DI

"/ gwe tJitf\~Baoki-.
¦ tie founding-if a. CoRigt alif^ffi^a^

»YAiLE-wffl¥iEiaainnr- • iuiiBifywy •

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

AN OUTLINE

OF

New Testament Theology

BY
DAVID FOSTER ESTES, D.D.
Professor of New Testament Interpretation in Colgate
University, Hamilton, New York

-H A!
{ Trowtiriiiga RefJ

SILVER, BURDETT & COMPANY
New York BOSTON Chicago

Copyright, 1900,
By SILVER, BURDETT & COMPANY

TO MY FATHER
1F 2>eoicate tbfs 3Boor
IN GRATEFUL AND REVERENT AFFECTION

PREFACE

This Outline of New Testament Theology
was originally prepared for the use of classes in
the Hamilton Theological Seminary, and has
been repeatedly used in the course of classroom
work. It is now offered with diffidence to a
wider circle, in the hope that it so summarizes
the teachings of the New Testament as to be of
some service to students of the Word of God.
It will at once be noted that it claims to be
only an outline. Consequently conclusions are
often given without a statement of the reasons
which have led to their acceptance, and all
exegetical discussions have been rigidly ex
cluded. This has been required by the con
densation indispensable for classroom work,
and no less by the author's conception of the
scope of the science. It may well be, how
ever, that a simple statement of conclusions will

vi PREFACE
be found helpful to many, and where reasons
for or against a conclusion may be desired, they
will seldom be far to seek.
This Outline is also peculiar in the constant
comparison of the results attained on each topic.
While by this method the special thoughts of
each New Testament writer stand out less dis
tinctly as a whole, there has been found in use a
practical gain for students, which others may
also share. If it should be desirable to consider
by itself the teaching of any author or group of
books of the New Testament, this can readily
be done by the use of the index.
The author desires to make, once for all, a
frank acknowledgment of indebtedness to sources
too numerous and varied to mention. Treatises
on New Testament Theology, commentaries, his
tories, theological discussions standard and fugi
tive, all have contributed by agreement and by
disagreement to mold and fix the conclusions
which find expression here.
DAVID FOSTER ESTES.
Colgate University.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE
I. Introductory  i
II. Historic Facts Relating to Jesus ... 13
III. The Testimony of Jesus to Himself . . 24
IV. The Apostolic Doctrine Concerning
Christ  43
V. The Doctrine of God  62
VI. The Doctrine Concerning Man .... 85
VII. The Nature of Salvation  115
VIII. The Basis of Salvation  153
IX. The Conditions of Salvation . . . . 175
X. The Development of Salvation .... 196
XI. The Consummation  214
Index to Scripture Passages Cited  227
Index of Topics  249

AN OUTLINE OF
NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY
It is the peculiar task of Biblical Theology
to state, arrange and compare the theological
doctrines and conceptions which are to be found
in the Scriptures. Naturally this science falls
into two principal divisions, the Theology of the
Old Testament and of the New Testament, each
of which at once presupposes and helps the
other, while each may and should be treated
separately. It is further possible, and is often
in many ways helpful, to formulate by itself the
theology of a single author, either of the Old
Testament or of the New. It is intended in
this outline rapidly to cover the whole field of

2 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
the Theology of the New Testament, and to set
forth in their relations the views and teachings of
Jesus and his apostles concerning the facts and
truths involved in the relations of God and man.
The name Biblical Theology was at one time
employed to designate such a system of Dog
matics as was based upon the Scriptures rather
than upon either creeds or reason, while in
substance and form it was still systematic and
dogmatic. The name in its modern sense was
first used by Gabler in 1787, and in Germany
the science from that time forward gradually
developed. The first American work published
on any part of Biblical Theology was Thomp
son's "Theology of Christ," 1870, and the first
lectures in this department in any American
theological school are said to have been given
in 1883.1 Since that time it has received stead
ily increasing attention, though not yet all that
its importance demands.
1 See "Biblical Theology: its History and its Mission,"
by Professor George H. Gilbert, in the " Biblical World,"
July and December, 1895.

INTRODUCTORY 3
Biblical Theology must be classified as a his
torical science. So far as the conceptions which
it sets forth are concerned, its aim is neither
apologetical nor polemical, but simply descrip
tive. It neither attacks nor defends them, but
merely states them. In order to be fair this
statement must necessarily be sympathetic and
appreciative. Also, it must be made as far as
possible from the point of view, not of the mod
ern student, but of the ancient teacher. In this
study all prepossessions, theological, metaphys
ical or ethical, must be laid aside. All notions
as to how the authors must or should have felt,
spoken -or taught, must be put one side, while
the answer is patiently and candidly sought to
the question, " As a matter of fact how did
Jesus and his apostles feel, speak and teach?"
Not even the importance of New Testament
doctrine, from its influence on the past or from
the value which we ourselves may set upon it,
will in any way justify a different method of
procedure ; rather does its importance and value
require this very method, in order that our

4 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
comprehension and use of it may not be hin
dered or nullified by the importation of modern
notions or personal prejudices. Further, no
theory of inspiration and no assertion or denial
of revelation is needed or helpful in this science,
for its aim is simply an' accurate statement of
facts as to opinions and teachings of which the
character, and consequently the statement, must
and will remain the same, if correct, whatever
explanation of their origin is accepted and
asserted. New Testament Theology is closely related,
not only to Old Testament Theology, but also
to other departments of theological science.
On the one hand, it presupposes and to a
greater or less extent builds upon History,
Isagogics and Exegesis, and on the other, it
contributes in its turn to other sciences, espe
cially to History and Systematic Theology.
Not only is a knowledge of the contents of
the Old Testament an indispensable preliminary
to New Testament Theology, but an accurate
comprehension of the conditions, spirit and

INTRODUCTORY 5
views which prevailed in the first century
among both Jews and Gentiles, is no less im
portant. To investigate the authorship, pres
ervation or condition of the documents with
which it deals, is no part of the peculiar task
of New Testament Theology ; its task is rather
to build upon the assured results of criticism,
alike textual, historical and literary; since,
should it discuss the character, origin and
authority of its sources, it would just so far
trespass on the domain either of Isagogics or
of Systematic Theology. In the same way,
while, without the materials which are fur
nished by Exegesis, Biblical Theology would
be impossible, yet it properly uses only the
results of Exegesis, ignoring its processes, pre
supposing both the principles of interpretation
and their proper application in detail. In turn
New Testament Theology makes most valuable
contributions to both History and Dogmatics.
It may be called not unfitly the first volume of
the history of Christian dogma, a volume with
out which no other can well be written, and to

6 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Systematic Theology it furnishes the most
important as well as the largest part of its
materials. The task of Biblical Theology, to set forth
in scientific form the doctrinal views and teach
ings contained in the Scriptures, is not easy.
All words necessarily, even in the Bible, to
some extent conceal the very ideas which they
reveal ; and most of all is this true in theology,
where upon words drawn from the visible, the
earthly, the temporal, the human, is laid the
duty of declaring the invisible, the heavenly,
the eternal, the divine. To the difficulties
which every thinker on religious topics finds in
expression, are added the difficulties which meet
the student whenever he attempts to compre
hend teachings, the form of which was adapted
to men of other ages, tongues and conditions.
To these difficulties of original expression and
present comprehension must be added the
further difficulties of restatement, for it can
never be easy to transfer a thought, least of all
a religious thought, itself ancient and wrapped

INTRODUCTORY J
in ancient forms of statement, into modern
forms which shall be at once accurate and ade
quate. It is also to be remembered that no
Biblical author ever attempted anything like a
scientific or systematic discussion of theology.
With few exceptions the theological thought
found its Scriptural expression not at all for
its own sake, but wholly for the sake of prac
tical lessons which it was desired to impress, —
the statement of doctrine existing only for the
development or correction of the spiritual life
Of the individual or the church. Consequently
the Biblical statements are, as they stand, only
partial and incomplete, and the emphasis laid
on certain truths or aspects of truth may be
not absolute but relative. It results, then, that
the argument from the silence of any book or
author must be employed with great caution ;
that only with much painstaking can the incom
plete teachings be fitted into such a system of
doctrine as may be credibly attributed to the vari
ous authors ; and that conjecture must of neces
sity sometimes be employed to supplement and

8 NEIV TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
round out these fragmentary teachings, though
such indispensable divination must be frankly
acknowledged to be uncertain, even when
plausible. For the purposes of this work all the ca
nonical books of the New Testament will be
accepted as authentic documents. While justi
fication 1 of this course cannot here be given, as
it belongs in the sphere of introduction, the
course may be all the more readily and safely
adopted, inasmuch as all the books which are
distrusted by any criticism which at present
needs to be reckoned with, are of such a char
acter that in any case they must receive distinct
treatment, and the conclusions drawn from them
are thus readily recognized and, if necessary,
easily eliminated. Even if the fourth Gospel is
confidently ascribed to the apostle John himself,
it must yet be treated separately from the syn-
1 Compare the discussion by Professor G. B. Stevens, D.D.,
("Theology of the New Testament," p. 256), of the work of the
Biblical theologian. " He can only follow what seems to him
the probabilities and adopt a working hypothesis. He can,
at least, expound the contents of the books themselves."

INTRODUCTORY 9
optic Gospels. The Apocalypse constitutes a
class by itself. Both the prison and the pastoral
epistles, if genuine, constitute distinct stages of
Pauline thought. Jude and II. Peter contribute
to the Theology of the New Testament so little
that is peculiar to themselves, that the question
of their authenticity or genuineness becomes in
this relation quite unimportant.
There is general agreement as to the group
ing of the New Testament books according to
the various types of thought which they exem
plify. The teaching of Jesus first demands at
tention, not necessarily as a standard for the
rest or as being of superior authoritativeness,
but as, at any rate, prior in time to the other
teachings and presupposed by them. His teach
ing is presented in two distinct phases, one
found in the synoptic Gospels, the other in the
fourth Gospel, and these two phases must re
ceive correspondingly distinct treatment. A
second group of documents, which relate more
or less closely to what may be called Judaic
Christianity, is made up of the book of Acts,

IO NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
which gives the earliest developments among
the original apostles from the doctrines and
work of Jesus, the letter of James, Jude's brief
exhortation, the two letters bearing the name
of Peter, which may present a type of thought
somewhat developed beyond the most primitive
conceptions of the original believers, and the
traces of apostolic or other early Christian
thought which are to be traced in the first
three Gospels. The teaching of Paul, of course,
demands distinct treatment on account of both
its amount and its historical importance. Aside
from what is preserved in Acts, four chief
stages of his teaching are discernible in the
four groups of letters attributed to him, which
differ more or less from each other in style,
themes and views as well as in date. Regard
less of authorship the epistle to the Hebrews
is a natural pendant to the teachings of Paul.
In the fourth group of documents is found the
teaching of John, this group consisting of the
fourth Gospel, his epistles and the Apocalypse.
The usual practice is to develop in its turn

INTRODUCTORY 1 1
A
each of these types of thought completely. This
method has the advantage of bringing out with
great distinctness the peculiarities in the teach
ing of each author. But unfortunately this
distinctness becomes too often separation, and
not seldom exaggeration.1 Also the great
amount of material renders it at best a difficult
matter to make satisfactory comparisons. By
some writers comparison between views has
been so little attempted that the title of such
works instead of New Testament Theology,
might better be Types of Theological Thought
embraced in the New Testament. Unity of
treatment is not only presupposed in the very
name of the science, but is demanded also, so
far as may be practicable, by the historic and
demonstrable unity of the New Testament itself.
It would seem that the unity thus imperatively
demanded could best be secured by a constant
comparison of the results attained in the several
1 Compare Professor W. Wrede, " Ueber Aufgabe und Me-
thode der sogenannten neutestamentlichen Theologie," 1897,
•pp. 17-34.

12 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
a
groups of books and a continual unifying of
these results, so far as their harmony permits,
or a corresponding display of their diversity,
when it appears. Such, then, is the course
which will be followed in this outline.

CHAPTER II
HISTORIC FACTS RELATING TO JESUS
As a historical religion Christianity rests
primarily upon the facts of the life, death and
resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. From the
nature of the case very little autobiographical
matter has been preserved to us. The synoptic
Gospels record from the lips of Jesus himself an
indirect claim of Davidic descent (Matt. xxii.
41-45), his recognition of John as his forerunner
(Matt. xi. 7-19 ; xxi. 24-27), his confession of
his poverty while engaged in his work as a
teacher (Matt. viii. 20), his repeated claims to
work miracles (Matt. ix. 6; xi. 4, 5, 21, 23 ; xii.
28 ; xvi. 9, 10 ; Lk. iv. 23-26), his frequent
prophecies of his death and resurrection (Matt.
ix. 15 ; xvi. 21 ; xx. 28; xxvi. 12, 26-28), to
which were added special forecasts of the scat
tering of his disciples from him (Matt. xxvi. 31),
13

14 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
of the betrayal by one of them (Matt. xxvi. 21-
25), of his being delivered over to the Gentiles
and crucified (Matt. xx. 19), and of his resurrec
tion (Matt. xvii. 22, 23), while presumably it was
from himself that the narrative of the tempta
tion (Matt. iv. 1-1 1 ; Lk. iv. 1— 13) originally came.
Some of the same facts are mentioned in the
still fewer autobiographical statements preserved
by John. We find in the fourth Gospel the
claim to miracle working (x. 38), the choice of
the disciples (vi. 70; xiii. 18), prophecy of be
trayal by one of them (xiii. 21-27), and the
foretelling that he should die and that the death
would be by crucifixion (iii. 14; x. n-18; xii.
7, 32).
The synoptic Gospels are not complete
biographies but only fragmentary records of
the life of Jesus. Thirty years are scarcely
touched upon, and the other three years are
described very incompletely. The facts of the
miraculous conception, the virgin-birth, the
relation of Jesus to the household of Joseph,
and the remote descent from David are given

HISTORIC FACTS RELATING TO JESUS 1 5
with substantial agreement by both Matthew
and Luke. The latter assigns a reason for the
fact that it was at Bethlehem that he was born,
and the former, asserting the same fact, adds
the narratives of the Magi and the flight into
Egypt followed by the residence at Nazareth,
which last fact is given by all the Synoptists.
The three Gospels alike relate the baptism, the
temptation, and the Galilean ministry, to which
Luke alone adds an account of the Perean work.
All agree in the length of the ministry as a
whole, in the intensity and personal self-sacrifice
with which it was carried on, and in its effects,
— wide popularity rapidly won but followed
by estrangement, first of the religious leaders,
later, of the people in general, culminating in
national rejection. The character of the min
istry is harmoniously presented, all the reports
including two chief elements : supremely authori
tative teaching and its reenforcement by mirac
ulous deeds of many sorts. In each of these
Gospels may be traced two stages of the min
istry, an appeal to the nation as a whole, and,

1 6 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
after the failure of this appeal and consequent
upon it, the development of the kingdom on the
basis of individual appeal and individual accept
ance. All three agree almost verbally in the
story of the passion, burial and resurrection.
John, beginning his Gospel with the testimony
of the Baptist at the time of the baptism of
Jesus which he implies, deals with different
portions of the ministry from those chosen by
the Synoptists, but presents a ministry of the
same character, distinguished by authority of
teaching supported by miraculous attestation.
While Galilean and Perean work is not excluded,
the ministry reported is chiefly Judean. Of
popularity there is less mention than in the
other Gospels ; of estrangement more. The
Johannine story of the passion and resurrec
tion is in harmony with the synoptic narrative,
but in statement varies much from it and adds
much to it. On the whole it may be said that
while the first three Gospels justify the claim
that Jesus was the Christ, the fourth demon
strates his character and nature.

HISTORIC FACTS RELATING TO JESUS \J
The early chapters of Acts, independently of
the date at which the narratives were committed
to writing or arranged in their present form,
bear manifest and sufficient marks of being the
testimony of eye-witnesses. Their tone is the
tone of the original church at Jerusalem in its
primitive period. In the first five chapters of
Acts with their clear stamp of early date, is to
be found confirmation of the Gospel narratives
of the betrayal by Judas (i. 1 6), of Pilate's desire
to release Jesus (iii. 13), of the part played by
Herod (iv. 27) and of the crucifixion and death
of Jesus (ii. 23; iii. 15; iv. 10; v. 30). It is
also declared that Jesus was accredited by
the possession and manifestation of miraculous
powers (ii. 22) ; the resurrection and the rela
tion of the apostles to the risen one ate empha
sized (ii. 24, 32 ; iii. 15 ; iv. 10; v. 30) ; and in
addition the ascension is taught (i. 22 ; ii. 33 ;
iii. 21 ; v. 31).
James and Jude are silent as to the details
of Christ's ministry, of which, it may be remem
bered, his brothers were not witnesses. In

1 8 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
I. Peter there is no unmistakable reference to the
early life and ministry of Jesus, though "gird
yourselves with humility" (v. 5) may not un
fitly be regarded as a reminiscence of the scene
when he girded himself to wash the feet of his
disciples. In relation to his passion, his silent
patience is commended as an example to all
(ii. 23) ; the scourging is vividly suggested by
the peculiar word " wale " (ii. 24) ; and the
simple expressions " blood " (i. 2) and " put to
death" (iii. 18) are supplemented by the more
definite "wood" or "tree" (ii. 24). Even if
"gone into heaven" (iii. 22), which implies the
ascension, were not interpreted as necessarUy
implying resurrection as well, that fact is by no
means ignored, for it is regarded as the real
basis of Christian hope (i. 3). In II. Peter there
is especially clear reference to the transfigura
tion and to the morning scene by the lake (i. 14,
16-18). The speeches of Paul recorded in the Acts
substantially agree with the speeches of Peter.
He declares that the baptism and testimony of

HISTORIC FACTS RELATING TO JESUS 1 9
John preceded the work of Jesus (xiii. 24;
xix. 4) ; that Jesus himself was descended from
David (xiii. 23) ; that at the demand of the
people he, though innocent, was condemned by
Pilate, was crucified and buried, and that his
resurrection was confirmed by many witnesses
(xiii. 26-31). In his first letter to the Thessa
lonians Paul speaks of the death of Jesus from
the hostility of the Jews, and includes his
resurrection as being, equally with his death,
accepted and important as an element of Chris
tian faith (ii. 15 ; iv. 14; v. 10). In the next
group of letters is found Paul's largest testi
mony to the historic facts of the life of Christ.
To the Romans he wrote repeatedly of his
death and resurrection (iii. 25 ; v. 8 ; vi. 10;
i. 4; vi. 9). He also asserted to them that
Jesus was a Jew, and, in particular, a descend
ant of David1 (i. 3 ; ix. 5). The Corinthians
1 It is an erroneous idea that by the expression " seed of
David " (Rom. i. 3) Paul intended to teach anything concern
ing the paternity of Jesus ; on the contrary it would be far
more reasonable to press the phrase "born of a woman"
(Gal. iv. 4) as implying the miraculous conception, especially

20 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
are told that he had brothers, one of whom
is named to the Galatians (I. Cor. ix. 5 ;
Gal. i. 19). Incidentally two other facts
touching his life are mentioned to the Cor
inthians, his poverty and his purity of be
havior and character reaching even to ac
tual sinlessness (II. Cor. viii. 9; v. 21). His
work as a teacher is also referred to (I. Cor.
vii. 10, 12, 25), and his teachings are mani
festly regarded as absolutely authoritative to
the church. The form of his death is often
alluded to (I. Cor. i. 13, 17, 18 ; ii. 2 ; Gal. ii.
20; iii. 1, 13), and the story of the insti
tution of the Supper is given (I. Cor. xi.
23-26) with a fullness of detail that includes
even the mention that it was night and the
night of the betrayal. Burial is also asserted
(I. Cor. xv. 4 ; Rom. vi. 4). Resurrection is re
peatedly asserted (Rom. iv. 25 ; vi. 4 ; viii. 11; II.
Cor. v. 15), and the resurrection story is told with
as this fact is related by Luke, the Pauline evangelist, with
greater fullness than is found in any other Gospel. The same
passage states also the relation of Christ to the law of his
nation.

HISTORIC FACTS RELATING TO JESUS 21
great clearness and force (I. Cor. xv. 1-8), this
being, so far as is known, the first time that ever
it was penned. The prison and pastoral letters
confirm this teaching concerning Jesus (Col.
i. 20 ; ii. 14 ; Eph. ii. 16 ; Phil. ii. 8 ; II. Tim.
ii. 8), the only enlargement being the reference
(I. Tim. vi. 13) to Pontius Pilate.
The letter to the Hebrews, although personal
observation of the facts had been lacking on
the part of both writer and readers (ii. 3), yet
confirms the other epistles and adds to what is
supplied in them. Jesus was of the tribe of
Judah (vii. 14) ; his life was characterized by
suffering (ii. 1 o ; v. 8) and temptations (ii. 1 8 ;
iv. 15), but never by sin (iv. 15; vii. 26); he
prayed and once at least his prayer burst forth
with strong crying and even tears (v. 7) ; he
died upon the cross outside the gate of Jerusa
lem (ii. 9 ; vi. 6; ix. 12, 28; xii. 2; xiii. 12);
and after death he was brought up from the
dead (xiii. 20) and ascended to the right hand
of God (i. 3 ; viii. 1 ; xii. 2).
So far as the historic facts in relation to

22 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Jesus are concerned, there is in all the epistles
no token of record or tradition inconsistent with
the Gospel narratives. Though many details
carefully given by the evangelists find no
mention, not necessarily as unknown, still less
as erroneous or doubtful, but simply as lying
outside the scope and purpose of the writers,
yet the traits given in the epistles, even in the
practically undisputed Pauline epistles alone,
cannot be combined into a single portrait with
out its agreeing in all essential particulars with
that in the Gospels. No less than the follow
ing is furnished in the epistles : a man of the
nation of Israel, of the tribe of Judah and of the
lineage of David, of whose mother and brothers
there is also mention, lives a life of poverty ; his
life in spite of temptation is of absolutely fleck-
iess purity ; his teaching is characterized by
originality and authority ; he prayed with tears
and strong crying; he was the victim of a
traitor ; his own nation rejected him and asked
for a murderer in place of him ; his trial before
Pilate and. Herod resulted in his scourging

HISTORIC FACTS RELATING TO JESUS 23
and crucifixion, sufferings which were borne in
silent patience ; even before his betrayal he had
given a memorial of his death in the use of the
loaf and the cup ; his burial was followed on the
third day by resurrection, that is, by resumption
of body, and exit from the tomb, which was
attested by a series of unmistakable appearances
to chosen witnesses, and the career was closed
by ascension to heaven.

CHAPTER III
THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS TO HIMSELF
In studying the teachings of the New Testa
ment as to the rank, character and nature of
Jesus, we of course begin with his own testi
mony to himself as it is found in the synoptic
reports. First to be considered is his claim of
authority. As a teacher he claimed to possess
authority supreme and not to be disputed. The
Jews of Christ's day fully accepted the author-
itativeness of the Old Testament as a divine
revelation, and Jesus did not dissent from this
view but emphatically ratified it ; yet he un
hesitatingly set his own teaching over against
it as equal or even superior to it (Matt. v. 21,
22, 27, 28, 33, 34, 38, 39 ; xix. 8, 9). He de
clares that his predictions cannot possibly fail
(Matt. xxiv. 35 ; Lk. xxi. 33). He asserted
his right to prescribe as to fasting, the Sab-
24

THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS TO HIMSELF 25
bath, defilement and marriage (Mk. ii. 18-22,
28; vii. 18, 19; x. 11, 12). He claimed to
work miracles on his own authority, command
ing the sea, the demons and the dead (Mk. iv.
39; v. 8 ; Lk. vii. 14). He even claimed power
to forgive sins, and, in the face of the protest
of his opponents, employed miracle as a con
firmation of this claim (Mk. ii. 10, 11). He
declared himself to be the rightful center of
human thought and sentiment, and made rela
tion to himself to be the only supreme concern
of men, parallel even to the relation to the
Father (Matt. v. 11; x. 32, 33, 37; xi. 28;
xix. 29; xxiii. 8-10; Mk. viii. 38; Lk. vii. 23;
xiii. 34 ; xix. 40). Lastly, he claimed to be the
final arbiter of the eternal destinies of men
(Matt. xxv. 31-34, 4i, 46).
Jesus further claimed to be the Messiah, long
promised to the Jewish nation and in his day
earnestly desired by them. To be sure his
character and work as Messiah differed in many
respects from their preconceptions, and this fact
at once necessitated and explains, in part at

26 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
least, the reserve which, according to the syn
optic reports, he exercised in putting forth his
claim of Messiahship. As the people were
expecting a merely political deliverer and prince,
had he immediately and conspicuously advanced
his claim, there would have been danger that
political devotion would forestall religious faith ;
that even on the part of true followers earthly
ideals, expectations and plans would obscure
heavenly. Indeed, this danger was not fully
escaped in spite of his reserve (Mk. x. 37 ;
Acts-i. 6). The title " Son of David " probably
signified successor rather than descendant of
David, and consequently it was a Messianic title,
but when used in addressing Jesus it never was
disclaimed by him, or in any way objected to
(Matt. ix. 27; xv. 22; xx. 30; xxi. 9). An
unmistakable instance of acceptance by Jesus
of the Messianic dignity was his response to the
epochal confession of Peter at Cesarea Philippi,
when the apostle's definite avowal of recognition
of him as the Christ was explicitly welcomed
(Matt. xvi. 16, 17). The previous message of

THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS TO HIMSELF 27
Jesus to John (Matt. xi. 2-6), while not' directly
asserting his Messiahship, fully implied it, espe
cially when taken in relation to the question of
the Baptist which evoked it. Finally, at the
crisis alike of his life and of his relations to
the Jewish nation, both before the Sanhedrin
and before Pilate, Jesus accepted and assented
to Messianic titles such as Christ and King of
the Jews, in such a way that it may fairly be said
that he died in the maintenance of his Messianic
claims (Matt. xxvi. 63, 64, 68 ; xxvii. 40-43 ;
Mk. xiv. 61, 62 ; xv. 18 ; Lk. xxii. 67-70; xxiii.
2, 3, 35-37)-
The record in the Gospel of John makes a
no less clear and strong impression than the
synoptic record as to the claim of Jesus that
his teaching was authoritative, for he even
asserts that it was divine (Jn. viii. 28 ; xiv. 10,
23, 24 ; xv. 1 5). His miracles, even the raising
of Lazarus, though depending on his relation
to the Father, are yet done in his own name
(ii. 8, 11; iv. 50; vi. 11; ix. 7; xi. 41-43).
The acceptance of his teaching and of himself

28 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
are made no less vital and essential in the
fourth Gospel than in the other three (vi. 29,
35, 37, 40, 51— 58 ; vii. 37, 38; viii. 12, 19, 24 ;
xi. 25, 26; xiv. 1). The claim to be the final
judge is here definitely advanced, and with it
the no less stupendous claim that he possessed
the power to bring about the general resurrec
tion (v. 22, 28, 29; xi. 25). The assertion that
he was the long promised and eagerly expected
Messiah appears in the fourth Gospel more
rather than less than in the synoptic Gospels.
Indeed, the earlier and clearer acceptance and
assertion of the title (i. 49 ; iv. 25, 26 ; x. 24,
25 ; xi. 27) has often been used as an argument
against the authenticity of the fourth Gospel ;
but, while there is manifest difference, it has
not yet been shown that it amounts to contra
diction or absolute inconsistency.
As to his own humanity, it can hardly be said
that Jesus furnished distinct and formal testi
mony. Such testimony, as a matter of fact,
would have been superfluous, for of course
during his lifetime no one could have failed to

THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS TO HIMSELF 29
recognize and accept the fact. The historical
problem is, rather, to explain how the apostles
and early church, assured on the basis of the
Old Testament revelation that God is infinitely
transcendent, could ever come to the conviction
of the incarnation of deity. in Christ. It may,
however, be noted that the sayings of Jesus
often imply his real and complete humanity.
He accepts for himself the name and the rela
tions of man (Matt. iv. 4). He speaks of his
body, soul and spirit (Matt. xxvi. 12, 38 ; Lk.
xxiii. 46). He often prays. On one occasion
(Mk. xiii. 32) he positively asserts the limitation
of his knowledge, and he calls his teaching a
man's speaking the truth (Jn. viii. 40), although,
on the other hand, he never shows the slightest
distrust of the authority, trustworthiness and suf
ficiency of his teachings, and no more recognizes
a possibility of his fallibility than of his sinful
ness. In all the Gospels appears in substance the
claim of Jesus to sinless perfection. It has been
asserted that once (Mk. x. 18 ; Lk. xviii. 19) he

30 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
disclaimed sinlessness, but no acknowledgment
of sinfulness can be found in this passage. An
epithet which had been used without thoughtful
conviction of its fitness, with intent, rather, to
flatter him, Jesus waives by pointing to him who
alone is the one invariable and immutable stan
dard of right, but he makes no confession, he
gives no hint of any nonconformity to this stand
ard on his own part. His absolute freedom from
all sin he once positively asserted (Jn. viii. 46),
an assertion no less unmistakable and emphatic
because interrogative in form, an assertion
which, when taken in its relations to the cir
cumstances in which it was spoken, must be
considered the most emphatic disclaimer pos
sible of all consciousness of any sin working or
lurking in his soul. While in its definiteness
this expression stands alone, there are found
elsewhere expressions which are substantially
equivalent in their implication of the same con
sciousness of absolute freedom from sin or sin
fulness in every form (Jn. v. 19, 30 ; viii. 29,
34-36; xiv. 30, 31). Indeed, if nowhere else

THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS TO HIMSELF 3 1
distinctly asserted, his spotless holiness is yet
implied in all that Jesus ever said of himself.
He spoke fully of duty, he spoke frankly of
himself, he demanded penitence of every other,
and he never gave sign of it on his own part.
He described purity lovingly and impurity
loathingly as no other ever did ; he searched
the secrets of men's souls and sounded the
depths of his own nature as no other ever did ;
yet he never showed sign of penitence, never
confessed wrong act, word or thought ; never
coupled himself in these relations with other
men (Matt. vi. 9, 13, 14; vii. 11 ; Jn. iii. 7);
never in the slightest degree seemed to recog
nize the possibility of sin on his own part. This
lack of consciousness of sin, unique, unparalleled
in any degree, most unlike to those who most
aspire and endeavor to copy his life, accompanied
as this consciousness was by an equally peculiar
sensitiveness to sin in its every form and degree,
is a phenomenon wholly inexplicable save as we
accept the unique fact of the absolutely sinless
holiness of Jesus from birth to death.

32 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
As to the favorite name of Jesus for himself,
" Son of man," its original significance and the
full nature and extent of the claims involved in
it have been matters of prolonged debate, and
as yet there is no unanimity of opinion. It is
sufficiently clear that historically it connects
itself with the prophecy of Daniel (vii. 13, 14),
and so it must involve more than a mere sug
gestion of Messiahship. As being thus more
suggestive than the simple personal pronoun,
while at the same time by its lack of definite
assertion it avoided any undesirable results
which might have grown out of a positive and
unmistakable claim of Messiahship, it seems to
have especially commended itself to Jesus. Be
yond this veiled affirmation of Christhood, cer
tain other ideas are in addition more or less
clearly involved in this title. It necessarily
assumed and was based upon the full humanity
of Jesus. It may well be that the chief reason
why the use of this name, which had been so
common with Jesus himself, did not extend to
the apostles and dominate their teaching, lay

THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS TO HIMSELF 33
in the very fact of the more or less conscious
recognition of this implication of humanity, they
desiring and needing- to lay their emphasis on
other elements in his nature and work which
had come to be more significant and important.
Again, both the implication of Messiahship
which belongs to this title and the prefixing
to it of the definite article justify the view that
this term involved the conception that Jesus is
the ideal and representative man, an idea which
is elsewhere expressed by Paul alone and by
him in an entirely different way. By this phrase
Jesus gave at least a suggestion that he is the
man who is at the same time the head of
the race of which he had become a part, and the
head of the coming kingdom of God.
No less striking and important in its lessons
is the designation of himself by Jesus as the
" Son of God." Various meanings may be
and have been assigned to this phrase. It might
have been related to the fact that • by divine
power he was born of the Virgin Mary with no
earthly father, a merely historical conception.

