, 8.

THE BAPTISMAL FORMULA 115
understanding how writers of the Apostolic
age thought of the relations of Father, Son,
and Spirit. What all agree upon is what
may be called an Economic Trinity. The
work of the Father as the Ruler and Creator,
and the Source of all authority and power ; the
work of the Son as Redeemer and Revealer ;
the work of the Holy Spirit in sanctifying and
inspiring — all this is clear and certain. There
is throughout a distinctness of function and
a community of action. The first beginnings
of formal teaching were contained in the bap
tismal formula. Out of this was developed
the Christian creed, and the Christian doctrine
of the Trinity is the natural systematization
and co-ordination of the Apostolic teaching.
That formula is ascribed to the post-resurrec
tion teaching of our Lord, and is consequently
the subject of much doubt and criticism. But
again we may say clearly that the language of
St. Paul, the development of the doctrine of
the Church, and the whole of Apostolic teach
ing on the Divine nature, become natural and
possible if they were based on some such sayings
of our Lord.

VI
FAITH, JUSTIFICATION, SALVATION
The problem — Sin — Law — Faith — Justification — Salvation
— The source of St. Paul's teaching — Its influence.
The religious and moral ideal of the Jew
might be summed up in the word "just."
And that meant to him " upright in the sight
of God." It is interesting to contrast this ideal
with that of the Greek and the Roman. The
Hellenic conception was summed up in the
word " virtue "; and the moral ideal was repre
sented by a word which added to the meaning
of "good" the associations of what was beautiful
and honourable in the sight of men. The
Greek moral ideal implied all that was of good
report in the eyes of man. So the Roman
ideal was based on the conception of duty to
the State, of the fulfilment of all the honourable
obligations which a man's position in the world
and his duty to his country demanded; and
the only typically Roman philosophy, the later
Stoicism, developed this ideal.
116

HOW CAN MAN BE JUSTIFIED ? 117
In contrast with these, the Jewish ideal
was that of uprightness in the sight of God.
Primarily and originally it was uprightness in
this life. It spoke of the " blessedness of the
man whose delight is in the law of the Lord . . .
whatsoever he doeth it shall prosper." To this
had been added the later apocalyptic ideal of
salvation in the Last Day when the Messiah
comes, implying a judgement and life in
the Kingdom of God. Fundamentally this
uprightness was gained by keeping " the law ";
the conception of lawT might be differently in
terpreted by different Jewish sects, but all
would probably agree that the man who kept
the law was justified in God's sight, and the
greater number of people would also add, " and
would obtain salvation at the Last Day."
Quite early the question how a man could
be justified became acute in the Christian
Church. How could he be held upright by
God ? What had he to do ? And the answer
turned on the law. The Messiah had come.
Jesus was the Messiah. All Christians alike
recognized that. Those who became followers
of Him could receive salvation at the Last Day.
But what were the obligations of discipleship ?
Naturally, the first disciples went on living
their ordinary Jewish life. But then came the
16

118 ZEAL FOR GOD AND THE LAW
conversion of the Gentiles, and inevitably the
question must arise, What did Christianity
mean for them ? The Jew, when he believed
and was baptized, went on living as a Jew.
What had the Gentile to do? What were
his obligations? Must he accept the whole
Jewish law? Some said, Yes. Or might he
go on living just as he had done before,
take part in idol feasts, and live the ordinary
non-moral Gentile life? His sins would be
forgiven. We are not concerned now with
the details of the history of the controversy.
We are concerned rather with St. Paul's
solution of the questions asked.
St. Paul had been more eager for righteous
ness than any of his contemporaries. He was
zealous for God, zealous for the law. The
desire to fulfil God's will was always with him
an overmastering passion. With him it was
not primarily a zeal for salvation. The high-
minded Pharisee kept the law as the greatest
thing on earth. He had a lofty ethical ideal,
and this had a profound effect on St. Paul.
It is one c* the limitations of the commentator,
whose one clue to the interpretation of Pauline
thought is eschatology, that he forgets that
fundamentally and originally it was upright
ness in God's sight in this life that was the

ST. PAUL'S ANSWER 119
Jewish aim, an aim which is equally present in
Christianity. Christianity, rightly interpreted,
is not always or only an other- world religion.
The strength with which St. Paul held his
Jewish ideal made the change, when it came,
far more complete for him. He could not
remain satisfied, as could many early Chris
tians, with a compromise. He saw the whole
issue clearly and logically, and the needs of
controversy compelled him to formulate his
opinions. Hence on this subject St. Paul
expounds his views more systematically and
methodically than on any other point. So far
we have generally had to piece his opinions
together from isolated inferences. Now it is
different. First controversially in Galatians
he hammers out his principles ; then in
Romans quietly and calmly, with the strength
that comes after the conflict, when the victory
is won, in a manner true for all time, he lays
down his conclusions. We cannot, therefore,
do better that follow his own argument.

St. Paul's starting-point is the fact of sin.
Mankind everywhere had fallen away from the
will of God, and had exposed themselves to
His wrath. This the Apostle proves in that

120 ZEAL FOR GOD AND THE LAW
tremendous indictment of his age which occu
pies the main part of the first three chapters
of the Romans. The heathen world had sinned.
All would admit that : certainly the Jews with
whom St. Paul was arguing. Was not their
usual expression "sinners of the Gentiles"?
But it was equally true of the Jew, who,
although he knew the law, dishonoured God
by breaking the law. And Scripture, without
making any exceptions, had emphasized that
all had sinned : " There is none righteous, no,
not one ; there is none that understandeth,
there is none that seeketh after God."1
But St. Paul not only proves his thesis by
objective fact ; he can appeal to his own sub
jective experience. He describes to us the
struggle which had taken place in his own self.
He had devoted all his power to doing what
he believed to be the will of God. The law
had put before him the ideal that he was to
fulfil ; he had striven to do so, but he had
always failed. "Sin, taking occasion by the
commandment, deceived me, and by it slew
me . . . what I would, that I do not ; but what
I hate, that do I. Now it is no more I that
do it, but sin that dwelleth in me ... I know
that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no
1 Rom. iii. 10, 11 (Ps. xiv. 1 et seq.).

SIN 121
good thing ; for to will is present with me :
but how to perform that which is good I find
not. ... I see another law in my members,
warring against the law of my mind, and
bringing me into captivity to the law of sin
which is in my members." And then he con
cludes : " O wretched man that I am ! who
shall deliver me from the body of this death ?"1
The fundamental fact, then, was that of sin.
But what was sin ? On this point St. Paul
was naturally not so explicit, for the fact that
he was dealing with was one recognized by his
contemporaries, and was a fundamental part
of his thought. The conception of sin we owe
to the Jew, and it meant this : Evil looked at
as an act of rebellion against God. Just as
" righteousness " meant morality looked at as
fulfilling God's will, as uprightness in the sight
of God, so sin was immorality and wrong looked
at in relation to God. The one represents the
state of a man who fulfils God's will, the other
means rebellion and alienation.
St. Paul assumes that we know what sin
is ; but he is not without his theory as to its
origin, and he looks at it from two sides. He
has an historical theory of its origin, and a
psychological theory of its working. ' ' Through
1 Rom. vii. 11-25.

122 ZEAL FOR GOD AND THE LAW
one man sin entered into the world." In Adam
all had sinned. " By the trespass of the one the
many died. . . . Through one trespass the
judgement came unto all men to condemnation.
Through the one man's disobedience the many
were made sinners."1 Man had fallen from the
right way, and although there was no guilt where
there was no law, yet all men were in a state
of disobedience to God's will and alienation
from Him.
There are certain points to be noticed about
this theory of the origin of sin. In the first
place it is introduced quite incidentally so as
to enable St. Paul to bring out more fully the
work of Christ. The argument of the whole
Epistle is quite independent of it, for St. Paul's
conception of the need of redemption and the
process of salvation is dependent not on any
theory of the origin of sin, but on the fact —
the undoubted fact— of the sinfulness of the
world and of human nature. In the second place,
there can be no doubt that this is one of the
points which St. Paul owes more particularly
to the current philosophy and phraseology of
the schools of the day. Excellent illustra
tion is given by a late Jewish writing — the
Apocalypse of Ezra.
1 Rom. v. 12-19.

THE SIN OF ADAM 123
" O Lord, my Lord, was it not thou who
in the beginning, when thou didst form the
earth . . . didst speak and commandedst the dust,
so that it gave thee Adam, a lifeless body ? . . .
And Thou leddest him into Paradise, which
thy right hand did plant before ever the earth
came forward, and to him thou commandest
one only observance of thine, but he trans
gressed it. Forthwith thou appointedst death
for him and for his generations ; and from him
were born nations and tribes, peoples and clans
innumerable. And every nation walked after
their own will, and behaved wickedly before
thee and were ungodly."1 And again : " For
the first Adam, clothing himself with the evil
heart, transgressed and was overcome ; and
likewise also all who were born of him. . . ."2
" O thou Adam, what hast thou done ? For
though it was thou that sinned, the fall was
not thine alone, but ours also who are thy
descendants."3 It would be beside the purpose of this work
to discuss further the theological conception
of original sin ; it is sufficient now to emphasize
1 4 Ezra iii. 4-8. I have ventured throughout to use
the excellent translations of Mr. Box. " The Ezra Apoc
alypse," by G. H. Box, M.A., pp. 9, 10.
2 Ibid., iii. 21 ; Box, p. 15.
3 Ibid., vii. 118; Box, p. l6l.

124 ZEAL FOR GOD AND THE LAW
that itjs the fact of sin and not its origin that
is the basis of the Pauline doctrine of redemp
tion, and that there is no part of St. Paul's
thought and speculations which can be more
definitely traced to current Jewish specula
tion. And then there is the psychological account
of sin. It is not necessary for our purpose here
to study with any fulness St. Paul's psychology.
It is not essential to his theology ; it is among
the more transient parts of his teaching. But
something must be said about his psychological
explanation of sin. St. Paul was a Jew and
not a Greek, nor was he in any of his funda
mental ideas influenced by Greek thought.
As a Jew he looked on human nature as in its
essence one. There was no dualism. Man was
not compounded of two discordant elements,
spirit and matter — the one good, the other evil.
He had, of course, his different parts : his body,
his soul, his mind, his spirit ; but they were
different elements in the one man. With all
he might do good, in all he might sin, in all
he could be redeemed. But his human nature,
his flesh, was weak ; and in this weak human
nature, through the seed sown by Adam's sin,
" Sin," looked on as a great personified force or
power, had obtained a hold ; it had permeated

SIN AND THE FLESH 125
his whole nature, and created in him a principle
of evil, which in most men was at war with
the higher principles that came to them
through their spirit ; but might ultimately
overpower the whole man, so that the spirit
itself would become evil. The dualism of St.
Paul is not a Platonic dualism — a fundamental
dualism of a spirit which has to be freed from
its material environment, but is something
transient and temporary : a man becomes the
battle-ground of two principles, sin and right
eousness, the one working through his flesh,
the other through his spirit, until either one
or other is triumphant, and he becomes the
servant of sin or the servant of righteousness.
There is one more question to ask, and that
is, What was St. Paul's attitude towards what,
in modern parlance, we call the personality of
the devil ? His point of view is interesting
and in a sense ambiguous. It is quite clear
that he accepts all the normal Jewish teaching
as to the personality of evil spirits. "We
wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against
principalities and powers and spiritual wicked
ness in high places." But although this was
his natural and inherited belief, it does not
affect his philosophy of the subject. Through
out the whole of the exposition in Romans,

126 ZEAL FOR GOD AND THE LAW
he speaks not of a personal source of evil, but
a great principle of sin, and the whole work
can be read and grasped by anyone quite
independently of those inherited beliefs of the
Apostle, which sometimes seem hardly more
real to him than to us.

II
Sin reigned from Adam to Moses ; with
Moses came the law. The law reigned from
Moses to Christ. What, then, was the law ?
And what were its functions ?
It is one of the recognized difficulties of the
interpretation of the language of St. Paul that
he uses words in different senses, often in the
same passage, often in senses closely allied to
one another, and that one signification passes
into another. It is, I think, clear that this is
the case with the word "law." Law is to
St. Paul a great principle or stage in human
development. He clearly recognizes that
Gentiles as well as Jews knew law. It was
represented by the law of conscience ; it was
witnessed to by the moral judgements which
men have in all ages passed on one another ;
it is embodied in codes and ordinances and
bodies of law ; it distinguishes for us the

THE LAW 127
difference between right and wrong. But this
principle of law was represented most clearly
by the Jewish law, called emphatically "the
Law," and with that, of course, St. Paul is
mainly concerned. Only it is well to re
member that the same principle of law had
prevailed in the Gentile world, fulfilling for
other nations the same functions as the law
of Moses for the Jews.
What, then, was the law ? It had fulfilled
three great functions. It had taught men
their knowledge of right and wrong; it had
convinced them of their weakness and power
lessness to fulfil the commandment ; it had
thus been, as it were, a schoolmaster to lead
men to Christ, but it had always failed to bring
justification, to enable men to present them
selves as righteous in the sight of God. " I
had not known lust, except the law had said,
Thou shalt not lust."1 While the law was in
itself holy, and just, and good, its effect had
been not to produce righteousness, but rather
to stir up to rebellion the principle of sin in
mankind, and thus even to intensify human
wickedness. " When the commandment came,
sin revived, and I died ; and the command
ment, which was unto life, this I found to be
1 Rom. vii. 7.