34 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
It might assert sonship on the' basis of moral
likeness, an ethical conception underlying the
title. Again, it might have been employed to
assert his rank as God's representative, an
official conception. Or, lastly, it might be an
expression of his essential and eternal divinity,
a metaphysical conception. Of these meanings
it does not appear that the first, the historical,
was ever the basis of any language spoken by
Jesus, addressed to him or used about him dur
ing his lifetime. It is, then, more than unlikely
that this thought can be the ground of the
title. That the second, the ethical meaning, is
the chief, if not the sole, sense to be put upon
it in the teachings of Jesus is often asserted ;
yet from the facts that the phrase is constantly
used in the singular number and with the defi
nite article; that the Jews charged him with
making God his own Father (Jn. v. 18) and that
their understanding of his language was not cor
rected but accepted by him ; that the relation
which he asserted to exist between himself and
the Father is such as cannot be ascribed to any

THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS TO HIMSELF 35
other person ; that he sets the Son apart from
all other men and ranks him between the angels
and the Father (Mk. xiii. 32); and that he never
associated any others with himself in the rela
tion of sonship which he claimed for himself,
but always recognized a distinction (Matt. v. 48 ;
vi. 9, 32; xi. 27; Jn. xx. 17); — from these facts
it is to be inferred that though the ethical son-
ship which may belong to men in general may
be fitly attributed to Jesus and has been per
fectly exemplified by him and by him alone, yet
this does not exhaust the relation of sonship
which he sustained to God, but that in his
case this sonship was something necessarily
unique. This special significance was in part
official. As employed by Nathanael, by Martha
and by the high priest at his trial (Jn. i. 49 ; xi.
27; Matt. xxvi. 63), in all which cases it was
accepted without protest by Jesus himself, it is
sufficiently clear that the title was regarded as
practically synonymous with Messiah, a usage
probably based on the Second Psalm and finding
its fullest New Testament development in the

36 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
epistle to the Hebrews. So, too, it remains to
be shown that the language of Peter in his great
confession (Matt. xvi. 16) is to be taken in any
other than the official sense. It is to be noted
that in the synoptic Gospels the exact phrase
" Son of God " is lacking from the lips of Jesus
himself, but the conception for which this is the
chosen expression in the fourth Gospel, is neces
sarily involved in the records of the first three
Gospels, as otherwise many expressions which
do occur in the synoptic record would be wholly
unintelligible. For example, the antithesis of
Son and Father (Matt. xi. 27; Mk. xiii. 32), the
emphatic "my Father" or "his Father" (Matt.
xi. 27; xii. 50; xvi. 27; xviii. 10), and the con
trast of son and servants in the parable of the
unfaithful husbandmen (Lk. xx. 13, 14), all de
mand for their satisfactory explanation more
than a merely ethical sonship, however developed
and completed. By its necessary implications,
then, the synoptic teaching is in the fullest
harmony with the detailed and definite teaching
which is preserved in the fourth Gospel. John,

THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS TO HIMSELF 37
like the other evangelists, speaks often of " the
Father" and "the Son," "my Father" and
"Thy Son" (v. 19-23,43; vi. 37,46; x. 15,
29, 32, 36-38; xii. 26; xvii. 1), and, further, he
frequently employs the complete phrase "Son of
God " (v. 25; x. 36; xi. 4). It is impossible by
a merely ethical conception of sonship, based
solely upon likeness of character, satisfactorily
to explain the phrase in the connections in which
it occurs. Simple likeness in goodness cannot
properly be held to justify all these declarations;
a really metaphysical conception must underlie
these statements, the thought of a peculiar,
exceptional, unique, personal relation, a more or
less fully devoloped idea of a unity with God in
nature as well as in character.
Jesus further clearly testified to his own pre
existence. He asserted, according to the report
of John, that he came forth from God, came
down from heaven and came into the world
(vi. 38 ; xvi. 27, 28) ; he spoke of ascending
where he was before (vi. 62), mentioned the
glory which he shared with the Father before

38 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
the creation (xvii. 5), and, to correct the misap
prehension of the Jews, at the risk of life
itself, he distinctly declared "Before Abraham
was, I am" (viii. 58). That in the synoptic
Gospels these or similar assertions of preexist
ence are lacking will not cause surprise when
it is remembered that both the discourses in
which they occur and in fact, almost all ac
counts of his controversies with the Jewish
authorities at Jerusalem, as well as the high-
priestly prayer, are omitted in these Gospels.
It has, however, been acutely argued l that his
adoption of the title " Son of man " for himself
is not fully explicable except on the ground
that it implied and assumed a consciousness
that the speaker was in some sense other than
man and more than merely human ; that it
could never have occurred to one whose con
sciousness was limited to the period of his
earthly existence and the relations of human
life, to throw such peculiar and constant stress,
1 Professor G. F. Wright, D.D., Bibliotheca Sacra, 1887,
PP- S75-6di-

THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS TO HIMSELF 39
— as if he could never quite lose his sense of
its strangeness — on that humanity which he
shared with all his brethren. If this view com
mends itself, it will appear that the synoptical
Gospels really do contain testimony to Christ's
consciousness of his own superhuman preex
istence, testimony all the stronger because
informal and indirect and, in some sense, un
intended. That any formal assertion by Jesus of his
own divinity is lacking in all the Gospels, is in
no way surprising when it is remembered that
his task was not to give metaphysical lectures
on the mysteries of his own nature, but to live
out the unique self-revelation of God, and that
the Gospels in turn are not philosophical trea
tises, but historical narratives. It has been
argued that in one discussion Jesus even used
language which amounts to a disclaimer of his
divinity (Jn. x. 34-36), but, while to be sure
there is here a lack of positive assertion, it yet
cannot fairly be said that there is a real dis
claimer ; and simple silence, however strange,

40 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
mere lack of assertion, however inexplicable it
may appear to us, cannot on this point be con
sidered decisive. Jesus here makes the per
fectly relevant plea that such language as had
been objected to by his opponents was not
punishable because Old Testament parallels
justified its application even to men, much more
to himself. Again, the distinct assertion of his
subordination to the Father which Jesus re
peatedly made (Jn. v. 19 ; x. 29 ; xiv. 28), as
well as the constant implication of it, especially
in the fact of prayer to the Father, has been
regarded as inconsistent with the actual divinity
of his nature. But this view overlooks the
obvious distinction between inferiority of nature
and subordination of office and work. The
latter fact is enough of itself to explain the
language of Christ, although it is not to be for
gotten that the fact of incarnation had come in
to increase to an unknown degree the subordi
nation which originally existed. In reference
to the unity in action with the Father, which
Christ claimed (Jn. x. 30), what has been called

THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS TO HIMSELF 4 1
the "dynamic fellowship," it may be said that it
would certainly be more perfect if unity of
nature also, metaphysical oneness of essence,
underlay it, though it can hardly be insisted
that the latter is indispensable to it. But it
should be carefully noted that the synoptic
records also show that early in his ministry,
even in the face of a charge of blasphemy on
account of it, Jesus, while not entering on any
discussion of his nature, yet quietly and posi
tively assumed to exercise divine prerogatives
(Matt. ix. 2-6 ; Mk. ii. 5-1 1 ; Lk. v. 20-24).
Again the puzzling and yet, when answered,
profoundly instructive question which at the
very end of his ministry Jesus left ringing in
the ears of the Pharisees (Matt. xxii. 43-45),
involves in its complete answer the full divinity
of David's Son, and it is most reasonable to
hold that Jesus recognized the implication and
asked the question because he intended to teach
the fact. Finally, on at least one occasion, he
accepted the formal acknowledgment of his
deity, for Thomas acknowledged him as God

42 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
(Jn. xx. 28), and for this outburst Jesus had
only praise.
When, with the conception of a sonship
based on a unique unity with God are com
bined Christ's hints of preexistence, his sug
gestions and implications of divinity, and his
welcome to the assertion of his deity, it will
appear that at least the foundation for the
doctrine which was later developed as to the
eternal sonship of the divine Christ was to a
considerable extent already laid in his own
teaching.

CHAPTER IV
THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE CONCERNING CHRIST
It should occasion no surprise that in re
spect to the nature and rank of Christ, as
will later be found to be true in reference to
his work and also to the Christian life, the
teaching of the apostles is in many respects
developed beyond that of Jesus himself. Even
if during his life among men Jesus was fully
conscious of all the truth relating to himself,
certainly he did not exhaust the contents of his
consciousness even in his fullest and frankest
disclosures to his most intimate friends, and he
led them to expect that the guidance of the
promised Spirit would result in larger, clearer
knowledge than his own instructions had
brought them (Jn. xvi. 12-15). We find that
Paul definitely attributes his "gospel," from
which it would be absurd to eliminate his
43

44 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
views as to the rank and character of Jesus,
to "revelation of Jesus Christ " (Gal. i. n, 12).
Whatever the grounds on which the apostles
based their teaching, — on additional though
unrecorded discourses of Jesus (Lk. xxiv. 27;
Acts i. 3), on inferences inevitably and legiti
mately drawn from the facts of the resurrection
and ascension, on meditations controlled and
illuminated by the Spirit, or on special revela
tion, — at any rate the doctrine of the apostles,
though nowhere inconsistent with the testimony
of Jesus himself, is in many respects fuller and
clearer as to his nature and rank.
In the apostolic teaching the full humanity
of Jesus is emphatically recognized. Whatever
might be added to it and combined with it, this
truth always held its place, being taught not
only by unmistakable implications but also by
direct assertions. The apostolic testimony as
to the life history of Jesus has already been
discussed. It is now to be noted in addition
that Peter began his preaching by calling him
"a man" (Acts ii. 22, 23), and that he later

APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE CONCERNING CHRIST 45
spoke of Christ's blood and body and of his
suffering and being put to death in the flesh
(I. Pet. i. 19; ii. 24; iii. 18; iv. 1). In the
epistle to the Hebrews the tribal descent of
Christ, his human nature and his fellowship
with his brethren are strenuously insisted
upon (ii. 14; iv. 15; v. 7; vii. 14). The syn
optic Gospels cannot fail to satisfy the reader
that the fact of the true manhood of Christ
was fully accepted by the early church. This
is confirmed by the teaching of Paul. To the
Athenians he spoke of Jesus as " a man " (Acts
xvii. 31), and he wrote to the' Philippians that
he was " found in fashion as a man " (ii. 8) and
to the Romans that he was sent "in the like
ness of sinful flesh " (viii. 3). Most decisive as
to Paul's conception, however, is the parallel
which he twice draws between Adam whom
he regarded as the representative of mankind
in its present condition, and "the one man,
Jesus Christ" (Rom. v. 14, 15), or "the second
man " (I. Cor. xv. 45, 47). In the writings of
John, especially in the first epistle, the teaching

46 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
concerning the humanity of Jesus becomes even
more pointed and emphatic. In manifest oppo
sition to heretical tendencies of a Docetic sort,
which must already have become more or less
prevalent, he declares in the prologue to the
fourth Gospel that "the Word became flesh"
(i. 14), lays peculiar stress on the spear thrust
and its consequences (xix. 34, 35), begins the
first epistle with the assertion of sight and
hearing and handling of the eternal Word in
his historic relations (i. 1-3), and makes the
doctrine that the coming of Christ is " in the
flesh " to be the decisive test whether the spirit
is of God or of antichrist (iv. 3 ; II. Jn. 7).
While the apostles thus set forth the true and
full humanity of Jesus, their teaching does not
stop with that. While it represents him as
being really a man like other men, it nowhere
represents him as being merely a man hke
other men. In part his difference from his
brethren is made to depend on his character
(Rom. viii. 3; Heb. iv. 15); but still more is
it made to depend on his peculiar office. The

APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE CONCERNING CHRIST 47
Messiahship of Jesus was to the whole church
from the beginning a fact established beyond
reasonable doubt. With this thought Peter
began the proclamation of Christianity (Acts
ii. 36), and its continued dominance is indis
putable. The facts, that the title Christ was
continually given to Jesus until, dropping the
article, it ceased to be descriptive and became
a proper name, and that early in the century
the disciples were called Christians, attest,
though attestation is on this point really need
less, how unceasingly and emphatically the
Messiahship of Jesus was everywhere taught.
Almost at once it was recognized that all the
old prophetic conceptions of "the Coming One"
found fulfillment in Jesus. Repeatedly he is
styled the " Servant of God," a name manifestly
drawn from the latter part of the book of Isaiah
(Acts iii. 13, 26 ; iv. 27, 30). Once (Acts vii.
37) he ;is regarded as the " Prophet " foretold
by Moses (Deut. xviii. 15, 18), a conception so
familiar to the Jewish people (Jn. i. 21, 45 ;
vii. 40) that the practical disuse of it most

48 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
significantly illustrates how completely the
prophetic element in the work of Jesus was
overshadowed after his death by its other ele
ments. The form which the Messianic con
ception chiefly assumed in relation to Jesus
was that of the King already reigning and
sure to return and to manifest his power and
his glory. In his Pentecost speech Peter
couples (Acts il 34-36) the idea of lordship
with that of Messiahship, and applies to the
exalted Jesus Psalm ex. with its assertion of
royalty. Later, he declared (v. 31) that Jesus is
Prince as well as Saviour, and finally he wrote
(I. Pet. iii. 22) that he is " on the right hand of
God . . . angels and authorities and powers
being made subject to him." In Hebrews we
find the repeated ascription to Jesus of the
place on the right hand of God (i. 3, 13 ; x. 12),
and this ascription, as well as the whole appli
cation to him of Psalms ii. and ex., necessarily
implies his royalty. In the thinking of Paul,
the conception of the kingship of Christ was
not at all weakened by the elimination of

APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE CONCERNING CHRIST 49
all narrow, Jewish notions of a purely political
and temporal reign over a worldly kingdom of
which Israel should be the center. It was
rather intensified by this change, as much as
it was elevated and broadened (I. Cor. xv. 25-
27; Eph. i. 20-22; Phil. ii. 9-1 1; Col. ii. 10).
In the Revelation the very theme of the book
throws the kingship of Christ into prominence,
though from the subject and character of the
epistles of John this thought found little place
in them (Rev. i. 5, 6; xi. 15 ; xii. 10; xvii. 14;
xix. 16 ; xxii. 3).
The term, Lord, probably involved in its first
application to Jesus chiefly the idea of author
ity (Acts ii. 36), but it is manifest that it soon
came to include other ideas and consequently
to have a loftier significance. As the thought
of the kingdom grew in the minds of the
apostles to be universal and eternal, so the
thought of the King must in any case have
been correspondingly extended and exalted, but
this fact alone would not have transformed the
whole conception of the nature of Jesus. Of

50 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
course it may be claimed that, as the name,
Lord, was ambiguous, having been used in
Hebrew and by the Septuagint translators to
represent the unpronounced and untranslatable
name, so this ambiguity would contribute to
the development of the idea of the divinity of
Christ. Such a claim, however, could only be
made when the real conditions of the case were
overlooked. We have a case, not of the mis
understanding of a title of longstanding appli
cation, when of course ambiguity might lead to
error, but of the fresh bestowment of a title.
Up to the time of the apostles, the only religious
use of the title, Lord, had been as a substitute
for the most sacred of all the names of God
himself. Unless they had been at least indif
ferent to the attribution of divinity to Jesus,
the apostles never could have called him, Lord,
as they did (Jas. ii. i ; I. Pet. iii. 15 ; Rom. xiv.
6, 8, 9 ; II. Cor. v. 1 1 ; Phil. ii. 1 1). When, how
ever, we find prayer and worship addressed to
the Lord Jesus Christ (II. Cor. xii. 8 ; I. Cor.
i. 2), it is plain that the name, Lord, was ap-

APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE CONCERNING CHRIST 5 1
plied to Jesus in conscious recognition of his
deity. The doctrine of the preexistence of Christ
was common to all the apostolic circles. From
the pen of James it is lacking, and Peter gives
it only a small place, the fact in both cases being
doubtless due to the intensely practical charac
ter of the writings and the narrow range of
their theological thought. But, according to
the safer, even if at present less popular, inter
pretation of Peter's statement as to the preach
ing to the dead (I. Pet. iii. 19, 20), he gives in
this passage a decisive declaration as to the
activity of Christ in the days of Noah. Even
from Paul the assertion of the preexistence of
Christ is only occasional, yet it is positive and
unmistakable, and in its tone implies that the
thought was already familiar to those addressed.
While it cannot be safely asserted that the great
doctrine of the Second Man who is from heaven
itself necessarily implies the conception of pre
existence, yet this conception is involved and
plainly confirmed by clear teaching in the third

52 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
group of letters. The declaration that creation
took place through Christ (Col. i. 15, 16), not
only is unambiguous in itself, but also puts be
yond question the significance in this relation of
the earlier assertion that all things are through
him (I. Cor. viii. 6), and is in its turn strength
ened by the statement that he is the bond of
the universe (Col. i. 17). The mention of the
earlier existence of Christ Jesus "in the form
of God " (Phil. ii. 6, 7) confirms the implication
of preexistence which is involved in the self-
impoverishment of Christ (II. Cor. viii. 9). Ex
istence in the form of God, creation, permanent
support of the universe, self-emptying, self-
impoverishment — Paul could not without self-
stultification have taught these, unless at the
same time he held to the preexistence of Christ.
This being then the belief of the apostle, it
becomes reasonable to hold that the passages
which speak of the sending of the Son (Rom.
viii. 3 ; Gal. iv. 4) are based upon the same con
ception and are explained by it. In the epistle
to the Hebrews the preexistence of Christ is

APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE CONCERNING CHRIST 53
not so much frequently asserted as constantly
assumed. The characteristics which are attrib
uted to Melchisedek are made to remind the
readers of the eternity of Christ (vii. 3). Like
Paul the author of this epistle also makes
Christ to be the creator and upholder of the
universe (i. 2, 3, 10), speaks of his coming into
the world (x. 5) and being made a little lower
than the angels (ii. 9), and his death is referred
to as the activity of a spiritual nature which is
forever changelessly the same (ix. 14). On this
point the Christology of John is in substance
wholly accordant with the rest of the New
Testament, although in form it is somewhat
different. John's most striking peculiarity con
sists in applying to Jesus the title, Logos or
Word. In connection with this teaching (Jn. i.
1-18) the same Word who became flesh is
declared to have been in the beginning ; to
have been in the beginning in relations with
God ; to have been the agent in creation and to
have been the source of the light of the uni
verse, if not also of its life. In fullest harmony

54 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
with this teaching in thought, even though lack
ing the name, Logos, is the rest of the teaching
of John, that Christ was from the beginning
(I. Jn. i. 1-3 ; ii. 13, 14), and that he was sent or
given, and came in flesh or became flesh (Jn. iii.
16, 171; I. Jn. iv. 3, 14; II. Jn. 7).
The doctrine of the preexistence of Christ
leads naturally to the consideration of the
apostolic teaching in reference to the nature,
relations and activity of Christ before his incar
nation. The terms most often used in describ
ing the relation of Christ to God are " Father "
and " Son.-' In the Gospels of Matthew and
Luke we have two distinct but not inconsistent
accounts of the miraculous conception of the
child Jesus by the Virgin Mary through the
power of the Holy Spirit, and Luke definitely
adds that on this account Jesus should be called
the Son of God (i. 35). But while these ac
counts are to be accepted as authentic and as
1 If these verses (Jn. iii. 16, 17) are understood as
spoken by Jesus, a significant use of the word, Son, must be
added to the list of Christ's own uses, and another claim of
preexistence on his part must be recognized.

APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE CONCERNING CHRIST 55
preserving the very earliest Christian tradition,
yet they cannot be the basis of the apostolic
doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God, for there
is not a single doctrinal passage where the rela
tions of thought require or even permit the
assumption that the miraculous conception was
regarded as the basis of sonship. But this lack
of reference, in the speeches and letters of the
apostles, to the fact of the miraculous concep
tion is not to be taken as casting doubt upon
it, but only as showing that, so far as it was
known, it must have been regarded as having a
historic rather than a dogmatic value.
All the important implications of Christ's
teaching concerning himself are repeated in sub
stance by his apostles, with varying frequency
and emphasis which depend on individual differ
ences of standpoint and expression. Of the use
of the title, Son of God, in the official sense
there are clear instances in the synoptic Gos
pels (Matt. iv. 3, 6; xiv. 33), and there are
passages where it is ambiguous (Matt. iii. 1 7 ;
xvii. 5 ; Mk. i. 1 1 ; iii. 1 1 ; v. 7), but there is
1 If genuine.

56 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
no passage where it is unmistakably employed
in the metaphysical sense. One of the in
stances of this ambiguous use is repeated by
Peter (II. Pet. i. 17), of course retaining the
same ambiguity. The metaphysical conception
of sonship did not prevail any more widely in
the original apostolic preaching. In the Acts
the phrase occurs but once (ix. 20), and there
it is probably to be explained as an example
of the official sense. In James the sonship of
Christ is not touched upon. In Peter and Jude
it is given, with the exception noted above, only
as it is implied in calling God the " Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ " and simply " Father "
(I. Pet. i. 2, 3; II. Pet. i. 17; Jude 1), usage too
vague to yield certain conclusions. In the
writings of Paul the sonship of Christ is con
tinually brought to the front. In his teaching
the incarnation was the sending of the Son ;
the resurrection was the certification of son-
ship ; the apostolic experience was the inward
revelation of the Son ; the sphere of the apos
tolic ministry is the Gospel of God's Son ; the

APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE CONCERNING CHRIST $?
present kingdom is the kingdom of the Son ;
Christian hope is a waiting for the Son from
heaven (I. Th. i. 10; I. Cor. xv. 24 ; Gal. i. 16;
Rom. i. 4, 9 ; Col. i. 13). When all these ele
ments are combined, it seems decidedly best to
explain Paul's conception as metaphysical in its
character. In the letter to the Hebrews, son-
ship, like so much else, is implied instead of
asserted. Christ is many times called " Son "
(i. 5, 8; iii. 6 ; v. 8 ; vii. 3, 28 ; x. 29), but the
author does not so much seem to be teaching
something new as to be using a familiar title
to prove or at least to indicate special rank.
The fact that in some of its aspects the sonship
of Christ was due to a special exercise of the
divine will and manifestation of the divine
power, is more than once brought out in the
use of a familiar quotation from the Psalms
(Ps. ii. 7: Heb. i. 5 ; v. 5), which passage found
its first recorded application to Jesus in a
speech of Paul (Acts xiii. 33). The official
conception of Christ's sonship seems to pre
vail in this epistle largely if not exclusively.

58 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
In the writings of John the thought of Christ's
sonship fills an even larger place than else
where. His Gospel was avowedly written to
confirm belief that Jesus was the Son of God,
and while this end was gained rather by de
picting him as Son than by calling him so, yet
the title itself is repeatedly employed, and twice
he is called the only-begotten (Jn. i. 18 ; iii. 16,
I7> 35, 3^ ; xx. 31). In the epistles, which were
written not to secure faith itself, but the fruits
of faith in those who were already believers
(I. Jn. i. 3 ; v. 13), Jesus is styled, Son, more
than a score of times. The conception of the
sonship of Christ in the mind of this apostle
seems to have been, not official, like that of the
writer to the Hebrews, but metaphysical, like
Paul's. He would not speak of Christ's be
coming the Son, for his thought was that he is
eternally and changelessly the Son. His son-
ship depended, not on what he was to others,
but on what he was in himself.
The sonship of Christ, in the thought of the
apostles, as in the consciousness of Jesus him-

APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE CONCERNING CHRIST $9
self, was, at least in its most important aspects,
something unique and peculiar to himself alone.
To be sure, the same word was figuratively used
of the relation to God of believers also (Rom.
viii. 14, 19, 29; Heb. ii. 10; xii. 5-9), but the
apostles manifestly thought of the relation of
Christ to the Father as distinct in character
and much loftier, as is indicated by Paul's word
" own " and John's " only-begotten " (Rom. viii.
3; Jn. i. 18; iii. 16). This unique sonship,
which is never once based on moral likeness,
can be satisfactorily explained only as based on
community of nature, only as it is recognized
that Christ shared the divine essence. This
conclusion is confirmed by a review of the
activities which have been found to be attrib
uted to Christ. Creation, the upholding of
the universe, worship even from angels, — these
attributes, with, others like them, could have
seemed to the first apostles no less than divine.
As a result, finally, they came to apply the
very name of the deity to Christ. This was
not, however, done indiscriminately, for, though

60 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
presumably having no scheme of trinitarian
relations wrought out and carried along in
their minds, they yet unconsciously observed
these relations, reserving, for example, the
name, God, when it is accompanied with the
article, for the Father supreme (Jn. i. i). The
appellation, Lord, which is next in point of lofti
ness of significance to the direct use of the name,
God, is — as has already been noted — freely
bestowed upon Christ. Paul assures us that
Christ is the image of the invisible God (Col.
i. 15), that before his humiliation he existed in
the form of God (Phil. ii. 6), and that during
his incarnation the whole fullness of the God
head dwelt in him bodily (Col. ii. 9) : it is a very
short step further to give him the very name
itself, as it appears that once at least Paul act
ually did (Rom. ix. 5 ; compare Tit. ii. 13). The
writer to the Hebrews calls him the effulgence
of the divine glory, and declares his exact
correspondence to the substance of God him
self (i. 3), and is so thoroughly convinced that
Christ is divine, and is so sure that his readers

APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE CONCERNING CHRIST 6 1
are similarly convinced, that, without any formal
justification or explanation whatever, he trans
ferred to Christ prophecies which to be sure
were fulfilled only in him, but which when
originally spoken referred to God without any
recognition of distinctions in the Godhead (i. 8-
12). John in the prologue to his Gospel proba
bly used the remarkable phrase "God only
begotten" (i. 18), and unquestionably declared
that the Word was God (i. 1). The necessary
conclusion as to the apostles' conception of the
nature of Jesus is ratified and confirmed by
their ascriptions of unity of action to the Father
and the Son (II. Cor. v. 19 ; I. Jn. v. 20). The
apostolic doctrine as to Christ culminates in
the unanimous acknowledgment of his deity.

CHAPTER V

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD

It is to be noted first that the teaching of
the New Testament in relation to God is in no
sense independent, but was very closely related
to the thoughts of the time, and especially to
the theology of the Old Testament, to which it
is more or less supplement and correction, and
by the aid of which it must consequently be
interpreted. For instance there is much which
Jesus never asserted about God because it
needed no assertion. His existence, his unity,
his transcendence, his glory, all these great
facts are presupposed as already known and
accepted, and are not repeated because the aim
of Jesus was practical, not doctrinal ; religious,
not systematic.
In the synoptic Gospels the only metaphysi
cal teaching of Christ in reference to God is
62

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD 63
contained in the quotation from Deuteronomy
to the questioning lawyer (Deut. vi. 4 ; Mk. xii.
29), a passage which declares his unity. The
chief thought in Christ's teaching about God is
his love. This statement does not require proof
texts for its confirmation so much as it does a
sympathetic study of all that Jesus said about
God. He makes his sun to rise on both evil
and good ; his rain comes on both just and un
just ; he cares for the sparrows, the ravens and
the lilies ; better than any earthly father he
knows how to give good things to those that
ask him (Matt. v. 45 ; vii. 1 1 ; x. 29 ; Lk. xii.
6, 24-31). The crown of perfectness for even
divine goodness is especially found in kindness
to the unworthy (Matt. v. 48). This teaching
about the divine love for the undeserving
reaches its climax in the parables about the
recovery of the lost. The joy in the presence
of the angels (Lk. xv. 10) can be none other
than the joy of God himself. While Pharisees
have no welcome for penitent sinners, the heart
of God is drawn out unceasingly with all the

64 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
patience of a father's unwearied affection for
the most wayward, and he ever joyfully wel
comes the penitent soul (Lk. xv. 32). The
unweariedly patient love of God is most forcibly
set forth in the parable of the " Prodigal Son,"
usually so called, though to suggest all the
lessons of the story some such cumbrous phrase
would be needed as the following, " The lost
son, returning, welcomed and unwelcomed."
The winning tenderness of this parable is such
that some have made it the controlling, not to
say the sole, element in Christ's teaching about
God, and his doctrine is often summed up in a
single phrase, "The Fatherhood of God." To
the use of this phrase there need be no objec
tion in itself, even if it does harden into dogma
the drapery of a parable. The objections which
might be raised would be, first, that the name
Father is reserved by Jesus himself to express,
not the general relation of God to men at large,
but the special relation which he sustains to
believers, or the unique relation to the divine
Son ; and, second, that, if universal Fatherhood

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD 6$
is unconditionally ascribed to God, the errone
ous inference may be drawn that all men sus
tain in a religious sense a real sonship to God,
— an inference which some have drawn. To be
sure, not only does Christ often speak of " my
Father" and "your Father," but he often speaks
also of " the Father," and this usage has been
held to justify the assertion of a universal
Fatherhood. But so far as we can enter into
the thought of Jesus we come to think, not
only that it would be necessary for him to feel
the consciousness of his own sonship before he
could know the sonship of other men in even a
remoter sense, but that he actually did follow
this course. From the lips of the boy of twelve
years, who could not be supposed already to
have settled the question of the relation of man
kind at large to God, fall with winsome grace
the words of filial assurance, "my Father"
(Lk. ii. 49). The thought of his own peculiar
relation to God which he first reached con
tinued to dominate his teaching, and it is only
safe to hold that in his speech, as "the Son"

66 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
signified himself in his own unique relation to
God, so " the Father " first of all signified God
as especially related to himself and known by
himself (Matt. xi. 27).
In the Gospel of John a superficial dissimilar
ity here as elsewhere is caused by its peculiar
style, but there is no essential inconsistency
with the synoptic teaching. In the fourth
Gospel there is a little more of teaching which
in form at least is metaphysical, but as in the
other Gospels all has a practical, a purely reli
gious purpose. The declaration, for example,
that God is spirit (iv. 24) is a statement so pro
found and far-reaching that theologians are still
far from exhausting its implications, but the
original intent of it was to teach to an ignorant
and degraded woman the character of true wor
ship. On two occasions the unity of God is
emphasized (v. 44 ; xvii. 3), but both times the
declaration is not theoretical but practical. The
Father's absolute independence in existence is
mentioned (v. 26), but only to exalt the Son.
From the controversial character of the Johan-

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD 67
nine discourses it naturally results that less
assertion of the goodness of God is found in
them than in the synoptic reports. The name
Father is here in frequent use, but the form in
which it most often occurs is the indeterminate
phrase "the Father." When the relation is
defined, Jesus says " your Father " but once
(xx. 17), and then to the disciples, while the
words " my Father " often occur. It follows
then that we should interpret the phrase "the
Father," as it fell from the lips of Christ, as
having reference, not to a relation of God to all
men in common, or even to all believers, but to
himself alone, a view which confirms the results
found in reference to the synoptic thought.
The first preaching of the apostles brought
no enlarged or corrected doctrine of God. It
was not so much a new conception of God
which men needed as a new relation to him and
his Christ. The epistle of James declares his
unity, his immutability, and his absolute holiness
(i. 13, 17; ii. 19), and emphasis is laid both on
the sternness and the kindness of God (i. 5, 17 ;

68 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
iv. 6, 12; v. 11). Peter bases little of his
teaching on what God is, yet even in the few
sentences which touch on this subject, we are
reminded that he is holy, strict in judgment,
and yet full of compassion and grace (I. Pet. i.
16, 17; ii. 12; iii. 12; v. 6, 10). As Jude
writes exclusively in warning, he writes espe
cially of the divine judgments (5-7), and the
same note is of course echoed in II. Peter (ii.
4-IO). As would be expected, the discussions of
Paul and John open on this subject still larger
stores of instruction. The statements of the
apostle to the Gentiles which approach most
nearly to dogmatic form are the compact sen
tences of his address at Athens. Here, to an
audience which, in intellectual preparation if not
in spiritual sympathy, was fit for the theme and
the speaker, he sets forth, in a manner never
needed among hearers of Jewish training, his
simple yet profound postulates as to the nature
and relations of God (Acts xvii. 24-31). There
is but one God, he tells them, supreme in all

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD 69
the universe of which he was the creator. His
spirituality is implied in the declaration of his
unlikeness to even the most precious of material
substances and in the assertion that he is the
source of the life and being of all men. As
such original and continual fountain of life, he
may well be called our Father and we his off
spring,1 a thought for which Paul claimed no
originality, but rather the confirmation of the
best thought of his hearers in the past. Of
the moral attributes of God there is only a
single suggestion given in this incomplete ad
dress, that of righteousness or Tightness in judg
ment. Among the Lycaonians (Acts xiv. 15-
17) the fervor of Paul's sudden exclamation
necessarily precluded definiteness of doctrinal
statement. Yet the few sentences which he
then uttered involve the thoughts, that there
is unlikeness between divinity and humanity ;
that there is only one being who really pos
sesses life, while the heathen deities were mere
nonentities ; that the living God was the crea-
1 Compare " Father of lights " (James i. 17).