128 ZEAL FOR GOD AND THE LAW
unto death ; for sin, finding occasion through
the commandment, beguiled me, and through
it slew me."1 The whole result of this process
was to reveal what sin was, and to reveal also
the weakness of our own human nature, and
thus prepare the way for something higher.
St. Paul's outlook on the world and his own
spiritual experience alike convinced him of one
thing as certain — that law could not justify.
Law only shewed the need of the Gospel.

Ill
How, then, can a man be justified ? On
what conditions will he be held to be righteous
in the sight of God ? St. Paul's answer is :
By faith. The Gospel " is the po>ver of God
unto salvation to everyone that believeth . . .
for therein is revealed a righteousness of God
by faith unto faith : as it is written, The
righteous shall live by faith."2 "But now
apart from law a righteousness of God hath
been manifested, being witnessed by the law
and the prophets: even a righteousness of
God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all
them that believe."3 "To him that worketh
1 Rom. vii. 9, 10. 2 Rom. i. 16, 17.
3 Rom. iii. 21, 22.

FAITH 129
not, but believeth on him that justifieth the
ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteous
ness."1 To understand St. Paul's meaning, let us
examine first his own experience. He himself
had been, as he says, seized by Christ. He
had believed in Him, accepted Him as the
Messiah, believed on Him as forgiving the sins
of those who called upon Him, as taking to
Himself all who with complete self-surrender
yielded themselves to Him ; and he had felt
a complete change in his whole being. He
knew that the whole relation between himself
and God had been transformed ; there was
some power in him which had overcome all
his sinful tendencies. He had become a new
creature. Here was the fundamental fact. And it
was based, first of all, on St. Paul's concep
tion of faith. Faith starts from the two ideas
of intellectual assent and trust, and both
elements went to the building up of the
Biblical use of the word. The writer of the
Epistle to the Hebrews emphasizes the intel
lectual element most clearly when he tells us
that " faith is the assurance of things hoped for,
the proving of things not seen. " 2 Here, clearly,
i Rom. iv. 5. 2 Heb. xi. 1.
17

130 ZEAL FOR GOD AND THE LAW
it is the intellectual assent to that for which
there is not the evidence of the senses. Faith
as trust was displayed by Abraham when he
left his home and country and went forth into
a strange land, or when he had such confidence
in God that he would not withhold his son.
The faith of the Christian started with the
intellectual assent to the belief that Jesus was
the Messiah. He shewed the reality of his
faith by giving himself up to Him. He was
baptized. He became His loyal servant. And
this meant an experience which increased his
faith, "from faith to faith." He learnt what
Christ had done for him ; he learnt the love
of God which had been exhibited in the death
of His Son, and there arose in him the response
of enthusiastic and loyal service.
This is what faith meant, and it was counted
to a man for righteousness. Now, the first
thing to notice is that this process of justifica
tion was to St. Paul the initial fact of the
Christian's life. " Having been justified by faith,
let us have peace with God." x " Having been
justified now by his blood, we shall be saved
from the wrath."2 Quite clearly there are two
stages — "justification" and " salvation." The
one comes at the beginning of the Christian
1 Rom. v. 1. 2 Rom. v. 9.

SALVATION 131
life, the other is its final consummation. No
doubt (as St. Paul always maintains) the one
is a guarantee of the other, but that does not
mean that it works automatically. "Work
out your own salvation with fear and trem
bling."1 No doubt all "justified" Christians
might be spoken of proleptically as " the saved,"
for they were in the path of salvation. But
the two ideas were really separate. The result
of faith is to put a man into such a right rela
tion with God that henceforth he will live as
God wills.
A phrase often used in relation to St. Paul's
thought is that of " imputed " righteousness,
and it is further suggested that the righteous
ness imputed to us is that of Christ. St. Paul
has no such conception. Such an interpreta
tion misrepresents St. Paul's point of view.
What he believed was that by the death of
Christ such a change had been created in the
relation of God and man that henceforth it
would not be the correct fulfilment of a legal
code that would enable a man to live uprightly
in the sight of God, but the loyal adhesion of
faith. In other words, that faith would be
reckoned as righteousness, and this had been
brought about by the abolition of the Old
1 Phil. ii. 12.

132 ZEAL FOR GOD AND THE LAW
Covenant in the death of Christ, and the free
forgiveness thus won for all who believed in
Christ through His blood. " Blessed are they
whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins
are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the
Lord will not reckon sin."1
What had happened, then, was this — that
a new covenant had been made between God
and man, that the old hard covenant had been
done away, and that different conditions for
salvation had been created. But this was not
all. The method by which the old covenant
had been put an end to had been such as to
reveal to man the love of God through Christ.
This revelation had been of such a character
as to rouse in us responsive feelings of faith
and love, so that for all those who had accepted
Christ a complete transformation of human
nature became possible. This, as we shall see,
St. Paul works out when he considers the life
of the redeemed, for we have not nearly ex
hausted all the elements of his thought. Faith
and Baptism meant a union with Christ, the
gift of the Spirit, the life of the redeemed.
And this new covenant, this establishment of
a new relation between God and man, had
made possible the incoming of the Gentiles.
1 Rom. iv. 7, 8. (Ps, xxxii. 1, 2.)

THE GENTILES 133
" Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of
the law . . . that the blessing of Abraham
might come on the Gentiles in Christ Jesus."1
So long as the hope of salvation was based
on the old covenant relations of obedience
to the Jewish law — a law given only to
the Jewish race — they were "separate from
Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of
Israel, strangers from the covenants of the
promise, having no hope, and without God in
the world."2 But these conditions were done
away. A new covenant based on the ideas of
faith and forgiveness had been inaugurated by
the blood of Christ, and the same conditions
applied henceforth to the whole human race.
IV
Such, quite shortly, was the special feature of
the Gospel of Jesus Christ as preached by St.
Paul, and we have now to consider the relation
of this teaching to that of the Primitive
Church, to our Lord, and its influence on the
subsequent development of Christian doctrine.
St. Paul has given us an account, from his
own point of view, in Galatians of his relation
to the older Apostles. From that it is clear
that they were agreed on fundamental points.
i Gal. iii. 13, 14. 2 Eph. ii. 12,
18

134 ZEAL FOR GOD AND THE LAW
They had given him the right hand of fellow
ship ; they were agreed on the extension of the
Gospel to the Gentiles ; that Gentiles should
not be compelled to keep the law ; some of
them — St. Peter amongst others — had them
selves been wiUing among Gentile Christians
to relax their Jewish habits. They had not,
however, always the complete courage of their
opinions ; they were not always consistent ;
many of their followers were not prepared to
give up old customs. There was a good deal
in Gentile Christianity which shocked the
upright Jew. And a Judaizing party arose.
Above all, the earlier generation of Christians
did not realize the point at issue ; they did
not understand the fundamental change in
principle as St. Paul had realized it.
Let us look for a moment at the earliest
disciples. They were Jews, brought up to
obey the law, not, indeed, as a Pharisee would,
but as ordinary Jews. They had leamt from
the teaching of Jesus a different view of the
law, and a new theory of life, but this did not
suggest that they should give up the law. They
accepted Jesus as the Messiah ; they had re
ceived the gift of the Spirit ; their life had been
transformed ; they had been carried on by the
advancing tide of a movement, which they had

ST. PAUL'S EXPERIENCE 135
hardly grasped ; and they had not realized the
change which had taken place. They preached
faith and repentance. They went on living as
they had done, only they were better Jews.
St. Paul, on the other hand, had had a
deeper experience than theirs. He had been
a Pharisee. That is to say, he had consciously
adopted a religious system. It is probable that
the question, How can a man be justified ?
had already been discussed in the schools of the
Rabbis. At any rate, a deliberate rule of life
had been laid down. By it St. Paul attempted
to gain peace and justification. He had failed.
He was conscious of his failure. He had
adopted a new creed. He realized the differ
ence. He saw clearly where the whole point
of the new message lay, and he defined. On
the one side "works," the performance of a
hard legal code ; on the other side " faith,"
loyalty, a change of heart, a new life. He
interpreted the message in a different way
from others. He was able to do this because
he had been a Pharisee, and because his
religious experience had been so remarkable.
This gospel, then, which St. Paul preached
was not a new one. It was only the logical
and theological statement of what Christians
had known from the beginning. Our Lord

136 ZEAL FOR GOD AND THE LAW
had proclaimed the good news of the forgive
ness of sins. He had bidden men come to Him,
and had commended their faith. He had again
and again turned them from obedience to the
letter of the law to a realization of its spirit,
from the literal obedience to the comprehension
of a principle. He had spoken of a yoke which
was easy, yet of a righteousness which must
exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees. This
was the Christian tradition of Christ's preach
ing. The Early Church had carried on the
tradition. They preached faith in Jesus the
Messiah, forgiveness of sins, baptism into
Christ's name. They received at their profes
sion of faith and incorporation by baptism into
the society the gift of the Spirit, and they knew
how in the name of Christ they had healed the
sick and cast out devils. Clearly this implied
all that St. Paul taught, but clearly also the
earliest Christian teachers did not realize all
that it implied. It was St. Paul who realized
that here was a new principle of life and religion ;
it was he who carried it to its clear and logical
conclusion, who saw its consequences in freedom
from the law, and why it meant that the gift
of the Messianic salvation should be for Gentiles
as well as for Jews. And he expressed his teach
ing in the language and forms of the current

ST. PAUL AND CHRIST 137
theology. He shewed, as a Rabbi might, how
it was taught by the Old Testament, and
expressed himself in the recognized categories.
The difference between his teaching of justifi
cation and that of his contemporaries was that
he transformed a religious life into a theology.
But although he interpreted the teaching of
Jesus more adequately than the Church before
had done, he had not grasped the whole of the
teaching of Jesus in its fulness. Where con
troversy leads to a clear issue being raised in
theology, it is sure to result in the loss of com
prehensiveness. St. Paul was inevitably one
sided and controversial. Nothing that he says
ever succeeds in bringing out all sides of the
truth quite in the way that the one phrase of
our Lord does : " I am not come to destroy
but to fulfil." There was no one-sidedness
about our Lord's teaching which might lead
to Antinomianism, as actually happened in the
case of the teaching of St. Paul.
The controversy with Judaism had raised
a clear issue, and the issue led to the clear
and formal definition of the great principle of
justification by faith. But the next genera
tion forgot the controversy, did not need the
teaching, and obscured the issue. Clement
of Rome clearly did not understand. For

138 ZEAL FOR GOD AND THE LAW
him the common -sense point of view was
adequate. " Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ
and five a godly life." He reconciles St. Paul
and St. James, as most of us do, by saying
that we are justified by faith and works. That
is generally an adequate and sufficient formula.
Some of the Gnostics perverted St. Paul's
teaching and made it Antinomian ; but for the
most part it was not understood because it
was not required.
Twice, however, in the history of Christianity
has Paulinism been of paramount importance.
To St. Augustine the issue was somewhat
different from what it had been to St. Paul.
The fundamental point of his religious life was
the inadequacy of human merit to attain salva
tion. He felt that he himself owed nothing to
his own will, which was inherently corrupt, but
that he had been snatched to salvation by the
Divine grace ; and on the language of St. Paul,
as interpreted by St. Augustine, was built up
the great mediaeval system of grace.
In the second great period when his particular
teaching was paramount the conditions closely
resembled those of his own day. The Refor
mation controversy was really the old con
troversy of faith and works. Practically—
however much it might be concealed in theory

THE REFORMATION 139
— the mediaeval system taught salvation by
works. Equally clearly Luther asserted, as
St. Paul had done, justification by faith —
i.e., that the primary condition of justification
and salvation was not the fulfilment of a code,
moral or ecclesiastical, but the turning of the
heart to God. Luther's own experience had
been like St. Paul's. That point he seized, that
he preached, and on that he built up the
Lutheran theology. But the Reformation
never grasped St. Paul's teaching in its fulness.
It made what was really a subordinate feature
the centre of the Gospel ; its language was
exaggerated ; it lost its balance, and hence it
became formal and unreal. But its strength lay
in the fact that it realized what the system to
which it was opposed had lost — that no works,
no sacraments, no ceremonies, no morality, avail
anything to him whose heart is not transformed
in Christ.