70 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
tor of the universe, and that his providential
activities are proof of his goodness. In ad
dressing Christians Paul constantly presupposes
an assured knowledge of the nature and char
acter of God, and often uses his recognized
attributes to weight an argument or sharpen an
appeal. Over against the idols of the heathen
which have and represent no real substance,
there is one God, and only one, and he alone
has life (I. Cor. viii. 4-6 ; II. Cor. iii. 3 ; Gal.
iv. 8). He is invisible, incorruptible, immortal,
eternal (Rom. i. 20, 23; xvi. 26; Col. i. 15;
I. Tim. vi. 16), all these attributes being
summed up in a single doxology (I. Tim. i. 17).
This God was the creator of the world (I. Cor.
viii. 6 ; Rom. i. 25), and is its ruler, all history
displaying his will (Acts xvii. 26 ; Rom. i. 24,
26, 28 ; xi. 21, 22). In his moral attributes he
is wise (I. Cor. iii. 19, 20 ; Rom. xi. 33), just
(II. Th. i. 6 ; Rom. ii. 2, 5, 6 ; iii. 5, 6), and
unchangeable (I. Cor. i. 9 ; x. 13 ; Rom. iii. 3).
In the teachings which have just been noted
Paul set forth, not merely facts which he had

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD J I
intellectually accepted, but still more, important
truths which he had spiritually appropriated.
Even profounder and richer is his conception
of the love of God. While, to be sure, any
such single compact statement as John's " God
is Love " is lacking from his pen (Paul rarely
deals in epigrams), yet his whole teaching is
pervaded with a sense of the love of God, and
he never tires of unfolding the riches of it and
magnifying the results of it as it is poured
forth in our hearts. In spite of the frequency
and fervor of his expressions, it has yet strangely
enough been charged against him that he really
nullifies and neutralizes this teaching by the
stress which he lays on what is regarded as
inconsistent with love and opposed to it (I. Th.
i. 10; Rom. i. 18 ; Eph. ii. 3 ; v. 6). But this
objection rests on the silently assumed, un
proved and incorrect premise that wrath is
necessarily synonymous with hatred.- Paul,
however, manifestly regards wrath as in no
sense inconsistent with love profound, intense
and changeless. He holds that, as the result

72 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
of his necessarily constant and fervent dis
pleasure with sin, God may, must manifest
wrath toward sinners in spite of his love, nay,
rather, because of his holy love. With this
understanding of his thought no statements of
the apostle are inconsistent. When, for ex
ample, he calls sinners " hateful to God " (Rom.
i. 30), this is only a forcible expression for the
universally admitted opposition of God to sin
ners. It may also be noted that in the same
breath Paul attributes to God both enmity and
the laying aside of this enmity (Rom. v. 10, 11 ;
II. Cor. v. 18, 19), and in both passages he so
relates these facts to the love of God displayed
in the death of his Son as to show conclusively
that to his mind there was no possibility of
incompatibility between love and wrath. In
deed, he holds that the sinner can be the object
of the forbearance, longsuffering and goodness
of God, and yet at the same time be under
his wrath (Rom. i. 18; ii. 4, 5). In Paul's
teaching, then, the wrath of God is not incom
patible with his love. On the other hand the

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD 73
wrath of God especially demonstrates his holi
ness, which is such that he must both feel and
show wrath wherever sin exists and so long as
sin exists. Because of this peculiarly keen
sense of the universally deserved wrath of God
(Eph. ii. 3), Paul often expresses his thought
of the divine love under the name of " mercy,"
which emphasizes that man is wholly undeserv
ing of God's favor (II. Cor. iv. 1 ; Rom. xi. 30-
32 ; Eph. ii. 4 ; Tit. iii. 5), and still more often
under the name of "grace," a word which calls
attention to the lack of return expected or even
possible (II. Th. i. 12 ; II. Cor. ix. 14 ; Rom. v.
15 ; Eph. i. 6, 7 ; ii. 7, 8; II. Tim. i. 9). Paul
is preeminently apostle of mercy and grace.'
While he thus distinctly teaches the goodness
of God toward all men with a force and fervor
which has never been surpassed, he yet never
chooses to state this truth as his universal
Fatherhood, although he continually speaks of
God as " the Father." There seem to have
been two possible sources for his use of this
name for God. The first was naturally the pe-

74 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
culiar sonship of Jesus (II. Cor. i. 3 ; Rom. xv. 6;
Eph. i. 3), and the second was his no less posi
tive conviction of the sonship of all believers,
a thought which he often puts in very close
connection with the first (II. Cor. i. 2 ; Eph. i. 2).
It may be that in the phrase "the Father,"
which he so frequently used, he combined both
ideas, just as the personal example of Jesus
(Mk. xiv. 36) combined with the spiritual ex
perience of the Christian to teach that remark
able bilingual form of address to God, " Abba,
Father" (Rom. viii. 15 ; Gal. iv. 6), which still
remains the climax of tender expression for the
Christian's loving and filial trust in God.
In the epistle to the Hebrews it is taught in
reference to God that he exists and that he is
the only living God (iii. 12; x. 31 ; xi. 6), and
that he possesses supreme majesty, and is
omniscient, immutable and holy (i. 3 ; iv. 13;
vi. 17, 18 ; xii. 14). He is the creator of the
universe, and also sustains special relations to
such as seek him and submit to him (iii. 4 ;
xi. 3, 6; xii. 5-10). While a Fatherhood is

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD 7$
attributed to God it is more than a Fatherhood
of origination and is not unlimited (xii. 8, 9).
The love of God is universal, for he has gra
ciously arranged the death of Christ in behalf
of every man, and holds out hope of forgive
ness (ii. 9 ; viii. 1 2), but on the other hand his
wrath is already displayed against the disobedi
ent, and toward all that is unholy he is no less
terrible than a consuming fire (iii. 11; iv. 3 ;
x. 30, 31 ; xii. 29).
The conceptions of God which we find in
the writings of John are chiefly dynamic and
ethical. Although he mentions the invisibility
of God, his omniscience, and his eternity (Jn.
i. 18; I. Jn. iii. 20; Rev. i. 4, 8 ; iv. 8, 10;
xv. 7 ; xxi. 6), we find no teaching of his unity
(unless I. Jn. v. 20, 21 is an exception), his
immutability or his omnipotence, and even his
spirituality, of which he records Christ's state
ment, is not again alluded to by John. Crea
tion finds mere mention, and in the Revelation
that occurs only in ascriptions of praise (Jn. i.
3, 10; Rev. iii. 14 ; iv. n; x. 6). All the

76 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
thought of John respecting God seems to sum
itself up in three words. First in his mind,
God is life. We lack a statement of this
conception as tersely made as are its par
allels, but it is repeatedly implied in declara
tions that God is the peculiar possessor and
sole source of life (Jn. i. 4 ; v. 26 ; I. Jn. v.
11, 20; Rev. iv. 9, 10; vii. 2 ; x. 6 ; xv. 7).
This conception unifies the whole relation of
God to the world and at the same time trans
forms it, so that it is in no sense an exter
nal or mechanical relation, but by it God is
made the constant secret and source of all real
enjoyment and power — for to John the spiritual
alone deserves the name of the real.
But God who is life is also light (I. Jn. i. 5).
The context shows that this statement, doubled
as it is in the manner so characteristic of John,
is intended, first and foremost, as an assertion of
God's holiness, which is absolute, untarnished
by admixture of any imaginable element of evil,
and the figurative form in which it is cast gives
to the expression increased force. The same

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD 77
figure is employed in his Gospel (i. 4, 9) to
suggest another element in the apostle's idea of
God, namely, that his activity tends unceasingly
to diffuse itself, if we may so speak, and to
transform whatever it reaches. Though an
intellectual element need not be excluded, this
illuminating power is of course preeminently
spiritual. That God is light can mean no less
than this, that there is in every practicable
way constant intensity of divine self-manifesta
tion, and that wherever this self-manifestation
reaches there is also power to which we can
set no bounds.
But above all, God is love (I. Jn. iv. 8, 16).
In this statement John summarizes and reaffirms
all his declarations concerning the love of God
(Jn. iii. 16 ; I. Jn. iii. 1 ; iv. 7, 9, 10, 16, 19,
21). Love is John's supreme word. While the
favorite words of Paul, mercy and grace, de
scribe the stream of divine benevolence as it
reaches men, in some degree affected by the
condition of its objects, love is John's one name
for the same divine benevolence, as eternally

78 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
changeless in its outflowing from the nature of
God as is that nature itself. This love is self-
originated and independent of all return or
response, and so it is universal, embracing all,
even the sinful world. Of all conceivable attri
butes of God, love is the most central, essential
and characteristic. It is said by the apostle
that God is love (I. Jn. iv. 8, 16), as it could not
be said that he is justice or anything else, even
holiness. But we are not justified from this
fact in going further and saying that God is
love in such a way that his love ceases to be
the constantly free determination of his will.
It does not exalt God either metaphysically or
ethically to assert that his character is due, not
to the fact that he ceaselessly chooses and wills
what is best, but to the iron fetters of his con
stitution, regardless of his will. If this were
so, then man, when he gladly chooses love as
the noblest thing in the world, were nobler and
better than God himself. Of course it is cor
rect to say that, " the position that God ever
does or ever could cease to be generous, merci-

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD ?g
ful and loving is a perilous admission for theol
ogy, involving, as it does, the alternative that
either naked justice alone is essential to moral
perfection, or that God can be conceived as
choosing to become something less than per
fect,1 " but it is no less true and no less perti
nent to assert a similar alternative in reference
to justice or holiness. We gain the richest,
most consistent and most helpful conception of
the divine character, and one at least in perfect
harmony with the teachings of the New Testa
ment, when we hold that he, the supreme ideal
for his creatures who are made in his image,
attains and retains virtue, even the chiefest
virtue of love, by the persistent exercise of a
free but invariably holy will. It is finally inter
esting to note that John, while making consider
able use of the title " Father," usually employs
it in very close relation with Christ, the " Son "
(Jn. i. 14 ; I. Jn. i. 3 ; iv. 14). It is noteworthy
that he who stood nearest to Jesus, and who in
the spirit of his Master made very much of
1 Professor G. B. Stevens, D.D., " Johannine Theology," p. 54.

80 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
God's love to the whole world, made of the
particular phase of this love represented by
Fatherhood almost the least proportionally of
all the New Testament writers.
One phase of the New Testament teachings
touching the nature of God seems to have such
historical and dogmatic importance as to war
rant and in some sense to require discussion by
itself ; namely, the three-foldness of the divine
nature. We must again remind ourselves that
with the artless style of the New Testament,
and the constantly practical purpose of its au
thors, the metaphysical statements of the
nineteenth century or of the fourth are not to
be expected, while, on the other hand, the theo
logical positions of the apostles may be recog
nized in the end quite as clearly in their uncon
scious expressions as they could have been in
any intentionally formal declarations. It will
be acknowledged by all that Jesus held and
taught the doctrine of the unity of God, in
fullest concord with the teachings of the Old
Testament and the unanimous views of his

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD 8 1
nation in that age as in all later ages. Now,
while the statements of Jesus which imply his
preexistence and furnish more than suggestions
of his own real divinity appear still more dis
tinctly in the fourth Gospel than in the other
three, yet even in the latter records the deity
of Christ is actually involved in the demand for
absolute spiritual devotion to himself, and is
really implied in the relation which is taught
of Father and Son, for this relation implies
subordination in rank and no less equality of
nature and likeness of essence, at least as em
ployed with reference to Jesus. As to the
Holy Spirit also we have teaching, especially in
John's record though by no means exclusively
there, that he too is personal, divine and sub
ordinate (Matt. xii. 31, 32; Jn. xiv. 16, 17, 26;
xv. 26; xvi. 13-15). The baptismal formula
which Matthew records as given by Jesus after
his ascension is equally in harmony with the
thought of Christ as elsewhere learned and
with the belief of the primitive church even on
its Jewish-Christian side. The opinion and doc-

82 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
trine of the Judean apostles is illustrated by the
facts that each of the synoptic Gospels distin
guishes and combines the activity of the divine
Three at the Jordan side (Matt. iii. 16, 17 ; Mk. i.
10, 11 ; Lk. iii. 21, 22) ; and that — alike in the
very earliest preaching and in later writings —
Jesus is exalted to the very throne of God, the
Spirit in turn comes from God, and individual
activity of a personal sort is ascribed to both
Son and Spirit (Acts ii. 32, 33 ; vii. 56 ; viii.
29, 39 ; xiii. 2 ; xv. 28 ; I. Pet. i. 12 ; Heb. i. 3 ;
iii. 7) ; and that Father, Son and Spirit are com
bined in expressions which imply their equality
of divine nature together with diversity of office
(I. Pet. i. 1, 2 ; Jude 20, 21). The thought of
Paul and John is still farther developed, as is
indeed the case with almost every theological
thought. As has already been noted, Paul
ascribes to Christ the form of God and equality
with him (Phil. ii. 6), and, indeed, gives him the
very name, God (Rom. ix. 5 ; compare Tit. ii.
13), as well as the substantially divine titles of
Lord and Son, and assigns to him the essen-

THE DOCTRINE OF GOD 83
tially divine tasks of creating and upholding the
world (Col. i. 16, 17). He likewise ascribes to
the Spirit acts which are at once personal and
divine (I. Cor. ii. 10-15; xii. 8-1 1; Rom. viii.
14, 16, 26, 27; Eph. ii. 21, 22; iv. 30), and
repeatedly associates the Father, Son and Spirit
in a manner which only trinitarian thought can
fully explain (I. Cor. viii. 4-6 ; xii. 4-6 ; II. Cor.
xiii. 14; Rom. viii. 9; xv. 30; Eph. ii. 18).
The teaching of John is quite as clear and
strong. His idea of the Logos is explicable
only as a personal principle in the Godhead,
equally divine with the Father and at the same
time in some sense distinct from him. The
Christology of the Revelation is quite as lofty
in its conception of the nature of Christ as any
part of the New Testament, a fact which be
comes the more remarkable the earlier it is set
and the more purely Jewish in origin and char
acter it is held to be. In this book there is less
mention of the Spirit, but he is clearly regarded
as personal (Rev. xxii. 17) and is manifestly
divine, so that it is not surprising to find what

84 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
is really a trinitarian formula (Rev. i. 4, 5),
though it describes the persons instead of
merely naming them. In conclusion it may be
said that though the New Testament does not
give trinitarian dogma, it must be held to give
trinitarian thought, of which trinitarian dogma
is only formal expression, and in fact the only
correct and adequate expression.

CHAPTER VI
THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING MAN
The New Testament teaching as to the
nature, moral condition, and relations of man
is practically little less important than its doc
trine of God. But the authors never approach
this subject as if intending to communicate
fresh truth, hitherto unknown and unknowable,
but as recognizing, confirming and applying
facts generally accessible and already com
monly comprehended. Nor is there any sub
stantial diversity in the way that the different
authors approach and apply these facts. Ac
cordingly, in the treatment of this topic, it is
less necessary than elsewhere to distinguish
the particular contributions of the different
authors and schools of thought, for there is no
progressiveness of revelation or development
of doctrine, but only more or less of clearness
85

86 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
in the recognition of truth, or fullness in the
statement of it, or force in the application of
it. Nothing, however, would be gained by
modifying the usual order and method.
The teaching of Jesus according to the syn
optic reports recognizes both the elements
which consciousness invariably testifies to as
constituting human nature (Matt. x. 28). Both
flesh and body are words used to designate the
material element ; one of these terms giving
prominence to the substance, the other to the
organism wrought out of that substance. Jesus
also used the words, spirit and soul, in a way
somewhat parallel to flesh and body, in so far
at least as spirit and flesh are correlative terms,
and soul and body. It is not safe, however, to
infer that soul and spirit sustain the same rela
tion to each other as do body and flesh, for,
while spirit may in some cases designate the
substance, so to speak, and soul the organism,
yet Jesus uses the word, spirit, in a way that
transcends this limitation (Lk. xxiii. 46 ; xxiv.
39). He also uses the familiar metonymy by

THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING MAN 87
which flesh, or flesh and blood, is employed
for man, of whose nature it forms such a con
spicuous part (Matt. xvi. 17; xxiv. 22). That
man is mortal is constantly recognized by Jesus,
but he no less gives us to understand that death
does not end all, being merely the separation of
soul and body. Though the body suffers dis
solution, the soul continues conscious existence
until that reunion of body and soul which is
styled resurrection (Matt. x. 28 ; Lk. xvi. 22,
23, 25 ; xx. 35, 36; xxiii. 43). Man is, in com
parison with nature and in the sight of God,
of great value (Matt. x. 31 ; xvi. 26 ; xviii. 14).
Before him stretches out a great range of possi
bilities, blessed and otherwise (Matt. x. 28, 39 ;
Mk. ix. 42—48). Men are warned of the immi
nent and terrible danger of ruin and destruction,
which, however, cannot be annihilation, as that
is a conception wholly foreign to the New
Testament as also to the general thought of
the Jews of Christ's time.
The Johannine record gives essentially the
same impression as to the teaching of Jesus

88 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
about the nature of man. The possession of
flesh and spirit or soul by men, and by himself
as a man, is presupposed, as becomes doubly
sure when, as so often occurs, it is made the
basis of figurative language (iii. 6; vi. 51-56;
xii. 27). Of death and future existence less
is said than in the earlier Gospels, but mor
tality is taken for granted, and death, like life,
is made, by a figurative extension of meaning,
to become the vehicle of purely spiritual con
cepts (viii. 51 ; xi. 25, 26) ; while the declaration
of a future general resurrection is even more
unmistakably made, and with more than a sug
gestion of a future blissful or woeful existence
into which it ushers men (v. 28, 29).
The teaching of Peter and of the other
apostles who are to be grouped with him, con
firms most of the facts already noted. That
man is constituted of flesh and spirit (I. Pet.
ii. n ; iii. 18 ; iv. 6), that he will die, and that
in spite of death he will continue to exist (Acts
ii. 27, 29, 31 ; James ii. 26; iv. 13-15; I. Pet.
iii. 19) : all these truths find their place in the

THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING MAN 89
course of apostolic thought. The declaration
in regard to the nature of man which is of
chief interest is perhaps the assertion of James
(iii. 9) that man was made in the image of God,
a statement which has but a single parallel in
the New Testament (I. Cor. xi. 7).
The anthropology of Paul is much fuller than
that of any of his fellow apostles, and has been
the starting point for great controversies and
misunderstandings. Two questions especially
demand answer : first, what did Paul teach as
to the number of distinct elements in the con
stitution of man, and, second, what did he hold
as to the nature and character of these ele
ments. Once (I. Th. v. 23) Paul made a three
fold enumeration of elements or aspects of
human nature, but it is of course possible that
this enumeration is rhetorical rather than scien
tific. The choice between these alternatives
must be decided by the apostle's usage else
where, and he never again repeats the phrase
or its equivalent. On the contrary he repeat
edly sets body, or flesh, and spirit over against

90 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
each other in apparently exhaustive antithesis
(I. Cor. v. 5 ; vi. 16, 17, 20; vii. 34 ; Rom. i.
3, 4 ; Eph. iv. 4 ; II. Cor. iv. 16). There is
accordingly no sufficient reason to hold that
Paul taught a threefold constitution of human
nature. When the flesh is set by Paul in contrast
with the spirit, it is in most cases manifestly
used not in its primary signification, but in a
secondary sense; and also in a somewhat similar
fashion the soul is contrasted with the spirit,
or rather the psychical with the pneumatic (I.
Cor. ii. 14 ; iii. 1, 3 ; xv. 44-46 ; Rom. vii. 14 ;
viii. 4-10). While the original idea of flesh was
of course that of material substance of the body
(I. Cor. xv. 39 ; Col. i. 22), yet Paul found the
significance of the word already extended to
cover alike the individual man and the race,
man as living his present life, as standing in
family and social relations, and as characterized
by human weakness (I. Cor. i. 26, 29 ; vi. 16 ;
II. Cor. x. 4 ; Rom. i. 3 ; iii. 20 ; iv. 1 ; vi. 19 ;
viii. 3 ; Gal. i. 16 ; Phil. i. 22). The further

THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING MAN 9 1
extension of its signification to denote that
which is sinful, or at least that which makes
for sin, is probably due to the apostle himself,
but it is in no way unnatural, and need be in
no way confusing. That in man which is, as
all would agree, the less noble factor of his
being, that which is necessarily related to the
sensuous and which becomes too often the tool
of the sensual, that part of human nature in
which evil finds, if not its original or most se
cure and final, at any rate its most manifest and
frequent intrenchment, — this, the flesh, comes
by a natural metonymy to signify what is base
as well as low ; what is not only contrasted with
the loftier and better in man but also opposed
to it. The contrast between the psychical and
the pneumatic, which Paul draws less frequently,
to be sure, but clearly, is to be explained in a
similar way. The soul, as ordinarily spoken of,
signifies that in man which is the seat of indi
vidual life, so that the word included in its Bibli
cal usage more or less completely the ideas
conveyed by our two words, soul and life (Mk.

92 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
viii. 35-37). But mere vitality is shared with
the lower animals, and thus the psychical x came,
at least in contrast with the pneumatic, to signify
such aspects and activities of the inner man as
relate especially to the present and outward life.
The pneuma, or spirit, not only by contrast
with that which was psychical but possibly also
from the fact that pneuma had become the
name of the divine Spirit, came to designate
the loftiest aspects and activities of human
nature ; the pure, the religious, the Godward.
While, according to Paul, only Christians are
truly spiritual (I. Cor. ii. 14, 15), it does not
follow that the spirit or pneuma is a faculty
or set of faculties which are possessed by
Christians alone. The consequences of this
theory are so momentous as to require unmis
takably clear and positive teaching before it
should be accepted. Such teaching is lacking.
On the contrary all men are addressed as if
1 The word, natural, is a. most misleading rendering for
Paul's word, psychical. No ordinary meaning of the word,
natural, corresponds at all to the idea of Paul.

THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING MAN 93
capable of spiritual activity (Acts xvii. 30 ; xx.
26, 27 ; Rom. ii. 4 ; Col. i. 28) ; and Christians
themselves are to be regarded as spiritual only
when they live lives that are dominated by
Godward impulses and controlled by the Holy
Spirit (I. Cor. iii. 3 ; Gal. v. 16). The differ
ence, then, between Christians and others does
not lie in the possession by the former of fac
ulties not possessed by the latter. The differ
ence is uniformly regarded as not psychological
but moral, an unlikeness not of constitution but
of character.
Paul uses two other words of less doctrinal
importance to designate the immaterial part of
man's nature ; namely, mind and heart. The
word translated " mind " is used in a way in which
we do not use our corresponding word, being
applied especially to the faculty of moral judg
ment (I. Cor. ii. 16 ; Rom. i. 28 ; vii. 23). Paul's
use of the word "heart " cannot be said to differ
from the ordinary use in Scripture (Matt. v. 8 ;
xxii. 37 ; Lk. ii. 19, 51). It signifies the whole
sphere and power of man's inner life, and with

94 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Paul, as elsewhere, it never designates after the
modern fashion the affections in particular. If
its meaning is in any way limited, the especial
reference is always to the intellectual, and not
to the emotional part of the nature (Rom. i.
21 ; Eph. i. 1 8).
It is to be added that Paul takes for granted
the mortality of man, and discusses only the
relations of mortality to sin and the putting of
an end to mortality as a factor in history and
experience at the final triumph of Christ (Rom.
v. 12; viii. io, n; I. Cor. xv. 26, 54-56).
While Paul regarded death as an enemy, in
some sense triumphing in the dissolution even
of the Christian, and held that it brought
about a temporary condition of disembodiment,
he did not teach that it caused unconsciousness,
but rather that it introduced into a blessed state
of association with Christ (I. Cor. xv. 26, 54,
55 ; II. Cor. v. 2-4, 6 ; Phil. i. 22-24).
The writer to the Hebrews recognized as
clearly as did Paul the tworfold constitution of
man (ii. 14; ix. 13, 14; x. 22; xii. 9). The

THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING MAN 95
expression "dividing of soul and spirit " (iv. 12)
has often been mistaken as a confirmation of
the theory of trichotomy, but study of the
whole passage should convince that no other
distinction is thought of than a distinction
among faculties of the same sort : the dividing
is not a separation but a penetration. In the
mind of this author, too, man is mortal, judg
ment looms up for all after death (ii. 2, 3, 14 ;
ix. 27, 28), and while the continuance of con
sciousness is never expressly asserted, the sug
gestion of it can scarcely be excluded (xii. 1,
23)- The apostle John makes but slight contribu
tions to our stock of knowledge as to the nature
of man, reserving his interest for the discussion
of character. Of body he does not speak at all,
except in historical allusions to the body of
Christ, nor does he speak of soul as an element
of human nature. With him, as with Paul, flesh
signifies by figurative extension all of human
nature (Jn. i. 14 ; I. Jn. iv. 3), but that he puts
upon flesh no stamp as being essentially evil is

96 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
manifest from the fact that, in both the pas
sages just referred to, he is speaking of Christ.
Of mortality and of the nature of death there
is really no discussion ; but in the Revelation, in
particular, we find that after death — but, so far
as notes of time can be traced, before the resur
rection — believers are represented as active,
praying and praising (vi. 10 ; xiv. 2, 3 ; xv. 2—4).
The teachings of the New Testament as to
the character of man occupy a much larger and
more significant place than the teachings as to
his constitution, but there is, if possible, even
less variation of view and statement among the
different authors. The fact of universal hu
man sinfulness is everywhere thrown into the
foreground. John the Baptist began his work
with a trumpet call to repentance, and sealed
it by the introduction of baptism, which, what
ever else it may have signified, must at any rate
have been recognized to have a relation to the
remission of sins (Matt. iii. 2, 14 ; Mk. i. 4 ;
Lk. iii. 3). Those who approached John with
no confession or sense of sin or of the need of

THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING MAN 97
its remission, were for that very reason the more
sternly charged with the sinfulness which they
ignored (Matt. iii. 7, 8 ; Lk. iii. 7, 8).
The public preaching of Jesus began with the
same demand upon all his hearers for repentance
(Matt. iv. 17), which demand necessarily car
ried with it the same implication of sinfulness.
Jesus takes for granted the evil state of even
his disciples (Matt. vii. n) ; as, for forgiveness
of sins, even disciples are regularly and perma
nently to pray (Matt. vi. 12 ; Mk. xi. 25 ; Lk.
xi. 4). The rejection and crucifixion of himself
is regarded as extremely sinful but as in no way
abnormal ; rather are those who do this the
typical men (Matt. xvii. 22). Only by repent
ance can doom be averted from any (Lk. xiii. 3,
5), and except on condition of complete trans
formation none can enter the heavenly king
dom (Matt, xviii. 3). Though surrounded by
influences evil and hostile, man retains his
power of choice and consequent responsibility.
While to be sure this is never explicitly as
serted because never questioned, this fact is in

98 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
reality implied in every injunction and every
warning. While thus insisting on the sinfulness
of man and his need of repentance, Jesus does
not fail, on the other hand, to recognize every
element of good which finds a place in heart
and in life. The performance of moral duties
(Mk. x. 20, 21) ; even compliance with the ritual
law (Matt, xxiii. 23) ; neighborly service of help
fulness according to need (Lk. x. 29—37) ; truly
childlike trustfulness (Mk. x. 14), — all these in
turn receive from Jesus due recognition. So
too there is no less clear recognition of the
varied degrees and manifestations of sinfulness.
Not only act but also speech and even thought
may be sinful (Matt. v. 22, 28; xii. 36) ; omitted
good will be reckoned as committed sin (Matt.
vii. 2 1; xxv. 45, 46) ; and every man stands under
an immeasurable load of indebtedness to God
(Matt, xviii. 23-35). While all sin is con
demned and threatened with judgment and penal
consequences (Mk. ix. 42-49 ; Lk. xii. 47, 48),
one sin, public and shameless defying and
maligning of the Holy Spirit, is put by Jesus

THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING MAN 99
himself, not arbitrarily but, as we must think,
because of its nature and necessary relations,
beyond the pale of forgiveness forever (Matt.
xii. 31, 32; Mk. iii. 29; Lk. xii. 10). While
this sin alone is by its very nature past hope,
yet there are only two distinct classes of men,
their real condition being determined not by
outward condition but by inward character
(Matt. vi. 22-24; vu- x7, l8; Mk. vii. 20-23;
Lk. vi. 43-45). The present moral condition
of individuals may, however, be generally known
from their behavior (Matt. vii. 16, 20, 22, 23),
and it will be manifested finally, with the most
strict regard for all degrees of guilt, in the great
separation of all evildoers to permanent penal
suffering (Matt. v. 29, 30 ; xiii. 38-43, 49, 50 ;
xxiv. 48-5 1 ; xxv. 30, 46 ; Mk. ix. 42-49 ; Lk.
xii. 45-48 ; xiii. 24-30). Along with the teach
ing of the responsibility of man for his sin,
Jesus also recognized the possibility of amend
ment at the present time. His adoption of the
comfortable prophecy of Isaiah as the keynote
of his ministry (Is. lxi. 1, 2; Lk. iv. 17-21);

IOO NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
his very injunction to strenuous endeavor to
enter the narrow gate (Matt. vii. 1 3) ; his many
parables of welcome for the wayward and lost ;
his approval of the paralytic, of Zaccheus, of
the penitent publicans and harlots (Matt. ix. 2 ;
Lk. xix. 5, 9, 10; Matt. xxi. 31, 32) ; his grief
over the failure of the people of Jerusalem to
heed his warnings (Matt, xxiii. 37 ; Lk. xiii. 34) ;
these and still other facts of his ministry bring
continually fresh confirmations of his teaching
that salvation is possible as well as needful for
men. The teaching of Jesus in the report of John
is less full on many of the points just noted, but
when we have the record of his words they
seem even more positive and decisive. The
universality of sin is nowhere the theme of
particular discussion, but it could scarcely be
taught more clearly in any way than in the
declaration to Nicodemus of the necessity for
complete transformation on the part of every
one who will share in the blessings which
Christ brings (iii. 3, 5). As elsewhere it is

THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING MAN IOI
implied that men are fully responsible for their
character and conduct, and while, from the con
troversial nature of the discourses which find
record in the fourth Gospel, there is less of
formal recognition of goodness in character
and action, they contain even more decided
teaching as to the varied manifestations and
degrees of sinfulness (ix. 41 ; xv. 22, 24; xix.
11). The possibility of amendment is fully
recognized, and where it is found to be lacking,
the failure is explained as due to the persistent
willfulness of the man himself (v. 40). The
indispensableness of regeneration (iii. 3, 5), and
of a divine drawing (vi. 44, 45), is due not to a
defect of freedom but to a misuse of it, not to
weakness but to willfulness.
The speeches of Peter in Acts say much of
the sinfulness of the Jews as it was most mark
edly shown in the judicial murder of Jesus (iii.
14 ;> v. 30), although it is recognized that the
sinfulness of this crime was in some measure
relieved by their blindness to his true position
(iii. 17). Every one has iniquities to be blotted

102 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
out (iii. 26), but the often repeated injunction
to repent is itself significant of freewill, respon
sibility and the possibility of betterment. In
the epistles of Peter sin of the grossest type is
regarded as a fact of common life, of the life
even of those whom he addressed (I. Pet. iv. 3),
and all are supposed to be aware that corrup
tion is in the world by desire (II. Pet. i. 4).
James gives no space to proving the facts as to
sin, but puts the thought of it in new relations.
Against the self-righteous he emphasizes the
unity of the law of God, and that any and
every violation of the law constitutes the man a
sinner (ii. 9—1 1), and also he warns strongly
against sins of omission (iv. 17). Temptation
he teaches to reside, in the deepest analysis,
only in the evil of the man's own nature, and
sin to be the result of his own choice (i. 13-15).
That all men are sinners is demonstrated at
length by Paul to the Romans as the introduc
tion to his discussion and justification of the
divine method of salvation (Rom. i. 18— iii. 20).
He first draws a picture of the heathen world,

THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING MAN 103
horrible, yet demonstrably true to the facts of
the age ; then charges the moralist and in par
ticular the Pharisaical Jew with inconsistency
in that he is guilty of acts which are sins, and
essentially the same sins which he rebukes in
others ; and ends with quotations from the Old
Testament which assert universal sinfulness,
although this was a fact which then, as now,
would need for the thoughtful only rhetorical
confirmation, not logical demonstration. This
truth is in no way nullified by the distinction
which he later (Rom. v. 13, 14) draws between
sin and transgression, inasmuch as this distinc
tion does not pertain to the character of an act
but to its relation to law. In the same passage
Paul gives some clue to his ideas as to the be
ginning of sin in the world. He accepts the
story of Genesis,1 but under this form he con
veys thoughts which penetrate far deeper into
essential moral relations, and at the same time
more certainly compel assent, than the notions
which are sometimes drawn from the Penta-
1 Compare I. Tim. ii. 13, 14.