VII
THE CHRISTIAN LIFE
The life in Christ — The life in the Spirit — Christian
ethics — Their source.
There is always a danger that any system of
" Justification by Faith," to use a modern
name, will have an Antinomian tendency ; and
this was particularly likely to be the case in
some of the Gentile communities which St.
Paul had founded. While Judaism was dis
tinguished for its strong ethical tradition, this
was not the characteristic of either the Hellenic
or Oriental religions. In many places a life
which a Jew would denounce as immoral was
definitely consecrated to the service of religion.
The Churches founded in the commercial
centres of Corinth and Ephesus out of con
verts of mixed races and varied cults, with all
their old ethnic traditions of a moral life broken
down by the disintegrating influence of cos
mopolitanism, would find St. Paul's doctrine
of faith very attractive. They could look upon
140

ANTINOMIANISM 141
the Christian sacraments as capable of working
by magic. " The greater the sin, the greater
the grace." "Shall we continue in sin that
grace may abound?" Such a point of view
was entirely natural.
Let us remark in passing that the existence
of such a perversion of Christian teaching is
conclusive evidence that it was "justification
by faith " that St. Paul taught, in the sense
that a man was held righteous by reason of
his faith. If St. Paul had taught that he was
made righteous by faith, no one could have
suggested that works were indifferent. St.
Paul had been compelled by controversial
exigencies to emphasize " faith " as something
apart from "works," and to denounce any
reliance on works. It was thus natural enough
that among people already imbued with a
sense of indifference to morality, his teaching
should be capable of an Antinomian perver
sion. To St. Paul the whole conception was im
possible, untenable. The Jewish tradition of
a God exalted in righteousness was deeply
ingrained in his heart. The Old Testament,
Pharisaism, eschatology, all taught it. What
ever the faults of the Pharisee and the limita
tions of his creed, he always taught a zeal for

142 THE CHRISTIAN LIFE
righteousness. It is one of the failures of the
modern eschatological school that they have
associated their teaching with the idea of an
" interim-ethik." Eschatology had arisen out
of the strong, if narrow, ethical sense of the
Jews and their conception of the rest of the
world as "sinners." To St. Paul the thought
that Christianity was anything else but a life
of ideal goodness and purity was unthinkable.
He believed that when the Messiah came He
would judge all men, Christian or not Christian,
in accordance with their lives. The Lord was
at hand. All chambering and wantonness
must be put away.
But what was the logical basis for such a
belief? How escape the clear reasoning of
anyone who argued that if works were neces
sary for salvation, then justification was by
works and not by faith, and the whole system
of the law came back. St. Paul's answer was
that justification had come on certain condi
tions which were incompatible either with legal
conditions of righteousness or with any im
morality. How was a man justified? He
was accepted by God for the faith which he
had exhibited by being baptized in the name
of Jesus the Christ, and this baptism meant
that he had been united with Christ in a new

THE LIFE IN CHRIST 143
life, and had received the gift of the Spirit.
His life, therefore, must be one in accordance
with the conditions on which he had been
accepted, and no other life was possible for
him. This life is described by St. Paul under
a great variety of metaphors, but substantially
it had two characteristics — the life in Christ
and the life in the Spirit.

I
There is no phrase more characteristic of St.
Paul than that of " in Christ," or " in Christ
Jesus." In occurs in all the groups of Epistles ;
the only two writings in which it is not found
being 2 Thessalonians and Titus. Outside St.
Paul it occurs in 1 Peter, and the idea is con
stant both in the Fourth Gospel and the First
Epistle of St. John. It occurs also in the
Apocalypse. It expresses the fundamental
fact of St. Paul's life : " It is no longer I, but
Christ, that liveth in me." The whole of his
life, his joys and sorrows, his hopes and fears,
are all in Christ. All he has comes through
Christ, and all his aims are set on Christ. And
what is true of him is true of all Christians,
both in their individual and corporate capacity.
The Churches of God are in Christ.

144 THE CHRISTIAN LIFE
The significance of this union with Christ
and all that it implies is worked out most fully
in the Epistle to the Romans. " Do you
realize," says St. Paul, " how all you who
were baptized into Christ were baptized into
His death ? You descended into the waters of
baptism, and there, as Christ died and went
down into the grave, so you also died to sin.
As He rose from the dead through the glory
of the Father, so you, too, have risen, and lead
a new life. You have shared in His death,
you will share in His resurrection. Your old
man is crucified, and all the sin in it destroyed.
Sin, therefore, is banished from your life. Christ
died to sin. You also died with Him, and
now you live in a new life."1 This union with
Christ transforms the whole being. Christ is
formed in us.2 We have crucified the flesh
with its affections and lusts.3 Through the
cross of Christ the world is crucified to me
and I unto the world.4 As we are crucified
with Christ we also share His sufferings. St.
Paul can feel that he makes up what is wanting
in the sufferings of Christ.5 What Christ
suffered we suffer, and what we suffer, Christ
suffers. As we have died with Christ, so we
1 Rom. vi. 1-11. 2 Gal. iv. 19. 3 Gal. v. 24.
4 Gal. vi. 14. 6 Col. i. 24.

ST. PAUL AND CHRIST 145
are dead to all the beggarly elements of the
world, to the old law of ordinances which He
has destroyed.1 As we have risen with Him,
so we must rise in newness of life, seek those
things that are above, where our life is hid
with Christ in God.2 We are a new creature
The phrase " in Christ " is one which par
ticularly belongs to St. Paul, but the thought
is one which permeates all the discourses of
our Lord in the Gospel of St. John. Is the idea
an original thought of St. Paul, derived from and
built up out of his religious experience, or was
it derived from the teaching of our Lord ?
This is one of the questions which depends for
its answer on the value which is ultimately
assigned to the Fourth Gospel as an historical
document. Does it in this represent a de
veloped Paulinism, or was the common source
of the teaching contained in both writings
the words of our Lord interpreted by each in
his own fashion ?
At any rate, this teaching of union with
Christ is one of the greatest and deepest of
St. Paul's thoughts ; it represents, perhaps,
the culminating point of his rehgious experi
ence ; it unifies all his theology. Whatever
difficulties are experienced by his theory of the
i Col. ii. 20. 2 Col. iii. 1, 3. 19

146 THE CHRISTIAN LIFE
Atonement are clearly largely modified if we
realize that we are mystically one with Christ,
and that we thus participate in all that He
does. If there is a danger of St. Paul's doctrine
of justification becoming hard and rigid, it ceases
if we realize that the faith through which we
are justified unites us with Christ. St. Paul's
Church, as we shall see, was not merely an
organized society, but a part of Christ, His
body. Sacraments to him were not formal or
magical, but in Baptism we are incorporated
with Christ, in the Lord's Supper we live in
Him. We have reached a point in St. Paul's
thought where his religious experience takes
him beyond what can be expressed or defined
in language. No logical expression is possible ;
there is no analogy in ordinary experience ; we
have to be content with metaphors ; we cannot
work out what we mean in syllogisms or find
a place for it in systematic theology ; but this
does not prevent it being real. St. Paul was
describing what he felt to be true, and what
he experienced " has doubtless been acted upon
in many a simple unspeculative life, in which
there was never any attempt to formulate it
exactly in words."1
1 Sanday and Headlam, "Romans," p. 166.

IN THE SPIRIT 147
II
Side by side with the expression " in Christ "
there is the parallel conception of life " in the
Spirit." This life " in the Spirit " was one of
the most real facts of Christian experience.
We have already fully analyzed in detail the
conception of the Spirit ; we have now to con
sider what life " in the Spirit " meant, and in
particular what is its relation to life in Christ.
The same initial act of the Christian life
which had meant our incorporation into Christ
had implied the gift of the Spirit, or perhaps,
more correctly, was brought about through
the agency of the Spirit, for the two ideas seem
to have co-existed : " In one Spirit were we
all baptized into one body";1 and even more
definitely the work of the Spirit is connected
with the whole process of salvation : " Ye
were washed, ye were sanctified, ye were
justified in the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ, and in the Spirit of our God."2 The
result of this is that we are a temple of
the Spirit. God dwells in us through the
Spirit ;3 and this is true of both the individual
and the whole Christian society. " In Christ
Jesus each several building, fitly framed to-
i 1 Cor. xii. 13. 2 1 Cor. vi. 11. 3 1 Cor. iii. 16.

148 THE CHRISTIAN LIFE
gether, groweth into a holy temple in the
Lord: in whom ye also are builded together
for a habitation of God in the Spirit."1
The result of this indwelling of God's Spirit
is a transformation of our nature. Naturally
we are weak, our human nature has become
infected with sin, and sin has become a tyrant
in our bodies, so that we are no longer free,
but slaves. The Spirit, given us from God,
has strengthened our own spirit, so that hence
forth it has the upper hand ; we are freed from
our old slavery and become instead servants
of Christ — a new slavery which is freedom,
because it means the right and harmonious
development of our being. Sin being thus
driven out of us by the Spirit, we become
holy and pure, and all the works of the flesh
are put away from us, all that is weak and
impure in human nature. We are no longer
carnal but spiritual. This transformed life is
shewn in a loftier morality, in spiritual gifts,
in a higher religious life, and in St. Paul par
ticularly, as in others also, in an intensified
power of preaching the Gospel.
All the highest moral gifts come from, or
are transformed by, the Spirit. " The fruit of
the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering,
1 Eph. ii. 21, 22.

THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT 149
kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness,
temperance."1 But besides these normal gifts
of character, there are the gifts which imply
heightened human powers : wisdom, know
ledge, gifts of healings, the power of work
ing miracles, prophecy, discernings of spirits,
tongues, and the interpretation of tongues.2
All these gifts are summed up in the power
of the Spirit, through which, and through
which alone, St. Paul preaches the gospel. His
work was done in the power of the Spirit. So
much is this the case that to despise St. Paul
and his ministry, and to look down on those
he has converted, is to despise God, for his
work is the work of God through the Spirit,
and his converts have been endowed with the
Spirit.3 His preaching was powerful, not
because of any eloquence of his own, but
through the Spirit of God which worked in
him.4 As the Spirit is the source of spiritual
gifts and spiritual power, so in particular is it
the source of all our religious life. Through
the Spirit we have life and peace ; the Spirit
inspires our prayers; the Spirit fills us with
holy joy. It is in the Spirit that we call
Jesus Lord. In particular, it is through
i Gal. v. 22. 2 1 Cor. xii. 8.
3 l Thess. iv. 8. * 1 Thess. i. 5, 6; 1 Cor. ii. 4.
20

150 THE CHRISTIAN LIFE
the Spirit that religious unity comes, and
because of the Spirit we must be one.
This is definitely deduced from the unity
of the Spirit. In one Spirit we are united in
one body.1 We have therefore always to
keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
peace.2 In one Spirit all alike, Jew and
Gentile, have access to the Father through
Christ Jesus.3
So the new covenant can be described as a
covenant of the Spirit, and it is strongly con
trasted with the old covenant — the covenant
of law.4 This was a covenant of the letter,
a code of written rules which had to be obeyed,
which stirred up all the evil in us, and might
almost be described as a covenant of death.
The new covenant — the covenant of the Spirit
— is written in our hearts. Because we have
God's Spirit in our hearts, we live through that
Spirit as we ought to live. It is no longer
a righteousness concerning which we can glory ;
it is a righteousness which comes because God
is in us. Hence come the great antitheses
which run through the writings of St. Paul 
Spirit and law, Spirit and flesh.5
But the gift of the Spirit means something
1 1 Cor. xii. 13. 2 Eph. iv. 3, 4. 3 Eph. ii. 18.
4 2 Cor. iii. 6; Gal. ii. 16. « Gal. v. 16.

THE PROMISE OF THE SPIRIT 151
more than this. It is through our life in the
Spirit that our Christian hope comes to us.
Through the Spirit comes our sonship with
God. We have received the Spirit of adop
tion, and we can call on God as our Father ;
we have received the Spirit of the Son,
therefore we are sons and heirs.1 And as the
Spirit is the source of our sonship, so the
Spirit is the pledge of our future salva
tion.2 Because of all that we have received,
because of the complete transformation of
our life, because we even now and here are
so completely dominated by the Spirit, there
fore we are convinced of the reality of the
spiritual life, and the truth of the promises
of God ; therefore our hope of the continued
existence of our spiritual life is certain, and we
can feel confident— so much already has God
done for us — that we will receive to the full
His promises. " In whom, having also believed,
ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,
which is an earnest of our inheritance unto the
redemption of God's own possession, unto the
praise of his glory."3
These two conceptions — life in Christ, life
in the Spirit — sum up the whole of our religious
i Rom. viii. 15 ; Gal. iv. 6, 7. 2 2 Cor. i. 22.
* Eph. i. 13, 14; cf. iv. 30.

152 THE CHRISTIAN LIFE
life, and they represent the same life viewed
from different standpoints. It is through the
Spirit that God works in us ; it is through the
Spirit that Christ dwells in us ; it is through
the Spirit that we are united with Christ that
we may receive the fruits of our redemption.
But the new life that we live comes to us
from God through Christ. God sent forth His
Son ; Christ died for us, and won for us re
demption. The Church is His body. Through
Christ we have received the gift of the Spirit.
It is hardly necessary or possible that our
analysis should go further. We cannot inter
pret more than St. Paul has interpreted, or
experience more than he has experienced.
Only we can see the contrast between the
old life and the new. Consider the old life.
The law stood forth with its hard, almost
impossible, commands, with its rigid enact
ments, with its unattainable ideals. Incited
by it we strive to fulfil its demands. We feel
proud of what we accomplish ; we glory in our
uprightness ; we despise the " sinner." But
even so we fail. We cannot really attain.
We struggle, but sin in us is powerful. Then
comes the work of the Gospel. We turn to
Christ in faith, and He receives us. We are
baptized and united with Him. God's Spirit is

CHRISTIAN MORALITY 153
poured, forth in our hearts. Henceforth we
live the new life. We become holy, not
because of any merit of our own, but because
we are one with Christ, and God's Spirit dwells
in us. Henceforth we live a new and higher
life. But we cannot glory in our uprightness,
for it is not we that live the new life, but
Christ in us. Ill
The Christian, then, is one who is united
in a spiritual union with Christ, who is in
spired by the Spirit, and his life therefore
exhibits the fruit of the Spirit in a Christian
morality. It has always been the characteristic
of Christianity to dwell on the actual fruit of
its teaching in a moral life. " By their fruits
ye shall know them," our Lord had said;
and St. Paul almost invariably concludes
his Epistles with the exhortation to live a
Christian life, deduced from his doctrinal dis
cussions, and commended with all the earnest
ness of an intensely moral nature. It is, of
course, unreal to suggest that his purpose was
only ethical. He was a man of balanced mind ;
the intellectual, the moral, the religious sides of
his nature influence one another. But always at
a certain stage of his letters we expect the well-
known formula, " I therefore, the prisoner of

154 THE CHRISTIAN LIFE
the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the
calling wherewith ye are called." " I beseech
you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God,
to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy,
acceptable to God, which is your reasonable
service." And St. Paul employs a wealth of
metaphor, and rises to a great height of rugged
eloquence in describing, in illustrating, and
commending this moral life.
The leading characteristic of St. Paul's
morality is that it is a morality of principle,
not of law. It is the working out in practical
life of the great spiritual ideas which had
taken the place for him of the old idea of law.
More than once he sums up the Christian life
by the three virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love.
Faith was the motive principle of the religious
life ; Hope meant the transformation of the
earthly life which results, the source of the
Christian joy ; Love regulated the whole of
a man's dealing with his fellow-men, and, as
it was the consummation of faith, with God
also. " He that loveth his neighbour hath
fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not
commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou
shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet, and if
there be any other commandment, it is summed
up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy

PURITY 155
neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to
his neighbour : Love therefore is the fulfilling
of law." l
The last sentence shews us how love in the
moral sphere bears the same relation to law
that faith does in the religious sphere. We
need not illustrate. It is enough to refer to
the great hymn of Love in the First Epistle
to the Corinthians, and the constant echoes of
the thought throughout the Epistles.
A second main principle with St. Paul
was Purity. It had always been the char
acteristic of Judaism that it had made
purity of life an integral portion of religion.
A transformed Judaism now came into direct
contact with the heathen world, which was
fundamentally impure, and the new converts,
attracted by the religious earnestness of St.
Paul's preaching, accepting Christianity as
"justification" by faith, gaining an answer
to their religious needs in the Sacraments,
found it somewhat difficult to give up their
old habits, and in some cases, no doubt, were
indifferent about doing so. St. Paul has to
emphasize all through his Epistles the need
of purity. " For this is the will of God,
even your sanctification, that ye abstain
1 Rom. xiii. 8-10.