104 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
teuchal narratives. The basis common to both
ruin and redemption Paul finds to be the unity
of the human race and the representative rela
tion of one man. The sin of one man, the first
man, the common ancestor of all the race,
brought in moral depravation, which is entailed
upon the whole race by natural descent and
inheritance (it would be called heredity to
day), while the same race unity equally permits
and enables one man, Jesus, to provide redemp
tion for the whole race which he represents.
The moral freedom of man was clearly held
by Paul, and none the less positively and tena
ciously because of certain other views which he
held but which seem to some to be inconsistent
therewith. Paul declares and emphasizes a
divine election and effectual call of individuals
to personal salvation (I. Th. i. 4 ; I. Cor. i. 9,
28-30 ; Rom. viii. 28-30 ; ix.— xi.), but he is no
where guilty of the folly of disputing or ignor
ing the fact of human freedom. While he
teaches that the supreme purpose of God is
sure of fulfillment (Phil. i. 6 ; Rom. viii. 33),

THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING MAN 1 05
he yet includes the will of man as one of the
factors and forces through the cooperation of
which the eternal purpose reaches its accom
plishment (Phil. ii. 12, 13 ; I. Cor. xv. 2; Gal.
v. 25 ; Rom. viii. 14, 28 ; xi. 14, 23). Whatever
difficulties Paul may have felt in the relation of
man's freedom and God's purpose, they could
certainly have been no more than every thinker
feels whenever the finite and the infinite are
brought together, and he never sought to evade
the difficulties by denying or ignoring either of
the factors of the problem. Paul believed pro
foundly and intensely in man's freedom and
consequent responsibility with its inevitable re
sults, the possibility of amendment and the pos
sibility of persistence in evil to the point of
utter ruin. This condition of ruin he often calls
death, including under that name not merely
or, indeed, chiefly physical death, but rather the
final and total failure of the whole man to
attain the true ends of his existence (Gal. vi. 8 ;
Rom. ii. 4-10; vi. 21, 23 ; viii. 6; Phil. iii. 19).
It does not appear that Paul distinguished the

106 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
conceptions of death in its various aspects, phys
ical, spiritual, eternal, as sharply and separated
these notions as completely as many have done.
Rather he looked upon them as the result of
sin and so unified them and held them associated
in his thinking, although one or another of these
various aspects might at any time be the special
theme of discussion.
The teaching of the epistle to the Hebrews,
while in tone and manner quite independent,
is confirmatory, so far as it goes, of the views
already stated. Sinfulness is presupposed (ii.
17; iv. 15; viii. 12); freedom is taken for
granted ; but assurance of final salvation rests
after all not in man but in God (vi. 10-20 ; viii.
10-12; x. 26); and while reformation is en
joined and hoped for, there remains a tremen
dous possibility that misdoing will finally result
in irreparable ruin (vi. 4-8 ; x. 26-3 1, 39 : xii.
15-17)- The thought of John as to the character of
man is very closely akin to the teaching which
he reports from his Master. While the Apoc-

THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING MAN 107
alypse depicts the great activity and results of
sin, John's doctrinal teaching is of course mainly
found in his first epistle. Here (i. 8-10) the
sinfulness of man and the universality of this
sinfulness is asserted with greater definiteness
and force, if possible, than anywhere else in
the whole New Testament. In his thought
the indefinite variation and gradation of sin
fulness among men seem almost to sink out
of sight, and all men. simply fall into the two
great classes, " the children of God," and " the
children of the devil " (I. Jn. iii. 10). Against
the false doctrine of the day which obscured
and even denied moral distinctions, this apostle
puts forth as the decisive test of Tightness in
the right life, that one should act rightly (I. Jn.
i. 6, 7 ; ii. 3-6 ; iii. 7-10 ; III. Jn. 11). Only
the righteous in behavior is right. The good
man keeps the commandments. Sin is in its
essence nullification of law (I. Jn. iii. 4). Temp
tation is nowhere alluded to ; progress in good
or evil is ignored ; moral transformation, or con
version, is only once (I. Jn. v. 16, 17) mentioned

108 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
as a possibility ; freedom is nowhere emphasized,
even in injunctions to right action, inasmuch as
behavior gains its greatest importance from the
fact that it is regarded, not as a means of be
coming, but as a sign of being ; and character
is thought of as having already resulted in a
condition preeminently spiritual in its nature,
either light or darkness, either life or death (I.
Jn. ii. 9, 10 ; v. 12, 16).
That men do not stand alone in the universe,
but that it contains other moral beings to whom
they are or may be related is a fact clearly
recognized in the synoptic teaching of Jesus.
Some of these beings are holy in character and
usually bear the name of angels. They are
above the social limitations of earth ; are con
tinually in the presence of God ; will be asso
ciated with the Son at his royal return ; stand
ready, if possible, to aid the Redeemer in his
earthly work, respecting which they possess
great knowledge ; and are prompt at all times
to serve the members of Christ's kingdom (Matt.
xiii. 39, 41 ; xviii. 10; xxii. 30; xxiv. 36; xxv.

THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING MAN 109
3 1 ; xxvi. 53 ; Mk. viii. 38 ; Lk. xii. 8, 9 ; xvi. 22).
Contrasted with these holy angels stand the
angels of the devil, unclean spirits, or demons x
(Matt. xxv. 41 ; Lk. xi. 24 ; xiii. 32), which in
various ways exercise an influence over men,
not fully defined but clearly malign and to be
dreaded. It cannot fairly be said that the
teaching of Christ on the subject of angels,
good and bad, is merely an accommodation to
the notions of his hearers with no endorsement
of them ; the extent of this teaching is too
great and its tone too positive to allow such
a view reasonably to be held. At the head
of the demons is the chief spirit of evil,
variously styled Satan, the Devil, and Beelze
bub (Matt. xii. 26, 27; xiii. 39; xxv. 41;
Mk. iii. 26). The fullest discussion in regard
to any single activity of Satan is the narrative
of the temptation of Jesus (Matt. iv. 1-1 1 ;
1 It is a serious defect in the Canterbury revision that, by
failing to correct, it perpetuates the error of using the name
" devils " for the beings called in the New Testament
" demons."

IIO NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Mk. i. 12, 13 ; Lk. iv. 1-13), which, though
recorded by the evangelist in the third person,
is necessarily autobiographical on the part of
Jesus in its origin. In this narrative Satan is
represented as tempting Jesus, and the typical
character of this fact is suggested in the peti
tion of the Model Prayer for deliverance from
the evil one (Matt. vi. 13). The hostility of
Satan to souls is again shown in the warning
to Peter shortly before his denial (Lk. xxii. 31).
The parables of the sower and ¦ of the tares
bring out his hostility respectively to the truth
and to the interests of the kingdom (Lk. viii. 1 2 ;
Matt. xiii. 39). The success of the apostles
means his downfall, and his end will be com
plete ruin (Lk. x. 18 ; Matt. xxv. 41).
The relation of human sin to evil in other
realms and to other evil beings is still more
clearly indicated in the Gospel of John than in
the synoptic reports, and thus the division of men
into two and but two great classes is made, if
possible, still more pronounced. Men are either
the children of God or the children of the devil,

THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING MAN 1 1 1
a being whose character is essentially and only
evil (viii. 42, 44), whose power on earth is such
that he may fitly be called "the prince of this
world," but whose power was broken in his fail
ure te overcome Jesus (xii; 3 1 ; xiv. 30 ; xvi. 1 1).
There is in the synoptic Gospels, apart from
the words of Jesus, considerable matter intimat
ing or illustrating the existence and activity
of evil spirits, since all the language in these
books which relates to demons tends to confirm
the view which has been taken of the doctrine
of Jesus. Peter, as reported in Acts (v. 3),
refers to the influence of Satan in perverting
to evil, and in the letters of himself and those
most closely associated with him, the existence,
character and activity of angels and of Satan are
presupposed in such a way that readers are not
taught these facts as previously unknown, but
are only reminded of them, that they may put
this knowledge to more effective use (I. Pet. v.
8, 9 ; II. Pet. ii. 4 ; James iv. 7 ; Jude 9).
The language of Paul makes it abundantly
clear that he holds the same views as other

112 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
authors of Scripture concerning the relation of
men to other moral beings. Indeed more than
any other writer he gives specific details re
garding the unseen kingdoms which surround
us, the spiritual powers in the heavenly realms.
While the epistle to the Colossians is, from the
nature of the errors which the apostle is com
bating, peculiarly rich on this subject, it is to
be noted that in his earlier letters, as well, much
is made of angels. For example, he writes to
the Corinthians that not only his apostolic min
istry but even their little church gatherings are
a spectacle to the angels, who further in some
unexplained way are to be judged by Christians
(I. Cor. iv. 9; vi. 3 ; xi. 10). From Paul's pen
the words, authority, dominion, principality, and
power,1 usually refer to superhuman forces
(I. Cor. xv. 24; Rom. viii. 38; Col. i. 16; ii.
10, 15 ; Eph. i. 21 ; vi. 12). These forces are
1 It is an interesting question not yet finally settled
whether " elements " (Gal. iv. 9 ; Col. ii. 8) may not have a
similar reference. See Journal of Bibl. Lit., xv. (1896), pp.
183-192, and O. Everting, Die paulinische Angelologie und
Damonologie, pp. 65-74, 100, 101.

THE DOCTRINE CONCERNING MAN 113
of course thought of as personal and often,
though not always, as evil. So far as they are
evil they are regarded as subject to the prince
of the power of the air (Eph. ii. 2), who, when
thought of as himself the adversary of souls, is
called Satan, or the devil, and is said to hinder,
to tempt, to gain advantage over Christians (I.
Th. ii. 18 ; I. Cor. vii. 5 ; II. Cor. ii. n ; Eph.
vi. n). Once, at least (Col. i. 20), the apostle
gives a hint of a possible extension of redemp
tion through Christ in some way beyond earth
into the angelic abodes. Paul connects the
condition of men, not only with the angelic
hosts, as has just been seen, but also with the
present state of the world (Rom. viii. 19-22),
briefly suggesting as the solution of the whole
problem of suffering in the world at large, that
it is due to the sinful state of humanity. The
writer to the Hebrews simply reminds his read
ers of the fact that men are related both to
good angels and to the devil (i. 14 ; ii. 14).
John in his epistle repeats with added dis
tinctness the contrast which he has recorded in

114 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
his Gospel from the lips of Jesus between the
children of God and the children of the devil
(I. Jn. iii. 8, 10), and the same evil being is
made by him to be the sphere and source of
power of the whole world out of Christ (v. 19).
In the Revelation the influence and hostility of
Satan is mentioned in four of the seven letters
to the churches (ii. 10, 13, 24; iii. 9). It is
hardly necessary to say that throughout the
Revelation angels play an important part, and,
not as a figure but as the explanation of a
figure, the victory of Christ and Christians is
called a victory over the being " that is called
the devil and Satan, that leads astray the whole
habitable world " (xii. 9-1 1 ; xx. 2).

CHAPTER VII
THE NATURE OF SALVATION
, The thought of man's condition as a sinner
naturally leads next to the consideration of the
nature of the salvation which is promised in
the New Testament ; for that the idea of a
gospel, good news, a message of salvation from
God through Christ, pervades from beginning
to end the book which we are studying, will be
disputed by no one and so requires no demon
stration. The form first chosen by Jesus in which to
set forth in his public addresses the blessings
which he would secure to men, was to call them
the coming of the kingdom. By the use of
this phrase he took advantage of the expecta
tions which had been excited by Old Testament
prophecy, cherished with ever increasing ardor
by the Jewish people amid centuries of misfor-
"5

Il6 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
tune and oppression, and at last fanned to a
flame by the preaching of John the Baptist, the
substance of whose message was "The king
dom of heaven is at hand." While we recog
nize that Jesus thus appropriated language made
familiar by the previous use of others, it is not
necessary to hold that his own ideas, even at the
beginning of his ministry, at the time of the adop
tion of the phrase, were limited to the notions
which others attached to it, or that they were in
entire agreement with them. No phrase could
be found already in use which would convey
fully his own conception of his mission and its re
sult, while any absolutely new expression would
be necessarily at first meaningless or mislead
ing. The phrase chosen was in its essential
signification correct, and was helpfully related
to ancient prophecy. The fact that his country
men had missed in part, in part perverted its
true meaning was no sufficient reason why he
should avoid it ; rather it was a reason why he
should adopt it, transform it and redeem it.
Accordingly his Galilean ministry, to which the

THE NATURE OF SALVATION 1 17
synoptic Gospels to a great extent limit them
selves, began with the repetition and reenforce-
ment of the proclamation of his forerunner
"The kingdom of God is at hand" (Mk. i. 14,
15), and this became what we might call the
keynote of that whole part of his work. Some
may object to this justification of his adoption of
the phrase that, except in the fundamental signi
fication, there was really no agreement between
the notions attached to the phrase in the mind of
Jesus and in the minds of the people, while in all
development and extension his thought was en
tirely unlike theirs. The further objection may
be raised that according to their thinking the
coming kingdom of the Messiah would bring
peculiar opportunity and privilege to the Jewish
nation, while to him such an idea was always
foreign. But these objections rest upon a mis
conception, and are due to a failure to compre
hend the true relations and significance of his
earlier ministry and of his final claim of royalty
and presentation of himself to the Jewish nation
as their promised king. First and last his

Il8 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
ministry was a national ministry, and if it was
not so throughout this was due to the hostilify
of the nation, which had frustrated his en
deavor and made necessary a transformation
of his methods. He did not turn to the
work with individuals as individuals, and espe
cially to the task of convincing, confirming
and training the Twelve, which later occupied
his energies and characterized his later min
istry, until the constantly increasing opposition
and practical rejection on the part of the
national authorities absolutely required this
new method. We have the further significant
facts of his tears over the capital (Matt, xxiii.
37-39 ; Lk. xiii. 34, 35 ; xix. 41-44) ; of his
foretelling the transfer of the kingdom from the
Jews (Matt. xxi. 43) ; and of his final entry into
Jerusalem in a manner strikingly suggestive of
the familiar prophecies relating to the coming
king(Zech. ix. 9 ; Matt. xxi. 1-9 ; Mk. xi. 9, 10).
From these facts it may be not unreasonably
inferred that it was his actual intention to offer
the kingdom in some peculiar sense to the

THE NATURE OF SALVATION 119
Jewish nation. Had that nation received in
stead of rejecting him and the expected king
dom with him, this kingdom might in the
providence of God have received such a form
that without forfeiting its universality or its
spirituality the Jews would yet have been given
a place in it which would have fulfilled the
ancient prophecies, although the manner of such
fulfillment may now be as incomprehensible as
actual fulfillment is and must now forever re
main impossible.
However this may have been, the kingdom as
proclaimed by Jesus certainly differed greatly
from the national ideals of the time. The
name or names which he used should have been
suggestive and instructive. Though perhaps
neither of them was original with him, both, as
he used them, were full of meaning. Some have
asserted that Jesus could not himself have used
the name "kingdom of heaven." This has
been explained as the outgrowth of Jewish
superstition avoiding the name of the deity,
and it has also been said that, after the destruc-

120 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
tion of Jerusalem proved the impossibility of
the earthly kingdom which had been promised, a
new turn was given to the doctrine of the king
dom by the introduction into its name of the
word, heaven. But these assertions are desti
tute at once of proof and of probability. There
is no sufficient reason to doubt that both names,
"kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God,"
were really employed by Jesus in his teachings
to set forth the blessings which he offered to
men. By the name, heaven, he stamped the
kingdom as something not worldly but other
worldly in character, in no sense directly politi
cal but purely spiritual, and better than the best
of earth. By calling it the kingdom of God he
taught that the central force and controlling
power is divine.
The word, kingdom, may have various mean
ings and applications and is actually employed
by Christ in a variety of senses and relations.
It may be either abstract or concrete ; that is,
it may signify either the dominion and rule
itself, or that which is subject to its sway ; it

THE NATURE OF SALVATION 121
may be either the rule of God or the realm of
God. In a few passages it is unmistakably
abstract (Matt. vi. 33 ; Lk. xxii. 29 ; compare
Matt. vi. 10). In a much greater number it is
unmistakably concrete (Matt. xiii. 41 ; Mk. x.
23 ; Lk. vii. 28), and in many more it is ambig
uous (Matt. ix. 35 ; xiii. 19). While the addition
of " heaven " or " God " shows that it is spiritual
in its character, the name, kingdom, itself, at
least in its concrete use, implies that it pertains
to more than a single individual, for, though an
individual may seek to rule or submit to rule,
one alone cannot constitute a kingdom in the
sense of a realm. In accordance with this
suggestion of its name, the kingdom is often dis
cussed by Jesus in its social aspects, as includ
ing and constituted of all who submit to the
heavenly and divine dominion. Thus, the para
bles of the tares and the net (Matt. xiii. 24-30,
37-43, 47-50) plainly have to do with the com
munity of those who, outwardly at least, are
submissive to the divine rule. This is in fact
the name that Jesus commonly used in reference

122 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
to the community which his followers should
later constitute, for only twice (Matt. xvi. 18 ;
xviii. 1 7) is the name, church, employed by Jesus
himself. The kingdom may then be regarded
as abstract or as concrete, as individual or as
spiritual, as collective or as social, and so it
may be further thought of as subjective or as
objective ; that is, it may be regarded as the
invisible inward possession of the individual
(Matt. v. 3; xiii. 33; Mk. x. 15; xii. 34; Lk.
vi. 20 ; xvii. 21), or as the external and tangible
manifestation of the effects of the great spirit
ual idea possessed by and possessing many indi
viduals. Again, Christ represents the kingdom,
even outwardly, sometimes as present (Matt. xi.
n, 12 ; xii. 28 ; xxi. 31 ; Lk. xvii. 21), and some
times as future (Matt. vi. 10; viii. n ; Mk. xiv.
25). This diversity of usage in the several
parables which illustrate the growth of the king
dom is readily explained. Though only germi-
nant it is still actually existent at the present
time ; it is also future because only in the future
will it develop to its full and sure consummation.

THE NATURE OF SALVATION 1 23
As has already been noted, the doctrine of
the kingdom of heaven and of God in its various
aspects, as the reigning of God in a man and
over men, and the state of things when God
rules the heart and the world as he rules in
heaven, this constitutes the most striking ele
ment in the preaching of Jesus. It is by no
means, however, the whole of the gospel of
Jesus even according to the synoptic reports.
It should be noticed first that, in mentioning
the particular blessings to be expected in rela
tion to the kingdom, Jesus never specifies mate
rial blessings. Plenty, peace, long life, which
were the blessings of the old covenant, play no
part in the new dispensation. The farthest
stretch in this direction is the assurance (Matt.
vi. 32, 33 ; Lk. xii. 30, 31) that God knows
that his children need food and raiment and
that they may expect that these necessaries of
life will be supplied. A conspicuous feature of
his own ministry was his work of miraculously
curing disease, but this has no place in relation
to his teaching except in so far as it was one of

124 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
his credentials, and that faith was ordinarily
required from the person who sought the bless
ing. It is on spiritual blessings that the em
phasis of Jesus rested, and foremost of all on
the remission of sins or their forgiveness.
Even without waiting for formal request for
giveness is proclaimed to the paralytic and to
the woman of the town whose tears of love
declared her penitent faith (Mk. ii. 5 ; Lk. vii.
47), and the forgiving temper which is the
especial condition of forgiveness receives fre
quent stress (Matt. vi. 12, 14, 15 ; xviii. 21-35 >
Mk. xi. 25 ; Lk. xi. 4). In its root meaning
the word chosen to signify forgiveness is remis
sion (Matt. xxvi. 28), but it is manifest that
there is in the blessing a personal element
which the word, remission, might obscure, and
which it will not do to overlook. The forgive
ness which God gives must be the same in
kind as that which he demands as the condi
tion of it, and the forgiveness which we are
required to exercise is more than a mere re
fraining from exacting requital of what has

THE NATURE OF SALVATION 125
been suffered — it necessarily involves recon
ciliation. Such reconciliation on God's part
toward us is forgiveness, perhaps the chief
blessing which Jesus offers.
There are other blessings of which Jesus
spoke clearly, if not often. Once only (Matt.
xi. 28-30), but in words of such beauty and
power that they are perhaps the most quoted
and best loved of all the teachings found in
Matthew, Mark and Luke, Christ offered rest
to the laboring and the heavy laden. Again, in
the Beatitudes (Matt. v. 1-10; Lk. vi. 20, 21)
he promises to his disciples not only the espe
cially Messianic blessings of the kingdom of
God and the inheritance of "the land," but also
comfort, satisfaction, mercy, the sight of God
and the rank of sons. The last thought is not
only repeated in the Sermon on the Mount
(Matt. v. 45), and in the implications of the oft-
repeated "your Father," but also finds a very
emphatic use at the end of Christ's ministry (Lk.
xx. 36). It is further to be noted that along
side the impressive warning that loss is to be

126 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
expected for the sake of the kingdom and the
king (Matt. xix. 29 ; Mk. viii. 35), there is added
clear promise of a full recompense, which of
course is not to be interpreted in a materialistic
fashion. In harmony with the rest of the teach
ings of Jesus and in view of the implications of
the words themselves, this recompense must be
spiritual in its nature. Upon eternal life as one
of the chief hopes and privileges of Christ's
own, the first three Gospels lay less stress than
the last, but in them, too, it finds no unimportant
place (Matt. vii. 14 ; xviii. 8 ; xix. 29 ; xxv. 46 ;
Lk. xv. 32). Freedom is nowhere definitely
mentioned, but it is suggested and may be said
to be' necessarily involved in the thought of
ransom (Mk. x. 45). Once in words, the Johan
nine tone of which is in most noteworthy and
instructive contrast to the greater part of the
synoptic discourses (Matt. xi. 27 ; Lk. x. 22),
Jesus held out the hope of knowing God as one
of the privileges which he will impart to his own.
There must finally be noticed the words "save"
and "salvation," in the use of which, though

THE NATURE OF SALVATION 1 27
without specifying the particular evils from
which men are rescued, Christ sums up his own
conception of his mission to a world which is in
every sense of the word a lost world (Lk. xix. 9,
10; xv. 1-32).
The teachings of Jesus in respect to the
promised salvation, which we find in the record
of John, are in form so different from the teach
ings in the synoptic Gospels which have just
been considered, that it is very easy to exaggerate
the differences and to overlook the essential
unity. During the whole period between the
conversation with Nicodemus and the defence
before Pilate, we hear not a word in John of the
kingdom, and if it were possible we hear even less
than in the synoptics concerning temporal and
material blessings. Salvation, though positively
made a part of Christ's work (v. 34 ; x. 9 : xii.
47), is seldom discussed. Remission and for
giveness are not promised at all, though what is
very exactly their equivalent, namely, freedom
from condemnation, is very emphatically offered
(v. 24). As the possession of life is one of the

128 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
chief characteristics of Christ himself (v. 26 ;
xiv. 6), so his mission is represented in John as
being to impart life (x. 10; xvii. 2), and as a
result of his work all who submit to his gracious
influence and become related to him come in
turn to possess life (vi. 40, 47, 54). Of course,
in the consideration of this promise, it must
be carefully borne in mind, that throughout the
Scriptures mere existence never constitutes life,
least of all the eternal life which is promised
and imparted by Christ. Life is rather a par
ticular form of existence, existence raised to its
highest power, so to speak, existence made the
best possible and filled with the richest possible,
but never defined, for from its very nature
eternal life is and with our present experience
must remain undefinable. It may also be noted
that the life that is promised is represented
sometimes in one sense as a present blessing
(v. 24), and sometimes in another as a future
blessing (vi. 27 ; xi. 25). A thought already
found in the synoptic teaching which is made
still clearer and more forceful in the fourth

THE NATURE OF SALVATION 1 29
Gospel, is that of freedom (viii. 32-36). Along
with these promises still others bring out other
phases of salvation scarcely less important and
attractive, as, for example, the abiding of the
Father and the Son with the believer (xiv. 23),
the answer to prayer (xv. 16), the gift of the
Spirit (xiv. 16, 26) and the knowledge of God
(xvii. 3). On the whole, however, it may be
said that, as the thought of the kingdom, in
wardly and outwardly, here and hereafter, is the
controlling form of the presentation of the
promised blessings in such discourses of Jesus
as are reported in the synoptic Gospels, so the
controlling form in the Johannine discourses is
life, alike now and hereafter, always. life eternal.
The idea of the kingdom held no prominent
place in the preaching and thought of the early
church. This fact, at first thought somewhat
surprising in view of the manner in which the
apostles had thought and spoken during the life
time of Jesus, is explicable only on the ground
that the phrase had served the purpose of
its introduction, had been a husk to the pro-

130 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
founder and more spiritual conceptions which
Christ had imparted, but that when these con
ceptions had taken their own independent root
in the minds of men, the husk was naturally
dropped, with no loss and no sense of loss, quite
likely with no consciousness that anything had
been dropped. Up to the very time of Christ's
ascension the apostles are constantly talking of
the kingdom, and that apparently with the most
worldly and material views of its nature (Acts
i. 6). Immediately after the Pentecostal dis
pensation of the Spirit a transformation, quite
according to promise (Jn. xvi. 1 3), shows itself
in their manner of speaking, indicative of a
corresponding modification of their ideas and
conceptions, while a corresponding change,
equally in harmony with the promise of Jesus,
shows itself on the part of unbelievers (Jn. xvi.
7-1 1).
The keynote of the preaching of Peter is
salvation, which he looks at chiefly as the re
mission of sins. To be sure, he often uses the
expressions, salvation, and, being saved, without

THE NATURE OF SALVATION 131
any accompanying definition, presupposing a
common understanding on the part of both
speaker and hearers (Acts ii. 2 1, 40 ; iv. 12; xi.
14 ; xv. n), and in this vague manner of pres
entation he is in harmony with the preaching
of both Paul and the anti-Pauline faction (Acts
xiii. 26, 47 ; xv. 1). But whenever Peter de
fines salvation, it is always as the forgiveness of
sins, or perhaps better as the remission of them
(Acts ii. 38 ; v. 3 1 ; x. 43). The word is the
same as that used by Jesus himself to set forth
the personal reconciliation with God in the for
giveness of sins, but, as the conception of Peter
seems more objective and less personal, as he
seems to be thinking of a condition rather than
a relation between the soul and God, perhaps
the change in translation from forgiveness to
remission, though it falls rather in the realm of
interpretation than of translation, may yet be
advisable. At all events it was salvation in the
sense of getting rid of the consequences of
sin, which was the great possibility and hope
that was held forth in the very earliest Chris-

132 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
tian preaching as it has been preserved to us in
the book of Acts.
When Peter wrote, just as when he spoke,
even though so long a time had intervened,
salvation was still prominent in his mind. That
salvation was the aspect under which the bless
ings received by Christians continued preemi
nently to be regarded, is confirmed to us by the
title of Saviour, which began to be applied to
Christ in the first Christian sermons (Acts v.
31), and is taken up again repeatedly in the
letters of Peter, as it also occurs in the later
epistles of Paul notably oftener than in his
earlier writings. Peter mentions the kingdom
but once (II. Pet. i. 1 1), this being the only time
that we know of his speaking of it after the
ascension of Christ, and it is here set in the
future, — as, for that matter, salvation is repre
sented in later writings more often as future
than as past. Any specification which Peter
gives as to the nature of salvation shows that
he is thinking of it as salvation from sin, escape
from its power, now, as not earlier, being

THE NATURE OF SALVATION 1 33
coupled with mere release from its conse
quences. It is declared that through Christ
who suffered for sins the Christian already en
joys purifying, healing of soul, escape from
pollution, redemption from the previous worth
less manner of life, death to sin, — in short, all
things that belong to " life and godliness "
(I. Pet. i. 16; ii. 24; iii. 18; II. Pet. i. 3; ii.
20). Jude, though intending to write a letter
which would fully develop the character of our
common salvation, was prevented from doing so,
and consequently we have on this subject noth
ing from his pen. James takes the word, save,
as the simplest and, presumably, also as the
most familiar expression for the work which
Christ does in behalf of the believer (i. 21 ; ii.
14). Even in this most Judaic of the epistles
we hear but a single echo (ii. 5) of the message
of the kingdom. On the other hand James
takes up and lays especial stress on the pecu
liarly Johannine ideas of liberty and life (i. 1 2,
25 ; ii. 12; v. 20), and the thought of pardon
has lost none of its power (v. 15, 16, 20).

134 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
What the synoptic evangelists thought of the
work of Christ seems to have found its most
satisfactory expression in the characterization of
the result for the believer as salvation. It is as
Saviour that the name, Jesus, is interpreted in
the record of Matthew (i. 21), and it is as salva
tion, here opposed to condemnation, that the
great blessing conferred by Christ is described
in the closing section of the Gospel of Mark1
(xvi. 16).
In the course of his teaching as to the nature
of Christ's blessings for those who accept him,
Paul employs all the expressions which have
been discussed and adds others to them. The
sympathetic disciple who is his historian de
scribes his preaching as a "preaching the king
dom of God" (Acts xxviii. 31). As Paul sets
it forth, the kingdom is in various aspects both
present and future (Col. i. 13 ; I. Cor. iv. 20 ;
vi. 9, 10), both subjective and objective (Rom.
xiv. 17; I. Cor. xv. 50). But while this
1 Even if written some time after the Gospel itself, this sec
tion (xvi. 9-20) cannot reasonably be regarded as late.