156 THE CHRISTIAN LIFE
from fornication ; that each one of you
know how to possess himself of his own
vessel in sanctification and honour, not in
the passion of lust, even as the Gentiles
which know not God."1 "Flee fornication.
Every sin that a man doeth is without the
body ; but he that committeth fornication
sinneth against his own body."2 "But forni
cation, and all uncleanness, or covetousness,
let it not be named among you as becometh
saints. . . . For this ye know of a surety,
that no fornicator, nor unclean person, nor
covetous man, which is an idolater, hath any
inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and
God."3 This demand is in all cases based on
the highest religious motives. The Christian
is cleansed and sanctified by the Holy Ghost,
his body is a temple of God, through the
Spirit; he is united with Christ, his body is
a member of Christ. " Shall I take the
members of Christ and make them members
of a harlot?"4 We are baptized in Christ,
we have eaten spiritual food and drink in
the Lord's Supper; and both alike demand
abstinence from idolatry or lust.
A third point to.notice is the sanctification
1 1 Thess. iv. 3. 2 1 Cor. vi. 18.
3 Eph. v. 3-5. 4 l Cor. vi. 15.

SLAVERY 157
of all the relations of life through the new
conditions. Most characteristic is this as re
gards slavery. St. Paul accepts the fact of
slavery as part of the normal conditions of
life ; but the relations of master and slave are
to be regulated always by the principles he
has taught. The slaves are slaves of Christ,
doing the will of God from the heart. The
masters are to remember that there is a
Master in heaven with whom is no respect
of persons. So Onesimus is sent back to
Philemon with a letter exhorting him to
receive him "no longer as a slave, but more
than a slave, a brother beloved."1 St. Paul
will have nothing to do with any stirrings
of Messianic war, any revolt against earthly
rulers ; " the powers that be are ordained of
God."2 A Christian must be a good citizen,
an obedient subject, industrious in all the
relations of life. The nearness of the end is
no reason for neglecting the duties of this life.
In regard to marriage his ideal is a high one.
For himself, indeed, he prefers the celibate life.
It is his gift. He believes that for all it is
best. The time is short. This present life
is transitory. The fashion of this life passeth
away, so that henceforth, they that have wives
1 Philem. 16. 2 Rom. xiii. 1.

158 THE CHRISTIAN LIFE
will be as though they had none. The unmarried
is careful for the things of the Lord, how he
may please the Lord : the married is careful
for the things of the world.1 But the married
state is not sinful. The married are one flesh.
There is a direct command of the Lord that
husband and wife are not to leave one another
— only the wife or husband of an unbeliever
may separate if it is necessary. All the rela
tions of family — father and children, husband
and wife, master and servant — are sacred.
God is our Father, and the heavenly relation
ship is a pattern of the earthly. Christ loved
the Church and gave Himself for it ; husbands
should love their wives as Christ loves the
Church ; the wife should be as the Church,
holy and without blemish. IV
It is in relation to the study of St. Paul's
ethics that we see more clearly than in any
other connexion the relation of his teaching
to that of Christ. And this is natural. The
ethics of Christianity came direct from Christ ;
the doctrinal teaching was partly drawn from
Him, partly the interpretation of what He was.
It was to the teaching of Christ that St.
1 1 Cor. vii. 8 et seq. ; 28-33.

LOVE 159
Paul owed his conception of love as the
fundamental principle of morality. It is, of
course, true that the thought may be found
in the Old Testament, and that Christ with
His wonderful insight had selected just that
text which gave the note of all His teaching.
It is true again that parallel passages may be
found elsewhere. There is no ethical maxim
for which it is not possible to get parallels
in many places. But an isolated maxim is
not a principle. What was before a momen
tary intuition is now exalted into the great
principle of life. A study of the use of the
word used for love — dydtrrj — will illustrate this.
" It is never used in the Classical writers, only
occasionally in the Septuagint ; in early
Christian writers its use becomes habitual and
general. Nothing could show more clearly
that a new principle has been created than
this creation of a new word."1
And St. Paul in his use of it correctly inter
prets the mind of Christ. Christ came, he tells
us, to fulfil the law. St. Paul tells us that love
is the fulfilling of the law. He has grasped
the whole point of the Sermon on the Mount.
And as with the general principle, so with
the details. There are many parallels. Occa-
1 Sanday and Headlam, " Romans/' p. 375.

160 THE CHRISTIAN LIFE
sionally St. Paul definitely refers to the
authority of the Lord — in Acts once in a
passage where there is no parallel in our
Gospels : " Remember the words of the Lord
Jesus, how he himself said, It is more blessed
to give than to receive."1 Elsewhere there is
a parallel in the Gospels. " Even so did the
Lord ordain that they which proclaim the
gospel should live of the gospel."2 And
similarly in reference to marriage.
Often there are close parallels in statement ;
for example, in relation to obedience to rulers,
wisdom in this world. Still more often there
is similarity of thought. The result of a care
ful investigation is thus summed up by Mr.
Scott in " Cambridge Biblical Essays."
" A closer examination of the relations be
tween the teaching of Jesus and that of Paul
confirms the primary impression that Paul
reproduces in a very remarkable way the mind
of Christ. When all possible allowance has
been made for the difference of tradition and
reminiscence, and, at the other extreme, for
the effect of his having the completed history of
Jesus to interpret, there remains a whole series
of phenomena of which no account has been
given. Paul shews just that harmony with
1 Acts xx. 35. 2 l Cor. ix. 14.

ST. PAUL AND CHRIST 161
Jesus, with His aim and method, which in
another we should put down to intimacy. In
fact, were it not that we have such excellent
reason for believing that he was not one of the
disciples of Jesus, we should inevitably have
taken him to be one of these, and the one
among them who had entered most deeply
into his Master's spirit."1
It seems strange that difficulties should have
arisen as to the source of St. Paul's ethical
teaching. His teaching was what it was be
cause he was a Christian, because he had learnt
it from the records of our Lord's discourses
which were preserved by the Church, because
he had learnt it from the Christian community,
because perhaps more than others he had
realized to the full the Spirit of his Master.
Parallels, of course, to Christian morality may
be found elsewhere, and it is natural that that
should be possible, for the Christian moral
teaching is but the explanation and interpreta
tion of the moral sense of the race. But
however close the parallel, there is always a
fundamental difference. All Christian teaching
has been thought to be found in the traditions of
the Rabbis, and no doubt many sayings of our
1 "Cambridge Biblical Essays," p. 375; cf. Gardner,
"The Religious Experience of St. Paul," chap, vii.,
p. 139 et sea.
V 21

162 THE CHRISTIAN LIFE
Lord may be paralleled there. But Rabbinism
is as different from Christianity as a lump of
coal from a diamond. There are striking
resemblances to Stoicism, but the spirit of
Stoicism is entirely different. The morality
of the Stoic philosopher is hard, and hence
inhuman ; the morality of the Rabbi is lost in
his devotion to detail. St. Paul, like the other
Apostles, like St. Peter and St. James and
St. John, seizes the fundamental principle —
the Christian dy 073-17. He grasps it even more
fully than they do, not, perhaps, so much in
its practical manifestations as in its intellectual
principles. He works out the principles of
the Christian morality even more profoundly
than they do, and he connects it intimately
with his whole theology. The love of the
Christian is the love which comes to him from
God, which God had shewn to man in Christ.
" Who shall separate us from the love of
Christ ? shall tribulation, or anguish, or per
secution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril,
or sword ? . . . I am persuaded, that neither
death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor
things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature,
shall be able to separate us from the love of
God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."1
1 Hum. viii. 35-39.

VIII
THE CHURCH
Its concrete meaning — Its religious significance — Its philo
sophical significance— Baptism — The Lord's Supper —
Origin of the idea of the Church — Relation to our
Lord's teaching, and growth — Origin of the Sacra
ments.
The expression " the Church " had for St.
Paul a clear and definite concrete meaning.
It denoted the whole body of Christian people.
It was not to him a new term, nor one which
he had first introduced. He uses it of the
society which he had persecuted. " I perse
cuted the church of God."1 This society
had represented something new in the world.
Formerly to the Jewish mind mankind had
been divided into Jews and Gentiles ; now
there was a third section, consisting of both
Jews and Gentiles, called "the Church of
God." " Give no occasion of stumbling,
either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church
of God."2 This new society consisted of local
i Gal. i. 13 ; 1 Cob. xv. 9- 2 1 Cor. x. 32.
163

164 THE CHURCH
communities scattered throughout the world.
Each of these bore the name of " Church," so
there was " the Church of the Thessalonians,"
"the Church of God which is at Corinth,"
"the Church that is at Cenchreae," "the
Churches of Asia, of Galatia, of Macedonia " ;
"the Churches of Judaea which are in Christ";
and generally " the Churches of Christ " is a
substitute for the collective term "the Church."
The word was also used in a sense more nearly
resembling the ordinary Greek usage for the
meeting of the local community for worship,
for discipline, or for administration.1
This society was to a certain extent an
organized body. To how great an extent
may be doubtful, and a matter of controversy.
Each local community had officers to govern
it, appointed in the first instance by the
founder of the Church, but subsequently
probably elected by the community. These
bore the name of Presbyters, but they were
also called Bishops, or Episcopi, and Pastors.
Each community was organized for worship
and for the mutual help and assistance of its
members, and possessed the power of dis
cipline. There were deacons and perhaps also
1 Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xi. 18; xiv. 4, 5, 12, 19, 23, 28
33-35; Col. iv. 15.

THE UNITY OF THE CHURCHES 165
deaconesses, who assisted in the services of
the Church and the administration of alms.
These Churches were bound together by the
consciousness of their common origin, and by
the fact that they were all recognized as the
Churches of the one Messiah. Over all the
Churches which he has founded St. Paul
claims an authority, which was strong and
effective, although naturally undefined in
its character. He demands that all shall
adhere to the common customs and traditions.
" We have no such custom, neither the
churches of God."1 His whole action in
connexion with the Jewish controversy im
plies that he recognizes that he cannot act
separately from, or out of harmony with,
the other Apostles, and that the Apostolic
body of which he claims to be a member
has an authority, however little it may be
defined, over the Church as a whole. Although
this authority is undefined, it is very real, for
its ultimate sanction is the fact that member
ship of the Church of the Messiah is the neces
sary condition of salvation when the Christ
comes. An individual who is separated from
the Church is under the dominion of Satan,
and a society which was not recognized as part
i 1 Cor. xi. 16.

166 THE CHURCH
of the Church would be cut off from the
Christian hope. St. Paul laid before them
who were of repute "the gospel which he
preached among the Gentiles," "lest by any
means he should be running, or had run, in
vain. l
But if this society was united under the
authority of the Apostles, still more was it
joined together in more spiritual bonds. Hospi
tality was the rule of the Church, and members
travelling were entertained. They carried with
them letters of commendation. There were
others besides the Apostles who travelled from
church to church — prophets and evangelists ;
there were messengers from the Apostles ;
there were delegates sent by the Churches —
the Apostles of the Churches, they were called.
Above all, as a sign of the brotherly love which
should knit together all the Churches of Christ,
St. Paul had organized throughout all the
Gentile Churches which he had founded a
great collection for the poor Christians in
Jerusalem. "But now, I say, I go unto
Jerusalem, ministering unto the saints. For
it hath been the good pleasure of Macedonia
and Achaia to make a certain contribution for
the poor among the saints that are at Jerusalem.
1 Gal. ii. 2.

MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH 167
Yea, it hath been their good pleasure; and
their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles
have been made partakers of their spiritual
things, they owe it to them also to minister
unto them in carnal things."1
Such, then, was, on its concrete side, this
new society. But to St. Paul it was far more
than this. It had for him a profound religious
and philosophical significance, and it is these
aspects that it is most important for us to
consider. I
Its religious significance was shewn in the
character of its members. They had been
chosen before the foundation of the world
to be holy and without blame before God in
love ; they had been foreordained to be sons
of God through Jesus Christ ; for they were
redeemed by the blood of Christ; their sins
had been forgiven ; they were recipients above
measure of the Divine grace ; to them had
been revealed the Divine purpose of God in
the world. They were the holy, the elect, the
called. A society thus constituted must naturally
have characteristics unlike those of any other
society, and to St. Paul its distinctive features
1 Rom. xv. 25-27.

168 THE CHURCH
were fundamental. It was to him the body
of Christ ; it was the fulness, for it fulfilled all
God's purpose in the world, and it helped to
complete the very being and nature of Christ ;
through it has been made known the manifold
wisdom of God ; in it is celebrated the Divine
glory. The Christian who was a member of this
society was, St. Paul has told us, " in Christ " —
that is, he was spiritually united with Christ,
and this union was brought about when he
was made a member of that Church which was
the body of Christ. Herein lies the deep
religious significance of the conception of
the Church — a significance which St. Paul
elaborates in various metaphors.
The Church is the Body of Christ. This
metaphor St. Paul uses in more than one way,
and we may be allowed to quote an impressive
passage from Dr. Armitage Robinson's com
mentary on the Ephesians, which brings out
the significance. of the Apostle's language.
" When St. Paul combats the spirit of
jealousy and division in the Corinthian Church,
he works out in detail the metaphors of the
Body and its several parts. But he does not
there speak of Christ as the Head. . . . Indeed,
in that great passage Christ has, if possible, a

CHRIST AND THE CHURCH 169
more impressive position still : He is no part, but
rather the whole of which the various members
are parts : ' for as the body is one and hath
many members, and all the members of the
body, being many, are one body : so also is the
Christ.'1 This is in exact correspondence with
the image employed by our Lord Himself:
' I am the vine, ye are the branches.'2 That
is to say, not ' I am the trunk of the vine, and
ye the branches growing out of the trunk '; but
rather, ' I am the living whole, ye are the parts
whose life is a life dependent on the whole.' "3
But in the Epistle to the Ephesians the
metaphor is differently used. There "he has
begun with the exalted Christ ; and he has
been led on to declare that the relation of
the exalted Christ to His Church is that of
the head to the body."4 When he speaks of
marriage, again, the metaphor is somewhat
altered. Christ is "head of the Church,"
" saviour of the body ;" 5 but the relationship
is also like that of marriage. Christ loves and
cherishes the Church, and the union is like that
of man and wife — " they twain are one flesh."6
Even more remarkable is the conception
that the Church completes Christ. The Church
1 1 Cor. xii. 12. 2 John xv. 5.
3 Robinson, "Ephesians," pp. 41-42.
4 Ibid., p. 42. s Eph. v. 23. fl Eph. v. 29-31.

170 THE CHURCH
as the body of Christ represents Him in the
world, and here it works as He once worked.
But the exalted Christ will not be complete
until He is united with the Church of the
redeemed. For Christ is to be "all in all,"
and He only gains that fulness through the
Church. And so in suffering also there is a
complete union between Christ and His
Church. All that He suffered the Church
shared in ; they were not the sufferings of one
apart from Him. And so what we suffer on
earth Christ shares ; hence St. Paul is able
to say : " Now I rejoice in my sufferings for
your sake, and fill up on my part that which is
lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh
for his body's sake, which is the church."1
And the Church also is in a special sense the
dwelling-place and sphere of working of the
Spirit. " In one Spirit were we all baptized
into one body."2 " Ye are builded together
for a habitation of God in the Spirit."3 " There
is one body, and one Spirit." Hence the gifts
of the Spirit are given, not for the benefit
of the individual members of the Church, but
for the benefit of the Church as a whole, and
all those who receive gifts of the Spirit receive
them for the benefit of the Church, and not for
1 Col. i. 24. 2 1 Cor. xii. 13. 3 Eph. ii. 22.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 171
their own benefit. God hath appointed in
the Church apostles, prophets, and teachers,
and all the many gifts of the Spirit,1 and those
gifts are best which most clearly edify the
Church. Again, in Ephesians he describes
the various officers that have been appointed —
apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and
teachers, and their work is stated to be " for
the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of
ministering, unto the building up of the body of
Christ," a and in and through the body which
is of Christ there come all the different gifts
for the building up of each individual, and the
uniting them together in the bonds of love.
But the Church also has another significance.
It is through the Church that the Divine
purpose is fulfilled. The Epistle to the
Ephesians describes the " universal " — that is to
say, the " Catholic " — Church. Those who had
been Gentiles — the uncircumcised, separated
from the old Israel by the middle wall of
partition, strangers from the promises, having
no hope, and without God in the world — those
had been united in the body by the blood
of Christ. Christ had made peace between
the two great sections of mankind. He had
broken down the barrier which had separated
i 1 Cor. xii. 28. 2 Eph. iv. 11-13.

172 THE CHURCH
them from one another ; that was really the
law. They had become one body in Him.
Thus was created the great world-wide society
the Church, which was the household of God
— the habitation of God in the Spirit. It
had been built upon the foundations of the
apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself
being the chief corner-stone.
All this was the result of the eternal purpose
of God. It was the revelation of a mystery,
unknown to former generations, now revealed
in the Spirit to Christ's holy apostles and
prophets. This dispensation had been through
out the ages hidden in God ; it was the Divine
purpose of the ages, the manifold creation of
God. It is now made known in the Church.
And it is this revelation of the wonderful love
of Christ that makes the Church the sphere
in which throughout all the ages the glory of
God will be told. II
Closely connected with the idea of the
Church, both on its concrete and its religious
side, as an external unity and as the sphere in
which the Christian was united with Christ,
were the two great Christian rites about which
we learn from St. Paul — Baptism and the
Lord's Supper.

SACRAMENTS 173
We speak of these as "sacraments," but there
is no word in St. Paul corresponding to that.
Mystery is always used in a different sense.
Nor is there any one word which describes
them. But not only does St. Paul teach us
about each separately, but there is in the First
Epistle to the Corinthians what we may
describe as teaching on the right use of sacra
ments. The situation in Corinth has been made
clear for us by Mr. Kirsopp Lake in his book
on the early Epistles of St. Paul. There had
clearly been considerable abuse of the Sacra
ments. They were congenial to an Hellenic
atmosphere. That much we may say quite
certainly. There was a tendency to interpret
them in a magical way. To St. Paul, as we
shall see, they were, like all his religious con
ceptions, strongly ethical. The situation he
has to deal with is one in which some of the
Corinthians thought that, provided they were-
baptized and shared in the Lord's Supper, it
did not matter how they hved. They would
quite certainly be saved. With this St. Paul
deals in the tenth chapter of 1 Corinthians. The
Jews of old time had their sacraments. They
were baptized in the sea and in the cloud.
They ate a spiritual meat and drank a spiritual
drink. Yet, because of their sins, their

174 THE CHURCH
idolatry, their lust, their discontent, their
spiritual presumption, they had been grievously
punished. All this was written for an example.
We, like them, have been baptized : they
into Moses, we into Christ. We, like them,
partake of spiritual food. If, like them, we
yield to temptations, we shall, like them, be
punished. Some of the Corinthians clearly
had sinned, and had already received punish
ment for profaning the Lord's Supper : " For
this cause many among you are weak and
sickly, and not a few sleep."1
Now, all this shews us clearly the reality of
the sacramental principle in the Early Church.
No perversion such as this would have been
possible had the„ Sacraments been looked upon
as mere symbols ; and if that had been St. Paul's
teaching he would have said so, in contra
diction to the false teaching that had arisen.
Instead he bases his admonition in all cases on
the real spiritual significance of the sacrament.
It is because in the Communion we are joined
with the Lord that we must avoid idolatry.
It is because in baptism we are incorporated
with Christ that we must no longer live to sin.
About baptism it is never necessary for
St. Paul to give any explicit teaching. He
1 1 Cor. xi. 30.

BAPTISM 175
can always assume that those he is addressing
have been baptized, and that they recognize
fully the significance of baptism. It clearly
meant the actual incorporation with the
Church, which was the body of Christ. " For
in one Spirit were we all baptized into one
body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond
or free ; and were all made to drink of one
Spirit."1 It therefore signified also spiritual
incorporation into Christ : " Or are ye ignorant
that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus
were baptized into his death ? We were buried
therefore with him through baptism into death :
that like as Christ was raised from the dead
through the glory of the Father, so we also
might walk in newness of life."2 Throughout
St. Paul assumes that these facts are under
stood, and argues on the basis of the universal
recognition of what baptism implied. He
wishes to emphasize the folly of disputing about
spiritual gifts. He does so by shewing that
all our gifts have come from the gift of the
one Spirit in baptism, by which we were made
members of the body of Christ, and all disputes
about precedence or privilege are inconsistent
with that membership. So in the sixth chapter
of Romans St. Paul argues that by baptism we
i 1 Cor. xii. 13. 2 Rom. vi. 3-4.

176 THE CHURCH
have been incorporated with Christ, and that all
that this implies is entirely inconsistent with a
life of sin. Baptism is clearly accepted by all, and
there is general agreement as to what it implies.
Equally significant is St. Paul's doctrine of
the Lord's Supper.
" The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not
a communion of the blood of Christ? The
bread which we break, is it not a communion
of the body of Christ ? Seeing that we, who
are many, are one bread, one body: for we
all partake of the one bread. Behold Israel
after the flesh : have not they which eat the
sacrifices communion with the altar? What
say I then ? that a thing sacrificed to idols is
anything, or that an idol is anything ? But
I say that the things which the Gentiles
sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils and not to
God : and I would not that ye should have
communion with devils."1
What St. Paul means is that just as in all
sacrifices or sacrificial feasts, whether Jewish or
Gentile, the worshipper believed that he was
in communion with his God, so in this Chris
tian sacrifice the worshipper was united with
Christ. To St. Paul there was nothing sym
bolical about it. It was very real.
1 1 Cor. x. 16-20.

ORIGIN OF THE CHURCH 177
One more remark in passing. It is very
probable that the metaphor of the body, as
applied to the Church, rose out of the Eucha
rist. Our Lord had said, " This is my body."
St. Paul felt that all those who were partakers
of that body were incorporated with Christ : so
he says we who are many are one bread, one
body. And afterwards he regularly applies the
term " body " to the Christian unity of those
who were incorporated in Christ. Of the
reality of sacramental communion there was
to him no doubt. Ill
The above exposition will make it clear that
in the opinion of the present writer the con
ceptions of Church and Sacraments were shared
by St. Paul with the rest of the Christian
Church, and were part of what he had received
from it.
The word " Church " means fundamentally
a religious society, and both the word and the
idea had their origin in Judaism. The Jew
had always associated religion with a society.
Originally a nation claiming to have a common
ancestry, Israel was more and more coming to
be a purely religious body, and the Jews of the
Dispersion represented very much what we
conceive by a Church, only their narrow views

178 THE CHURCH
prevented them from expanding. But the
ecclesia, or congregation of the saints, was
almost to them a spiritual society. Israel
represented the nation in its religious aspect.
All were ready for a new conception, as the
world in which the old State religions had really
become an impossibility was also ready for such
a conception. This society our Lord had founded. He
had done so when He collected followers
around Him, when He selected and gave a
commission to Apostles, when He gave His
followers a Divine law, when He adopted or
instituted the Sacraments. And according to
our records He used the name ; He spoke of
the foundation of the ecclesia of the Messiah,
and gave that ecclesia authority to bind and to
loose. It may be noted that all the passages
referring to the Church in St. Matthew's
Gospel are undoubtedly Jewish in their lan
guage and thought.
The Acts of the Apostles gives us an ac
count of the development of this society out
of the small body of disciples who met together
after the Resurrection. It grew up on the
acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah in the faith
of the Resurrection, on the authority of the
Apostles, on the ideas of community, of disci-

GROWTH OF THE CHURCH 179
pleship, of worship, and of the sacraments
derived from our Lord. The Acts of the
Apostles represent to us (probably in the main
historically) the gradual steps in the develop
ment of the society and the realization of its
ideals. It was just at the stage when it was
beginning to realize its universality, and was
breaking through the limits of Judaism, that
St. Paul was converted, and, like all new con
verts, he grasped Christianity without any of
the prepossessions and limitations of the older
Apostles. He saw in more than one direction
more clearly than they its significance, and
both in fact and idea developed the significance
of the Christian Church. No doubt his ex
perience helped to deepen his conceptions. It
is an interesting subject of speculation how far
the fact that he was a Roman citizen influenced
his thoughts ; it is still more interesting to
recognize that his teaching on the heavenly
citizenship, the universal mission of the Church,
and the Christian warfare, were all developed
when he was a prisoner in Rome, when he had
realized the might and extension of the Roman
Empire, when he was chained to a Roman
soldier armed with his weapons and accoutre
ments, an ever-present reminder of the earthly
kingdom and the earthly warfare.