THE NATURE OF SALVATION 1 35
thought must have received considerable em
phasis in Paul's preaching, as appears from
Luke's description of it, and as his letters addi
tionally show, it is at the same time easy to see
that it is not his favorite conception. The
word, salvation, seems to satisfy him better,
being found in some form of the word more
than fifty times from the first to the last of his
epistles (I. Th. v. 9 ; II. Tim. ii. 10). While
the fact that salvation is a present possession is
not overlooked (Rom. viii. 24), yet it is still
more often conceived as future, just as the
wrath from which we are saved and the king
dom to which we are saved find their consum
mation only in the future (Rom. v. 9 ; II. Tim.
iv. 18). The ideas of life and liberty are (also
reasserted by Paul. Sometimes he speaks of
life as transformed or renewed (II. Cor. v. 14,
15 ; Rom. vi. 4; Gal. ii. 19, 20), and sometimes
as a condition which, whether present or future,
is always in absolute contrast and opposition to
the condition of the unsaved man (Rom. ii. 7 ;
vi. 23 ; Gal. vi. 8 ; II. Tim. i. 10). Paul unifies

136 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
the thought of life in all its aspects, in a
manner similar to the unification of all the
aspects of death, which has already been noted.
The eternal life is in some sense already entered
on, and the life which now is only spiritual will
some time affect the body, too (Rom. viii. 10,
n). Emancipation, of which also Paul speaks,
is sometimes regarded as the special relation of
freedom from the crushing burden of the
Mosaic law, and sometimes as freedom from
the dominion of sin as a principle which domi
nates the soul (Gal. v. 1, 13 ; Rom. vi. 15-22).
Beyond this circle of ideas in which Paul
moves in company with his fellow apostles, he
has another circle of ideas which, if not in their
ultimate essence peculiar to himself, have at
any rate been developed by him much farther
than by any other. A conspicuous example of
this class of ideas is his conception of justifica
tion or righteousness. The glimpses which he
affords us into his early spiritual struggles
(Rom. vii. 7-25 ; Gal. ii. 15-21 ; Phil. iii. 4-7)
show conclusively that long before his conver-

THE NATURE OF SALVATION 1 37
sion he was profoundly impressed with the con
viction that God could do nothing else than to
visit " wrath and indignation, tribulation and
distress on every soul of man that works evil "
(Rom. ii. 8, 9). This conviction led him to his
prolonged search for what he calls " righteous
ness," that is, the condition of those on whom
God need not and will not visit the tribulation,
distress and death which is the due consequence
of sin. This condition, which all endeavors of
his own had failed to attain, was reached at last
as the first step in salvation, provided by God,
supplied through Christ, received by faith (Phil.
iii. 9), unearned, undeserved, freely given to the
believing sinner. This condition he calls justifi
cation or righteousness.1 Just what the right
eousness is which the soul secures in Christ,
just what it means to be righteous as Paul
1 It is unfortunate that our language, unlike the Greek,
must use words derived from two distinct roots to designate
the act of justification and the consequent state of righteous
ness, and thus so often obscures the relations of the apostle's
thought.

138 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
talked about it, has been and still is strenuously
debated. Some have contended that the verb
must mean to make right, and that justification
is thus equivalent to securing betterment of
character. Others have confined the meaning
of the word solely to the declarative idea, mak
ing it equivalent to asserting the existence of
goodness of character which might be asserted
to exist even if as yet only germinant. But the
form of the word, its usage both by Paul and
elsewhere, and the course of his thought, bar
out these meanings. While holding to the
declarative force, we must recognize that it is
not character but condition which is declared.
The justified man is declared to be, not a perfect
man in past time or at the present time, but
one on whom God as judge will inflict no penalty
for his sin. He is one who, though he is not
without sin and is not declared by God to be
without sin or regarded by God as being with
out sin, is yet treated by him as if without sin
and is declared free from the penalty of sin
(Rom. iii. 19-26; iv. 5, 6 ; v. 1, 2, 16; Acts

THE NATURE OF SALVATION 139
xiii. 39). Justification refers in Paul's teaching
to relation and state. There is no fiction about
it. It is the declaration of God that the be
liever will not be punished for his sin, even
though he has been a sinner, and this is only
another phase of forgiveness and is one of the
indisputable and unassailable facts of the gospel.
This view of the doctrine of Paul is confirmed
not only by his setting condemnation over
against righteousness (Rom. v. 18; viii. 1, 33, 34 ;
II. Cor. iii. 9), but also by the other aspects of
the same blessing which occasionally at least
find clear statement, such as peace with God
(Rom. v. 1 ; Col. i. 20) and the privilege of
unhindered approach to God (Eph. iii. 12). A
still closer parallel to this doctrine, and conse
quently a stronger confirmation of this view, is
Paul's doctrine of the atonement, perhaps better
named, at any rate for the purposes of New
Testament Theology, the doctrine of reconcilia
tion (II. Cor. v. 18, 19; Rom. v. 10, n ; Eph.
ii. 16 ; Col. i. 20-22). From the most proba
ble meaning of the words which are rendered

140 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
enmity and reconciliation; from the course of
the argument, and from the related and parallel
ideas, it appears that the divine enmity to which
Christians had been exposed, as sinners, was the
opposite not of loving sentiment but of favora
ble treatment, and that the removal of it, which
constitutes reconciliation, is not making God to
love the sinner, but enabling him to treat him
with the favor which, except for his mercy,
would reach only to the good to whom alone it
belongs of right.
While, then, it must be held that in the gospel
of Paul justification was not based upon personal
goodness, either inherent or imparted, either
present or future, and was not based in any
sense on behavior or on character which would
merit it, but was gratuitous on the single condi
tion of faith, which though indispensable is in no
sense meritorious ; at the same time it is unfair
to ignore, as has too often been done, the indis
soluble relation which he insisted on as existing
between justification and character. Though a
man is not justified because he is good or is to

THE NATURE OF SALVATION 141
become good (Rom. iv. 4-6), yet to Paul's mind
it was utterly inconceivable and impossible that
a justified man should remain " ungodly" ; should
in the end be anything but a perfectly good
man (Rom. iii. 31; vi. 14, 22; viii. 4, 29).
Accordingly, the second element in the strictly
Pauline analysis of salvation is sanctification
(I Cor. i. 30). This is often thought of as if
it never included any other idea than personal
betterment, improvement of character, becom
ing good. But, alike the root signification of
the word, the manner in which it is often used,
and Paul's general representation of the Chris
tian life as being such that as a matter of fact
even saints do sin, all these show that better
ment is only a derived and secondary meaning.
The primary meaning would be far better ex
pressed to-day by the word, consecration, if only
it were remembered that throughout the New
Testament consecration proceeds not from
man but from God, being his setting us
apart for service. It is a grave error to think
that Christians may set themselves apart to the

142 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
service of God ; a worse error that it is optional
whether they shall devote themselves to this
service ; worse still, if possible, that there are
degrees of consecration. The New Testament
represents that God has set apart all Christians
wholly to his service, and that the most which
they can do and the least which they should do
is loyally to recognize and conform to this pur
pose and claim of his. The next step in the
thought of Paul is simple, and natural, not to
say inevitable. What is consecrated must be
fit (Rom. xii. i). When God consecrates, that
is, sets apart intelligent moral beings to his ser
vice, character should correspond to function.
God's own are to be godly (I. Cor. iii. 1 7 ; Eph.
i. 4 ; v. 3, 27 ; Col. i. 22). From the concep
tion of separation to service (I. Cor. i. 2 ; vi.
1 1) to that of becoming pure and holy to be fit
for such service, and thence to the thought of
holiness without immediate regard to service,
the progress is easy and natural (I Th. iv. 4 ;
II. Th. ii. 13 ; II. Cor. vii. 1 ; Rom. vi. 19, 22 ;
Eph. iv. 24 ; I. Tim. ii. 1 5). This thought of

THE NATURE OF SALVATION 143
purified character, which may belong to sanc
tification or holiness, Paul often expresses in
another way, namely, by denying' the opposite
(I. Th. iii. 13 ; I. Cor. i. 8 ; Col. i. 22). In
these passages, and elsewhere, holiness is set in
relation to the return of Christ as judge, when
it will be displayed in its completeness and per
fection. Toward this divinely intended end
(Eph. ii. 10) cooperate not only all 'the divine
powers but all the energies of the Christian
himself (I. Th. v. 23 ; I. Cor. i. 8, 9 ; ix. 27 ;
II. Cor. vii. 1 ; Rom. vii. 22 ; Phil. ii. 12, 13 ;
iii. 12).
The word, redemption, (Gal. iii. 13 ; Rom. iii.
24), is quite as significant as either justification
or reconciliation. Paul's own definition of it is
"forgiveness of sins" (Col. i. 14; Eph. i. 7),
but while, accordingly, he did not regard it as
in result anything else than the release from
the consequences of sin, yet the word inevitably
suggests, and probably was chosen because it
suggests, that escape was secured by means of
cost and sacrifice. In the word, ransom, (I. Tim

144 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
ii. 6) this element of price1 comes out clearly.
Another meaning must be attached to the word,
redemption, in Paul's most terse statement of
the essentials of salvation (I. Cor. i. 30), where,
after speaking of justification and sanctification,
he adds redemption as a sort of climax. It is
manifest that the apostle's own definition, for
giveness, noted above, is here unsatisfactory ; it
cannot here, as so often, signify no more than
justification, which has already been mentioned.
The thought seems, by a not unnatural or unpar
alleled extension, to overleap the bounds of mere
escape from positive infliction, and to include
all the hopes which are associated with the grace
of God in Christ Jesus. Occasionally in other
statements of Paul redemption is made future
and positive. For example, it signifies the
1 The presence of the thought of cost or price has some
times been disputed on the ground that this would require a
third person who received the price. This, however, is un
reasonably to extend the real value of the figure. The
absurdity of such a statement is readily seen on analyzing the
familiar saying, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
Everybody knows that these words do not involve any idea
of some one to take the price paid for freedom.

THE NATURE OF SALVATION 145
entrance of the body upon that glorious condi
tion which shall complete the work of putting
men into the rank of sons of God (Rom. viii.
23). Even after defining redemption as the
remission or forgiveness of sins (Eph. i. 7), Paul
goes on almost at once (Eph. 1. 14; iv. 30) to
write about redemption as in the future, and in
such a way as to show that he has( in mind at
once the completion of Christ's work in saving
from evil and the consummation of blessing
which shall attend his return.
Parallel to justification, which has a legal
aspect, and to the mercantile words, ransom and
redemption, stands the sacrificial idea of propitia
tion (Rom. iii. 25). While this word is used
but once by Paul, yet this single case is so full,
so studied, so explicit that we are justified in
regarding it as throwing light upon an essential
and important part of Paul's doctrine of salva
tion. From the derivation of the word it neces
sarily implies a becoming propitious on God's
part towards sinners ; that is, that instead of
dealing with them with the severity which their

146 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
deeds deserve, he deals favorably with them.
How he is able thus to deal with them is an
element no less important than the first, but one
which must be reserved for later discussion.
The fact of a change in relation and behavior on
the part of God toward men is here the one
point to notice. That a change of sentiment as
well as action would be implied if the word were
used of men, does not show that the author at
tributed such a change to God, for such is the
poverty of our ideas and language respecting the
divine character and activity that it is possible
to represent his relations only as we drape them
in anthropomorphic statements. The whole
course of Paul's teaching shows that he thinks
not of God's becoming loving in sentiment
toward men, but of his becoming favorable in
dealing with them, and thus the propitiation of
God is in substance another aspect of the justi
fication of men.
One relation of believers receives from Paul
such special emphasis as to demand particular
consideration ; namely, their sonship. To his

THE NATURE OF SALVATION 147
mind the relation between believers on the one
hand and God and Christ on the other is so
close that it demands for its portrayal the figure
of family relationship (Gal. iv. 5-7 ; Rom. viii.
14-17; Eph. iii. 14, 15). It will be readily
noted that this relation and the resulting rank
of believers seems to the apostle so unlike their
previous condition that he draws a figure from
Roman law and custom, and styles their entrance
upon it, adoption, just as Peter wrote (I. Pet. ii.
10) of those becoming a people of God who be
fore were not such, and now having mercy
which they had previously lacked. As remem
brance of the pride which the covenant nation
took in their relation to God makes Peter's ex
pression additionally vivid, so knowledge of
Roman law on adoption and inheritance help
fully illuminates Paul's teaching.
With the title and relation of sons Paul
closely couples the further privilege of the gift
of the Spirit. Not only is the Holy Spirit
actually imparted to all believers (I. Th. iv. 8 ;
I. Cor. iii. 16 ; Rom. viii. 9 ; Gal. iii. 2), but

148 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
this impartation serves on the one hand as
a seal or ratification by God of our new rela
tion to himself, and on the other hand as the
means by which he carries out to final accom
plishment his intended purification and perfect
ing of the already justified sinner. In the
Spirit, who has been bestowed upon him and
dwells in him, the Christian finds the center of
his life, the source of his strength, the aid of
his infirmities, and the guide of his action, so
that the imparted Spirit is in a true sense the
first payment on the great gifts which God
intends and has promised to bestow on believers
(II. Cor. i. 22 ; Gal. iv. 6; v. 16, 18, 25 ; Rom.
viii. 14-16; Eph. i. 13, 14; iii. 16; iv. 30).
The single epistle to the Hebrews is neces
sarily much less full in its discussion of the
nature of salvation than the many epistles of
Paul, yet not a little may be gleaned on the
subject from this single book. While the bless
ings of Christians, now and hereafter, are some
times spoken of vaguely and indefinitely (i. 14 ;
v. 9 ; vi. 9 ; ix. 28), yet they are usually, in

THE NATURE OF SALVATION 149
harmony with the chief purpose of the book,
presented in contrast with the effects either of
the Mosaic sacrifices or of the national cove
nant of Israel. Under the former aspect, the
author declares that there has been provided
purification of sins and eternal redemption (i. 3 ;
ix. 12), phrases which as used can signify only
the averting of the consequences of transgres
sions. He also draws out in detail the varied
results of the work of Christ in their spiritual
correspondence to the formal results of the
earlier sacrifices, enumerating restoration to
fitness for service (ix. 13, 14); atonement or
propitiation (ix. 15); assured confidence (ix. 16—
20), and the possibility of access to God without
hindrance because of our guilt (ix. 21-24), to
which may be added the high-priestly interces
sion of Christ in heaven (vi. 20; vii. 24, 25 ;
viii. 1). Under the aspect of a covenant better
than the former, the author sets forth both for
giveness of sins and the promise that our in
ward nature shall be brought into complete
harmony with the will of God (viii. 10-12),

150 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
and the sharing of the peace of God in eternal
freedom from all that disturbs (iv. 3, 9-1 1).
Turning to the teachings of John, we find that
he emphasizes especially that phase of salvation
which was brought most prominently forward
in those discourses of Jesus which he records,
namely, eternal life (Jn. iii. 16 ; I. Jn. ii. 25 ;
iii. 14; iv. 9; v. n-13). But while making
much "of life he does not stop with that thought.
Like Paul he emphasizes in its turn the sonship
of believers (Jn. i. 12, 13 ; I. Jn. iii. 1, 2).
There is, however, this difference, that accord
ing to Paul's use of the figure men become
children of God by adoption, but as John uses
it, it comes to pass by a new birth. This fact
shows that Paul contemplated chiefly the change
in the relation, while John thinks of the novelty
of the life itself which seems to him so great as
to imply an absolutely fresh start. In John's
doctrine as to the nature of salvation is included
also the relation which the work of Christ sus
tains to sin. If John was not the only disciple
who understood the testimony of John the Bap-

THE NATURE OF SALVATION 151
tist to Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes
away the sin of the world (Jn. i. 29), he is at
any rate the only one who records it, and thus in
some sense seems to make it his own. Both the
possible meanings of the phrase, suffering for
sin and removal of sin, play no small part in his
own teachings. He uses the rare word, propitia
tion, (I. Jn. ii. 2 ; iv. 10) to describe what Christ
accomplishes in relation to sins, this use neces
sarily implying that, even though he was the
apostle of the love which is eternally divine as
well as of that which is its human counterpart
and reflection, he yet held the view that God's
attitude toward unbelievers is unlike his atti
tude toward believers. He also uses the still
more unusual word, cleanse (I. Jn. i. 7). This
word, or its Hebrew equivalent, had been used
to express the result of certain sacrifices, and
this historical meaning ought to control its in
terpretation here, so that it implies improve
ment not so much of character as of condition,
not an inward purifying but a making right in
relation to God, and is thus equivalent to jus-

152 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
tification rather than to sanctification. To one
trained to familiarity with the Jewish ritual, to
cleanse from all sin would naturally, not to say
necessarily, mean to remove the threatened
consequences of sin. John teaches further that
the actual ceasing to commit sin will in the end
be likewise brought to pass (I. Jn. iii. 8 ; v.
3-5). But what he holds out to Christians as
their crowning privilege is the knowledge of God
(I. Jn. iv. 7, 8 ; v. 20). In harmony with a
common use in the Bible of the word, know, to
know God meant to John, not only a sympa
thetic apprehension of his character and works
and ways, but also a loving appropriation of him
self. Thus the climax of the teaching of John
coincides with that deep saying of the Master
himself about knowing God : a saying which,
however, the beloved disciple left to the record
of Matthew and Luke (Matt. xi. 27; Lk.
x. 22).

CHAPTER VIII
THE BASIS OF SALVATION
During his whole ministry from its very be
ginning Jesus proclaimed salvation as possible,
near and free to men. The only conditions and
prerequisites were such as might and must be
fulfilled by the man himself. It is easily to be
recognized that a knowledge of the objective
basis of salvation, whatever this may be,
even though the nature of it might enhance its
value in men's eyes and thus increase their
readiness to accept it, would yet be in no sense
indispensable to its acceptance ; might never be
gained by observation and experience ; might
conceivably never be furnished by revelation ;
and certainly, if the conditions were in any way
to be fulfilled in human history, would in no
case be made a prominent factor in preaching
before they were fulfilled. Accordingly it need
153

154 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
be no matter of surprise that the basis on which
salvation rests finds no place at all in the public
discourses of Jesus. Even in his private con
versations with the Twelve the case was not at
first different. From his silence in relation to
his death till a late point in his ministry, the
inference has been drawn that he was himself
unaware of the significance and even of the fact
of his approaching death until that time, but
this is a needless and violent inference, as the
consciousness of a teacher, preeminently of a
divine teacher, cannot safely be limited to the
scope of his lessons. Until the disciples were
fully convinced that he was in fact the promised
Messiah, it would have been unwise to discuss
with them his approaching death (Matt. xvi. 1 3-
23) ; and not till the fact of his death had been
repeatedly impressed on their minds could the
further step be taken of instructing them as to
the significance and value of this death.
At last, however, in an expression so terse as
to ensure remembrance, even if comprehension
was for a time at least impossible, Jesus sets

THE BASIS OF SALVATION 155
forth the great purpose of his life and at the
same time the value of his death (Matt. xx. 28 ;
Mk. x. 45). He must not only spend his life in
service, but also surrender his life, and by this
surrender provide a ransom, an objective basis
of salvation, and, further, as obviating the suffer
ings of many others, even though the sufferings
were different in kind, he might fitly say, as
he did, that he gave his life in place of many.
We have, then, from Jesus himself in one verse
the three profound and far-reaching thoughts :
that his death was an essential part of his origi
nal purpose ; that it was by virtue of this death
that salvation would come; and that this ransom
ing death might properly be termed substitu
tionary. Throughout the synoptic Gospels there
is no word of teaching from Jesus which is in
consistent with the inferences just drawn, and
if they find only a single confirmation from his
lips, the occasion and character of this repeti
tion were such as to give it the utmost possible
weight and importance. At the institution of
the Holy Supper, in the very night of his be-

156 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
trayal, he not only said of his body that it was
given in behalf of his disciples (Lk. xxii. 19 ;
compare I. Cor. xi. 24), a statement which fits
best with that view of his death which makes it
of the greatest value, but also said further, in
connection with the handing of the cup, that it
was "the blood of the covenant which is shed
for many unto the remission of sins " (Matt.
xxvi. 28). Simply from the phrase "blood of
covenant " it has often been inferred that the
death of Christ had atoning worth, but the dis
cussion of the matter by the author of the
epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. ix. 16-20) shows
that in relation to a covenant the value of blood
was thought to be its certification of validity,
and by the recognition of this additional thought
the cup will not lose but greatly gain in its con
tribution to Christian sentiment. But if the
atoning value of the death of Christ cannot
safely be inferred from his designation of it as
covenant blood, on the other hand it cannot be
excluded from the consequences which necessa
rily follow from the fact that he connects the

THE BASIS OF SALVATION 1 57
shedding of his blood with the remission of sins.
The nature of this relation which his death bears
to forgiveness is left undecided, but the fact of
the relation, it will be noted, is positively as
serted. Jesus clearly teaches that sins are to be
remitted because he dies.
The record of Christ's discourses by John is
in substantial harmony with that of the other
evangelists, though it is earlier in his ministry
that the fact of his dying as a basis for the sal
vation of men is brought out. It has, indeed,
been made an objection to the trustworthiness
even of the whole Gospel, that Jesus is reported
as declaring so early in his public career as his
first controversy with the Jews and' his inter-'
view with Nicodemus, that he must die (ii. 19 ;
iii. 14, 15). However no other meaning can
be put on what he says about temple destruc
tion and his being lifted up, and that the report
of the former saying is accurate is confirmed
by the coincidence with the testimony at his
trial (Matt. xxvi. 61 ; Mk. xiv. 57, 58). In both
cases, however, the teaching concerning death

158 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
was veiled in figurative language, and only in
the latter case is his death connected with sal
vation. While we are justified in inferring from
this passage that his death would make him the
object of saving faith, yet how this was to come
about is left unstated. At the very close of
his life Jesus took up again the figure of up
lifting (Jn. xii. 32), but here we are not at liberty
to attach to the words any other thought than
that of the moral power of his death over men.
This truth might also be considered the lesson
taught in the same conversation by the illustra
tion of the grain of wheat (xii. 24—26), were it
not that he there so associates death with ser
vice that we can scarcely fail to recognize that
his own death was thought to be in some way
positively helpful. In the allegory of the good
shepherd (x. n-15) Jesus again foretold the
loss of his own life, and while the whole dis
cussion was figurative,1 the very form of the
1 Care should constantly be taken not to confuse uncon
sciously the figurative with the fictitious. Figures express
realities, and are employed only to secure a more effective
expression of reality than literal language would give.

THE BASIS OF SALVATION 1 59
figure tended to emphasize the help which in
some undefined way his death was sure to bring
to those who trust him. He dies to secure
their safety. That his death was not to be re
garded as in any sense incidental or inevitable,
still less that it was for himself in any way,
appears in the words which follow (x. 17, 18),
which read almost as if intended to guard
against such a suggestion, but here, as through
out this Gospel, the teaching is limited to the
declaration, that he must die, and that his death
would benefit his own, while the definite rela
tion between the death and the benefit remained
either unexplained or unrecorded.
It is strongly confirmatory of the authenticity 1
of the speeches preserved in Acts that on the
subject of the basis of salvation there is lacking
in them even a repetition of such teaching as
is given in the first three Gospels from Jesus
himself. It was a long step for the first believ-
1 That the record of John contains, as has just been noted,
no developed teaching as to the significance of the death of
Jesus, is no less confirmatory of its trustworthiness as a
record.

160 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
ers to recognize Jesus in spite of his sufferings
and death as yet the expected Messiah. At
first they could do no more and needed to do
no more than to declare that the Messiahship
of Jesus was not shattered but in reality con
firmed by his death on the cross. Nowhere in
the brief reports of the first Christian sermons
is there any discussion of the basis of salvation.
The epistles of James and Jude are in every
way as silent concerning the foundation on
which redemption rests.
The epistles of Peter ground salvation on the
death of Christ, and thus show that this thought
and doctrine is as much a part of Petrine theol
ogy as it will later appear to be Pauline. Peter
definitely asserts (I. Pet. i. 18, 19) that the
blood of Christ is the basis of the believer's
redemption. The significance of this assertion
is enhanced by the connection in which it
stands, the apostle seeming to take pains to
bring out both the mercantile and the sacrificial
aspects of the relation of the death of Christ
to salvation, saying that it was not silver and

THE BASIS OF SALVATION l6l
gold, which buys release, but was blood as of a
spotless lamb, which propitiates. In using the
word, blood, Peter only joins in the common
apostolic designation of the death of Jesus, a
designation in no way unnatural or surprising,
especially for a death of such violence as
crucifixion. A superficial view of certain Old
Testament passages (Lev. xvii. 1 1 ; Deut. xii.
23) has sometimes resulted in confusion of
thought, as they seem to teach that the blood
is the life, while the New Testament uses blood
for the death. A point of union of these two
apparently diverse conceptions is found when it
is remembered that in the Old Testament the
blood is the life not as lived but as surrendered,
and in the New Testament the Mood is death
regarded as the surrender or taking away of life.
The ideas both of the violent shedding of blood
and of the sacrificial surrender of life may have
combined to render current in apostolic times
the figure of blood for the laying down by
Christ of his life on the cross. A further point
in the teaching of Peter is that even when lay-

1 62 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
ing special stress on the value of the suffering
of Jesus as our example (I. Pet. ii. 21-24), he
stops to mention the other relation, still closer
and more important, which it bears to us.
Jesus suffered for us. Now, while it is not safe
to insist that the preposition which is used here
and in many other places does of itself assert
vicariousness,1 for primarily it signifies benefit,
yet on the other side it is equally unjustifiable
to hold that the frequent occurrence of this
preposition in place of the more definite word is
an argument of any weight against the idea of
vicariousness, since, when a substitution may
reasonably be inferred or presupposed, it is
natural to use "for" in place of the needlessly
definite "instead of." That a substitution was
here the thought in the mind of the apostle
is abundantly shown, not only by the assertion
that our healing comes through his " wale," but
still more clearly by the declaration that "he
himself carried our sins in his body up on the
tree." The last word shows conclusively that
1 Both Thayer and Liddell and Scott allow this meaning.

THE BASIS OF SALVATION 1 63
Peter shared the usual New Testament view
which makes the cross the scene of all the
expiatory suffering of Jesus. In another pas
sage (I. Pet. iii. 18) Peter regards the death of
Christ not only as related to sin but also neces
sarily as vicarious, for if the advantage which
the unrighteous gain from the suffering of the
righteous is their own escape from suffering, it
is impossible to deny some sort of substitution.
It is well to note in addition that once (I. Pet. i.
3) the source of our hope is declared to be in
some sense the resurrection of Jesus, but the
true explanation of the passage is a recognition
of the great part which the resurrection played
and plays in Christian sentiment as the seal of
God to every claim and offer and word of hope
in Jesus.
The character of Paul's teaching as to the
objective basis of salvation is in general familiar
to every student. The amount and clearness of
this teaching have thrown it into a prominence
which is not as a matter of fact justified by any
special peculiarity in its character. The advo-

1 64 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
cates of certain views have found Paul the
authority to whom they could most conveniently
appeal, and opponents of the same views have
attempted to discredit them by asserting that
they were original with Paul and peculiar to
him. As will appear, the teachings of Paul
differ in no essential particular from the views
of Peter and John and Jesus himself. The
thoughts which have been found to be furnished
in the teachings of Christ and of Peter are,
that it is by virtue of the death of Christ that
salvation has become possible, and that this
possibility was brought about in a way which in
volves a substitutionary or vicarious relation
between what he suffered and what we de
served, that is to say, between himself and us.
No more than this and no other than this, is
the substance of the thought of Paul.
His own description of his message is "the
word of the cross" and "Jesus and him cruci
fied" (I. Cor. i. 18, 23 ; ii. 2 ; Gal. iii. 1). Fre
quently with a passing phrase he links salvation,
especially in its aspects of justification and

THE BASIS OF SALVATION 1 65
forgiveness, with the death of Christ (Acts xx.
28 ; I. Cor. xv. 3; Gal. ii. 21 ; vi. 14; Eph. i. 7;
ii. 16 ; Col. ii. 14). But we are not limited
for our knowledge of Paul's theology, or his
"gospel," as he would himself have termed it,
to these incidental statements, unambiguous
though they are. Paul makes the death of
Christ to be the preeminent manifestation of
his love, both because, as might well enough be,
it was the extreme of condescension and suf
fering (Rom. xiv. 15), and because it was no
less the extreme of helpfulness and service, in
that in his death he was our representative
(II. Cor. v. 14). Not only was his death so
representative that it is possible to say that in
it we died, but further the apostle declares, .with
a metonymy which though violent is perfectly
intelligible and justifiable, that he was "made
sin for us." If it is not admitted that the prep
osition here used implies that he was in our place,
yet certainly it was on our account and for our
advantage, as it was our fate in which he was
involved. Elsewhere (Rom. iii. 24, 25) Paul

1 66 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
centers justification, redemption, propitiation,
and the exhibition of the divine righteousness,
all in the blood of Christ Jesus. This state
ment is confirmed by the later declaration (Rom.
v. 9, 10) that blood is the basis of justification
and death of atonement or reconciliation. Closely
akin to the substitution necessarily involved in
the fact of the sinless becoming sin for us, and
reminding us equally of Peter's expression " the
righteous for the unrighteous," is the assertion,
" Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law,
having become a curse for us" (Gal. iii. 13).
From a careful study of these declarations and
their necessary implications, it is evident that
there has been no error in attributing to Paul
the conception that the death of Christ consti
tutes in some very real way the objective basis
of the salvation which God provides for men
through his Son. As to how the death of
Christ became the basis of salvation, the apos
tle does not speak as clearly. He speaks of
our being " bought with a price " (I. Cor. vi. 20 ;
vii. 23) ; he speaks of the exhibition of God's

THE BASIS OF SALVATION 1 67
righteousness, and of the condemnation of sin
in connection with the coming of Christ, whose
coming was in form an incarnation and in pur
pose related to sin (Rom. iii. 25 ; viii. 3). In
the light of earlier statements (Rom. vi. 5—10)
it appears that in Paul's mind the condemnation
of sin, like the exhibition of righteousness, was
related, if not solely, at any rate chiefly, to
Christ's death. As far as theories of the atone
ment are concerned, it may be said that the
mercantile, governmental and commercial theo
ries are each and all consistent with his lan
guage at one time or another or even implied in
it, but that none of these seems to have been
consciously developed by the apostle himself,
or to exhaust his conception or the contents of
his teaching.
It must be noted further that in a few pas
sages (I. Cor. xv. 17 ; Rom. iv. 25) especial
stress is laid on the resurrection as related to
salvation, but nowhere in such a manner as to
set it in the apostle's teachings alongside the
death of Christ as a basis of salvation. In the

1 68 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
former passage the resurrection is regarded as
the only tangible proof which was absolutely
decisive of the authority and power of Christ ;
in the second it is most satisfactory and reason
able to think of the resurrection as securing our
justification by serving to convince men, so that
they seek the justification which in 'reality is
based upon the death of him who is now risen.
It is a subjective, not an objective, basis of
justification. In some other passages it is the
present life of Christ on which the marked
stress is laid (Rom. v. 10; vi. 8-1 1 ; Col. ii. 12,
13), and it is certainly unfortunate that this
thought of Paul in regard to the living Christ
should have been overlooked so much as it has
been, since the thought of the living and inliv-
ing Christ (Gal. ii. 20) is as truly an essential
part of his system as is the cross itself, though
in an entirely different way. Christ's life is the
present and continual power by which salvation
passes from being merely possible to being in all
respects actual ; but it was his death which was the
objective basis of salvation — was that, in view

THE BASIS OF SALVATION l6g
of which, God forgives sinners and receives them
into favor.
While the language of Paul, if it does not
render necessary the theory that the death of
Christ largely served the needs of the divine
government, is at any rate perfectly consistent
with that view (Rom. iii. 25, 26), the epistle to
the Hebrews on the other hand seems to regard
it almost exclusively under the aspect of a sacri
fice. Starting from what the author regards as
an authoritative because prophetic designation
of Christ as a priest (Ps. ex. 4; Heb. vii. 17),
he proceeds to inquire for the sacrifice which
a priest must necessarily offer in order to be a
true priest, and finds it in his own blood (vii.
27; viii. 3 ; ix. n, 12, 14, 15, 22,28; x. 12,
19 ; xiii. 12). His thought is that Christ pre
sents himself to God in behalf of men as one
who has voluntarily undergone suffering, even
death, to obviate suffering on their part, and
that God bestows favors else impossible upon
men in view of the death of Christ, so that to
one trained in the symbolism of sacrifice the

170 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
relation of Christ to the Father in behalf of
men could best be described as an offering of
himself or as the sacrificial presentation of his
own blood. Once (x. 5-10) the author might
on first reading be understood as holding that
the worth of the work of Christ consists in his
doing the will of the Father, which would make
the perfect life rather than the death of Christ
the basis of salvation, but the conclusion of this
very passage shows the inconsistency of that
idea with the thought of the author, for the will
of God is represented as having been supremely
done in the sacrificial offering of the " body of
Christ once for all."
As John is in method a seer, not a logician,
it is not surprising that there is little of dog
matic teaching as to the objective basis of salva
tion to be found either in his letters or in the
reflections which are embodied in his Gospel.
He- wrote in order that believers might have
the assurance that Jesus is the Son of God, and
that they might have the inward assurance and
appropriation of eternal life, not at all to argue

THE BASIS OF SALVATION 171
or to assert what are the grounds of redemp
tion. The first clue as to his own view is to be
found in the teaching of John the Baptist,
which, as has been said, John the evangelist, his
hearer and disciple, so records as in some sense
to appropriate its sentiment. Twice the Baptist
speaks of Jesus as the Lamb of God, once with
the addition, "who bears away the sin of the
world " (Jn. i. 29, 36). It is not necessary now
to discuss whether the appellation, Lamb, could
have been derived only from the use of lambs
in sacrifice. If, as may be regarded as more
probable, its source was not Leviticus but
Isaiah, the conception of substitutionary suffer
ing will be, if anything, still more clearly in
volved. In Isaiah, sin is taken away only as the
Lord has laid on one the iniquity of us all ; only
as when he was cut off from the land of the
living the stroke was for the people ; only as he
made his soul a sacrificial offering to remove
the guilt of others (Is. liii. 7-1 2).1 The same
1 While that view of the " Suffering Servant " is accepted
above, which makes the phrase refer to a person, yet the pres
ence of the substitutionary conception does not depend on the
personal interpretation.