180 THE CHURCH
It would be impossible to discuss with ful
ness the question of the origin of the Christian
Sacraments, about which such divergent ideas
prevail at the present day. The exposition
already given will make it clear that a right
interpretation of 1 Corinthians exhibits con
ceptions of Hebraic origin in contrast with an
Hellenic perversion. St. Paul always refers
to baptism as something recognized by all
types of Christians. He never has any need
to argue about its significance, he can assume
that it is recognized. When he refers to the
Lord's Supper he definitely ascribes his know
ledge to a tradition derived from our Lord,
and it is impossible to believe that the expres
sion " received " has a different meaning in the
eleventh from what it has in the fifteenth chapter
of 1 Corinthians. Both the Lord's Supper
and the Resurrection were part of the Christian
tradition St. Paul had received. The account
of it is an independent, a fuller, possibly a
more correct narrative than that at the basis
of the Synoptic account. And all the lan
guage used is Jewish and not Hellenic in
character. Both the Sacraments were part of the normal
Christian tradition, and that was derived from
the Lord. The origin of baptism was the

ORIGIN OF SACRAMENTS 181
action of John the Baptist. Jesus Himself
was baptized ; how is it reasonable to think
that what He thought right Himself, " that He
might fulfil all righteousness," He would not
think necessary for others? Its theological
significance arose out of its Messianic character.
To be saved at the last day the Christian must
be enrolled as a follower of Christ. That
enrolment took place in baptism, when he
received the " seal of God " on his forehead,
to be his defence in the final catastrophe.
This meant to St. Paul much more than an
external defence ; it meant an incorporation
with Christ, and baptism thus came to mean
for him, as for the Church, union with Christ.
The significance of the Lord's Supper may be
derived from the action of our Lord before His
death, and from the transmutation to the new
conditions of the Messianic community of the
religious conceptions contained in the Passover
as the great covenant sacrifice. Our earhest
narratives exhibit baptism and the breaking of
bread as original rites of the Church ; the
Gospels derive their origin, the one from the
action of John the Baptist, the other from our
Lord. Their universal acceptance can only be
explained on the basis of an early origin, and
corroborate the actual testimony of our sources.

IX
THE DIVINE PURPOSE
Jewish " Philosophy of History " — St. Paul's interpretation
of God's purpose in the world — Free-will and Divine
purpose — St. Paul's solution— Its relation to Jewish
teaching.
It was one of the characteristics of later
Judaism that it learnt to look on God's
purpose in the world as a whole, and had
created what in more modern language might
be called a " Philosophy of History." It was
the outcome of the belief in one God as ruler
of the whole earth. The Jews had learnt to
believe that, through all the vicissitudes and
changes of life, through all the strange up
heavals of kingdoms, which had been so con
spicuous a feature of the advance of the Roman
Empire, God's purpose had been working.
The Books of Daniel and Enoch had taught
this lesson in the past, the Books of Baruch
and Esdras were to do so after the fall of
Jerusalem, and all these writers alike dwelt in
hope of the establishment of the Kingdom of
182

PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY 183
God. Even though Jerusalem were destroyed
and given up to the heathen, Baruch could
still ask, in words which might almost have
been written by St. Paul : " Who, O Lord,
ruler of the world, will follow out thy judge
ment, or who can investigate the depths of
thy path, or who can think out the profound
ness of thy ways ? Who can think out thy
incomprehensible council ? or what son of man
shall discover the beginning or ending of thy
wisdom ?M1 And he could still believe that
this was only a prelude to Zion being rebuilt
and her glory renewed. So strong was his faith
that he still believed that God must have a
glorious future for the people that He had
chosen. Just as every loyal Jew was over
whelmed by the problem created by the de
struction of his country, and found it difficult
to preserve his faith, so the Jew who had
become a Christian, and felt that in the Chris
tian Church God's purposes were fulfilled, was
naturally perplexed by the failure of his fellow-
countrymen to accept the message of the
Gospel. St. Paul had, as his education and training
made natural, a conception of God's purpose
in the world, a Philosophy of History, which
1 Apoc. Baruch, xiv. 8.

184 THE DIVINE PURPOSE
we find throughout the Epistles, and he dis
cusses in some most difficult chapters this
Divine purpose in relation to the fate of his
fellow-Jews. I
To St. Paul the Gospel was the revelation
of a Divine mystery. The word " mystery " was
one which came to him direct from the later
Jewish literature, and was used in it to
express something that was secret, and in par
ticular, a " Divine secret." St. Paul uses it, in
a somewhat special sense, to mean the secret
of God's purpose for the world, a secret
mystery, a Divine purpose determined before
hand by God before the worlds, treasured in
silence through eternal ages, unknown to the
Princes of this world, but now revealed through
the Holy Spirit to the Church. This Divine
mystery included the whole process of human
redemption, and in particular the inclusion of
Gentiles as well as Jews in one common hope
and one common society in Christ.
There is probably no subject on which
St. Paul could have said more definitely that
" now we see in a glass darkly "; but he believed
that this conception of God's purpose could
explain the many difficulties that he had in
reconciling his faith in God with the actual

THE FULNESS OF TIME 185
facts of human life — a difficulty which was not
so great for him as it was for the writers of the
Apocalypse of Baruch or the Book of Esdras.
It would help to explain to him the purpose of
the law, which would represent a preparatory
stage, preparing the way for Christ. In one
place he tells us that the Lord had sent forth
His Son in the fulness of time. That implied
for him that the time which God had appointed
had come. We can interpret it, from our wider
knowledge of human history, in a way which
might illustrate and support his view, but such
speculations were probably alien to his mind.
The fulness was the time fulfilled in God's good
pleasure. Once St. Paul connects this purpose
of God with the whole universe, in a manner
drawn from apocalyptic thought : " the whole
creation groaneth and travaileth together until
now "; it waiteth with earnest expectation for
the full revelation of the sons of God, when
this period of slavery and conflict will make
way for the new life of freedom and Divine
sonship, when, in the words of the Apocalypse,
there will be a new heaven and a new earth.
But this conception of an eternal purpose of
God working in the world helps St. Paul to
understand what to him, as a believing Jew,
was the hardest problem of all — the fact that

186 THE DIVINE PURPOSE
the greater number of his fellow-countrymen
had not accepted the Gospel, and were now
cut off from any share in these promises. It
is this problem that St. Paul attacks in the
ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters of Romans.
So great is his love for his fellow-countrymen
that he would give up his own hopes of salva
tion for their sakes. He enumerates their
privileges. They were the adopted sons of
God ; among them dwelt the Divine glory.
They were in covenant relations with God ;
theirs was the law, and the worship of the
Temple, and the promises. Through them,
last of all, the Messiah had come. And yet
they were rejected.
First of all, there had been no failure of the
Divine promises. There had always been a
Divine purpose working through election, but
in no case was there a universal election of a
people ; the promise was for those chosen by
God according to His eternal purpose. Nor
could there be any complaint against God on
the ground of natural rights. We are all as
clay in the hands of the potter. If He chooses
to select some only for mercy and salvation,
we have no cause for complaint. We have no
rights before God. Then St. Paul shews that,
as a matter of fact, it was through their own

THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL 187
fault that Israel fell; they had received full
offers of Messianic salvation, and they had
rejected it. But this was not all. The rejec
tion was not complete, and it was not final.
A remnant had been saved. And in all this
there had been a Divine purpose. " By their
fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles." St.
Paul remembers his own career. It had been
one of the most bitter disappointments of his
life when in the synagogue of Iconium his
fellow-countrymen had rejected him, when he
had uttered those memorable words, " from
henceforth we go to the Gentiles "; but yet
that, in God's good purpose, had been the
beginning of the great work of his life. It
had created all those great bodies of Gentile
Christians which he had built up. Clearly,
this proved that God's purpose was far more
wonderful than anything which we could
realize, and we must believe that He has a
still more wonderful purpose to work out in
the future. The Gentiles have received salva
tion to provoke the chosen people to jealousy.
Their fall has been the riches of the world ;
their loss has been the riches of the Gentiles.
What shall be their entry into the Messianic
kingdom but life from the dead, the fulfilling
of God's purpose in the world ?

188 THE DIVINE PURPOSE
And so St. Paul feels that he has obtained
some insight into the great mystery of God's
purpose. The fulness of the Gentiles shall
come in. All Israel shall be saved. Through
sin and disobedience is worked out salvation.
The Gentiles have been saved by the Divine
mercy ; Israel shall also be saved by the
Divine mercy. " God hath shut up all unto
disobedience, that he might have mercy
upon all."1 And St. Paul expresses his faith in
the Divine mercy of God in words like those
of the Apocalypse of Baruch: " Oh the depth of
the riches both of the wisdom and the know
ledge of God ! how unsearchable are his judge
ments, and his ways past finding out !"2
It is the position that St. Paul has thus
gained by his experience and his faith in God's
purpose that is implied in the great doxology
at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, a
doxology which could not have been written
by anyone in the Apostolic Church except
St. Paul, and by him at no other stage in his
life. It is the position which has been gained
in the Epistle to the Romans that forms the
basis of the great doctrine of a Universal Church
as it is developed in the Epistle to the Ephe
sians. What we are concerned with realizing
1 Rom. xi. 32. 2 Ibid_ 33i

THE DIVINE PROVIDENCE 189
is that St. Paul has learnt to see everywhere
traces of a Divine government of the world ;
that there has been an eternal purpose of God
working through a principle of selection, that
God chose the Jewish race for the work that
they had to do in the world, that through
them He taught the world what we should,
in our modern phraseology, call an ethical
monotheism, that through them He prepared
the way for the coming of the Messiah and
the higher revelation through Christ. It is
this principle which will enable us equally
with St. Paul to see God's selection working
in history, to believe that He has selected
other nations for other work in the world ; and
it will also suggest to us the same principle of
faith in God's government of the world which
St. Paul teaches. There was much that St.
Paul did not understand, but he had learnt
that God's ways were wiser than our ways,
and he can acquiesce in what has happened,
for he can believe that it is part of a deeper
purpose than he can comprehend.

II
But we have not exhausted the problems
raised by St. Paul's argument. It is quite

190 THE DIVINE PURPOSE
true that he is speaking throughout of election
to a privileged position, and that he is dis
cussing God's purpose in dealing with nations
and bodies of men ; but we cannot separate the
question raised from that of the purpose of
God with regard to individuals, and in par
ticular the relation of the free will of the
individual to the Divine providence.
The Christian is one whom God has chosen
from the beginning for sanctification and
salvation,1 one whom He foreknew and fore
ordained to be conformed to the image of
His Son.2 And this is only the beginning
of the process. " Whom he foreordained, them
he also called : and whom he called, them he
also justified : and whom he justified, them
he also glorified."3 And so Christians are
regularly spoken of as the " called " and as
the " elect," and the individual Christian is the
" elect one." And this St. Paul believes to
be particularly true of himself. God had
separated him from his mother's womb, and
called him by His grace,4 and so, in the words
of the Acts, he was a chosen vessel. And yet
St. Paul speaks always as if each individual
man was responsible for his own destiny.
1 2 Thess. ii. 13. * Rom. viii. 29.
3 Rom. viii. 30. i Gal. i. 15.

FORE-WILL 191
This is most remarkable in those chapters of
the Romans that we have been just consider
ing. In the ninth chapter it is a little difficult
to see where room is left for any free choice of
man. " It is not of him that willeth, nor of
him that runneth, but of God that hath
mercy."1 " He hath mercy on whom he will,
and whom he will he hardeneth "2 " Shall
the thing formed say to him that formed it,
Why didst thou make me thus ? Or hath
not the potter a right over the clay, from the
same lump to make one part a vessel unto
honour, and another unto dishonour ?"3 But
when we pass to the next chapter the whole
argument is based on the supposition that the
Jew had a free choice. " They did not subject
themselves to the righteousness of God."4
They had had a complete offer of the Gospel ;
they had had every opportunity of hearing it ;
it had been preached everywhere. But they
did not hearken to the glad tidings. They
had been a disobedient and gainsaying people.5
It is natural under these circumstances that
in more recent days the Calvinist should have
built up his teaching on the ninth chapter of
Romans, and the Arminian on the tenth, and
1 Rom. ix. 16. 2 Rom. ix. 18.
3 Rom. ix. 20, 21. i Rom. x. 3. 5 Rom. x. 16-21.

192 THE DIVINE PURPOSE
that each should have attempted to evade the
direct meaning of the chapter inconsistent with
his views.
There have been various solutions of the
difficulty. Some have ascribed it to the bad
logic of St. Paul, some to his manner of
isolating different aspects of the truth. The
right explanation arises from an acquaintance
with his intellectual training and a recognition
of the depth and reality of his religious life.
As a Pharisee St. Paul had learnt, in accord
ance with the fundamental teaching of Phari
saism, to recognize both fate and free-will, both
Divine foreknowledge and human freedom,
as equally true interpretations of human life,
while as a Christian and as a result of his own
experience he realized to the full the truth of
this. He felt that he had been chosen by
God for His work, and that he owed nothing
to himself, but everything to God ; but yet he
was equally convinced that for all his actions
he was personally responsible, for all his evil
deeds he was personally to be blamed, that he
must fulfil that for which God had called him.
" I press on, if so be that I may apprehend
that for which also I was apprehended by
Christ Jesus."1 And it is just the same with
1 Phil. iii. 12.

FREE-WILL— PREDESTINATION 193
regard to other Christians. Always St. Paul
seems to see both sides with complete force.
Everything in the Christian life comes from
God ; the Christian is one with Christ ; he is
filled with the Holy Spirit ; but equally true
is it that he is responsible. " Work out your
own salvation with fear and trembling ; for it
is God which worketh in you both to will and
to do of his good pleasure."1
This is the ultimate and final account which
religion and philosophy can give of human free
will. There are two truths, both necessary
beliefs for human life, and apparently in
consistent with one another. If we look at
human life from the point of view of God's
omnipotence, or scientific speculation, or any
philosophy of the absolute, human free-will
seems an impossibility. If we look at it from
the point of view of human consciousness, of
human experience, of our moral judgements, of
the basis of human society, human free-will
must be an axiom. Both points of view are
true, and they cannot be reconciled, or, rather,
they cannot be reconciled from the limited out
look of humanity. To that, as to the other
great problems which he discusses, St. Paul
would have found his answer in the recogni-
1 Phil. ii. 12, 13. 25

194 THE DIVINE PURPOSE
tion of the transcendent character of the
Divine power and wisdom.
In no part of St. Paul's teaching is the
influence of his theological training more
apparent than in those subjects we have dis
cussed in this chapter. His philosophy of
history, his recognition of the Divine provi
dence, is a direct development and enrichment
of what he had learnt as a Jew. His attitude
towards the problem of human free-will is a
direct development of what he had learnt as
a Pharisee. Normally in the Christian Church
his speculations were hardly understood, but
from time to time a one-sided interpretation
of his teaching has become prominent. In the
Second century, among the Gnostics, there was
what we may call a pseudo-Pauline philos
ophy. St. Augustine developed one side of
his teaching against Pelagianism, and Calvin
built up a strong, but hard and narrow,
theology on the imperfect apprehension of
his religious and philosophic attitude.

X
ST. PAUL AND CHRISTIANITY
The character of his theology — Its relation to the teaching
of Christ and the Apostolic age — Its influence on the
Church — The development of Christian theology.
We have in the foregoing pages examined the
chief points of St. Paul's teaching in relation
to the circumstances among which they arose,
and their subsequent influence on the develop
ment of Christianity. We have made no
attempt at completeness or system, for St.
Paul does not lend himself to either. This
was partly the result of his Rabbinical train
ing, partly of his mental characteristics. He
could not be systematic, because his sym
pathies were so wide, his mind so great, that
new thoughts and new aspects of Christianity
are continually obtruding themselves. It is
one sign of the inexhaustible character of
St. Paul's thoughts and system that different
commentators are able to construct quite
different systems of theology out of his
195

196 ST. PAUL AND CHRISTIANITY
writings. One may make justification, another
the life in Christ, the centre round which
he groups everything. One may see only a
theology of redemption, another a theology of
the Church. One sees predestination, another
free-will. Each of these is merely selecting
one side of the teaching, and St. Paul con
tains them all. He never limited his teaching
by any adherence to system, and commen
tators should equally avoid it.
If we desired to depict his teaching as a
whole, we should say that there are two main
elements. There is St. Paul's mental equip
ment, his training as a Jew ; there is, secondly,
the Christian system as he received it ; and the
two are unified and transformed by the over
powering conviction of redemption through
Christ and life in Christ. This suggests certain
leading questions regarding his relation to the
formation of Christian teaching, and we may
group our discussion under four headings :
1. How far was St. Paul acquainted with the
teaching of Jesus and the record of His Life ?
2. What was the relation of his teaching to
that of the early Church ?
3. What was the particular contribution
which he made to the development of Christian
doctrine ?

PAULINISM 197
4. How did the Christian Church develop ?
To put these questions in modern phrase
ology: What do we mean by Paulinism?
Was there ever really any such thing ? What
is the relation of Paulinism to Christianity ?
The first point is the relation of St.
Paul's teaching to that of our Lord. It has
been the custom to lay great stress on a state
ment that he made of the independence of his
gospel : " For neither did I receive it from
man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me
through revelation of Jesus Christ."1 With
this is coupled the statement on which we
have already commented, that he did not
know Christ according to the flesh, and the
independent line that he took on various
occasions ; and it is sought to prove that his
teaching differed fundamentally from that of
the early Church, and that it is to him that
we are indebted for the leading doctrines of
historical Christianity. We have seen that
the assertion concerning Christ after the flesh
bears no such meaning as has been given it,2
and it is to attach a highly exaggerated meaning
to the strong assertion of his independence if
it is taken to imply that he received his in
formation about Christianity from subjective
i Gal. i. 12. 2 See p. 51.
26

198 ST. PAUL AND CHRISTIANITY
sources. St. Paul felt that his grasp and appre
hension of what the Gospel implied was not
due to the direct influence of the Apostles,
but to what he felt was an inspiration. He
must have long known the leading tenets of
the Christians' faith ; it was a revelation from
God which made him accept that faith as true,
and realize all that it implied.
That this is so is shewn by the fact that
he builds up his gospel on an historical basis.
Its foundations are the death and resurrection
of Christ, and these were facts with which he
had become acquainted by human testimony.
He no doubt learnt to believe in the resur
rection because of the appearance of Christ to
himself; but it was not revelation, it was
personal inquiry or an acquaintance with
written documents, which told him of the
historical appearances that he enumerates.
When it is necessary he refers to the historical
narrative. He does so, for example, in regard
to the Eucharist.1 He speaks of the actual
commands of the Lord in relation to marriage,
clearly referring to words in our Gospels, and
he distinguishes between what he owes to the
Lord and what he owes to the inspiration of
the Spirit. " But to the rest say I, not the
1 See p. 180.

ST. PAUL AND CHRIST 199
Lord."1 And a little later : " Now concerning
virgins I have no commandment of the Lord :
but I give my judgement as one that hath
obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful."2
And again : " But she is happier if she abide
as she is, after my judgement : and I think that
I also have the Spirit of God."3 A com
parison of the passages suggests quite clearly
that St. Paul distinguishes between the direct
commands of the Lord and his own judgement.
The former come from precepts of the Gospel,
the latter comes from the inspiration of the
Spirit. Neither in the case of the Eucharist
nor elsewhere is it possible that he should con
found what had come to him from the revela
tions or inspirations of the Spirit with the
commands of the Lord.
St. Paul possessed information concerning
the teaching of the Lord similar to what we
now possess in the Synoptic Gospels, and this
is reflected directly in his moral teaching,
indirectly in his doctrinal. The former has
been already described, and its resemblance to
the teaching of our Lord emphasized. The
latter was really derived from the same source.
St. Paul does not, of course, speak of our Lord
in the same way that our Lord speaks of Him-
1 1 Cor. vii. 12. a 1 Cor. vii. 25. 3 1 Cor. vii. 40.

200 ST. PAUL AND CHRISTIANITY
self ; but the question for discussion is whether
his Christological language was based on his
historical knowledge, or whether it was drawn
from some other non-historical source ; whether
the Gospels inspired St. Paul or St. Paul
created the Gospel. There is, in the opinion
of the present writer, no doubt that the former
alternative is correct. The Synoptic Gospels
are quite uninfluenced by any sort of Pauline
theology, and they present to us the main
features of Christian theology in an untheo-
logical form. The personal claims of Christ
implied in His words and works are earlier than
the theological interpretations of them in St.
Paul. The Christian doctrine of the Atonement
was developed from the fact of our Lord's death
and the significance ascribed to it by our Lord
Himself. St. Paul did not create the Christian
idea of that death. Forgiveness of sins becomes
justification. Faith interprets the spirit of dis
cipleship ; the Church, the Christian solidarity.
A more difficult problem is presented by the
relation of the teaching of St. Paul to that of
St. John's Gospel. With writers of a certain
school it is an axiom that the Johannine
theology is only a developed Paulinism. But
facts hardly support this. It is, of course,
quite true that St. John's Gospel represents

ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL 201
the teaching of our Lord translated into the
language and thought of a very different
environment, and that there is a certain
amount of very obvious development. It is,
however, instructive to notice how very
different in many ways is the teaching from
that of St. Paul. There were in the teaching
of St. John, of the Epistle to the Hebrews, of
St. Peter, of St. Paul himself, common elements
which might seem to transcend the teaching of
the Synoptic Gospels. All seem to express a
more developed view of the Person of Christ, of
our union with Him, and the life in Christ,
which is the Church. They all express them
selves so differently in many ways that the
amount of independence is too great to let us
regard them as derived from one another. The
direct points of contact are slight. They all
alike have the appearance rather of going back
to a common source which they have each
developed in his own way. We think that it
will ultimately be held that all these lines of
development are derived from certain elements
in our Lord's teaching which are represented
to us by the discourses attributed to Him in
St. John's Gospel.
The ultimate source of St. Paul's teaching,
then, was the life and words of Jesus; and

202 ST. PAUL AND CHRISTIANITY
equally did he share with the Apostolic Church
the main elements of his teaching. This he
tells us definitely himself, when speaking of the
death and resurrection of Christ : " Now I
made known unto you, brethren, the gospel
which I preached unto you, which also ye
received, wherein also ye stand, by which also
ye are saved. ... I delivered unto you first
of all that which also I received. . . . Whether
then it be I or they, so we preach, and so ye
believed."1 This definite statement of St. Paul
is corroborated by the fact that there is a
singular unanimity among all Christian writers
as to the fundamental points of their teaching.
In the different groups of books in the New
Testament we have a very remarkable indi
viduality of style and thought, combined with
an equally remarkable unanimity of opinion
on certain fundamental points. No one could
describe the Book of Revelation as being in any
sense Pauline, but it teaches in as remarkable a
way as St. Paul ever does the eternity, the pre-
existence, and the exaltation, of Christ. The
vision of the ' Lamb as it had been slain,' is
as definite a representation of the sacrificial
interpretation of the death of Christ as any
thing in St. Paul's Epistles, or the Epistle to
1 1 Cor. xv. 1-11.

ST. PAUL AND THE CHURCH 203
the Hebrews. Clearly, all this teaching goes
back to a common source, and represents the
common tradition of the Apostolic Church.
And if we turn to more specific points, we
shall find that even the actual development of
Christianity was not due to St. Paul. Apart
from him the Gospel had been preached to
Gentiles ; others besides, and independent of
him, disregarded enactments of the Jewish
law. He can appeal to their recognition of
the power of faith and the gift of the Spirit.
Baptism and the Lord's Supper are always re
ferred to as recognized and accepted Christian
institutions, and the Acts of the Apostles
represents these, and the conception of the
Church, as part of the ordinary Christian
tradition. The Christianity of St. Paul was
the Christianity of the Church.
What, then, were the particular points,
which were peculiar to him, which he brought
into Christianity ?
His influence was twofold. On the one side
there were those elements which he owed to
his Rabbinical training. He was, so far as we
know, the first Christian theologian. He did
not, as we have seen, construct a theological
system, but he wrote theology. He had to
deal with intellectual problems which presented

204 ST. PAUL AND CHRISTIANITY
themselves to him, and he solved them, as was
natural, with the aid of the intellectual training
that he had received. To this side belongs,
probably, all the more formal side of his teach
ing on justification, his theory of Christ as the
Second Adam, the ascription of the origin of
sin and death to the fall of Adam, his language
on predestination and election, some elements
in his conception of the philosophy of history,
and, to some extent at any rate, his Biblical
exegesis. All these are the most definitely
Pauline elements. They are entirely, or almost
entirely, absent from other writings of the New
Testament, except in so far as Acts refers
to them ; they were not shared by any of his
contemporaries ; and they did not become part
of traditional Christianity.
The other side of St. Paul's contribution to
Christianity was of a different character. It
was due to the reality of his Christianity — to
the fact that he saw the issue more clearly, that
he had greater spiritual power and insight, that
he seemed to know even better than many of
those who had been with Jesus the mind of the
Master. So he grasped more fully than his con
temporaries what Christianity meant. Faith,
discipleship, love, all expressing his devotion
to Christ as his Redeemer, were the key to all

THE GROWTH OF THE CHURCH 205
that he taught. This faith taught him what
was meant by the life in Christ : through it he
grasped the transitoriness of the law ; through
this faith he had received the gift of the Spirit,
and so knew how imperfect was the idea of
law ; through this faith he had grasped more
fully the universality of the Gospel ; and
taught by experience, with his vision expanded,
perhaps, by the gradual unfolding before him
of the greatness of the Roman Empire, he had
conceived the great conception of the Church
which he expounds in the Epistle to the Ephe
sians, which was in a sense the culminating
point of his teaching.
This represents the influence of St. Paul
on the development of Christianity. He was
not isolated ; others were working with him.
He and they alike thus contributed to the
normal development of the Catholic Church.
But those doctrines which are sometimes
called specifically Pauline were not grasped
or understood in the same way. They did
not become part of ordinary Christian life and
thought. They became prominent at different
epochs, often in an exaggerated form. Some
Paulinism (in this sense) is to be found among
the teaching of the Gnostics ; it was clearly
the teaching of St. Paul which helped in the

206 ST. PAUL AND CHRISTIANITY
building up of the Augustinian theology ; and
once again, at the Reformation, its influence
was exhibited through Luther and Calvin.
In all these cases there was something dis
proportionate in its influence. It was not St.
Paul's teaching which was reproduced, but
certain special doctrines developed in a one
sided way.
We can now estimate St. Paul's place in
the development of Christianity. The starting-
point of the Christian religion is the Life and
Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ as
recorded in the Gospels, and of the general
truth of that narrative there need be no doubt.
After the tragedy of the Cross, which seemed
to destroy their hopes, and the triumph of the
Resurrection, the disciples began to understand
and preach their Master. He had definitely
claimed to be the Messiah. He had been
accepted as such, and to them the truth of His
claims was witnessed to by the Resurrection.
From Him came ultimately the great truths
of Christianity, and its moral teaching, always
taught as principles, not formulated into rules.
All this was studied by the early Church in the
light of the Old Testament, and of its religious
experience, especially that very real experience
which was described as the gift of the Spirit.