172 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
idea is brought out still more directly in the
advice of Caiaphas with John's own comment
upon it (Jn. xi. 49-52). That the suffering of
Jesus averted destruction from the children of
God throughout the world, the evangelist takes
for granted. The only point on which his
readers required instruction was as to the sig
nificance of the language of the high priest.
When propitiation of sin is spoken of (I. Jn. ii.
2 ; iv. 10), he merely connects it with the per
son of Christ without specification as to what
aspect of his person or work is particularly
concerned, but when the promise is of cleans
ing (I. Jn. i. 7), which to those trained in the
Mosaic ritual must have been no less clearly a
sacrificial conception, this cleansing is directly
associated with the blood, by which of course
the death of Jesus is intended. This may be
said to exhaust the teaching of the Gospel and
epistles on this point. If, as was premised,
there is little to show that the death of Christ
is the objective basis of salvation, there is, it is
to be noted, nothing at all to disprove it or to

THE BASIS OF SALVATION IJl
suggest any other conception. When we turn
to the Revelation, a striking difference at once
appears. There salvation in all its aspects is
continually and emphatically associated with the
blood of him whose most characteristic repre
sentation is that of a Lamb seeming as if slain
(i. 5 ; v. 6, 9, 12; vii. 14; xii. n). While
these statements are descriptive rather than
dogmatic, yet they are utterly unintelligible
save as we attribute to the author and to the
whole church of that apostolic age the recogni
tion of the death of Christ as the basis of sal
vation, a recognition which gains immensely in
significance in case the theory of the Neronian
date is accepted for the Apocalypse.
It appears, then, as the result of this survey
that no one of the New Testament authors dis
sents from the teaching which is found in the
others, but that, so far as any speak, from the
preaching of John the Baptist to the visions of
John the apostle, all teachers concur in one con
ception of the basis on which salvation has be
come possible. To be sure the idea is often

174 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
expressed figuratively, and the death of Christ
is called a price, a sacrificial offering, a propitia
tion, but all these terms express one and the
same idea ; namely, that by dying Jesus removed
all objective hindrances and made salvation
possible. No one of the writers suggests that
the hindrances which Christ removed consisted
in any part or in any way of lack of love on the
part of God. Paul conclusively sets this aside
by asserting that the death of Christ to bring
about the reconciliation of God and man was
itself an exhibition of the divine love, and by
asserting again that God himself did in Christ
the work of reconciliation (Rom. v. 8— 1 1 ; II.
Cor. v. 1 8, 19). All the authors agree, so far
as they speak, that the death of Christ was
truly substitutionary, since they tell us that it
was the assumption by the guiltless one of con
demnation which belonged to sinners, and of
sufferings which obviate theirs. The death of
Christ in the place of sinners is the New Testa
ment doctrine as to the basis of salvation.

CHAPTER IX
THE CONDITIONS OF SALVATION
All the writers of the New Testament agree
in teaching that any and every objective hin
drance to the salvation of sinners has been by
the death of Christ finally removed; that sal
vation is in reality as well as in form offered to
all, and that now it only remains for the soul
itself to fulfill the conditions of salvation, what
ever they may be. The teaching as to these
conditions should, then, be next investigated.
The synoptic report of the preaching of Christ
begins with the statement that he took up and
repeated, as his own first message, the theme of
John the Baptist, " Repent " (Matt. iii. 2 ; iv.
17; Mk. i. 15). The full significance of this
summons may not be appreciated at first, for
the use of this word is practically confined to its
religious sense or to meanings derived from it,
i75

176 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
so that no familiar applications form a ladder to
the theological significance, and the root itself
is employed only in this circle of almost purely
religious words. Further, popular sentiment has
attached to the word, repent, a meaning which
is decidedly unlike its Biblical sense. To many
minds repentance conveys little if any idea be
yond that of sorrow, intense it may be, but it
may equally be utterly futile. The Greek word1
which is properly rendered repentance, and
which if not the original word of the Master,
must reproduce of course the effect of his Ara
maic expression on his hearers, by its very deri
vation demands a profounder meaning than mere
sorrow, even though it were remorse. The
effect of the word can scarcely be better re
produced in English than as " after-mind," just
as the saying " Second thoughts are best " ne
cessarily implies that the second judgment is
different from the first and presumably better.
But it would be merely a change of errors with
1 Another word is used (Matt, xxvii. 3) for vain regret of
Judas.

THE CONDITIONS OF SALVATION 1 77
no real gain if the sphere of repentance were
limited to the judgment instead of the feelings.
It is in view of the mind as controlling action
that an after mind is demanded. Repentance as
originally preached was a change of moral atti
tude and behavior; nothing less than a moral
revolution. This thought with which, as we
have seen, Jesus began his ministry, continued
to hold its place throughout his work (Matt.
xxi. 29-32 ; Lk. xi. 32 ; xvi. 30, 31). The duty
of repentance and the consequences of failure
to repent were declared with great force in
special reference to those who disregarded his
teachings (Matt. xi. 20—24 : xh- 41)- He came
to call sinners to repentance ; without repent
ance all must perish ; repentance brings joy to
the very heart of God himself surrounded by the
holy angels (Lk. v. 32 ; xiii. 3, 5 ; xv. 7, 10).
Beyond the demand for repentance, Jesus
further demanded acceptance of himself and
supreme devotion to himself. In his " Come
unto me" (Matt. xi. 28-30) — as emphatic in
self-assertion as winning in welcome — he sets

178 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
himself before men as the one fountain of
spiritual blessing. So complete is the satisfac
tion which he imparts that he cannot imagine
his disciples sad in his company (Matt. ix. 15).
To receive him is to receive God himself ; per
sonal service to him is proof that sins are al
ready forgiven, and service to his disciples will
result in eternal reward and blessedness (Matt.
xxv. 31-46; Mk. ix. 37; Lk. vii. 44-51). So
absolutely supreme is the relation of the soul
to him that on confession or denial of him hang
the issues of the future life. Devotion beyond
even filial love, beyond the love of life itself,
is demanded, and while readiness to sacrifice
everything for his sake is required, he promises
more than a recompense for every loss (Matt. v.
n ; x. 32-39; xvi. 16, 17; xix. 29; Lk. ix. 59,
60 ; xiv. 26, 33). With such claims Jesus pre
sents himself to men, requiring only in excep
tional cases personal attendance, but insisting
invariably, whenever the question is raised, on
supreme and single devotion of soul and life.
Of course, conformity to his teachings is in some

THE CONDITIONS OF SALVATION 1 79
measure required, but it is clear that the effect
of his words is to make prominent and primary,
not submission to teachings and obedience to
commands, but that relation of supreme devo
tion to the person of Christ which is best called
"faith." The two demands which we find in the synop
tic Gospels, for repentance and for faith, are not
to be thought of as antagonistic, or as alterna
tive, or even as supplementary to each other.
They are set forth as if they were two aspects
of one and the same requirement. Each is im
possible without the other. It is taken for
granted that no man will repent in view of Christ
without accepting him, and in turn that accept
ance of him is impossible without that complete
break with the old life and sentiment of sin
which constitutes repentance. While other de
mands than for penitent faith are sometimes
made, it will appear, as they are studied, that
these demands are general and indeterminate,
as obedience to the teachings of Christ or to
God, or thorough acceptance of the word and

180 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
devotion to it (Matt. vii. 21-27; xu- 5° 5 xul-
3-8, 19-23); or are proofs and results of faith,
such as acts of love (Lk. vii. 47 ; x. 27 ; Matt.
xxv. 34-46); or are merely other aspects of
faith, as abjuration of self (Matt. xvi. 24); or
are limited to the special circumstances and
needs of a single individual (Matt. xix. 21).
The one condition of salvation according to the
synoptic teaching of Jesus is turning from sin
to himself.
There are some statements of Jesus which
might be taken to imply the necessity of action
on the part of God as a condition of salvation.
Once, at least (Matt. xxii. 14), he seems definitely
to condition salvation on the divine choice, and
the word used in this passage is used in many
others, being usually rendered " elect " (Matt.
xxiv. 22, 24, 31 ; Lk. xviii. 7). Only by a
forced exegesis can these statements be robbed
of their natural meaning that believers have
been in some way chosen of God. Upon what
this divine choice depends we have no basis for
assertion, but we note that the divine choice is

THE CONDITIONS OF SALVATION l8l
never made to depend on a previous choice of
God by men, but is made to anticipate their
action. It may further be said in reference to
the divine activity thus partially declared, first,
that it in no sense supersedes the fulfillment of
the one condition of salvation, which is penitent
faith, but rather results in it ; second, that God's
choice of any soul does not make repentance
and faith impossible or additionally difficult on
the part of any other soul, but that their action
remains entirely unaffected ; and, third, that the
divine election is commonly presented by Jesus
as a token of grace and an unfailing source of
comfort (Lk. xviii. 7 ; Mk. xiii. 20 ; Matt. xix.
26). Until these elements are combined we
certainly fall short of the thought of Jesus. In
any case, however, election is not a condition of
salvation, or a substitute for the conditions, but
a help to the performance of the conditions.
The teaching on the subject of the divine choice
of men, however suggestive in spite of its
brevity and reticence, and however important in
some of its aspects and relations, gives no new
condition of salvation.

1 82 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
John records the teaching of Jesus as to the
conditions of salvation in such a way as to make
an impression at first sight decidedly unlike that
of the synoptic records. This unlikeness is
nowhere more conspicuous than in the complete
absence from all John's report of the word,
repent. The converse of repentance, which is
faith or, rather, believing receives, however,
from John increased emphasis. It is unfortu
nate that in English the verb, believe, and the
noun, faith, come from different roots, so that
their relation is obscured. In the study of
John alone this fact would be of less conse
quence, as, in contrast with the synoptics, he
never mentions the substantive idea of faith,
but in all the forty cases of his discussion of the
matter, he emphasizes, by the use of the verbal
form, the activity of the believing soul. The
approach to faith is not the same in John as
in the synoptic Gospels. There the frequent
demand for faith in relation to bodily healing
paves the way for a corresponding temper in
regard to spiritual healing or forgiveness ; in

THE CONDITIONS OF SALVATION 1 83
John the road to believing is built of the
thoughts of the acceptance of the statements of
others as well as of Jesus himself (v. 46, 47 ; iii.
12 ; viii. 45), and acceptance of truths relating
to him, such as his Messiahship, his mission and
his relation to the Father (xiv. 10, n ; xvi. 27;
xi. 42 ; xiii. 19), until faith or believing finally
appears as spiritual union with the personal
Christ by entrance into relation with him, ap
propriation, in a word (xi. 25, 26 ; xiv. 1). It
may accordingly be said that in the synoptic
Gospels faith is regarded under the aspect
of unfaltering confidence ; in John under the
aspect of personal appropriation and resulting
union ; but that these aspects, while variant, are
in no sense inconsistent. In John other re
quirements are also found, less frequently than
the command to believe, requirements which
differ from it in form, but in form only. Such
are: hearing (v. 25 ; viii. 43 ; xii. 47) ; coming
(vi. 35, 37, 65 ; vii. 37) ; following (viii. 12 ; xii.
26); keeping or abiding in the word or com
mandments of Christ (viii. 31, 51, 52; xiv. 15,

1 84 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
21-24; xv. 10); abiding in himself (vi. 56;
xv. 4-10); drinking the water which he supplies
(iv. 10, 14; vii. 37); eating the flesh and drink
ing the blood of the Son of man (vi. 53-58) ;
but all these are manifestly only figurative pres
entations of the original or continued accept
ance of Christ, of the personal relation of ap
propriation which is the Johannine aspect of
faith. Like the synoptic writers, John preserves
teaching of Jesus as to the need and fact in
relation to salvation of a divine activity on the
human soul. To Nicodemus he declares the
universal necessity of regeneration by the power
of the Holy Spirit (iii. 3, 5), and later (vi. 44,
45) he asserts that a drawing by the Father,
which he also calls a teaching, is indispensable.
The relation between the divine activity which
is thus indispensable and the human activity on
which salvation is conditioned is nowhere stated,
but it is implied in Christ's teaching. The
activity of God must precede believing and be
independent of it, for to make birth a voluntary

THE CONDITIONS OF SALVATION 185
activity of the one born, is to make the meta
phor absolutely nonsensical. To make the
drawing which overcomes the soul's unwilling
ness to be itself a result of the willingness of
the same soul is no less absurd, while to regard
this drawing as universal robs it of all argu
mentative force. Further, to secure and bring
about either regeneration or drawing is not rep
resented in any of the discourses as a duty of
man, but as a necessity for man if he is to be
saved, not as obligatory but as indispensable.
Lastly, the practical application of the thought
of the divine activity is suggestive, if not, in
deed, conclusive, as, while in the synoptic dis
courses mention is made of the divine choice in
order to comfort, in John it is used as a warn
ing to unbelievers, that they may be impressed
with a sense of their helplessness in their willful
persistence in sin, and their absolute depend
ence on divine power. The whole relation of
regeneration and faith, of drawing and coming,
is illuminated by the declaration that the source
of unbelief is unwillingness to believe (v. 40).

1 86 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
While, then, the work of God is* preliminary to
that of man, and regeneration becomes by the
slavery of sin an indispensable necessity in
order to faith, yet to believe is the single condi
tion of salvation.
It is in no way surprising that on this point,
as on so many others, the earliest apostolic
preaching links itself most closely to such
preaching of Jesus as the synoptists record.
The first demand of the apostles was for repent
ance, a demand made with all the more force
because of the judicial murder of their Master,
which they continually charged home upon the
Jewish people (Acts ii. 38; iii. 13-15; v. 30).
At the same time they gave no less a message
of faith in Christ, of trust that through him
richest blessings should be bestowed (Acts ii.
21 ; iii. 16; iv. 12; v. 31 ; viii. 22; x. 43; xi.
17). Thoughts of sin and self lead to repent
ance, thoughts of Christ and salvation to faith.
With this double demand is also associated the
requirement of baptism, not as an additional or
a coordinate condition of salvation, but as the

THE CONDITIONS OF SALVATION 1 87
expicssion and completion of penitent faith
(Acts ii. 38, 41 ; viii. 38 ; compare Mk. i. 4).
James does not discuss the conditions of sal
vation, but treats of the tests, proofs and results
of faith. He adds a single mention of regener
ation (i. 18), declaring that this voluntary and
uncaused act of God is a crowning proof of his
goodness. Had Jude not been hindered from
preparing his treatise on the common salvation,
he would doubtless have furnished, what now
he does not give, his discussion of its conditions.
Peter, addressing both his letters to those who
have already experienced the graciousness of
God, only incidentally mentions faith, the con
dition of salvation, baptism which he regards as
the public symbol of a right disposition toward
God, and regeneration (I. Pet. i. 9 ; iii. 21; i.
23 ; compare i. 1, 2).
The teachings of Paul as to the conditions of
salvation are in close harmony with the teach
ings already discussed. In his oral teachings
preserved in Acts he emphasizes in turn as
may be most helpful both aspects of conversion

1 88 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
(xiv. 15 ; xxvi. 18), namely, repentance (xvii.
30 ; xxvi. 20), and faith (xiii. 39 ; xvi. 3 1 ; xix.
2), combining the two in his summary of his
preaching (xx. 21). While in a great part of
his letters he, like James, Jude and Peter, has
little to say as to the conditions of entrance on
the Christian life, and for the same reasons as
they, yet controversies forced him to write also
clear and to some extent formal definitions and
discussions on this subject. A cardinal point in
his struggle with the Judaizing element in the
churches was whether observance of the Mosaic
law was in any way essential to salvation. The
first demand of those whom Paul opposed was
of course for circumcision, but if this rite or
any other command was obligatory as a condi
tion of salvation, so was the whole law, since it
is an indivisible unit (Gal. v. 3). But while the
observance of the law might be regarded, in
theory at least, as a means of attaining salva
tion, practically it was not such, since it is in
variably unsuccessful (Gal. iii. 10-12, 21 ; Rom.
iii. 20; iv. 15). To be sure the contention of

THE CONDITIONS OF SALVATION 1 89
the Jews was in form not "Salvation by the
Law without Christ," but " Salvation by the Law
as a necessary supplement to Christ " (Acts xv.
1, 5, 24), but Paul tore away the veil of their
sophistries and showed the real issue to be
" Salvation either by Christ or by Law " (Gal.
ii. 16-21; iii. 1-6, 10-14 ; v. 2,4, 6; Rom. iii.
21, 28; iv. 14; viii. 3). In contrast with the
author of the epistle to the Hebrews, who dwells
on the helpfulness of the law and its instructive
foreshadowings of Christian realities, Paul, while
never denying the helpfulness of the law in
these relations, is obliged to neglect it, in order
to combat the misuse of the law which would
hinder instead of helping the reception of Christ
and the acceptance of his work. In this teach
ing as to the sufficiency of Christ, repentance
sinks comparatively out of sight, perhaps lest it
should be regarded as a meritorious work, and
faith, simple reception of salvation in no way
deserved, comes out in bold relief (Gal. ii. 16;
iii. 5, n ; Rom. i. 16, 17; iii. 25, 28, 30; v. 1,
2 ; Phil. iii. 9 ; Eph. ii. 8). In faith itself the

190 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
element of which Paul made the most is accept
ance. Though confident trust is not overlooked
(Rom. iv. 17-21), and union with Christ by
personal appropriation of him is fully recognized
(Gal. ii. 20; I. Cor. xv. 17, 18), Paul yet re
gards faith as being preeminently acceptance of
God's gracious gift, as being opposed not so
much to questioning distrust of God, or aliena
tion from God or Christ, as to self-confident
indifference to God's own appointed way of
salvation. Regarded thus as the reception of
salvation provided and offered, faith is the single
condition of salvation. Faith saves, and only
faith saves. Yet it is possible to lay an unfair
and un-Pauline stress on the thought of faith
only. Although he never enters on a formal
discussion of this point, it is equally true that
he never uses language which would fairly imply
that faith can remain solitary and without con
sequences. He too, would say like James, that
a supposed, ostensible faith, unfruitful, unaccom
panied by suitable activity, must be a counter
feit, not a genuine faith. That this is his real

THE CONDITIONS OF SALVATION 191
conception, is shown by the demands which he
unceasingly makes upon believers as believers,
and also by his claim that faith fully accom
plishes what law fails to accomplish (Rom. iii.
31 ; viii. 4).
While in Paul's teaching the sole condition of
salvation is faith, he further, quite as emphatic
ally as any author in the New Testament,
emphasizes the antecedent relation of God to
the activity of the soul. Such words frequently
occur as, calling (I. Th. v. 24 ; II. Th. i. 1 1 ; I.
Cor. i. 2, 24, 26 ; Rom. i. 6, 7 ; viii. 28, 30 ; Eph.
iv. 4 ; I. Tim. vi. 12 ; II. Tim. i. 9), choice (II.
Th. ii. 13; Eph. i. 4), appointment (I. Th. v. 9),
election (I. Th. i. 4; Rom. viii. 33; Col. iii.
12; II. Tim. ii. 10), and predetermination
(Rom. viii. 29, 30 ; Eph. i. 5, 1 1). Whenever
the apostle finds faith, he recognizes it as the
result of the gracious activity of God, and he
further rests with assured confidence on the
thought that God will not fail to complete the
work which he has begun (I. Th. v. 24 ; II. Th.
iii. 3 ; I. Cor. i. 9 ; Rom. viii. 38, 39 ; xiv. 4 ;

192 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Phil. i. 6 ; Eph. ii. 4-8). This latter relation of
thought is in reality even more decisive as to his
view than is the use of the words which have
been cited, definite and significant though they
are. But while Paul thus believed in the antici
patory purpose and activity of God, he regarded
it as in no way superseding or hindering human
activity ; so far from that, more clearly than any
other writer of the New Testament he brings
out the thought that God's purpose and activity
attains its end in and through human activity,
consequent yet free (II. Th. ii. 13-16; Phil. ii.
12, 13; iii. 13, 14; Eph. ii. 10; iv. 1).
In tone the writer to the Hebrews diverges
decidedly from Paul, with whom he yet has on the
whole the closest affinities. Like Paul — if it
were possible, more than he — this author em
phasizes faith, but apparently applies the name
to a different concept. To him, faith is convic
tion of the existence and value of the unseen and
confident expectation of that which is not yet
received (xi. 1). But on consideration it will
appear that the diversity is in appearance rather

THE CONDITIONS OF SALVATION 1 93
than in reality. The same jewel has been turned
to display another facet. His language, often
quoted as an exhaustive definition of faith, is
accurately descriptive of it in one of its aspects,
but it does not necessarily bring out all its
aspects or any part of the essential nature of
faith. As a confident trust in Jesus faith always,
even when he was present, outran the seen, and
anticipated in its expectation what it was desired
and hoped that he would bestow. As appropria
tion of Christ which accomplishes union with
him, it necessarily transcends the limits of the
visible and the present. As reception of God's
salvation in God's way, it no less demands con
viction of the unseen and confidence as to the
future. But the difficulty which the writer to
the Hebrews is seeking to remove from his
readers, is of such a nature that he naturally
lays sole stress on this element, though it is com
paratively superficial. In the same way, though
he regards repentance- as primary necessity
(vi. 6; xii. 17), yet he includes it, like faith,
among the rudiments of Christ, both in teaching

194 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
and life, and hurries on from it to profounder
truths for maturer disciples (vi. i).
When we take up the letters of John and con
sider what he says touching the conditions of
salvation, we seem to be again transported into
the sphere of those teachings of Jesus which he
has especially recorded. In the Revelation,
which deals with the warfare on a world-wide
scale of good and evil, Christ and Satan, there
is much mention of repentance (Rev. ii. 5, 16,
21, 22 ; iii. 3, 19; ix. 20, 21 ; xvi. 9, n), but
in his letters and in his original contributions to
his Gospel John is silent as to repentance,
though to be sure it would necessarily underlie
confession which he explicitly commands (I. Jn.
i. 9). In all his writings faith finds little men
tion, by name at least, but to believe, which
means to enter into relations with Jesus, is made
much of, especially in the epistles (Jn. iii. 16,
17, 36; xx. 31 ; I. Jn. v. 1, 10, 13). Besides
this word, believe, we find several equivalent
words and phrases, the use of which more or
less interprets it, as receiving Christ (Jn. i. n,

THE CONDITIONS OF SALVATION 195
12), confession, which is in these passages the
expression not of repentance but of faith (I. Jn.
ii. 23 ; iv. 15 ; II. Jn. 7), and abiding in Christ
and God (I. Jn. ii. 6 ; iii. 6 ; iv. 13, 15). In rela
tion to the origin of faith, John, like his fellow
apostles, does not fail to attribute an important
part to God. He recognizes that both love and
the reception of Christ prove a divine birth or
begetting (Jn. i. 13; I. Jn. iv. 7; v. 1). The
relation between them he never definitely states,
but the divine begetting is certainly nowhere
represented as dependent on faith or on any
other human activity, and it is never set forth as
an end to be sought. These facts show that the
apostle thought of it as a result of God's inde
pendent and prevenient love, which, while secur
ing its own ends, neither hinders the exercise of
free will on the part of the regenerate, nor di
minishes the responsibility of the unregenerate.
It follows that penitent faith, which is the con
stant duty of every man, is the single condition
which, complied with, ensures salvation.

CHAPTER X
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SALVATION
The saving work which is to be accomplished
by Christ is not regarded by the New Testa
ment writers as completed in the fulfillment of
the indispensable and primary condition of it,
which is penitent faith. So far from it, salva
tion is regarded, in its relations alike to the
individual himself and to the community of re
deemed of which he forms a part, as a gradual
and more or less prolonged process. It will be
necessary to note the varying aspects of this
recognition, and the conditions under which and
the agencies by which the process is performed.1
While the synoptic reports of Jesus represent
1 For theoretical completeness it would be still further
necessary to discuss the several duties which are demanded
of the believer, but for practical reasons this topic, which
might be called New Testament Ethics, is omitted, as well
as the doctrines and precepts touching the local church in
all its relations. 196

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SALVATION 197
him as bringing a gift of salvation to be received
by penitent faith, they no less represent him as
setting forth an ideal of character and behavior
to be attained, which ideal he often styles right
eousness (Matt. v. 6 ; vi. 1, 33 ; vii. 19, 20, 24-
27; x. 41 ; xiii. 43; xxii. n-13; xxv. 34-46).
While Jesus did not, like the Pharisees, regard
righteousness as the basis of entrance into the
Messianic kingdom and salvation (Lk. xvii. 10 ;
xviii. 9-14), he yet greatly elevated and intensi
fied the conception of it. Righteousness must
begin in the very soul (Matt. xii. 33 ; Lk. vi.
45 ; xi. 39-44) ; it must cover all activities
(Matt. vii. 12 ; xv. 11-20) ; it must satisfy only
when absolutely conformed to the standard of
what God himself is (Matt, v. 9, 20, 45, 47 ;
xii. 50). Of the conditions and agencies of the
attainment of this ideal little is said, but it is
continually implied that there will be a strenu
ous, prolonged and unceasing struggle, and that
the danger of failing to attain the ideal can be
averted only by diligence, prayer and the sacri
fice of much that has been held precious (Matt.

198 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
x. 24-26 ; xviii. 6-9 ; xxiv. 42-xxv. 30 ; Mk
xiii. 33 ; xiv. 38 ; Lk. xxi. 34-36). To the
blessings which Jesus offered there was a dis
tinctly social aspect, and the development of
salvation on its social side, the growth of the
community or kingdom of Christ, would be
gradual. It was especially in the great4 group
of kingdom parables, the giving of which in
augurated the second chief stage of his Mes
sianic activity, that Jesus set forth at once the
certainty and the gradualness of this growth of
the community of the saved (Matt. xiii. 1-50 ;
Mk. iv. 1-34). Like the mustard the kingdom
must and will extend out of all proportion to the
smallness of its beginning ; as the leaven trans
forms, its power must and will increasingly affect
the world ; and yet evil will continue beside it,
like the tares beside the wheat, continue even
within its nominal scope, like the worthless fish
enclosed within the net ; and all this may be
expected to endure until the final consummation.
In John's report the idea of the gradual de
velopment of eternal life sinks out of sight in

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SALVATION 1 99
comparison with the thought of its possession.
It is not here a matter of progress but of abid
ing, of continually keeping the commandments,
and of fruit-bearing (Jn. xv. 4-10). The church
is in like manner chiefly regarded as being, not
as becoming, although becoming is not posi
tively excluded in the case of either the individ
ual or the community. The activity of the
Holy Spirit is more fully recognized in this
Gospel than in the synoptic reports (Jn. vii.
39; xiv. 26; xv. 26; xvi. 13-15; xx. 22, 23;
compare Matt. x. 20; Lk. xi. 13 ; xii. 12), but
even here the discussion is far from complete.
It could hardly be expected that the early
preaching of the apostles, of necessity almost
exclusively occupied with the demand for re
pentance and faith, the beginning of salvation,
would give much place to discussion of its
development. This would all the more be ex
pected, because at first even the apostles them
selves do not seem fully to have comprehended
the greatness of the interval which Jesus hinted
at in his phrase "After a long time" (Matt.