ST. PAUL'S WORK 207
Thus was gradually built up the life and teach
ing of the Church. Already it had begun to
separate itself from Judaism, and was realizing,
in a somewhat dim and imperfect way, its
universal mission.
It was just at this time that St. Paul was
converted. From the Church he learnt their
traditions of the Master, and he accepted
Christianity as it was then taught. What
St. Paul taught was fundamentally what the
rest of the Christian society taught, as an
analysis of his Epistles shews. But his
strong religious personality inspired the nas
cent Church with a faith, and the growing
creed with a meaning, which had not so far
been realized. It came to him as a revelation
from heaven. He did not change it, but he
realized all its most original features with
greater intensity, and interpreted it in the
light of his theological training. He had the
courage to take the decisive steps, and was
the first Christian theologian.
But the teaching of the Christian Church
was not Paulinism ; it was more Catholic in its
sources. The Christian religion as we know
it was already in existence before he taught.
The creed that we learn differed little from
that which he learnt ; the life of Jesus which

208 ST. PAUL AND CHRISTIANITY
he knew differed little from that which we
read. He, like other great writers of the
Apostolic age, helped to swell the volume of
Christian tradition, but there was a good deal
in his teaching which the primitive Church
after his time did not, and could not, grasp.
Yet at times there have been great crises in
the Church, when controversies such as those
in which he was involved have arisen, and
hence it is that his writings have done for a
later time what his powerful personality and
his letters did in his own day.

INDEX
N.B. — References in thick type (10) refer to passages where the
subject mentioned is fully discussed.

Abraham, faith of, 130
Acts of the Apostles, the, 10
et sea., 23, 89, 96, 114, 160,
178
Adam, fall of, 122, 204
Adam, the Second, 61, 204
Aeons, 24
Antichrist, 31
Antinomianism, 137, 138, 140,
173
Apocalypse, the. See Revela
tion, Book of
Apocalyptic teaching, 13, 31,
185 ; see also Eschatology
Apostles, 165, 171
of the Churches, 166
and prophets, 172
Arminianism, 191
Atonement, the, 74, 200
Augustine, St., 138, 194, 206
Baptism, 142, 144, 146, 174
et seq., 180, 181
Baptismal formula, the, 115
Baruch, Apocalypse of, 182,
183, 188
Baur, Ferdinand Christian, x
Bishops, 164
Body, the spiritual, 27, 33
Body of Christ, the, 177; see
also Jesus Cheist, Church
Box, Rev. G. H., 123

Called, the, 167
Calvinism, 191, 206
Cambridge Biblical Essays,
160
Captivity, Epistles of the 4
Catholic, 171
Charles, Dr. R. H., 41
Christ, the. See Messiah, the
See Jesus Cheist
the living, 69
Church, the, 163 et seq. ; see
also Primitive Chris
tianity
its concrete meaning, 163
the local Church, 164
its unity, 165
its organization, 164
its members, 167
the Church the Body of
Christ, 168
the fulness of Christ, 170
the dwelling-place of the
Spirit, 170
fulfils the Divine purpose,
171
its origin, 177
foundation by Jesus Christ,
178
the growth of the Church,
179, 205
Catholic, 171
Clement of Rome, St., 137
209 27

210

INDEX

Collection for the saints in
Jerusalem, 166
Colossians, Epistle to the, vii,
4, 45, 84
Commendation, letters of, 166
Communion, 176
Corinthians —
Epistles to the, vii, 3, 44
First Epistle to the, 27,
48, 104, 173, 180
Second Epistle to the, 15,
27, 33, 104, 106
Covenant, the new, 132, 150
Covenant, the old, 150
Cross, the, 84 ; see also Jesus
Christ, Death of Christ
Curse of the law, the, 83
Daniel, the Book of, 31, 34, 182
Day of the Lord, the, 25
Death of Christ, the —
a sacrifice, 77
a sacrifice for our sins, 90
a covenant sacrifice, 85
a peace offering, 78
a sin offering, 78
a burnt offering, 78
an atoning sacrifice, 78
our Passover, 77
an act of self-sacrifice, 73
a sacrifice by the Father, 73
according to the Scriptures,
76
redemption, 78
reconciliation, 79
the abolition of the law, 82
a victory over the evil
spirits, 87
Development of Christianity,
the, 206
Dutch School of Criticism, vii
Ebionitism, x
Ecclesia, 178 ; see also Church
Elect, the, 167, 190
Election, 186, 204
Enoch, Book of, 41, 182

Ephesians, Epistle to the, vii,
viii, 4, 8, 34, 84, 169, 189
Episcopi, 164
Epistles of St. Paul, the, 2 et
seq.
Eschatology, xiii, 22 etseq., 118
Eucharist, the. See Lord's
Supper
Evangelists, 166, 171
Evil spirits, 25, 86, 102, 125
Ezekiel, Book of, 96
Ezra, the Apocalypse of, 123,
182
Faith, 128, 130, 135, 154
Father, The :
God the Father of aU, 110
the Father and Son asso
ciated together, 43
relation of Son to Father,
43,60
relation to the Spirit, 108,
109
the promise of the Father,
113
Flesh, the, 50, 51, 98, 124, 150
Free-will, 15, 192
Fulness, the, 47, 170
Fulness of tune, 185
Galatians, Epistle to the, vii,
5, 13, 17, 81, 119, 133
Gamaliel, 13, 17
Gardner, Professor Percy, ix,
161
Gentiles, the, 85, 133, 171, 184,
187
Gentiles, the Churches of the,
187
Gnosticism, 138, 194
God. See Father, The ;
Trinity ; Jesus Christ ;
Spirit, The Holy
the fundamental fact of
religion, 37
God is one, 110
the Father of all, 110

INDEX

211

God (continued) :
ruler of the aeons, 25
omnipotent, 193
foreknows and foreordains
all things, 190
His purpose conceived
before the aeons, 24
unchanging, 36
supreme over all things,
186
His wisdom and know
ledge unsearchable, 188,
194
the righteousness of God,
128, 191
God unseen, 61
revealed in Christ, 61
God in Christ, 44
Christ the image of God,
45
Christ of the essential
nature of God, 45, 60
the fulness of the Godhead
in Christ, 47
Christ Crucified the power
of God, 72
Christ as God, 60
God and the Spirit, 108
the purpose of God con
ceived of before all time,
25, 74, 91, 172, 182
the providence of God, 190
God and Israel, 78, 79
God as judge, 25
the wrath of God, 26
the love of God, 73
God spared not His own
Son, 73
reconciliation with God,
79
God dwells in us through
the Spirit, 174
God in us, 150
Gospels and St. Paul, the.
See Paul, St.
Gospel, the Fourth. See
John, St.

Gospels, the.
Gospels
Grace, 15, 138

See Synoptic

Hebrews, Epistle to the, 89,
129, 201
Hellenism, ix, 16, 98, 116, 140,
160, 173
Hellenistic Judaism, 15
Holy, 167
Hope, 154
Hospitality, 166
Iconium, 187
Imputed righteousness, 131
Isaiah, Book of, 76
Israel, 78, 79, 171
rejection of, 186
James, Epistle of St., 138
Jerusalem, 166
destruction of, 183
Jesus Christ :
His pre-existence, 60
His relation to the Father,
43,60
Son of God, 61
His cosmic significance, 47
His relation to the Spirit,
106 et seq.
His personality, 58
His human nature, 51
His earthly life, 52
His relation to human
race, 61
Second Adam, 61, 204
the Messiah, 38 et seq.
His teaching concerning
the law, 137
His moral teaching, 159,
160
teaching in the Spirit, 114
teaching concerning His
death, 92, 96
founds the Church, 178
significance of His work,
44

212

INDEX

Jesus Christ (continued) :
as Saviour, 71
His love for us, 73
becomes a curse for us, 83
His death, 72, 90 ; see also
Death of Christ
His sufferings, 170
His resurrection, 54
His exaltation, 62
His coming, 25, 43
His wrath as judge, 25
His teaching as recorded
in St. John's Gospel,114
Christ and the Church, 47,
167
the life in Christ, 33, 72,
143, 168, 181
St. Paul and Christ, 197
Jewish controversy, 3, 165
Joel, Book of, 95
John the Baptist, 181
John, St. :
the Gospel according to,
113, 143, 145
relation to the teaching of
St. Paul, 200
First Epistle of, 143
Judaism, School of, 13
Judaizers, 134
Judgement, 25, 35
Jiilicher, Professor Adolf, vii
Just, 116
Justification, 15, 73, 117, 130,
141, 155
Kingdom, the, 23, 24, 26, 29,
36,37
Lake, Professor Kirsopp, xi,
102, 173
Law, 126
Law, the, 83, 118, 126 et seq.,
137, 150, 155
Life, the Christian, 140 et seq.
Lightfoot, Bishop, 86
Lord's Supper, the, 64, 56, 93,
146, 156, 174, 176

Love, 154, 159, 162
of God, the, 132
of Christ, the, 172
Luke, Gospel according to St.,
113
Luther, Martin, 139, 206
Mark, Gospel according to St.,
64
Marriage, 57, 157, 169
Matthew, Gospel according to
St., 178
Messiah, the, 38 et seq.
as Saviour, 71
and the Spirit, 95
Moffatt, Dr. James, viii
Monotheism taught through
the Jews, 189
Morality :
Christian, 153
relation to other systems,
161
Jewish, 142
Moses, 126
Mystery, 172, 184
Omnipotence of God, 194
Parousia, the, 25
time of the, 27
Pastoral Epistles, vii, 5, 7, 9,
29 48
Pastors, 164, 171
Paul, St. :
his training, 12
his conversion, 12, 18
his previous knowledge of
Christianity, 16
St. Paul and primitive
Christianity, x, 203
St. Paul and Christ, 32,
51 et seq., 66, 91, 136,
158, 161, 197
sources of his teaching, 63,
68, 161
St. Paul and Hellenism,
ix, 16, 98

INDEX

213

Paul, St. (continued) :
relation to the Gospels,
xii, 56 et seq., 63, 67, 200
his spiritual experience, 75,
80, 99, 129, 135
relation to other Apostles,
165
development of his
thought, 43
his psychology, 98, 124
as a theologian, 15, 137,
195, 203
influence on Christian
thought, xiv, 204
Pauhnism, x, 64, 197, 205
Pelagianism, 194
Personahty, conception of, 105
Peter, St. :
relation to St. Paul, 134
confession of, 92
First Epistle of, 143
Pfleiderer, Professor Otto, 106
Pharisaism, xiii, 91, 132, 192
Pharisees, the, 12, 17
Philippians, Epistle to the, vii,
45,54
Philo, 15
" Philosophy of History,' 182
Predestination, 15, 191, 204
Presbyters, 164
Primitive Christianity, x, 65,
88
relation to St. Paul,
97, 133, 202
religious life of, 134
teaching in the Spirit,
113, 114
Prophets, 166, 171
Providence, the Divine, 189
Psychology, 98, 124
Purity, 155
Purpose, the Divine, 182
Rabbinical teaching, 14, 135,
162, 195
Reconciliation, 79
Redemption, 78

Redemption, Day of, 26
Reformation, the, 180
Remnant, the, 187
Renan, Ernest, 9
Resurrection, 25, 27 et seq., 35,
144, 145
Resurrection Body, 33
Revelation, the Book of, 32,
65, 87, 89, 90, 143, 185
Righteousness, 128 et seq.
Robinson, Dr. J. Armitage, viii,
168
Romans, Epistle to the, vii,
119 et seq., 144, 175, 186
Romans, Epistle to the,
the doxology of, 188
Rome, 116, 179
Sacraments, 173 et seq.
Sacrifice, 77
Sadducees, 17
Salmon, Dr. George, xi
Salvation, 26, 130
Satan, 24, 165
Schweitzer, Albert, vii
Scott, Rev. C. A. A., 160
Seal of God, the, 181
Septuagint, the, 15, 159
Sin, 98, 119 et seq.
remission of, 78
origin of, 122
psychology of, 124
Slavery, 157
Solomon, Psalms of, 39
Spirit, the, 50, 95 et seq., 98,
125, 150
Spirit in the Old Testament,
the, 95, 112
Spirit, The Holy :
unity of the Spirit, 102
personality of the Spirit,
100 et seq., 113
relation to the Father, 109
relation to Christ, 106
et seq.
gifts of the Spirit, 97, 147
et seq.

214

INDEX

Spirit, The Holy (continued) :
promise of the Spirit, 151
power of the Spirit, 149
the Spirit dwells in the
Church, 170
life in the Spirit, 33, 147
Spiritual Body, the, 33
Spirits. See Evil Spirits
Stoicism, 162
Swete, Dr. H. B., 112
Symbolism, 33 et seq., 87
Synoptic Gospels, the, xii, 199
Teachers, 171
Thessalonians, Epistles to the,
3, 23, 43

Thessalonians, First Epistle to
the, vii, 27
Thessalonians. Second Epistle
to the, vii, 31, 143
Titus, Epistle to, 143
Trinity, 109 et seq , 115
Wisdom, Book of, 15, 33, 70
Works, 135
World, transitoriness of the,
25
Wrath, the, 26, 28, 72
Wrede, Professor D. William,
xi
Zahn, Professor Theodore, viii

BILLING AND SONS, LTD., PRINTERS GUILDFORD.

YALE UNIVERSITY I

3 9002 05046 2291