200 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
xxv. 19), but rather to have supposed that the
consummation of individual and social salvation
would follow hard upon its beginning. From
the first, stress was laid on the fact of the pres
ence of the Spirit (Acts ii. 38 ; v. 3, 4, 9, 32 ;
xi. 15-17). The development of the Christian
community under the leadership of the apostles
was simple in the extreme. The so-called
"community of goods" (Acts ii. 44, 45 ; com
pare v. 4 ; xii. 12) was such in no technical and
socialistic sense of the phrase, being no required
surrender of property but merely a voluntary
and temporary beneficence. The extension of
the church beyond the limits of Judaism was
accepted, though at first with some misgivings
(Acts viii. 14; x. 1 — xi. 18; xv. 7-29; Gal. ii.
1-2 1 ).
James in his epistle presents a lofty ideal of
character, that one should be "perfect and
entire, lacking in nothing," "unspotted from
the world," "a perfect man" (i. 4, 27 ; iii. 2).
The details of this ideal are wrought out nega
tively in the warnings and counsels which make

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SALVATION 201
this letter so rich a treasury of ethical instruc
tion. That this ideal was as yet unrealized,
that the saved soul is only gradually perfected,
is manifest from the multitude and earnestness
of the apostle's warnings. Only by strenuous
endeavor, only by works which verify words and
demonstrate faith, can the ideal be reached.
Of the growing and rising community of believ
ers it was still too early, when James wrote, to
say much, though mutual helpfulness in material
as well as spiritual matters is encouraged (i. 27 ;
ii. 15, 16; v. 14, 16, 19, 20), and dissensions
must already have arisen, for they are discour
aged. Jude wrote chiefly in warning, but at
the same time sees the ideal character in an
unblemished and perfect condition of the soul.
This, however, is still future, and there is imme
diate and pressing danger of moral fall instead
of progress. So he urges spiritual development
on the basis of faith, with prayer "in the Holy
Spirit " as the means by which it will be se
cured (20). Of the joint life of Christians he
speaks only as he warns against the faithless

202 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
and seducing errorists or encourages to the res
cue of endangered souls.
Peter in his first epistle sets the standard of
Christian endeavor as high as it had been set in
the Sermon on the Mount, making it parallel to
the holiness of God and to the perfectness of
Jesus himself (i. 15, 16; ii. 21). At the same
time his recognition of the fact that in practice
this standard is still unattained is plainly to be
seen from his warnings (i. 14 ; ii. n, 21 ; iii. 7 ;
iv. 15 ; v. 2, 8), from his encouragement to
growth (ii. 2), and from his assurance that later
God will give established perfection (v. 10).
While the Christian's progress in morality is
ascribed to the Holy Spirit (i. 2), every one of
the manifold injunctions which are contained in
the letter implies and involves the responsibility
and duty of the man himself. While the stress
of Peter, like that of his fellows, falls mainly on
the life and development of the individual, yet
the community is recognized both in its ideal
condition (ii. 9) and in its real condition, as
suffering troubles from without and as affording

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SALVATION 203
scope within itself for mutual helpfulness (i. 6 ;
iii. 16 ; iv. 4-1 1 ; v. 9). So far as this topic is
concerned the second epistle does not differ
essentially from the first. The Christian ideal
is spotlessness of character (iii. 14), yet gradual
development of character is surely recognized,
because it is demanded (i. 5-7; iii. 18), and
because warnings imply, as always, a lack of
attainment which can be remedied only by indi
vidual diligence (i. 9, 10; iii. 17). As to com
munity relations, we are given only so much as
is involved in warnings against the false teach
ers who had already sprung up within the
church. Paul in his writings holds up an ideal to be
attained in the renewed life of the Christian,
which certainly is not less lofty than that pre
sented by the other apostles. On the one side
it is no less than perfect performance of every
moral requirement (I. Th. iv. 1-7 ; Phil. iv. 8),
on the other no less than complete conformity
to the pattern set by the sinless Lord himself
(Rom. viii. 29; Eph. v. 2; Phil. ii. 5). Not

204 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
that he regards this ideal as already attained or
easily attainable (Phil. iii. 12-14). Nowhere
are warnings against moral dangers and rebukes
for moral delinquencies more frequent and more
earnest than from the pen of the apostle to
the Gentiles. Nor does he know any short and
easy method of attaining the ideal which he
cherishes. To attain the fullness of salvation
the soul itself must strenuously endeavor, with
vigilance and sobriety, with fear and trembling,
with a persistence in well-doing, that knows no
weariness or abatement of effort (I. Th. v. 6 ;
Rom. xiii. n -14; Phil. ii. 12-14; Gal. vi. 9;
II. Th. iii. 13). But while the soul itself must
enlist and expend its utmost energies without
ceasing or slackening, it is not destitute of
divine aid (I. Cor. i. 8, 9 ; I. Th. v. 23, 24 ;
Phil. ii. 13). Indeed, Paul's recognition of this
divine aid is so emphatic and constant that he
has sometimes been misunderstood and thought
to regard the soul as passive instead of most in
tensely active in the matter of attaining the
ideal of character and behavior. To be sure

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SALVATION 205
he teaches that Christians are already by the
effective call of God " saints " and " holy "
(Rom. i. 7 ; I. Cor. i. 2 ; iii. 17 ; Eph. i. 1), and
that our sanctification as well as our justifica
tion is from God through Christ in the Spirit
(I. Th. v. 23 ; I. Cor. i. 30). But while the
apostle over and over asserts that justification is
conditioned solely upon faith and is at once
fully and finally attained by the exercise of
faith, sanctification is never so conditioned ; on
the other hand the need of personal endeavor
is emphatically asserted, even alongside the
assurance of divine aid (I. Th. iv. 3 ; Phil. ii.
12; iii. 12). At the same time it must be
recognized that the inward work of the Holy
Spirit finds with Paul a place and importance
beyond what any other New Testament writer
gives it. While, to be sure, in recognizing and
emphasizing the initial work of God upon the
soul in regeneration, this is not formally attrib
uted to the activity of the Spirit, yet the fact is
insisted on that all believers possess the Spirit,
not only by external relation, but still more by

206 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
inward reception and permanent indwelling
(I. Th. iv. 8; Eph. i. 13, 14; I. Cor. iii. 16,
17; vi. 19; Rom. viii. 9). While he regards
this gift of the Spirit as God's seal set upon the
soul's reception of himself and as the "earnest "
of all blessings promised and hoped for (Rom.
viii. 11 ; II. Cor. v. 5), Paul does not stop with
this, but goes on to represent the Holy Spirit
within the soul as the secret and power of the
renewed and bettered and perfecting fife (Rom.
viii. 2, 4, 13, 14; Gal. v. 16, 22, 25 ; vi. 8 ;
Eph. iii. 16). While all Christian activity de
pends for effectiveness on the aid of the Spirit
(I. Th. i. 5 ; I. Cor. ii. 4, 10-15), it is preemi
nently true that the attainment by the soul of
its moral ideal is due to the Spirit, and can be
secured only as the soul, putting itself into
harmony with the Spirit, using the power which
by his very indwelling in the soul he puts at its
service, and abounding also in prayer (I. Th. v.
17), strives toward virtue and excellence and
Christlikeness. That Paul rejected " good works " and " law

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SALVATION 207
works " as a method of attaining salvation, was
perverted by his opponents into a charge of in
difference to morality, or worse (Rom. iii. 8 ;
vi. 1, 15), but, while he refused to regard works
as a sufficient basis for hope of salvation, and,
instead, unceasingly demanded faith, this faith
was in his mind in no sense antagonistic to
lightness of character and life, but rather a sure
means of attaining his ideal ; faith grasping
Christ and appropriating him must transform
the life (Rom. vi. 2-6; Gal. ii. 19-21). The
completion of the moral transformation which
he calls sanctification (I. Th. iv. 3 ; I. Cor. i.
30) is nowhere spoken of by Paul as being
during this life practically possible. Nor is it
definitely connected with the event itself of
death, though this is in no way indicative of
doubt as to the perfected moral condition of
them that are with Christ. Paul's thought al
ways connects the fact of this perfection with
the manifestation of it at the expected revela
tion of the returning Lord (I. Th. v. 23 ; I. Cor.
i. 8, 9 ; Col. iii. 4 ; II. Tim. iv. 8).

208 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Of community life Paul makes much. He not
only discusses ecclesiastical conditions and obli
gations, such as church discipline, the conduct
of the meetings of the church, and the qualifi
cations and duties of church officers, but also
delights to emphasize the unity of the Christian.
community, not in one locality merely, but uni
versally, even though this fact be often obscured
by faction and dissension. The church consti
tutes a body of which each individual is a dis
tinct organ (Eph. ii. 16; I. Cor. xii. 12—27), a
thought which is implied in the discussions of
the headship of Christ over the church, his
body (Eph. i. 23; iv. 12, 16; v. 29; Col. i.
18). In reference to this joint life his instruc.
tions, warnings, and words of hope are scarcely
less abundant and significant than the corre
sponding expressions in relation to the personal
life of the individual Christian. Like the indi
vidual Christian, the community of Christians
is in a very real sense made a sacred shrine by
the presence and manifestation of the Holy
Spirit (I. Cor. iii. 16, 17; Eph. ii. 21, 22;

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SALVATION 209
I. Tim. iii. 15), and for the community as well
as for the individual the end of all is spotless
holiness (Eph. v. 25-27).
The letter to the Hebrews contains alike
some pf the most earnest exhortations that are
to be found in the whole New Testament in
relation to advancement toward perfection, and
some of the sharpest rebukes for lack of prog
ress in the Christian life and warnings against
apostasy from it (ii. 3 ; iii. 12-iv. n ; v. n -vi.
8; x. 23-31, 39; xii. 25, 29). The tone of
both encouragement and censure implies an
ideal which is lofty and as yet unattained. The
author does not develop and distinguish the ele
ments of this ideal ; rather, he leaves it floating
vaguely before the mind of the reader, inasmuch
as the purpose of his writing is preeminently to
prevent apostasy to Judaism, not directly to dis
cuss moral duties. That perfection is the goal
is everywhere implied, though the idea of per
fection is nowhere analyzed (ix. 9 ; x. 1 ; xii.
10). It is demanded that the endeavor of the
soul itself should be strenuous and especially

2IO NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
that it should be patient, while at the same
time expectation of success rests chiefly on the
efficacy of the divine co-working (vi. 10; xiii.
20, 2 1 ). As is common in the New Testament,
the return of Jesus is made pivotal (ix. 28 ;
x- 25, 37) ! but once at least (xii. 23) there is
recognition that the Christian dead are perfect
even before the return of Jesus and the resur
rection. Of social Christian life and of church
life and order there is little mention. Sympa
thetic and hospitable love of the brethren, en
deavor for peace, meeting together, mutual
exhortation and respect for pastors (x. 24, 25 ;
xiii. 1-3, 17, 24) seem to exhaust the demands
which touch church life. The real unity of
pious souls in all ages finds repeated assertion
(xi. 39, 40 ; xii. 22, 23).
In his letters the apostle John presents his
ideal of Christian character and life largely in a
negative form, though not without frequent sug
gestions and assertions which add positive ele
ments to the conception of sinlessness (I.. Jn. i.
6, 7; ii. 1, 6, 20; iii. 3, 6, 9-1 1, 14, 17; v.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SALVATION 211
18; III. Jn. n). This ideal of sinless perfec
tion is presented as absolutely essential to Chris
tian experience (iii. 9) ; while at the same time
there is such recognition of its non-attainment
in practice (i. 6 — ii. 2), that very many exegeti
cal devices have been resorted to in order to
harmonize the apparently inconsistent expres
sions. Of all explanations the simplest is to
hold that John sets forth sinlessness as the only
normal and rightful condition of the Christian
soul, even though at the same time he well
understood and implied in what he said that the
actual moral condition of the soul may be abnor
mally and inexplicably inconsistent therewith.
The ideal and the duty to strive after it remain
the same, even if no one attains it. As the
supreme thought of John was to lay stress on
the truth that the normal condition and conse
quently the ideal of attainment on the part of
the Christian can be no less than absolute sin
lessness and Godlike holiness, he says but little
as to the method and means by which to reach
it. His only positive command is the often

212 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
repeated injunction to " love one another," which,
however, he regards rather as proof of likeness
to God than as a road thither (I. Jn. iii. 14-24 ;
iv. 7-v. 3). That the attainment of an ideally
perfect character must of necessity be postponed
to the future, John never asserts. He is on the
other hand sure that at the revelation of Jesus
Christ we certainly shall be completely trans
formed into his likeness (I. Jn. iii. 2). While
the first epistle treats community life only in the
injunction to mutual love, the Apocalypse on the
contrary is almost exclusively devoted to the
various aspects of the life of the Christian com
munity. The book begins with the letters to the
Seven Churches, which represent all phases of
church conditions by their varied characteristics
quite as much as numerically, and almost all the
rest of the book is devoted to the varying fortunes
of organized Christianity on earth. While many
students have endeavored to trace alike in the
seven brief letters and in the symbolic represen
tations of the rest of the book a definite course
of church development through the ages, no

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SALVATION 21 1
such attempts have as yet finally approved them
selves as successful, and it is advisable to con
sider the book a series, not of definitely arranged
and chronologically accurate forecasts, but of
picturesque symbols conveying in varied forms
the thought that unceasing conflict, persecution,
suffering, rescue is the lot of the church in all
ages until the end come.

CHAPTER XI

THE CONSUMMATION

There is no record in the synoptic Gospels
that Jesus ever asserted what extent of time
was to be allotted to the development of his
kingdom. We find on the one hand that he
urged on all his followers the duty of " watchful
ness," which, however, is to be understood as
meaning preparedness rather than expectancy
(Matt. xxiv. 42-44; xxv. 13). On the other
hand we find in some of the parables an implica
tion at least that the interval before the consum
mation would be considerable (Matt. xiii. 24-30,
37-43 > xxv- 1-30). But whether near or
remote the consummation is at all events con
nected in his teaching with his return. In the
great apocalyptic discourse just before his pas
sion (Matt, xxiv., xxv. ; Mk. xiii. ; Lk. xxi. 5-36),
Jesus seems to have answered two questions of
214

THE CONSUMMATION 21 5
his disciples, the one, when should the destruc
tion of Jerusalem occur ; the other, what should
be the sign of his own personal return and the
end of the age (Matt. xxiv. 3). Probably the
disciples did not at that time or till long after
consciously separate the two in their thinking
of them. There is, however, reason to believe
that Jesus himself clearly distinguished them,
and that, while he set the time for the destruc
tion of Jerusalem within that generation, he set
no date whatever for the consummation of the
age (Matt. xxiv. 34-36 ; Mk. xiii. 28-37). Not
only in these questions of the disciples, but in
the references of the Master himself to this age
and to the age to come, and in the later teaching
of the apostles, the distinction of the ages which
was common in the Jewish thought of the time
seems to have been accepted. "This age," so
called, is the age immediately preceding the
reign of the Messiah, and " the age to come " is
the age of the reign itself. The transition from
the one period to the other was expected by the
Jews to occur immediately on the advent of the

2l6 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Messiah, but in Christian thought it is associ
ated with his return, so far as it is brought in
connection with any other fact. Not only is
the kingdom of Christ consummated at the
return when all that is evil shall be gathered out
of it (Matt. xiii. 39-42), but much that concerns
the individual is likewise associated with that
return. While the reunion of soul and body,
which is throughout the Scriptural idea of res
urrection, is definitely foretold in the synoptic
teaching of Jesus (Mk. xii. 26 ; Lk. xiv. 14 ; xx.
35, 36), it is not brought into clear relations
with the return. Judgment, on the other hand,
which is to be followed by its issues of endless
joy or penal sufferings, is definitely connected
with the second advent (Matt. vii. 22, 23 ; xxv.
31-46). The Johannine record, as it is silent touching
the proclamation of the inauguration of the
kingdom, is no less silent as to its consumma
tion. It is, however, unmistakably taught that
Christ would return to earth. While this teach
ing may be fulfilled in part by a merely spiritual

THE CONSUMMATION 217
presence (Jn. xiv. 3, 18), in part a personal return
is no less clearly demanded (xxi. 22, 23). The
resurrection of the dead is made to depend
upon the authority of Jesus (v. 26, 29 ; vi. 39,
40; xi. 25), and judgment, future as well as
present, is assigned to him (v. 27). But it is
to be recognized that there is no systematic
attempt to correlate these facts and to set them
in their relations to each other.
The first apostolic preaching taught the re
turn of Jesus, conditioning it on preparedness
for his coming (Acts iii. 19-21), and the apos
tles watched with interest the developing pur
pose of God in the ingathering of the Gentiles
(Acts xv. 14-17). James in his letter speaks
of the return of the Lord as imminent, but not
necessarily as immediate, for he urges patience
while it must be waited for (James v. 7-1 1).
Jude recognizes that he and his contemporaries
are living in the closing epoch of the world's
history, but whatever his unspoken thought
may have been, he sets no limit to the duration
of this epoch (Jude 18). He speaks of judg-

2l8 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
ment also, " the judgment of the great day "
(Jude 6). In the substance of their teaching
the two letters of Peter agree. In the first he
declares that the end of all things has ap
proached (I. Pet. iv. 7), a phrase the significance
of which it is easy to overpress, as it may mean
only that till the end shall come there is to be
expected only the development of what is now
in progress. The consummation is thought of
as the next all important event in the world's
history, an event known to be the next, but how
near, unknown, imminent but by no means cer
tainly immediate. Salvation in its completeness
is something laid up in heaven, awaiting revela
tion at the end of all things at the manifesta
tion of Jesus Christ (I. Pet. i. 7, 13), while
most solemn questions suggest what the apostle
expected would be the doom of the ungodly
and the sinner (I. Pet. iv. 17, 18). To these
thoughts of impending end, of revelation of
Christ at his return and of then completed sal
vation with its correlate of evil doom, the second
letter makes marked but consistent additions.

THE CONSUMMATION 219
The present is the final era of the world's his
tory (II. Pet. iii. 3). The doom is still regarded
as certain and as, in spite of all delays, yet im
pending, for though he himself will die without
the sight of it (II. Pet. i. 13-15), and the scof
fers mock at the delaying promise (II. Pet. iii.
3, 4), yet the return of the Lord, called in
the familiar phrase " the day of the Lord "
(II. Pet. iii. 10), is delayed only in grace and
is sure to come, while out of the tremendous
catastrophe will come a renewed dwelling place
for men (II. Pet. iii. 5-13).
As usual Paul's teaching as to the consum
mation is fuller, clearer and at the same time
more provocative of discussion than that of
the rest of the apostles. The first teaching
to be noted is in the first letter from his pen
which has been preserved, and is doctrinally its
most important part. The Thessalonians were
troubled by a difficulty which, though very
strange to us, was no less real to them, it being
no other than the fear that dead believers would
in some measure lose their share in the bless-

220 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
ings to be brought by the returning Lord. In
response Paul assured them that the departed
saints would lose no part nor place in the con
summated kingdom, for the very first event in
the closing scenes would be the resurrection of
the dead believers in Christ, after which they
with the Christians still living would be " caught
up" to be forever with Christ (I. Th. iv. 13—17).
The fact that Paul here uses "we" in speaking
of such as shall be alive at Christ's return, has
often been overpressed alike exegetically and
dogmatically. It may be granted that his lan
guage received its tone from a personal and
private expectation that the return would occur
during his lifetime. But it is to be understood
that he could not have gained this expectation
from revelation, like the theology which he
preached, nor did he regard it as authoritative
like that, for it is significant and important to
heed that he scrupulously avoided formulating
the expectation into dogmatic statement. He
nowhere asserts that he shall be living to see
the Lord's return. It must also be rem em-

THE CONSUMMATION 221
bered that, at the time of writing, Paul him
self necessarily belonged to the class of living
saints, and that without a noticeable effort he
could scarcely separate himself from his class,
which as a class would continue to the end. It
is again to be noted that in the warning which
follows as to the dawning of "the day of the
Lord," it is not said that it would come imme
diately, or even soon, but that when it should
come it would be unheralded and by many un
expected (I. Th. v. 2, 3). It soon appeared
that even this teaching had been misunderstood
and misused (as it has been by so many since)
by some of the Thessalonians, who held that
the day of the Lord was on the very point of
dawning, if indeed it had not already dawned,
and accordingly had given up their regular
work. So, in his second letter, Paul assured
them that much history yet remained to be
made in the way of apostasy and consummation
of evil (II. Th. ii. 3-12), and he gave no assur
ance or even clue to his own expectation as to
how long this history might be in the making.

222 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Nowhere later does Paul lay special stress on
the idea that the return of Christ is a fact
which immediately impends. While there is no
reason to suppose that his views changed, the
stress on them ceased, because occasion for it
was lacking. In the Corinthian epistles there
was much eschatological teaching, but it relates
to other topics. At Corinth the certainty and
character of the reembodiment of the souls of
believers was the burning question. So he dis
cusses this (I. Cor. xv.), asserting and arguing
three facts : reembodiment, relation of the body
that is to be to the body that now is, unlikeness
of the future body to the present. To this is
added the assertion that the resurrection of the
dead is associated with the return of Christ,
and that there will be a simultaneous transfor
mation of the believers then living, with whom
Paul still classes himself, though very soon after
(II. Cor. v. 1-4) he at least suggests the possi
bility of his own death. These passages have
sometimes been forced into an improbable in
consistency. The explanation of their unlike-

THE CONSUMMATION 223
ness is that in the former he with joyful hope
emphasized reembodiment, and in the second,
with somewhat of dread but without a hint of
change in views, he emphasized the fact of tem
porary bodilessness, which would, however, be
followed by the assumption of a body which
should as conspicuously bear the stamp of
heaven as the present of ' earth. In all his
letters Paul is silent as to the resurrection of
unbelievers, and the arguments by which he
confirms his teaching as to the resurrection of
believers do not necessarily imply it. But this
silence may reasonably be attributed to the fact
that this truth fell outside the scope of his
argument, and he may have had unrecorded
arguments for it, as is implied in Luke's sum
mary of Paul's sermon at Athens and his
preaching to Felix (Acts xvii. 31 ; xxiv. 25).
Judgment is emphasized by the apostle, and is
associated with the offices of Jesus (Acts xvii.
31 ; xxiv. 25 ; I. Cor. iii. 13 ; II. Cor. v. 10;
II. Tim. iv. 8). With the return of Christ
comes not only resurrection and judgment but

224 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
also the perfection and glory of believers (Rom.
viii. 17; II. Tim. ii. 12; iv. 8). The consum
mated kingdom will exert an influence beyond
the circle of believers, accomplishing the reno
vation and transformation even of the physical
universe (Rom. viii. 19-22). Paul tells farther,
though somewhat obscurely, of a surrender of
the mediatorial kingdom by Christ (I. Cor. xv.
24—28) in order more clearly to manifest the
single supreme sovereignty of God and the
Father. The theme and method of the letter to the
Hebrews are such that little space is given to
the consummation. That judgment follows
death (ix. 27 ; x. 27), that Christ will reappear
to complete our salvation, and that " the day "
is approaching (ix. 28 ; x. 25, 37), these teach
ings are practically all that is to be found in
this epistle.
The teaching of John as to the consumma
tion must be chiefly drawn from the Apoca
lypse, though in the letters there is recog
nition that this is the last era of history

THE CONSUMMATION 225
(I. Jn. ii. 1 8), and the future manifestation of
Christ is promised (I. Jn. iii. 2). Throughout
the greater part of Revelation it would be an
error to look for exactness of chronological
order, but at the end of the book such exact
ness may be readily and fairly recognized. The
apostle sets in order, as a direct revelation from
the risen Christ himself, resurrection, judgment
, and the picture of the consummated kingdom
(xx. 11 — xxi. 5). As to the much discussed
" Millennial " passage (xx. 4-6) it needs only to
be said that it is most safely interpreted as figu
rative, thus giving no basis for the doctrine of a
personal "Millennial" reign of Christ -with his
saints, or for the doctrine of two distinct resur
rections, a theory for which there is no clear
support to be found in the whole New Testa
ment. It thus appears, in spite of the brevity and
frequent obscurity of the hints of the New
Testament teachers, that their views as to the
consummation are in substantial agreement with
each other. They hold that the mission of

226 NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
Christ began the final epoch of the world's
history, an epoch of undefined and at present
undefinable duration. Regarding the time of
this impending end there is no revelation, but
this very uncertainty is made the basis of urgent
appeals for constant preparedness for this end,
whenever it shall come. Christ and his apostles
agree in teaching that at the end Jesus will
return in personal manifestation ; the souls of ¦
the dead will be reembodied, which is resurrec
tion ; all will be judged; and the kingdom will be
consummated in eternal felicity and glory.

INDEX

NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES CITED

MATTHEW
CHAPTER PAGE
CHAPTER
PAGE
. i.
21 .
... 134
?¦ 33. 34, 38,
39 • 24
iii.
2 .
96, 1 75
45, • •
63, 125, 197
7,8
• 97
47 • •
. . . 197
14 .
. 96
48 . .
• 35, 63
16, 17
. 82
vi. 1 . .
• • 197
17 •
• ¦ 55
9 • •
• 3*, 35
iv.
i-n
. 14, 109
10 . .
121, 122
3 ¦
- • 55
12 . .
• 97, I24
4 •
• 29
13 ¦ ¦
. . no
6
¦ 55
13, H ¦
• ¦ 3i
17 •
97, 175
14, 15 .
. . 124
v.
I-IO
¦ 125
22-24 •
• • 99
3 •
. 122
32, 33 ¦
• • 123
6 .
• 197
32 • ¦
¦ ¦ 35
8 .
¦ 93
33 ¦ ¦
121, 197
9 ¦
• 197
vii. 11
31, 63, 97
ii .
25, 178
12 . .
• • 197
20 .
• 197
13 • •
. . 100
21, 22
. 24
14 . .
. . 126
22 .
- 98
16, 17, 18
¦ ¦ 99
27, 28 .
. 24
19, 20 .
. . 197
28 . .
¦ 98
20 . .
• ¦ 99
29, 30 .
¦ 99
21 . .
. . 93
227
228

INDEX OF
CHAPTER PAGE
CHAPTER
PAGE
vii.
21-27 .... 180
xii. 36 . . .
. 98
22, 23
99, 216
37-43 • •
. 214
24-27
• 197
41 . . .
• 177
viii.
n .
122
50 • • 36,
l80, I97
20 .
¦ 13
xiii. 1-50 . .
. I98
ix.
2
100
3-8 • .
. 180
2-6
41
19 . . .
. 121
6 .
13
19-23 . .
. 180
15 ¦
1
3> 178
24-30 . .
121, 214
27 •
26
33 • • •
. 122
35 ¦
121
37-43 • 99,
121, 214
X.
20 .
199
39-42 . .
. 2l6
24-26
198
39 • • 108,
109, no
28 .
{
16,
87(2)
41 . . .
108, 121
29 .
63
43 ¦ • •
- 197
31 ¦
87
47-5° • •
. 121
32-39
178
49, 50 • .
• 99
32, 33, :
17
25
xiv. 33 . . .
¦ 55
39 •
87
XV. 11-20 . .
• 197
41 .
197
22 . . .
. .26
xi.
2-6
27
xvi. 9, 10 .
¦ 13
4,5
13
'3-23 • ¦
• '54
7-19
r3
16 . . .
¦ 36
n, 12
122
16, 17 . .
. 26, 178
20-24
177
17 . . .
¦ 87
21, 23
13
18
. 122
27 ¦
35, 36 (2), 66,
21
• 13
126, 152
24
. 180
28 .
... 25
26
¦ 87
28-30
¦ 125, 177
27
• 36
xii.
26, 27
. . . 109
xvii. 5
• 55
28 .
¦ • 13, I22
22
• 97
2^,7,2 ¦ 81,99
22, 23 . .
• 14
33 ¦
197
xviii. 3
• 97
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES CITED 229

CHAPTERxviii

xxi.

R

PAGE

6-9 .... I98

8 .

. 126
10 .
36, 108
14 .
• 87
l7 •
. 122
21-35
. 124
23-35
. 98
8,9
. 24
21 .
. 180
26 .
. l8l
29 . 1
5,
I2(
5 (2), 178
19 .
• U
28 .
13, 155
3° •
. 26
i-9
. 118
9 ¦
. 26
24-27
• 13
29-32
• 177
31 •
. 122
31-32
. 100
43 •
. 118
11-13
. 197
14 .
. 180
3° •
. 108
37 •
• 93
41-45
• 13
43-45
¦ 4i
8-10
• 25
23 •
• 98
37 •
. 100
37-39
. 118
xxv.
. 214
CHAPTER
PAGE
xxiv. 3 .
 "5
22 .
87, 180
24, 31
. 180
34-36
215
35 •
24
36 •
108
42-44
214
42 — xx\
'. 3°
198
48-51
99
xxv. 1-30
214
13 •
214
19 .
200
30 .
99
31 •
108
3J-34
25
31-46
178, 216
34-46
180, 197
41 . 5
5, 109 (2), no
45,46
... 98
46 .
. 25, 99, 126
xxvi. 12 .
• ¦ i3> 29
21-25
• 14
26-28
• 13
28 .
124, 156
3* ¦
• 13
38 ¦
• 29
53 •
. 109
61 .
• 157
63 •
• 35
63, 64, <
58.
• 27
xxvii. 3 .
. 176
xxviii.40-43
27
230

INDEX OF

MARE

CHA

3TER

PAGE

CHAPTER

PAGE

i

I . . . .

• 55

X

• 15 • .

. . . 122

4 • • . .

?6, 187

18 . .

... 29

10, II . . .

. 82

20, 21 .
... 98
12,13 • • ¦
. no
23 • .
... 121
'4, 15 . . .
• "7
37 • .
... 26
15 • • . .
¦ J75
45 • •
• "6, 155
ii
5 • ¦ • .
. 124
xi
9, 10 .
... Il8
5-" • . .
• 41
25 ¦ •
¦ ¦ 97, 124
10, II, 18-22, 2i
i 25
xii.
26 . .
. . . 216
iii.
II ....
26 ... .
¦ 55
109
29 . .
34 • .
... 63
. . . 122
29 ... .
99
xiii.
. . . 214
iv.
i-34 • ¦ .
198
20 . .
• . . l8l
39 • • • .
25
28-37 •
. . . 2I5
v.
7 
8 
55
32 - .
• 29, 35, 36
25
33 • •
¦ - ¦ I98
vii.
18, 19 . . . .
25
xiv.
25
. . . 122
20-23 • . . .
99
36 . .
. . . 74
viii.
35 
126
38 . .
. . . I98
35-37 ¦ . .
92
57,58 .
¦ • 157
38 .... 2.
', 109
61, 62 .
• . . 27
ix.
37  "
178
XV.
18 . .
¦ . . 27
• . . I34
42-49 ¦ • 87, 5
8,99
xvi.
16 . .
X.
11, 12 . . . .
14 
25
98 LUE
:e
9-20 .
. . . I34
CHAPTER
PAGE
CHAPTER
PAGE
i.
54
iii.
7,8. .
• • 97
ii.
93
21, 22 . .
. . 82
65
iv.
J-i3 ¦ •
. 14, no
93
17-21 . .
• • 99
• • 13
iii.
96
23-26 . .
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES CITED 23 1

CHAPTER

PAGE

CHAPTER

PAGE
v. 20-24 .... 41
xiv. 14  216
32 ¦ •
• 177
26, 33 .
. 178
vi. 20 . .
. 122
xv. 1-32
. 127
20, 21 .
• "5
7 • •
. 177
43-45 ¦
• 99
10 . .
64, i77
45 ¦ ¦
. 197
32 ¦ ¦ ¦
64, 126
vii. 14, 23
• 25
xvi, 22
. 109
28 .
. 121
22, 23,. 2
5-
. 87
44-5 1
• 178
30, 31
• i77
47 •
124, 180
xvii. 10 . .
• , i97
viii. 12 .
no
21
122 (2)
ix. 59, 60
. 178
xviii. 7
180, 181
x. 18 .
. no
9-14
¦ i97
22 .
126, 152
19 .
• 29
27 .
. 180
xix. 5 .
. 100
Z9-37
. 98
9, 10
100, 127
xi. 4 •
97, "4
40 .. .
• 25
13 •
¦ 199
41-44
. 118
24 .
. 109
xx. 13, 14
¦ 36
32 •
. 177
35,3s
87, zi6
39-44
. 197
36 •
¦ 125
xii. 6 .
• 63
xxi. 5-36
. 214
8, 9
. . 109
33 •
. • 24
10
¦ • 99
34-36
. . 198
12 .
• ¦ 199
xxii. 19 .
. . 156
24-31
. - 63
29 .
. . 121
3C3I
• • 123
31 •
. . no
45-48
¦ ¦ 99
67-70
• • 27
47,48
. . 98
xxiii. 2, 3, 35
-3/
. . 27
xiii. 3, 5
• 97, 177
43 •
• ¦ 87
24-30
• • 99
46 .
. 29, 86
32 •
. . 109
xxiv. 27 .
. • 44
34 •
. 25, 100
39  °"
34,35
. . 118
232

INDEX OF

JOHN

CHAPTER i. i .
1-18
3 •
4 •
9 •
10 .
n, 12
12, 13
13 •
14 .
18 .
21 .
29 .
36 .
45 •
49 •
ii. 8,11
J9 •
»»• 3, 5
6 .
7 •
12
14 •
14, 15
16 .
16, 17
35,36
36 .
10, 14
24 •
25, 26
50 ¦

iv.

PAGE
60, 6l
¦ 53
• 75
76,77
¦ 77
75
194
150'95
46, 79, 95
58, 59, 61, 75
¦ 47
ww 171 47
28,35 27
'57
101, 184 88
3i
183 14
'57
59, 77, 150
(2), 58, 194 58
194184 66
2827

54

CHAPTER V. 18 .
'9 •
19-23
22 .
24 .
2S •
26 .
27 .
28, 29
29 .
30 .
34 ¦
40 .
43 •
44 •
46,47 n .
27 ¦
29 •
35 •
37 •
38 .
39-40
40 .
44,45
46 .
47 •
51-58
54 •
56 .
62 .
65 •

VI.

66,

76:

28

28.

PAGE
• 34
3O,40
¦ 37
28
127, 128
37, 183
128, 217
. 217
28,88
. 217
• 30
. 127
101, 185
¦ 37
. 66
¦ 183
• 27
. 128
. 28
28, 183
37, 183
¦ 37
. 217
28, 128
101, 184
¦ 37
. 128
88, 184
. 128
. 184
¦ 37
• 183

NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES CITED 233

CHAPTER

PAGE

vi. 70  14

vii. 37 .

• 183, 184

37,38

. . 28
39 •
• 199
40 .
¦ • 47
viii. 12 .
28, 183
19 .
. . 28
24 .
. 28
28 .
¦ 27
29 .
• 3°
31 •
. 183
32-36
3°, I29
40 .
• 29
42 .
. m
43 •
. 183
44 •
. in
45 •
. 183
46 .
• 30
5i •
. 88
5i,52
. 183
58 .
• 38
ix. 7 ¦
• 27
41 .
101
x. 9 .
. 127
10
. 128
n-18
14, 158
15 ¦
• 37
17,18
• 159
24,25 .
. 28
29 .
37,40
3° •
. 40
32 •
• 37
34-36
• 39
36 •
• 37
36-38
37
38 •
. . 14
4 •
• • 37
25 •
28, 128, 217
25,26
28, 88, 183
27 •
• 28, 35
41-43
• 27
42 .
. 183
49-52
. 172
7 •
. 14
24-26
. 158
26 .
37, 183
27 •
. 88
3i ¦
. in
32 •
14, 158
47 •
127, 183
18 .
• 14
19 .
183
21-27
14
1 .
2
8,183
3 •
217
6 .
,28
10 .
27
10, n
183
13-15
199
15 •
183
16 .
129
16,17
81
18 .
217
21-24
184
23 ¦
129
23,24
27
26 .
81, 129, 199
28 .
40
234

INDEX OF

CHAPTER

PAGE

CHAPTER

PAGE

xiv.

30 . .

xvi.
27, 28 . .
• 37
3°,3i
• • 30
xvii.
1 . . .
• 37
XV.
4-10 .
184, 199
2 . . .
. 128
I84
3 • • •
66, 129
15 . .
• • 27
5 • ••
• 38
16
. . 129
xix.
n .
. 101
22, 24 .
. . 101
34,35 • •
. 46
26 . .
• 8l, I99
XX.
17 . .
35,67
xvi.
7-i 1 •
• • 130
22, 23 . .
• 199
28 . . .
• 42
12-15 .
43,8l, I99
31 . . .
5s, 194
n • •
xxi.
22, 23 . .
• 217
27 • •
. . l8l
AC
rs
CHAPTER
PAGE
CHAPTER
PAGE
i.
-? . .
iii.
13-15 • •
14 . . .
. 186
6 . .
• 26, I3O
. IOI
l6, 22 .
¦ • 17
15 . . .
r7 (2)
ii.
21
131, l86
16 . . .
. 186
22 . .
17
17 . . .
. IOI
22, 23 .
¦ • 44
19-21
• 217
23, 24 •
• • 17
21 . .
17
27, 29, 31 .
. . 88
26 . . .
47, 102
32 •
• • 17
iv.
10 . . .
17(2)
32,33
. . 82
12 . . .
131, 186
33 - •
¦ • 17
27 . . .
17,47
34-36
48
30 . . .
• 47
36 .
• 47, 49
v.
3 • ¦ •
. in
.38 13M
86, 187, 200
3-4
. 200
40 . .
• ¦ 131
4 • .• •
. 200
41 . .
. . 187
9 ¦ •
. 200
44, 45 •
. . 200
,3° • 17(2),
101, 186
iii.
'3 •
• 17, 47
31:17,48,131
,i32,iS6
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES CITED 235

:hapt

ER

PAGE

CHAPTER

PAGE

vi.

32 • •

. . . 200

xiv.

15 . .

. . 188

vii.

37 ¦ •

... 47

i5-J7 ¦

. 69

56 . .
... 82
XV.
1 . .
131, 189
viii.
14 . .
. . . 200
5 • •
. 189
22 . .
... 186
7-29 .
. 200
29 . .
. 82
11 . .
• »3I
38 • ¦
... 187
14-17 .
. 217
39 • ¦
... 82
24 . .
. 189
ix.
20 .
... 56
28 . .
. 82
X.
1 — xi. 1
8 . . 200
xvi.
31 • -
. 188
43 • •
. 131, 186
xvii.
24-31 •
. 68
xi.
H •
• ¦ • 131
26 . .
¦ 70
15-17
. . . 200
30 . .
93, 188
17 -
... 186
31 -3i(2)
,4
5,223 (2)
xii.
12 .
. 200
xix.
2 . .
. 188
xiii.
2 .
. . 82
4 • •
¦ 19
23 ¦
¦ • 19
XX.
21 . .
. 188
24 .
... 19
26, 27 .
- 93
26 .
... 131
28 . .
. 165
26-31
• • 19
xxiv.
25 • •
223(2)
33 ¦
... 57
xxvi.
18, 20 .
. 188
39 ¦
¦ 139, 188
xxviii. 31 . •
¦ 134
47 •
... 131
ROM
ANS
CHAPl
ER
PAGE
CHAPTER
PAGE
i.
3 •
• ¦ • 19(2)
i.
18 — iii. 20
. . 102
3,4
• • ¦ 90(2)
. . . 70
4 •
¦ ¦ 19, 57
. . ¦ 94
6,7
. ... 191
23, 24, 25,
26 . 70
7 ¦
. . . . 205
28 . .
• 70, 93
9 •
. . . . 57
30 . .
. . . 72
16, 17
. . 189
ii.
. . . 70
18 .
. . 71,72
4 • ¦
• • 93
236

INDEX OF

CHAPTER

PAGE

CHAPTER

PAGE

ii.

4-10 . .

. 105

v. 15 .

¦ • ¦ 73

4, 5 • •

• 72

16 . .

... 138

5,6 . .
• 70
18 .
¦ • • 139
7 . . .
• 135
vi. 1, 2-6
. . . 207
8,9 . .
• 137
4 • ¦
¦ 20 (2), 135
iii.
3- 5, 6 •
. 70
5-10
. . 167
8 . . . .
. 207
8-1 1
... 168
19-26 . .
• I38
9, 10
... 19
20 . . .
90, l88
14 •
... 141
21 . . .
. 189
15 •
. . . 207
24 . . .
• 143
15-22
... 136
24, 25 . .
. I65
19 . .
. . 90, 142
25 • 19. H5,
I67, I89
21 . .
... 105
25, 26 . .
. 169
22 .
141, 142
28, 30 . .
l89 (2)
23 •
• 105, 135
31 . . .
141, 191
vii. 7-25
... 136
iv.
1 . . .
. 90
14 .
... 90
4-6 . .,
. I4I
22 .
•143
5,6 . .
• 138
23 •
• • • 93
14 . . .
. 189
viii. 1
... 139
15 . . .
. 188
2 .
. . . 206
17-21 . .
. I90
3 ¦
45, 46, 52, 59
25 . . .
20, 167
90, 167, 189
v.
1 . . .
• 139
4 •
141, 191, 206
1, 2 . .
I38, 189
4-10
... 90
8 . . .
¦ 19
6 .
... 105
8-n . .
¦ ¦ 174
9 •
83, 147, 206
9. . . .
¦ • 135
10, 11
. . .94, 136
9, 10 . .
. . 166
n .
. . 20, 206
10 . . .
. . 168
I3> r4
. . . 206
10, n . .
72, 139
14 .
¦ • 59- 83, 105
12 . . .
• • 94
14-16
. ... 148
13, '4 • •
• 103
14-17
. ... 147
14, 15 . .
• 45
15 ¦
... 74
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES CITED 237

CHAPTER

PAGE

CHAPTER

PAGE

viii.

16 .

... 83

ix. 5 . . . iq, 60, 82

17
xi. 14 .
. ioq
iq
. . . S9
21, 22
70
19-22
• 113, 224
23 •
¦105
2"X
. . . I41!
30-32
73
. . . IT1!
33 • •
70
26, 27
... 83
xii. 1
142
28 .
• 105, 191
xiii. n-14
204
28-30
. . . 104
xiv. 4
191
29 .
59, 141, 203
6 .
50
29, 3°
... 191
8,9
50
33 •
104, 191
15 ¦
165
33-34
¦ • • i39
17 ¦
•34
38
. . . 112
xv. 6
30 •
74
38,39
... 191
83
xvi. 26 .
70
I. CORINTHIANS
CHAPTBR
PAGE
CHAPTER PAGE
i.
2 . 5c
, 142, I9I, 205
ii. 14 .
• 90
8
• • - x43
14. 15
16 .
• 92
• 93
8,9
143, 204, 207
9 •
70, 104, 191
iii. 1 .
. 90
13, 17
. . . 20
3 •
90,93
18 .
. . . 20, 164
13 •
. . 223
. . . . 164
16 .
. . 147
. . . . 191
16, 17
206, 208
26 .
. . . 90, 191
17 ¦
142, 205
28-30
. . . . 104
19, 20
• 70
. . . . 00
iv. 9 .
20 .
. 112
30: 141
, 144, 205, 207
• 134
ii.
2 .
. . . 20, 164
v. 5 .
• 90
vi. 3 .
. 112
10-15
. . .83, 206
9,10
• 134
23<

5

INDEX OF

CHAPTER

PAGE

1 CHAPTER

PAGE

vi

ii . .

. . . 142

j

xii. 4-6

.... 83

16, 17 .

. . 90

8-1 1

... 83
.... 208

19 ¦ .
. . 206
12-27
20 . .
. 90, l66
sv. . .
¦ . . . 222
vii.
5 • •
• ¦ H3
1-8
¦ . . . 21
10, 12 . .
. . 20
2 .
... IO5
23 • • •
25 • • .
. . 166
. . 20
3 •
4 •
.... I65
• • . . 20
viii.
34 ¦ . .
4-6 . . .
6 . . .
. . 90
¦ 70, 83
17 •
17, 18
• • . 167
¦ • . . I90
• 52, 70
24 .
• • 57, 112
ix
5 ¦ • •
. . 20
24-28
• . . . 224
27 • . .
• • 143
25-27
.... 49
X.
xi.
J3 • ¦ •
7 • . .
. . 70
. . 89
26 .
39,.44-
• ¦ • 94(2)
46 . . . 90
10 . . .
23-26 . .
. . 112
. . 20
45,47
5o .
.... 45
¦ ... 134
24 • . .
. . 156
54-56
• • 94(2)
n. corii
fTHIANS
CHAPTER
PAGE 1
CHAPTER
PAGE
i.
*> 3 ¦ ¦ ¦
22 . . .
II . . .
¦ • 74
. . 148
¦ • 113
V
ii.
H, 15
r5 ¦
¦ ¦ 135
. . 20
iii.
3 • ¦ .
. . 70
18, 19
72, 139, 174
9 ¦ • ¦
• • 139
19 ¦
• . 6l
iv.
1 . . .
¦ • 73
21
16 . . .
. . 90
vii.
1
¦ ¦ 142, I43
v.
1-4 ¦ •
. . 222
viii.
9 ¦
• . 20, 52
2-4 • •
• • 94
ix.
5 • ¦ •
6 . . .
. . 206
X.
¦ • 94
xii.
8
10 . . .
• • 223
xiii.
n . . .
¦ ¦ 50
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES CITED 239

GALATIANS

CHAPTER

PAGE

CHAPTER

PAGE

i.

n, 12 .

• • 44

iii. 21 .

... 188

16 . .
• 57, 90
iv. 4 •
• • 19.52
19 . .
. . 20
5-7
... 147
ii.
1-21
. . 200
6 .
• • 74, 148
15-21 .
. . . 136
8 .
... 70
16 . .
. . 189
9 •
. . . . 112
16-21 .
. . 189
v. 1
... 136
19, 20 .
¦ ¦ 135
2 .
... 189
19-21 .
. . 207
3 •
... 188
20 . .
20, '168, 190
4,6
... 189
21 . .
. . 165
13 ¦
... 136
iii.
1 . .
. 20, 164
16 .
93, 148, 206
1-6 .
. . 189
18 .
... 148
2 . .
• • 147
22 .
. . . 206
5 • •
. . 189
25 •
105, 148, 206
10-12 .
. . 188
vi. 8 .
105, 135, 206
10-14 ¦
. . 189
9 ¦
. . . 204
13 • •
20, I43, 166
14 •
... 165
EPHESIANS
CHAPTER
PAGE
CHAPTER
PAGE
i.
i. 21
. . . 112
2,3 •
• • 74
23 •
. . . 208
4 - •
142, 191
ii. 2 .
... "3
? . .
. . IOI
3 •
4 •
• • . 7i, 73
... 73
6,7 •
• ¦ 73
7 . . 1
43, H5, 165
4-8
. . 73, 192
n . .
. . 191
7,8
8 .
• • . . 73
. ... 189
13, 14 •
. 148, 206
14 . .
. . 14?
10 .
. 143, 192
, 139, 165, 208
18
. . 04
16 . 21
20-22 .
¦ • 49
240

INDEX OF

CHAPTER ii. 21, 22
iii. 12 .
M, 15
16 .
iv. 1
4 •
12, 16
24 •
30 ¦

CHAPTER i.

6
2222-24 5
6 6,7
8
9-i
n
12

CHAPTER >• 13

14 •
15 •
15, '6
16 .
16, 17
17 •
18 .
20 .
20-22

83, 208
• 139
• 147
148, 206
. 192
90, 191
. 208
. 142
83, 145, 148
PHILIPPIANS

CHAPTER

2 .
3 •
6 .
25-27 27 •
29 .
11 .
12 .

104, 192

Ul.

IV.

¦ 90
• 94
. 203
60, 82
¦ 52
21,45
• 49
¦ 50
. 205
COLOSSIANS PAGE
57, 134
• 143
60, 7052
112

12-14
4-7 •
9 •
12 .
12-1413, M
19 •
8 .

83 52
208
81, 113, 139
• • • 139

CHAPTER L 22

ii.

28 .
8 .
9 •
1012, 13
14 •
15 •
4 ¦
12 .

203 142 7i
209 142
208 "3112

11. 12, 13 105, 143, 192

. . 204
¦ • 136
137, 189
143. 205
. . 204
. . 192
. . 105
• - 203

PAGE
90, 142, I43
• 93
. 112
. 60
49. 1I2
. 168
21, 165
. 112
. 207
. 191

NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES CITED 24 1

I. THESSALONIANS

CHAPTER

1.

4

5

10

ii.

15

18

111.

13

IV.

1-

CHAPTER i. 6 .
n .
12 .
ii. 3-12
CHAPTER i. 17 •
ii. 6 .
13, J4
15 •

CHAPTER i- 9
10 8
10

11.

104, 191
. 206
57. 7i
• 19
• "3
¦ 143
¦ 203
205, 207
. 142
147, 206

1 3-i:
14 2,3
6 9
1017
2323, 24
24 .

89,1

II. THESSALONIANS

• 70
. 191
¦ 73
. 221
I. TIMOTHY
PAGE
. 70
• 143
¦ 103
. 142
II. TIMOTHY

13 •
13-16 3 •

CHAPTER iii. 15
vi. 12
13 16

CHAPTER ii. 13

PAGE CHAPTER
, 73, 191 ii. 12
, . 135 iv. 8
. . 21 18
135, i9i TITUS
PAGE . CHAPTER
60, 82 | iii. 5

43

PAGE 220
• 19
. 221
. 204
135, 191
• 19
206
205, 207
. 204
191(2)

PAGE
142, I9I
. . 192
. . 191
. . 204

207,

PAGE 209191 21
70

PAGE
. 224
223, 224
• 135

PAGE 73

242

INDEX OF

HEBREWS

Hi.

ER

PAGE

CHAPTER

PAGE

2'3 53

V

. 11 — vi. 8

. . . 209

3 • .21, 48, 60, 74,

vi.

1 . .

¦ 194

82, 149

4-8 .
. 106
5 •
¦ • 57(2)
6 . .
• • 21, 193
8 .
. . . 57
9 • ¦
. I48
8-12
. . . 61
10 . .
. 2IO
10 .
• • • 53
10-20 .
106
13 ¦
. . . 48
17, 18 .
74
14 •
¦ "3, 148
20 . .
149
2,3
¦ • • 95
vii.
3 • •
¦ 53, 57
3 •
. . 21, 209
14 - . .
• 21, 45
9 •
• 21,53,75
17 . . .
. . 169
10 .
¦ 21, 59
24, 25 . .
149
14 ¦
45
94,95, "3
26 . . .
21
17 ¦
. . 106
27 • . .
169
18 .
. . 21
28 . . .
57
4 •
6 . .
• • 74
viii.
1 . . .
• 21, 149
• • 57
3 • ¦ ¦
. . 169
7 • .
. . 82
10-12 . .
106, 149
11 . .
¦ • 75
12 . . .
¦ 75, 106
12 . . .
¦ • 74
ix.
9 • • .
. . 209
12 — iv. 11
. . 209
11, 12 . .
. . 169
3 • • •
• 75, 150
12 . . .
. 21, 149
9-1 1
. . 150
13, M • •
94, H9
12
95
14 • . .
53
13 ¦ • 74
14, 15 • ¦
. . 169
15 -2i (2), 45, 46,
15 ¦ • •
• • 149
106
16-20
149, 156
21-24 • •
¦ ¦ 149
7 • . . . 21,45
8 . . . . 21,57
22 . . .
. . 169
27 ¦
. . 224
9 ¦
. . 148
27, 28
95
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES CITED 243

CHAPTER ix. 28 . . 21

PAGE
, 148, 169,
2IO, 224

CHAPTER xi. 6 . . .
39,40 . .
xii. 1 . . .
2 . . .
5-10 . .
8,9 . .
9 . . .
10 . . .
14 . .
15-17 • •
17 • ¦ •
22, 23 . .
23 . . .
25 . . .
29 . . .
xiii. 1-3 • ¦
12 . . .
17 ¦ • •
20 . . .
20, 21, 24 .
1ES CHAPTER ii. 5 . . .
9-11 . .
12, 14 . .
15, l6 •
19 . .
26 . .
iii. 2 . .
9 ¦ •
iv. 6 . .
' 7 • ¦
12 . .

PAGE
. . 72(2)
. . 2IO
• ¦ 95

¦ • 53

. 21(2)

5-10 . .
12 . .

. . 170
. 48, 169

• 59. 74
¦ ¦ 75
¦ • 94

. . 209

23-31 •
24, 25 •
25 . .
26-31 .

. . 209
. . 210
210, 224
. . 106
. . 224

. ¦ 74
. . 106
• • 193
. . 210
. 95, 210

¦ • 57
. . 209
3°»3i -
• • 75
. . . 74
• 75, 209210
37 • •
39 • ¦
210, 224
106, 209
. 21, 169
. . 210
. . 21
. . 210
CHAPTER
JAB
PAGE
. . . 200
PAGE
¦ • 133
. '. . 67
. . 102
¦ • 133
. . . 67
. . 201
13-15 '
17 . .
l8 . .
. . . 102
. 67 (2), 69
. . . 187
• - 67
. . 88
. . 200
• ¦ 89
. . 68
27 . .
200, 201
... 50
. . . in
. . . 68
244

INDEX OF

CHAPTER PAGK
CHAPTER pAGE
iv- 13-15 •
... 88
y- x5  133
17 . .
¦ . . 102
16 ¦ ¦ • 133, 201
v. 7-1 1 .
. . . 217
19, 20 . . . . 201
11 . .
... 68
20 .... 133 (2)
!4 • .
¦ . . 201
I. PETER
CHAPTER pAGH
CHAPTER PAGH
i. 1, 2 .
. . 82, 187
iii- 7 . . .
. . 202
2 . .
. . 18, 202
12 .
. 68
2,3 •
. . 56
'5 •
¦ 5o
• 203
3 • •
6 . .
¦ . 18,163
16 .
• • 203
18: 18
45
88
, 1.
13- 163
7 • .
. . 218
19 •
. 88
9 • •
. . 187
19, 20
• 5i
187
12 . .
. . 82
21
13 • ¦
. . 218
22 .
18,48 45
102
J4> 1 5, 16
16 . .
. . 202
• • 133
iv. 1
3 •
16, 17 .
18, 19 . .
. . 68
4-1 1
203
. . 160
6 .
88
19 • ¦ ¦
• • 45
7
218
23 . . .
. . 187
15 •
202
ii. 2, 9 . .
. . 202
17, 18
218
10 . . .
¦ • 147
v. 2 . .
202
n . . .
. 88, 202
5 • ¦
18
12 . . .
. . 68
6 . .
68
21 . . .
. 202 (2)
8 . .
202
21-24 • ¦
. . 162
8,9 -
in
23  18
9 • •
203
24 . 18
2), 45. 133
10 . ,
&
5, 202
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES CITED 245

II. PETER

CHAPTER
PAGE
CHAPTER
PAGE
i.
1 . .
i.
17 . .
4 • •
• • 56(2)
. . . Ill
4 • •
ii.
5-7, 9. ic
- • 203
4-10 .
. . . 68
n . .
. . . 132
20 . .
• • ¦ '33
. . . 219
13-15 •
. . . 219
iii.
3,4 ¦
14 . .
. . . 18
5-13 •
14, 17, 18
. . . 219
• • 203
16-18 .
. . . 18
I. JOHN
CHAPTER
PAGE
CHAPTER
PAGE
i.
i-3- •
. . 46, 54
iii.
4 . .
. . 107
3 • ¦
• 58, 79
6 . .
195. 2IO
S . .
76
7-10 .
8 . .
. . 107
114, 152
6 — ii. 2
. . 211
6,7, •
107, 210
9 • •
. . 211
7 . . .
151, 172
9-11 .
. . 210
8-io .
. . 107
10 . .
107, 114
14 • .
14-24 .
17 . . .
150, 2IO 212
ii.
z , . ,
151, 172
. . 2IO
3-6 . .
. . 107
20 . . .
¦ • 75
6 . . .
195, 210
iv.
3 • • •
46, 54, 95
9, 10 . .
. . 108
7 . . .
¦ 77- 195
13, 14. •
¦ • 54
•7.8 . .
. . 152
18 . . .
7— v. 3 .
8 . . .
. . 212
¦ 77, 78
¦ 77, 150
77- I51- '72
¦ • 195
9 . . .
IO
iii.
1 . . .
1U •
13 . . .
1. 2, . .
. . 150
14 ¦ • •
• 54, 79
2 . . .
212, 225
15 • • ¦
• 195 (2)
3 • • •
16 . . .
77 (2), 78
^¦oo N O Th N m
On o O m m in fs,

in co no no
xv iv on iv

1

VO

PI SO so 00

< >

. . "rl" . n
On iv,
M M

¦ « .

m .

w
©

n
o

00 Os m ro O
w m io so Os
0 - Os ' N • '
2 °° o\ 2 ^ 2 N ? S" ^ •?
^ —
H is.
•H h tj sj
Th Th Th Th Th in
NO
•n in oo
ir> O NO Th co On
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES CITED 247

CHAPTER

Xll.

10 II

xiv.

2,

3

XV.

2-7

-4

XVI.

9-

-11

xvu.

14

.

• 49
. i73
. 96
• 96
75,76
. 194
• 49

CHAPTER PAGE
xix. 16 .... ¦ 49
xx. 2  n4
4_6 .... 225
11— xxi. 5 . • 225
xxi. 6  75
xxii. 3  49
17  83

INDEX OF TOPICS

Acts, book of 9, 10, 17,
159.
Adoption, 147, 150.
Ages, 215, 216.
Angels, 108, 112, 113.
Annihilation, 87, 88.
Apocalypse, 9, 173, 194,
212, 213.
Apostles, source of their
theology, 43, 44-
Atonement, see Reconcilia
tion.
Atonement, theories of, 167.
Baptism, 81, 96, 186, 187.
Biblical Theology,
character of science, 3.
definition, 1, 2.
difficulty of, 6.
history of, 2.
method, n.
relation to inspiration, 4.
relation to other sciences,
4,5-
Character, Christian, 197,
200, 201, 202, 203-205,
207, 209, 210-212.

Church, 122, 198, 199, 200,
201, 202, 203, 208, 210.
Cleansing, 151.
Consecration, 141, 142.
Community of goods, 200.
Covenant, 149, 156.
Creation, 52, 53, 59, 69, 70,
74, 82.
Death, 87, 88, 94, 95, 96,
105, 106, 108, 207, 224.
Demons, 109, no, in, 113.
Election, 104, 180, 181,
191.
Faith, 140, 179, 181, 186,
187, 188, 189-191, 199,
201, 205, 207.
Figurative language, 158.
Flesh, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91,
95-
Forgiveness, 25, 75, 97, 124,
125, 130, 131, 133, 143,
i45, 149. l65-
Freedom, 126, 129, 133, 135,
136.

249

2So

INDEX OF TOPICS

God, compassion of, 68.
doctrine of, 62-84.
enmity attributed to, 72.
eternity, 70, 75.
existence, 62, 74.
fatherhood, in relation to
Christ, 33-37, 42, 54,57,
59, 65, 66, 67, 74, 79.
fatherhood, in relation to
men, 64, 65, 69, 74, 75,
80, 107, no, 114, 125,
146, 147, 150.
glory, 62.
goodness, 67.
grace, 68, 73, 77.
holiness, 67, 68, 73, 74, 76,
79, 202.
immutability, 67, 70, 74,
75-
independence, 66.
invisibility, 70, 75.
judgments, 67, 68, 69.
knowing, 126, 129, 152.
life, 69, 70, 74, 76-
light, 76, 77-
love, 63, 64, 71-73, 75,
77-80, 174, 195.
mercy, 73, 77-
omniscience, 74, 75.
propitiation, 145, 146.
purpose, 104, 105, 192.
righteousness, 69, 70, 79,
166.
spirituality, 66, 69, 75.
transcendence, 62.

God, trinity, 80-84.
unity, 62, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69,
70, 74, 75, 80.
wisdom, 70.
wrath, 71-73, 75, 135, 137,
140.
Heart, 93.
Hebrews, theology of the
epistle to the, 10, 21, 45,
53, 57, 60, 61, 74, 75, 82,
94, 95, Io6, "3, 148-150,
169, 170, 189, 192-194, 209,
210, 224.
Heredity, 104.
Holiness, 142, 143.
Holy Spirit, authority, 199,
200, 201, 202.
divinity, 81,83.
gift, 129, 130, 147, 148,
206, 208.
personality, 81, 82, 83.
procession, 82.
sin against, 98, 99.
subordination, 81.
James, theology of, 10, 17,
51, 56, 67, 88, 89, 102,
133, 160, 187, 190, 200,
201, 217.
Jesus, ascension, 17, 18, 21,
23-
authority as teacher, 20,
22, 24, 27, 29, 154.
baptism, 15, 16, 82.

INDEX OF TOPICS

251

Jesus, betrayal, 14 (2), 17,
20, 22.
brothers, 17, 20.
burial, 16, 19, 20, 23.
claims, 25, 28, 81, 177-
179, J83-
crucifixion, 14, 17, 18, 20,
21, 23, 97.
death, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18,
19 (2), 20, 23, 27, 45,
72, 75, I54-I74-
descent from David, 13,
14, 19 (2), 22, 26, 41.
divinity, 34, 39-42, 50, 51,
52, 59-6i, 81, 82, 83,
154.
exaltation, 48.
headship over church,
208.
humanity, 28, 32, 33, 44-
46.
incarnation, 38, 45, 46, 56,
60, 88.
intercession, 149.
as judge, 25, 28, 143, 216,
217, 218, 223.
kenosis, 52.
as king, 48, 49.
limitation, 29.
as Logos, 53, 54, 61, 83.
as Lord, 48-50.
Messiahship, 25-27, 28,
32, 33, 47-49, '50, 160,
183.
millennial reign, 225.

Jesus, ministry, 15, 16, 116-
118, 123.
miracles, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,
25, 27, 123.
miraculous conception,
14, 19, 54, 55-
poverty, 13, 20, 22.
prayer, 21, 22, 29, 40.
predictions, 13, 14, 24,
n8.
preexistence, 37-39, 51-
54, 81.
present life, 168.
as priest, 169.
as prophet, 47, 48.
resurrection, 13, 14, 16, 17,
18, 19 (2), 20, 21, 23, 56,
163, 167, 168.
return, 143, 207, 210, 212,
215, 216, 217, 218, 219,
220-222, 223-224, 225,
226.
as Saviour, 132, 134.
scourging, 18, 22.
as the Second Man, 45, 51.
as servant, 47.
sinlessness, 20, 21, 22,
29-31, 170, 202.
as Son of David, 13, 14,
19, 22, 26, 41.
as Son of God, 33-37, 55-
59,65,66,82, 170.
as Son of man, 32, 33.
subordination, 40, 60, 81,
224.

lS2

INDEX OF TOPICS

Jesus, as teacher, 20, 22,
24, 27, 29, 43, 154.
teaching, 9, 13, 14, 43, 62-
68, 24-42, 79, 180, 86-88,
-97-101, 109-m, 115-
IZ9, iSi^S* I75-I86,
196-199, 214-217.
temptation, 14, 15, 21, 22,
109, no.
transfiguration, 18.
welcome for sinners, 100.
vicariousness of death,
155, 162, 163, 164, 165,
166, 169, 171, 174.
John the apostle,
Gospel of, 8, 28, 157, 159.
theology of, 10, 16, 45, 46,
49, 53, 54, 58, 75, 80, 8!,
83,95, 96, 106-108, 113,
114, 150-152, 170-174,
194, 195, 210-213, 224,
225.
John the Baptist, 13, 16,
19, 27.
teaching of, 17, 56,96, 116,
117, 171, 173, i75-
Jude, epistle of, 10.
theology of, 10,17,68, 133,
160,187, 201,82,217,218.
Judgment, last, 216, 217,
218, 223, 224, 226.
Justification, 136-141, 152,
164, 166, 205.
Kingdom, of Christ, of

God,of heaven, 115-123,
127, 128, 129, 132, 133,
134, 135, !98, 214, 216.
Law of Moses, 136, 188.
Life, eternal 108, 126, 127,
129, 133, 135, x36> lS°,
170, 198, 199.
Lord's Supper, 20, 23, 155,
156.
Man, character, 99, 100,
102, 103, 107, 108.
constitution, 86, 87, 88,
89, 9°, 93, 94, 95-
doctrine concerning, 85-
114.
freedom of choice, 97, 101,
102, 104, 106, 108.
likeness to God, 89.
mortality, 87, 88, 94,
95, 96-
responsibility, 97, 99, 101,
102, 105.
transformation of body,
145.
unity of race, 104.
worth, 87.
Millennial reign, 225.
Mind, 93.
Natural, 92.
New Testament books,
genuineness of, 8.
Old Testament, authori-
tativeness of, 24.

INDEX OF TOPICS

253

Paul, theology of, 10, 19-
2i,43>48,49, 5I,52, 56,
57, 60, 68-74, 82, 83, 89-
94, 102-106, m-113,
r35-i48, 163-169, 203-
209, 219-224.
Peter, second epistle of, 9.
theology of, 9, 10, 18, 44,
45,47,48,51,68,82,88, 101, 162, in, 130-133,
160-163, !87, 202, 203,
218, 219.
Pneumatic, 90, 93.
Propitiation, 145, 146, 149,
151, 166, 172, 174.
Psychical, 90, 92.
Punishment, 98, 99.
Purification, 149, 151.
Ransom, 126, 155, 174.
Reconciliation, 125, 139,
140, 174.
Redemption, 104, 113, 143-
145, 149, 166 ; also see
Salvation.
Regeneration, 101, 150,
184-186, 187, 195, 205.
Remission, see Forgive
ness.
Repentance, 96, 97, 98, 102,
175-177, 179, J8i, 182,
186, 187, 188, 189, 193,
194, 199.
Rest, 125.
Resurrection, 8, 87, 828,

96, 210, 216, 217, 220,
222, 223 (2), 225, 226.
Righteousness, 197 ; also
see Justification.
Sacrifice, 169, 173, 174.
Salvation, 102, 104, 204,
218 ; also see chapters
VII-IX, pp. 115-213.
Sanctification, 141, 152.
205, 207.
Satan, 109-111,113, 114,194,
Sin, 91, 94, 96, 97-104, 106,
107, 136.
Sonship, various meanings
of, 33-35 ; also see God,
fatherhood of, and
Christ, sonship of.
Soul, 86, 87, 90, 91, 92, 95.
Spirit, 86, 88 (2), 89, 90,
92, 95-
Synoptic Gospels,
fragmentary character of,
14-
teaching in, 9, 14-16,
28, 36, 39, 54, 55, 62-66,
81, 82, 86, 87, 97-100,
108-110, 114-127, 134,
154-157, 175-181, 196-
199, 214-216.
Temptation, 102, 107, no,
"3-
Watchfulness, 214.